Sitting of 19 October 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Death of a Member
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir John Alec Biggs-Davison, Knight, Member for Epping Forest, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Imprisonment of a Member
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received a letter from the resident magistrate of the Belfast petty sessions informing me that Mr. Peter Robinson, the hon. Member for Belfast, East, was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of seven days.
I shall cause the text of the letter to be published in the Votes and Proceedings and in the Official Report.
Following is the letter
Magistrates' Courts,
The Courthouse,
Chichester Street,
Belfast BT1 3JB.
24th August 1988.
Dear Mr. Speaker,
Peter David Robinson, Member of Parliament for Belfast East, was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 9th February 1988 of taking part in a public procession, contrary to Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 and fined £280·00.
Upon the hearing of an appeal the County Court for the division of Belfast reduced the fine to £50·00 payable in 28 days. As the fine has not been paid Mr. Robinson was today committed to prison for a period of 7 days.
Yours faithfully,
T. J. Travers.
Resident Magistrate.

Vice-Regal Chair (Australia)
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make. On 18 January this year the House approved a motion relating to the presentation, on behalf of both Houses of Parliament, of a Vice-Regal Chair to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The gift was to mark this year's bicentenary of the first European settlement of Australia and the opening of the new Parliament House in Canberra.
I should inform the House that, at the invitation of the President of the Australian Senate and the Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, and in company with many other Presiding Officers from around the world, I attended the first sitting of the Australian Parliament in the new Parliament House on 22 August. The Vice-Regal
872
Chair was in place for that occasion; and each House of the Australian Parliament adopted a resolution which, among other things, expressed
"thanks and appreciation to the Parliaments, Governments and peoples of those countries, states and territories and to those organisations which have so graciously presented gifts to Australia's new Parliament House."

NEW WRIT
For Glasgow, Govan, in the room of the right hon. Bruce Millan. (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Foster.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Bophuthatswana
    Mr. Knowles: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards recognition of Bophuthatswana.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The creation of Bophuthatswana by the South African Government was a key element in the policy of separate development, to which we are wholly opposed. In common with all other states, except South Africa, we do not recognise Bophuthatswana as independent.
    Mr. Knowles: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply, but may I remind her of her comments earlier this year after the abortive coup in Bophuthatswana: that the intervention of South African forces proved that Bophuthatswana was not independent? In the light of recent events in Lesotho, is she reconsidering those earlier remarks or are the Government reconsidering their policy towards Lesotho?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware that the intervention by the South African Government in Bophuthatswana, which is part of the Republic of South Africa, concerned many hon. Members. It is true that Bophuthatswana and Lesotho depend in varying degrees on the South African economy, but Lesotho was never part of the South African union. Unlike Lesotho, Bophuthatswana and the other independent homelands—so called—are effectively dependent on South Africa in foreign policy. They also receive loans and grants from the South African Government, so their position is not the same.
    Mr. Beggs: Is there not a democratically elected Government in Bophuthatswana, a multi-cultural society with a Christian ethos and a free enterprise economy? Does the Minister accept that it is striving to be completely

    873
    free financially from South Africa? What further evidence is required by Her Majesty's Government to grant recognition to Bophuthatswana?
    Mrs. Chalker: There would be consideration of such a course only if the writ of the Republic of South Africa did not run in Bophuthatswana. It does, and that country is recognised only by the Republic of South Africa. I cannot see, as I know Her Majesty's ambassador to Pretoria told the hon. Gentleman when he met him on 4 October, that such a situation is ever likely to pertain.
    Mr. Gardiner: Despite my right hon. Friend's answer, is it not essential that the staff of the British embassy in the Republic know what is going on in Bophuthatswana and that they should know the political views of its populace? To that end, will my right hon. Friend tell us how often members of our overseas staff visit Bophuthatswana, and to what kind of persons they talk?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend knows already that everybody in the embassy in South Africa charged with knowing the political circumstances of the whole of the Republic of South Africa visits different parts of that country, which includes Bophuthatswana. Sometimes members of staff may go more frequently than others to forward projects such as those that were described to a number of colleagues when they visited South Africa and Bophuthatswana in October this year. I know that in recent months, because of the number of projects coming forward—of which we hope there will be more—in Kuruman and other places, there have been slightly more visits, but staff go whenever they need, as well as on a regular basis.

    Transylvania
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on tensions between Hungary and Romania; and what representations he has made about the proposed systemisation of villages in Transylvania.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): Tension between Romania and Hungary over the status of Transylvania has been exacerbated by Romania's policy of forced relocation of rural communities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has written to his Romanian counterpart to warn against human rights violations and damage to Europe's common cultural heritage.
    Mr. FlynnI congratulate the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his present role. I hope that in this regard, as in many others, there will be common ground between both sides of the House.
    Is not the Foreign Secretary's letter a first step in denouncing the barbarism of the planned demolition of 8,000 ancient villages in Romania and the erasure of 1,000 years of history? Will the Minister note the anger and despair felt by the victims of systemisation, one of whom has written to me saying that they must remain silent, and that they feel impotent in the face of this threat? Is this not a first step, and must we not now continue to use our voice? We must not remain silent. We must protest powerfully and repeatedly against the planned demolition,
    874
    which will be a community and linguistic pogrom and an act of architectural vandalism and cultural genocide against communities there.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman and to say that this issue unites not only Members on both sides of the House, but many people on both sides of the iron curtain. I know that the hon. Gentleman appeared on Hungarian television and discussed this matter. It is an entirely legitimate use of the power of the House to protest and to make the kind of remark that the hon. Gentleman has made, because there is some chance that the people who are running Romania may listen. We should redouble our efforts, as the European Community and many individual countries have done, to emphasise our disgust at what is going on.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is not what is going on in Transylvania outrageous in terms of both human life and European culture? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to gather the strength of the European Community so that we can speak with a strong voice and monitor the position closely?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I shall certainly do what my hon. Friend urges me to do. The Twelve made a protest to the Romanian Government on 7 September. Like the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), I have been receiving first-hand accounts of what is happening, and the hardship and distress that will be faced there in the winter will be very dire.
    Mr. James Lamond: Whatever feelings the Minister may have on behalf of Romanians of Hungarian origin, if he pays regard to the reports that he receives from the embassy in Bucharest he must know that the systemisation of villages is not an act of discrimination against Hungarians. I see the Minister nodding. He may dislike the act of the Romanians in modernising their villages— [Interruption.]—systemising their villages if the House prefers it—but I wonder what purpose the Minister has in making a protest about it.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am willing to confirm that the regime in Romania is equally unpleasant to all its citizens. The Hungarians are one group of sufferers, as are, equally, the people of Romanian origin. If the hon. Gentleman is presenting himself to the House, and perhaps to Western Europe, as the last unreformed Stalinist who wants to defend this policy, I do not think that he will find many of his hon. Friends with him on that matter. Perhaps I misunderstood him. I am sure that he will join us in opposing a policy which is causing widespread anxiety among countries in Eastern as well as Western Europe.

    Britons Abroad
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with foreign Governments about the behaviour of Britons travelling abroad.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I have discussed the behaviour of Britons overseas with Government Ministers in Greece and Spain. The small minority of Britons who behave badly damage Britain's

    875
    reputation and ruin other people's holidays. We have made it clear that we support other Governments who deal firmly with offenders.
    Mr. Carrington: When my hon. Friend next meets the Spanish and Greek Governments, will he assure them that the British Government treat such behaviour as seriously as they do soccer hooliganism and that we would support punishment for the offenders as severe as we would for soccer hooligans?
    Mr. Eggar: Just as we welcome tougher action against such individuals at home, so we welcome tougher action by Governments overseas. When people go abroad they must recognise that they must obey the laws of the country in which they are based.
    Mr. Heffer: As the Heysel stadium people have not been found guilty by anyone, as they were encouraged to be extradited by the Government, and as many who have gone to Belgium are unemployed and without any financial assistance, will the Government now reconsider their attitude towards assisting those who have gone there quite voluntarily when they could have tried to dodge going? I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government's attitude and give financial assistance to those who are now before the courts in Belgium.
    Mr. Eggar: Those individuals chose to go to that football match and became involved, or did not become involved—[Interruption.] We cannot prejudge the results of the Belgian court hearing. It has never been the policy of any British Government to provide free board and lodging overseas for people to attend court hearings or to provide for legal assistance.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Will my hon. Friend have discussions with the Spanish Government about the sale of semi-pornographic and obscene T-shirts on the island of Majorca? Is he aware that the wearing of those T-shirts in Majorca causes offence to other holidaymakers and to people in high streets in this country when they are brought back here?
    Mr. Eggar: I was not aware of this particular problem. I look forward to having more details from my hon. Friend, but I will ask our consul in Malaga for a report.

    Israel
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed with the Prime Minister of Israel the case for an international conference to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian question.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. and learned Friend last met Mr. Shamir in September 1986. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) discussed the Arab-Israeli dispute with him in January. The Israeli Government know that we continue to support an international conference.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that the most recent statement by Mr. Peres, that an Israeli Labour Government would hold elections on the West Bank and in Gaza so that the Palestinian people could choose their own representatives, and his commitment to an international peace conference offer much more hope than
    876
    Mr. Yitzhak Shamir, who seems impervious to international criticism and domestic acrimony about the policies that his party is producing in Israeli?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is true that the policy of the Labour party in Israel is much closer to that of Her Majesty's Government. We welcome that recent statement, but, of course, it would be quite wrong for me to comment on an election in another country.
    Sir Dennis Walters: Has my hon. Friend recently made any representations to the Israeli Government about the brutality and repression in the occupied West Bank? Is he aware that the civilian toll of casualties among Palestinian adults and children is steadily growing? Is this not absolutely intolerable?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I recently protested to the retiring Israeli ambassador, Mr. Avner, about the use of plastic bullets. I think my hon. Friend understands that these are not baton rounds, but plastic bullets fired by high explosive charges. We registered a protest, as did the United States Government, about the casualties caused by those plastic bullets. The Israeli Government know very well that Her Majesty's Government believe that they are sleep walking to disaster by their treatment of the people in the occupied territories.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that however much we may fervently hope for the election of one Prime Minister or one party or the other in Israel on 1 November, electors in a democracy, including our own, sometimes make mistakes? It is important to recognise that that is about the only country in the area where free elections are held and that our Government will have to get on and try to make peace with any Government whom the Israeli electors see fit to elect.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Any group or any party in Israel that comes forward with practical plans for peace will get the full support of this Government.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is it not more urgent and important than an international conference that the Arab states should be able to provide a leader who can guarantee security and peace for Israel in any peace settlement that is negotiated with the Israelis?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not know whether waiting for leaders is relevant. What is impressive is the solidarity of the people in the occupied territories, which expresses very clearly their desire for self-determination.
    Mr. Kaufman: In welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities and hoping that his statement of views on the middle east will not lead to his speedy removal from those responsibilities, may I put it to him that the flexibility now emanating from the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the voices of peace from Arab Governments are being prevented from achieving the possibility of an international conference and real peace by the obduracy of the Likud party in Israel? Will he join the Prime Minister, the United States Administration, President Mubarak and all other sensible people in every part of the world who believe that the only hope of breaking the deadlock and getting peace in the middle east is a Labour victory in Israel on 1 November?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I noted that when addressing the Socialist group of the European Parliament Mr. Arafat

    877
    said that he hoped for the emergence of an Israeli de Gaulle. I hope that he and everyone else, including the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), will respond to any practical proposals for peace, from whatever political spectrum they come.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does the Minister agree that a settlement in the occupied territories is very much in Israel's interests because of the increased birth rate among Arabs west of the Jordan, which will lead to the outnumbering of Jews early in the next century?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that what my hon. Friend says is right. More profoundly, surely the tragedy for Israel is that those of us, many of whom are in this House, who have protested about the actions of Israel are her friends. The tragedy for Israel is the way in which it is corrupting itself by its treatment of people in the occupied territories.

    Central America
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to have discussions with the Government of the United States of America regarding the recent developments in the Central American peace process.
    Mr. Eggar: We have regular discussions with the United States Administration on a wide range of issues, including developments in the Central American peace process.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister agree that the will towards peace of all the peoples, Governments and nations of Central America is now greater than it has ever been, as well as the chances and opportunities? Does he realise that the freely elected Government of Nicaragua, no matter what anyone says—this is attested to by people of this country who were in Nicaragua at the time of the election —are being harassed by the Contras? Is he aware of the new development that has resulted in more money being supplied to the Contras in the guise of certain forms of aid? Instead of producing generalised answers, such as his answer to the main question, will he realise that, if we are democratic, the British Government must talk to the American Government and try to persuade them not to send money to those who are led by people of the old Somoza regime? For 30 years that tyrannical group was brutal to the people of Nicaragua.
    Mr. Eggar: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. However, his analysis is not widely shared, even within Central America. For example, I met President Arias of Costa Rica this morning. He urged that the Nicaraguans should take a stronger line on compliance with the Esquipulas accord. He stressed that, in his view, Nicaragua had failed to honour its commitments to democratise.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Have any representations been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Nicaraguan Government about the plight of the leaders of the Conservative party, the Christian Democrats, the Socialist party and trade unionists, who, having taken part in a peaceful demonstration in the spring, were arrested and placed in gaol, and have remained there ever since?
    Mr. Eggar: We were most concerned by that development and by the way in which democratic leaders
    878
    of the Opposition were arrested. As my hon. Friend has said, some of them are still in gaol. I was amazed when I read a letter that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition wrote to President Ortega, which was published in June, in which he praised President Ortega's commitment and skill. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman was praising President Ortega's commitment to suppressing democratic opposition within Nicaragua and his skill in pulling the wool over the eyes of Opposition Members.
    Mr. Tony Banks: One of these days the Minister might have the courage to visit Nicaragua. In the meantime, how can anyone hold him to be sincere in his view about wanting peace in Central America when the Government allowed Adolfo Calero, a terrorist from the Contras, to enter Britain and attend the Tory party conference? Why was that terrorist allowed into the country? What assistance did the Foreign Office give to him?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has a nerve. He arrived on Noriega's plane from Panama and stayed in Nicaragua for 24 hours before returning to the United Kingdom. That shows a great knowledge of what is going on in Nicaragua, as well as an interesting selection of friends and of ways to spend his holiday. As Mr. Calero went to Managua and had talks with the Sandinista Government, I do not see why he should not come to Britain.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister calm down a little and recall the revelations made by the Speaker of the United States Congress, Jim Wright, of the CIA's involvement in destabilising Nicaragua? Will he give an assurance that there was no British complicity in that action? Given the constant repetition by the Government that we seek a peaceful solution to the problems of Central America, will he for once take his courage in his hands and condemn the American Government for unwarranted interference in the affairs of an autonomous country?
    Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we support the Central American peace process. As I have said, President Arias made it clear this morning that he thinks that the Nicaraguan Government should and could do a great deal more to further the process and to move towards democracy within Nicaragua. United States policy is a matter for the United States.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Zimbabwe; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.
    Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans, at the present time, to visit Zimbabwe.
    Mr. Bowis: When my right hon. Friend manages to get to Zimbabwe, will she remind Mr. Mugabe of the Pope's visit to that country, when he called for apartheid to be ended, not by sanctions and boycott, but by constructive discussion and pressures? Will my right hon. Friend also remind Mr. Mugabe of the recent visit to Harare of the South African white and black rugby organisers and express the hope that the conclusions that have come from those discussons are the way forward? Does she agree that Zimbabwe, the Western world and Africa should respond,

    879
    when such progress is made towards ending apartheid, by welcoming the South Africans back into the international fold?
    Mrs. Chalker: When I next see President Mugabe I shall most certainly point out the importance of what the Pope said, and far more was said on that issue than was probably published in British newspapers. It is only through constructive discussion that apartheid will be brought to an end and a representative system of non-racial government effected in South Africa.
    Although I welcome the reports of the meeting of the South African rugby board with various people in Harare, it would be premature to speculate about a change of policy. If the press reports that we have seen are confirmed, I shall agree with my hon. Friend that that change of policy is a worthwhile step in the long progress towards genuine non-racialism in sport in South Africa. We hope sincerely that that will happen.
    Mr. Roger King: When my right hon. Friend goes to Zimbabwe, will she ensure that she takes with her—and does not leave any behind—some photographs that she can give to the Zimbabwean Government of notable members of our own political system, so that unfortunate incidents such as the one earlier in the year, when the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition was not known, can be avoided?
    Mrs. Chalker: I would recommend to the Zimbabweans that they should have an excellent book such as The Times "Guide to the House of Commons", so that they can recognise hon. Members. In case that is not ready in time, I shall see about a scrapbook that features photographs of members of the Opposition Front Bench.

    United Nations
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Secretary-General of the United Nations; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. and learned Friend met the Secretary-General on 27 September during his visit to the General Assembly. They discussed Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq, Namibia and Cyprus. The following day the Secretary-General was present at a confidential meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that there is some concern that the subject of refugees was not higher on the agenda and that there are serious anxieties in parts of the world where Britain has a historic responsibility? I shall give two examples. What help and hope can the Minister offer to those who have to flee the savage internal war in Somalia? Is he aware that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concern at the false distinction drawn by Britain between political and so-called "economic" refugees? Will the Minister give us a straightforward reassurance that that false distinction will not govern decision-making? Will he ensure that those topics are high on the agenda the next time there is a meeting between British Ministers and the Secretary-General?
    Mr. Eggar: There is, of course, a great deal of concern about the position of refugees, not only in the country that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but in a large number of others. We have recently made a major additional contribution to the UNHCR, particularly to assist it with the help it is giving to Hong Kong, and, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there have been recent discussions with the Vietnamese authorities. I can assure him that I, other Ministers and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raise the plight of refugees and general policy towards refugees on appropriate occasions.
    Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Secretary-General on the effective reactivation of the Security Council, especially over the Iran-Iraq conflict and Afghanistan? We hope that the strengthening of the Security Council will lead to a settlement in Cyprus., and of other difficult problems. May I congratulate our representative and ambassador in the United Nations on the constructive role that he played in that process? Is my hon. Friend satisfied wth the rate of progress in reforming the administration of the United Nations in line with the effective way in which the Security Council has been reformed?
    Mr. Eggar: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. There have been some major developments in the United Nations, especially in the Security Council. I join him in paying tribute to our permanent representative, Sir Crispin Tickell, who had a major role in co-ordinating the five members of the Security Council over Iran-Iraq.
    On the more general question of the reform of the United Nations, my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that much progress still has to be made. We are working hard with other countries to make sure that sensible reforms are introduced.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that many people will be surprised that apparently there have not been any discussions with the Secretary-General about the immediate and ghastly plight of the Kurdish refugees? Has the Minister raised, for example, the refusal of Turkey and Iraq to allow United Nations' observers to visit the camps of the Kurdish refugees? Has he taken any action following the bombing attacks, allegedly with chemical weapons, on the 11th and 14th of this month?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is right. This is a matter of concern. We have been in touch with the Turkish Government and with other Governments in the region, as well as with United Nations agencies, and those discussions continue.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Were there any discussions with the Secretary-General of the United Nations about the use of chemical weapons against defenceless Kurdish villages by the Iraqi army, and at the same time the continuation of the mass murder of political opponents of the Khomeini regime in Iran, and about whether it is desirable that those atrocities should be reported to the assembly of the United Nations?
    Mr. Eggar: I understand my right hon. Friend's concern. We have urged that there should be a United Nations investigation of those serious allegations and incidents, but I regret to say that the Iraqi Government have refused to co-operate.
    Mr. Robertson: On the subject of the Iraqi attacks on the Kurdish population, may I commend the Government for their recognition, albeit belated, of the compelling evidence that now exists about those Iraqi attacks? As one who recently visited refugee camps at Diyarbakir and Mardin in Turkey, I can say that the evidence seems overwhelming. It seems remarkable only that the Government took so long to come to that conclusion. I am sure that there is considerable unanimity among hon. Members of all parties that Iraq's conduct is unacceptable and unspeakable, and that simply condemning Iraq is not enough. It is essential to take some action and, like the American Congress, to threaten punitive economic consequences if Iraq does not immediately stop the chemical bombing of its Kurdish population and allow United Nations' observers to ensure that that country returns as quickly as possible to civilised conduct.
    Mr. Eggar: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I know that he paid that important visit and that he has a great deal of personal knowledge of the circumstances. However, I advise him that we condemned the action as soon as we felt that we had adequate evidence on which to do so. We had to wait for that evidence to accumulate. Further investigations will be extremely difficult to carry out without the full co-operation of the Iraqi Government. We have asked for that co-operation and the United Nations has also asked for it, but unfortunately the Iraqi Government have refused to co-operate.

    Angola
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has played a direct or indirect role in recent negotiations to secure a peaceful settlement in Angola; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: Though not a direct participant in the negotiations on the withdrawal of foreign troops from Angola and independence for Namibia, we have given them our full support. In particular, we have urged both sides to show flexibility and a sense of urgency.
    Mr. Riddick: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the positive moves that have been made in the Angolan peace talks. Does she agree that, for a lasting peace to be brought to that troubled country, all 55,000 Cuban troops, along with the South African troops, must be withdrawn urgently from Angola? Does she believe that the British Government should advocate that UNITA should be recognised as having a full and legitimate role to play in the future development of Angola?
    Mrs. Chalker: I think that we must be careful to separate those two issues slightly. We have done all that we can to assist in the quadripartite talks by our discussions with other leaders of African countries who have more direct influence than we could possibly be expected to have. Of course we hope that there will soon be an acceptance of the proposals under discussion for full Cuban and South African troop withdrawal.
    When it comes to the whole problem of internal reconciliation, however, which we believe to be essential to a regional settlement, we need to see a mediation that will be acceptable to both sides in Angola. We believe that the African states are best placed to bring that about and that
    882
    process is complementary to the United States-led peace negotiations. We have full diplomatic relations with the Angolan Government and if we are asked to help in bringing about reconciliation, of course we will consider that. We have contacts at official level with UNITA, in addition to our official recognition of the Angolan Government. However, it is extremely important that the Cubans, Angolans and South Africans reach agreement on full troop withdrawal within a reasonable time and that the internal reconciliation is pursued alongside that. The two things cannot be mixed up. Otherwise, I fear that we may not get the solution that we all hope for, which is peace in Angola and independence in Namibia.
    Mr. Tony Banks: How can we possibly hope to exert any influence over the Cuban presence in Angola after we have expelled the Cuban ambassador from this country, probably on instructions from the United States embassy? Can the Minister tell us what she is now trying to do to restore good relations between the United Kingdom and Cuba?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am very surprised—but I suppose I should not be—that the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise a question of security and safety that occurred in this country in the context of a very serious matter—the peace that we are seeking in Angola. All I can say to him is that if he is prepared to be a member of a party that would not do exactly the same if guns were toted on London streets, I feel even more strongly that it will never be fit to be in government again.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not the case that South African troops have now actually withdrawn from Angola? If it is not the case, can my right hon. Friend clearly tell the House that? Is it not therefore important that the Cubans now get on with withdrawal at the earliest possible date so that the people of Angola can proceed to self-determination without external interference in their internal affairs?
    Mrs. Chalker: I believe that the vast majority of South African troops have indeed withdrawn from Angola, but I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on that because we are not there to see. All I would say is that I believe that it is right and proper that, as soon as it is possible, all foreign troops should withdraw from that country.

    South Africa
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government has made to the Government of the Republic of South Africa; and on what subjects.
    Mrs. Chalker: We have made representations to the South African Government, both bilaterally and with our European partners, on a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that in South Africa there is a growing opinion among whites that the ANC must be involved in negotiations about the future of that country? That is evidenced by business and now by sporting contacts. Will she do all in her power to urge the South African Government to accept that, if they want meaningful talks to achieve a just, peaceful and acceptable solution to the problems of apartheid in that country, they

    883
    must allow the blacks freely to appoint their own representatives to such negotiations and be involved in the formulation of the agenda for such meetings?
    Mrs. Chalker: It would be most welcome if the Government of South Africa would involve the representatives of all groups of black people in meaningful negotiations in South Africa. Until such time as they do we shall continue to seek to persuade them through dialogue that this is the only way towards a peaceful transition.
    Mr. John Carlisle: May I correct an earlier reply by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) about the South African rugby board—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should ask a question.
    Mr. Carlisle: It is leading to a question, Mr. Speaker. May I remind my right hon. Friend that the South African rugby board—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should ask his right hon. Friend a question.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some on the Government side will give a cautious welcome to the news that Dr. Daniël Craven and the ANC have come to some arrangements over the future of international rugby? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that many of us on the Government Benches remain deeply suspicious of the motives of the ANC and believe that unless they renounce violence and armed conflict such talks are worthless?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend knows that we have called upon the ANC to renounce violence. We call upon all those who are engaged in violence to cease that violence, because the use of violence is not the way to bring about a peaceful solution in South Africa. I shall look at what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said and what I said to him in reply, but I do not think anything was said that would give my hon. Friend real grounds for correcting me.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Minister be a little warmer than she was this afternoon and a lot warmer than the Minister with responsibility for sport was yesterday in congratulating the ANC and Dr. Craven on getting together, at least to discuss the future of multi-racial rugby? Will she also assert that that would never have happened had it not been for the success of the various sports boycott campaigns over the years and the Gleneagles agreement?
    Mrs. Chalker: I always welcome it when those who previously had not found it possible to agree come together with the object of agreeing on a matter such as this. If the reports of the discussions between the African National Congress, the South African rugby board and the rugby union are correct, and if they lead to the creation of a single non-racial governing body for rugby in South Africa, that will be an encouraging development.
    Mr. Cormack: In the context of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), is my right hon. Friend aware that there are more of us than there are of them?
    Mrs. Chalker: That all depends on what the dividing line may be.
    Miss Lestor: While supporting the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and notwithstanding the earlier reply by the right hon. Lady, on Angola, may I ask whether it would be correct of her to support me in saying that there is considerable mistrust about the intentions of South Africa in that region, including Angola and other areas? Conservative Members refer to violence by the ANC, by if South Africa wants to establish any basis of credibility in that region ought not the right hon. Lady to put pressure on the South African Government immediately to cease the imminent political hangings in South Africa? If South Africa were to comply it would at least show that there is some degree of credibility in what it is saying rather than in what it is doing.
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady knows that we have always been prepared to join appeals for clemency in cases that are clearly political and where there are strong humanitarian grounds for clemency. In respect of the last part of her question, if that should be needed, once the legal process has been concluded—as has been the case with the Sharpeville Six and others—that will be done. As for the earlier part of the question, we shall condemn now, and always, violence, wherever the source of that violence may be. Cross-border violence in southern Africa will do nothing to bring about peace in the region.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the major reasons for the rise of the so-called Conservative party in South Africa has been the important element of dismantling the apartheid system that President Botha has brought about in the last five or six years, and that continuing attempts to isolate insecurity of certain elements among the whites who support the Conservative party and make President Botha's task even more difficult?
    Mrs. Chalker: We would welcome any moves towards meaningful reform. I fully accept that there have been some such moves, but they are not enough. There is still the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act, and the South African Government have put forward a Bill to promote so-called orderly internal politics. However, none of those can hasten the end of the division of the people.
    As one hon. Gentleman said earlier, many people are now recognising the need of all races in South Africa to come together to discuss future systems of government. Unfortunately, those in the KP—the Conservative party in South Africa—are not presently among them.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement relating to the overall outcome of meetings of the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community which have occurred since 29 July last.
    Mrs. Chalker: There has been one Foreign Affairs Council, on 26 September. I represented the United Kingdom, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. The main issue discussed was the Community's negotiating mandate for Lomé IV. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will circulate a fuller statement in the Official Report.

    885
    My ministerial colleagues will, I am sure, be reporting to the House in the usual way on the outcome of councils for which they are responsible.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Lady tell us something about the Internal Market Council that met on 29 September? Cannot that council create legislation applicable to this country, even if it is against the wishes of the Government and the House, by virtue of qualified majority voting? Has not that highly centralised authority of the emerging European union come about only because in 1986 she, on behalf of the Government, signed the Single European Act, with the active encouragement and endorsement of the Prime Minister?
    Mrs. Chaiker: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary attended the Internal Market Council and will report in detail on it. It is fair to say that during the past two years the Community would not have made such progress on the single market without qualified majority voting. That has been in the interests of the people of this country.
    The Single European Act was the first update of the Treaty of Rome, and there is nothing in it to cause me anything like the elevated concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses, both in the House and elsewhere. Without the Single European Act and the qualified majority voting that applies to many internal market issues, this country's position would have been far worse on many occasions. To name but one, the Commission forwarded our views about the export of British-made Nissan cars to another Community country. That is one way in which we have made the internal market work better.
    Mr. Gow: Has my right hon. Friend committed to memory the excellent speech of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Bruges? Will she ensure that that speech is the first item on the agenda at the next meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers? Will she arrange for a signed copy to be sent to our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?
    Mrs. Chalker: In the knowledge that we are all fallible and that sometimes we all forget, I took the precaution of ensuring that I have with me a copy of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's speech. I commend it to every hon. Member. Any Prime Minister who speaks so clearly for the needs of this country, by saying that
    "our destiny is in Europe as part of the Community,"
    has our fullest support. I shall ensure that all those attending council meetings are aware of her speech, although I am sure that most of them are already aware of it.
    Mr. Cryer: Are not the Prime Minister's words at variance with the deeds of the Government? Are not the Government capitulating to every demand of the Common Market, including the payment of £4·7 billion since 1984 and the development of a trade deficit in manufactured goods of £10 billion? Does she think that 1992 and the complete harmonisation of the internal market will help, or hinder, that?
    Mrs. Chalker: The completion of the internal market will help this country no end. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not learnt sufficient about it to know that already.
    Mr. Aitken: In view of her warm endorsement of the Prime Minister's fine speech, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on today's rather puzzling report in the Daily Express? It stated that Mr. Delors' speech to the TUC conference was approved in advance and ticked as innocuous by Foreign Office representatives. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, if there is any showdown between British and German interests at a future Council of Ministers, the Bruges speech will be the text of our foreign policy?
    Mrs. Chalker: If there is any need to have a discussion with our colleagues at future councils—whatever councils they may be—if we have disagreements, we shall express them most clearly, as we always do. I tell my hon. Friend that when any TUC speaker shows his speech in advance to the Foreign Office, I will really think that he is living in never-never land.
    Sir Russell Johnston: While we are on the subject of speeches, has the Minister noticed yesterday's speech by Dr. Helmut Kohl, the German Conservative Chancellor, who warmly commended European economic and monetary union and spoke of a social Europe? Is it not the case that, despite what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said earlier, the Prime Minister's Bruges approach is a solitary one and is not supported by any other European leader?
    Mrs. Chalker: I know of Chancellor Kohl's pragmatic approach to the Community, which he expressed quite fully in his speech yesterday. We do not agree with every word that every other European leader says, but we certainly have more in common with our German colleagues in pursuing the right path for Europe and for our respective countries than we shall ever have with the hon. Gentleman's party or the Labour party.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the various measures that the Government have already introduced, which are well ahead of those of our European friends in terms of showing our Europeanness? In particular, has she congratulated the Chancellor on introducing ecu-denominated debt in the summer, an issue that was so dramatically successful that other Governments are now thinking of following suit?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals last year, earlier this year, and again at the meeting in Berlin have been fundamental in persuading a change of mind in some other Governments towards solving the problems of middle income debtors. It is interesting to note that Britain is the first country to contribute in full to the $75 billion of the general capital income increase in resources for lending to middle income debtors. All that has happened thanks to a Conservative Chancellor in Britain.
    Mr. Kaufman: In her Bruges speech, which the right hon. Lady has commended, the Prime Minister stated her opposition to, the abolition of frontier controls, the creation of the European super-state, the centralisation of power in Brussels, with decisions taken by an appointed bureacracy and the concentration of power at the centre of a European conglomerate, and said that Britain's parliamentary powers must be preserved. As every one of those changes that the Prime Minister opposes is now entrenched in United Kingdom law through the European

    887
    Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, which the right hon. Lady forced through the House of Commons on a guillotine, will the right hon. Lady now apologise to the Prime Minister and introduce legislation to repeal the European Communities (Amendment) Act?
    Mrs. Chalker: No, Sir.

    European Free Trade Association
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent discussions held with members of the European Free Trade Association on forging closer links with the European Community in the run up to the completion of the internal market in 1992.
    Mrs. Chalker: We maintain close contacts with our EFTA friends on this important issue. Most recently, I visited Oslo and Helsinki between 4 and 9 October. Like their other EFTA colleagues, the Norwegians and Finns are pressing ahead with measures necessary to ensure that they can respond to the new challenges and opportunities of the single market.
    Mr. Page: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that it is a tribute to the importance of the internal market of 1992 that people within the European free trade area are urging their countries to join the EEC? Is that not a message that every company engaged in industry, commerce and trade in the United Kingdom could take on board?
    Mrs. Chalker: Indeed. I can tell my hon. Friend that in my discussions during the summer recess with representatives from many of the EFTA countries—indeed wider than EFTA—it was remarkable to discover how much they wish to participate in the policies that we are pursuing of the single market in the European Community and in the policies of sound growth, the creation of jobs and the reduction in unemployment, in which this country has been so successful.

    Argentina
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in achieving a declaration from Argentina of a cessation of hostilities and in restoring diplomatic relations.
    Mr. Eggar: Argentina still refuses to declare that she regards hostilities as being at an end, has made no response to a series of practical British initiatives to bring about more normal relations and maintains restrictions on United Kingdom exports. It is, therefore, premature to think in terms of restoring diplomatic relations.
    Mr. Shersby: Does my hon. Friend agree that a declaration of cessation of hostilities is an essential prerequisite to the restoration of diplomatic relations with Argentina?
    Mr. Eggar: Very much so, but, as I have already said to my hon. Friend, there are a number of other initiatives that we have taken with regard to Argentina on which we are still awaiting responses.

GCHQ Cheltenham
3.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the dismissal of and disciplinary action against trade unionists at GCHQ.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): Staff at GCHQ are permitted by their conditions of service to belong only to a departmental staff association approved by the director. The reasons for this were explained to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend on 25 January 1984. Every effort has been made since to accommodate the tiny minority who did not accept the new terms of service, including a lengthy search for other jobs or the offer of compensation. A number have indeed accepted alternative jobs. Our action now follows our assessment that nothing further realistically can be done to find alternative employment. Even at this late stage we would urge those who have refused the terms of service to change their minds and to stay at GCHQ. But to do nothing would be grossly unfair to the 99 per cent. of staff who accepted the new terms of service.
Mr. Kaufman: Is it not ironic that the Foreign Secretary is not here to answer this question today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because he is in attendance on the Queen in Spain, a country rightly praised for getting rid of a Right-wing regime that persecuted trade unionists?
While a British Government have for the first time sacked people for being members of a trade union, is it not a fact that in Britain a long string of proved traitors have been members, not of a free trade union, but of the Cambridge union? For example, is it not disgraceful that Mr. Brian Johnson is being sacked after being employed for 32 years at GCHQ, having given longer and more loyal service to his country than the Prime Minister or any other member of the Government? How can the Government justify the further disciplinary proceedings that are threatened against Mr. Clive Lloyd and others when they have already been made to pay fines? This kind of double jeopardy is another mark of the authoritarian state.
Why have the Government not accepted the GCHQ unions' long-standing offer to negotiate a no-strike deal, to divorce national pay questions from issues involving GCHQ and to accept security vetting of officials involved in bargaining at GCHQ?
When visiting Poland, would it not be utterly hypocritical for the Prime Minister to force her company on Lech Walesa, who is fighting for free and independent trade unions in Poland, while she is trampling on free and independent trade unions in Britain?
Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) bases his argument, perhaps characteristically, on a mixture of rather cheap debating points and mistakes.
The first mistake is the belief that there is anything unusual in having special terms of service in security installations in this country or in any other. If the right hon. Gentleman looks more carefully at the practices in other countries he will find that there is nothing unusual about those terms.
890
The right hon. Gentleman's second mistake is that we have not, at any point, doubted the loyalty of the people at GCHQ. The proof of that is that, even at this late hour, we would prefer those involved to stay there. It was the national trade union leaders who used GCHQ as a football in disputes that were nothing to do with that installation. They knew that the population at large were not inconvenienced by those disputes, and they knew also that only senior Ministers and senior officials knew how much damage had been done. They brought this on their own heads.
I am happy to say that GCHQ is now working very well indeed and that 99 per cent. and more of the people there have accepted the terms of service.
Sir Peter Blaker: Does not the effectiveness of GCHQ depend upon uninterrupted operation? Am I right in recalling that between 1979 and 1981 the number of man days lost through strikes at GCHQ—many of them called on issues totally unrelated to it—was about 10,000? Does not that figure provide a powerful endorsement of the Government's policies?
Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is right. The number of hours lost at GCHQ during that period was about the figure that he mentioned. Those lost hours meant that, at key moments, that installation, which must run all the time if it is to protect our security, was working on a part-time basis. No responsible Government could possibly have put up with that.
Mr. James Wallace: By their actions, do not the Government diminish the role of GCHQ by undermining from within the very liberties that GCHQ and the other security services are intended to defend?
Mr. Waldegrave: That is a nonsensical argument. As the hon. Gentleman may or may not know, others involved in security have similar terms of service. The importance of GCHQ to the nation is second to no other security institution. It is not possible to allow it to be misused for arguments in which it has no part, and that was the situation that we faced when we came to power.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As the courts of this country and the European Court of Human Rights have made it clear that the Government have acted correctly in all these matters, will my hon. Friend say why it has taken so long to take this final step, which many of us believe is overdue?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The lawfulness of our action has been confirmed by our courts, and at the European Court of Human Rights. It has taken so long because we have tried very hard to find alternative jobs for the people involved. Now we have to say that, realistically, there are no alternative jobs available. It is increasingly unfair to the great majority who have accepted the terms of service to leave a small minority operating without terms of service and without accepting what their colleagues have accepted.
Mr. Terry Davis: If the Minister is blaming national trade union leaders, why is he sacking individual trade unionists?
Mr. Waldegrave: That seems to be a curious question. The people are being dismissed from GCHQ because they are in breach of the terms and conditions of their service, and for no other reason.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: In how many other countries, Socialist or otherwise, do the security and intelligence establishments permit either a trade union or the right to strike?
Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that my hon. and learned Friend would find that the number is very small. I know of none.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Minister aware that those who are now being victimised are to be congratulated on defending the principles of British democracy and fair play against an authoritarian Government? Now that the Government, at long last, have lost the Spycatcher case in the courts, when will they learn the basic principle that people have a democratic right to belong to a trade union? When will the Government stop penalising people who want to exercise that right?
Mr. Waldegrave: I must not be drawn on to Spycatcher, but clearly the hon. Gentleman has not read the judgment. He will find it a little different from what he expects. The reason why we had to take action, unwelcome though it is, has been clearly set before the House and supported by it. I do not apologise for it.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend recall that during the last Parliament, when the Employment Select Committee investigated this matter, national Civil Service trade union leaders were unprepared to give an undertaking that civil servants who continued at GCHQ would not continue to disrupt the activities of that organisation?
Mr. Waldegrave: There was no undertaking to accept a no-strike agreement at GCHQ. When the subject was raised as a possibility, it was instantly repudiated by two of the unions concerned. What is more, it would have been ironic if it had not been, because the TUC is expelling trade unions which have been seeking to make no-strike deals.
Dr. John Reid: As the Minister has obviously given great consideration to the relationship between the undermining of security and trade union membership, can he tell the House and those who are listening how many traitors who have been convicted since 1945 for treacherously undermining our security were members of a trade union?
Mr. Waldegrave: There is no connection between membership of a trade union and people's loyalty to this country. [Interruption.]If there is a connection, it was the misuse of the strike weapon by national trade union leaders who did not know, and could not know, what they were doing by so interrupting the work of GCHQ as gravely to damage our security. That is what was damaging our security. I emphasise again the point that Opposition Members have missed from the beginning to the end of this controversy, which is that we have never at any time doubted the loyalty of individual people to this country. What has been doubted is the willingness of the national trade unions involved to understand the importance of that institution.
Sir John Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the public at large simply will not be able to understand all the fuss that the Opposition are making about this dispute? The dispute is wholly bogus, the Government's action is perfectly reasonable, and it is about time the whole matter was settled.
Mr. Waldegrave: Not for the first time, my hon Friend has encapsulated good sense in the House.
Mr. Graham Allen: Who is next?
Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman means by that lapidary question is there any intention to extend such a ban outside those involved in security, the answer is that there is no such intention. What is more, if there were, I doubt whether it would be upheld by the courts. It is because these people are involved in security that the courts have upheld the Government's position.
Mr. Derek Conway: Despite the wringing of hands by Labour Members—[Laughter.]—and despite their giggling, will my hon. Friend undertake to explain to the widest general public that the TUC targeted GCHQ during its day of action, and that such an irresponsible act on its part shows that it is wholly unconcerned for British security and is the action of a dying dinosaur, which should be suitably ignored?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. That was extremely irresponsible and was done deliberately, because only senior officials and Ministers knew the damage that was being done. It was a cheap action for the trade unions to take and grossly irresponsible. All the consequences have flowed from that.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Who is damaging national security—the trade unionist who feels that he must take industrial action because he has a grievance, or the Tory Member who writes a book setting out in complex detail every aspect of GCHQ's operations? Who is being disloyal?
Mr. Waldegrave: I shall not get involved in the hon. Gentleman's characteristic conspiracy theories. I know for a fact that our security was damaged by interruptions at GCHQ and that no Government could have stood by and done nothing about that. I know, too, as do hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, that if they had been in the same position they would have acted in the same way.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the individuals who were named and who have been working all these years at GCHQ worked there when I represented them as a member of a trade union looking after their interests? At that time it was understood that GCHQ and the Air Ministry, where I worked, would never be included in industrial action because if they were the Government of the day, regardless of their colour, would change the rules because that work could not be interrupted. That is exactly what has happened. The rules have been changed, and trade union leaders knew from the beginning what would happen.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. This is an area, and it is not alone in modern Britain, where, because unspoken conventions have been breached, different steps have had to be taken. What my hon. Friend—who knows a great deal more about it than does the right hon. Member for Gorton—has said is correct.

Broadcasting and Terrorism
3.45 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about access to the broadcast media by certain organisations in Northern Ireland.
For some time, broadcast coverage of events in Northern Ireland has included the occasional appearance of representatives of paramilitary organisations and their political wings, who have used these opportunities as an attempt to justify their criminal activities. Such appearances have caused widespread offence to viewers and listeners throughout the United Kingdom, particular-ly just after a terrorist outrage.
The terrorists themselves draw support and sustenance from access to radio and television—from addressing their views more directly to the population at large than is possible through the press. The Government have decided that the time has come to deny this easy platform to those who use it to propagate terrorism. Accordingly, I have today issued to the chairmen of the BBC and the IBA a notice, under the licence and agreement and under the Broadcasting Act 1987 respectively, requiring them to refrain from broadcasting direct statements by representatives of organisations proscribed in Northern Ireland and Great Britain and by representatives of Sinn Fein, Republican Sinn Fein and the Ulster Defence Association. The notices will also prohibit the broadcasting of statements by any person which support or invite support for these organisations. The restrictions will not apply to the broadcast of proceedings in Parliament, and in order not to impair the obligation on the broadcasters to provide an impartial coverage of elections the notices will have a more limited effect during election periods. Copies of the notices have today been deposited in the Library, and further copies are available from the Vote Office so that hon. Members will be able to study their detailed effect.
These restrictions follow very closely the lines of similar provisions which have been operating in the Republic of Ireland for some years. Representatives of these organisations are prevented from appearing on Irish television, but because we have had no equivalent restrictions in the United Kingdom they can nevertheless be seen on BBC and ITV services in Northern Ireland, where their appearances cause the gravest offence, and in Great Britain. The Government's decision today means that both in the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic such appearances will be prevented.
Broadcasters have a dangerous and unenviable task in reporting events in Northern Ireland. This step is no criticism of them. What concerns us is the use made of broadcasting facilities by supporters of terrorism. This is not a restriction on reporting. It is a restriction on direct appearances by those who use or support violence.
I believe that this step will be understood and welcomed by most people throughout the United Kingdom. It is a serious and important matter on which the House will wish to express its view. For that reason, we shall be putting in hand discussions through the usual channels so that a full debate on the matter can take place at an early date.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Like the overwhelming majority of citizens in this country, the
894
Labour party is dedicated to the defeat of terrorism, and we share the natural revulsion at the exhibition on television of support for terrorists and terrorist organisations. But the important task is not so much demonstrating disapproval as defeating the IRA and the UDA, and it is against that criterion, together with the consequences for freedom of speech and the practicality of the proposals, that the Home Secretary's statement must be judged.
Will the Home Secretary confirm that nothing that he now proposes reduces the opportunities for the opinions of terrorist organisations to be reported on television or in newspapers? All that he has done today is to prevent personal appearances. Why does the Home Secretary believe that the net effect of such a specific prohibition will be to damage terrorism and help in the defeat of terrorists? Has he considered the damaging way in which his proposal will be used at home and abroad, especially in the United States, to portray the Government as the enemy of free expression? Has he weighed that publicity coup for the IRA against the advantage of keeping its representatives off television? Does he not have enough faith in the British people to accept that such personal appearances only increase the revulsion and contempt felt by most British viewers for terrorism and terrorists?
Can the Home Secretary tell us how the law will define such general concepts as "representatives of and "supporting"? Will he assure us that there will be a more objective test of those terms than simply the Government nominating individuals who must not be interviewed on television or radio? That would be an absolutely unacceptable power for any Government to possess.
What consequences does the Home Secretary foresee from his necessary exemptions of both the House and the period of parliamentary elections? Is there not something absurd in allowing the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), were he to attend the House, to voice his views on "Yesterday in Parliament", while at the same time preventing him being interviewed on that speech as he left the building? What consequences does the right hon. Gentleman foresee for the impending parliamentary by-elections, other than the near certainty, for which the Government must take responsibility, of Sinn Fein candidates being nominated in all of them?
Does not an examination of the detailed results of the proposal demonstrate that it is trivial, worthless and almost certainly counter-productive in the real fight against terrorism? Today's statement is intended to create the illusion, rather than the reality, of activity. It will make the Government look simultaneously repressive and ridiculous.
Mr. Hurd: I am surprised—not wholly surprised—that the right hon. Gentleman takes that line, because I am afraid that it stands four square with the attitude that he has taken personally for some time now to the measures that we and the House have thought to be necessary in the fight against terrorism. The notice that I have given to the two chairmen today is, I believe, clear and precise. It specifies organisations, and I believe that it is as clear and precise as such a notice can reasonably be. Of course, it distinguishes between speech in the House and speech outside. If I had not done that, I should have been immersed in considerable argument about privilege, which I wish to avoid as that would have obscured the main issue.

895
The Broadcasting Act and the Representation of the People Acts lay certain obligations of impartiality on the broadcasting organisations during elections, and it was right that that should be respected when we drafted the notice. I have always regarded the obligation of impartiality as an important part of holding free elections, and, in turn, the holding of free elections in Northern Ireland as a crucial part of our stance there. I did not want to do anything that undermined that.
The right hon. Gentleman is right on his general point. This step will provoke an immediate flurry of protest from Sinn Fein and the supporters of terrorism, but it will deny them a weapon of which I believe they have made substantial use. I answer the right hon. Gentleman's main question in this way. I believe that the use that those people have made of direct access to radio and television has aroused the deepest outrage in Northern Ireland, as I said in my statement. People cannot understand how we are to be taken seriously in fighting terrorism if, after reading a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, for example, the next thing that they see on the news is a supporter of terrorism using direct access to underline or deepen the impression that he wishes to create.
The airwaves are full of points of view with which we all disagree from time to time. In a free society it is our job to argue and, we hope, to out-argue in those discussions. However, we are not talking about that. We are talking about whether there should be a platform for those whose weapon is not argument but destruction and death.
Mr. Michael Mates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only a few short weeks ago a television company was proposing to give two hours of air time so that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) could express his views? That would have caused the greatest disquiet and disgust among most decent people. Is it not because the media have collectively declined the opportunity that has been there to put their house in order in this matter that the Government have had to act? Having acted, will my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends continue to try to ensure that the same sorts of measures that have to be taken in the fight against terrorism are taken, as far as possible, on both sides of the border?
Mr. Hurd: I understand what my hon. Friend says. To be fair, as I said in my statement, the broadcasters have had a whole series of individually difficult decisions to take, and I am glad that they have recently taken some which illustrate the point that I have been making. From their point of view, it is more clear and straightforward for them to operate under a notice of this sort, for which I take responsibility and which the House will debate, than to have to operate at their discretion, sometimes in difficult circumstances.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Have not the Government's own standing advisory committee on human rights and Lord Colville advised against such bans? The Government seem to have taken the worst of all possible measures. They have given the IRA a propaganda coup. They have left it open to it to put its view through the newspapers; they have left Sinn Fein still a legal organisation which is denied the right of access to a free press; and they have established a dangerous precedent by using the Broadcasting Act in this manner.
896
If the Government are intent on taking serious action, why do they not strengthen the sanctions of the court against elected representatives who give comfort to terrorism, instead of taking this action, which is ill-conceived, ill-judged and almost certainly counter-productive?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point about Lord Colville, who has made a recommendation about section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. That is quite separate from the point that we are discussing. What we propose is within the bounds of the European convention on human rights, which is no doubt why it has been practised in the Republic of Ireland for some time without problems of this kind.
Although I take note of what the hon. Gentleman, who is the leader of his party, has said, unless the newspapers are wrong, I rejoice in the support of his colleague, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
Mr. Julian Amery: Why was this decision not taken a long time ago?
Mr. Hurd: I thought that one of my right hon. Fnends might ask that. A number of possibilities respecting Northern Ireland have been looked at from time to time. Since the last round of terrorist outrages—I am thinking particularly of Enniskillen—we have been looking again, as Governments should, at options—even at options which have not been adopted in the past. This is one of a series of decisions. As the House will recognise, some remain to be taken and announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but as part of this reconsideration of all options we came to the conclusion that the time was right to take this step.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Home Secretary accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcome what he has done today? We believe that there is considerable merit in his belated action. The legislation is aimed at protecting, not the intelligent viewer, but young people who can be influenced by the likes of Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison on television.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, too, that it will not be particularly helpful if, during election time, members of constitutional parties must desist from making use of the media so as to prevent members of Provisional Sinn Fein from doing so? Has he consulted his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is bringing forward legislation dealing with the repudiation of violence by those wishing to stand for council and other elections in Northern Ireland? That legislation is to fill the gap in the Home Secretary's measures so that in the final analysis something equivalent to the primary legislation in the Republic of Ireland—the amendment to section 31—will be provided. In that way, the purveyors of violence will never be able to appear on television.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for what I have announced. I followed the rest of his argument. He knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland published some ideas in a consultation paper on the subject that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the possibility of asking candidates to renounce the use of force. My right hon. Friend is still considering the response to those ideas and,

897
obviously, as he moves to a conclusion on that he will take into account the implications of and the connection, which certainly exists, between that measure and the measures that I have announced.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Home Secretary take it from me that the people of Northern Ireland will see that it was not he who banned Sinn Fein, but that it was Sinn Fein who excluded itself by its behaviour? Will he recognise that it would be illogical for him to take the decision that he has announced today alongside the fact that Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office refused to meet members of Sinn Fein? The Home Secretary is now refusing to allow Sinn Fein to appear on television and radio. Would it therefore be consistent to permit Sinn Fein to sit in our council chambers and expect Unionist politicians to sit with them?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general support. He will know that the further point that he raises has been argued and discussed many times and falls absolutely within the scope of the consultation exercise that I mentioned.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State has drawn attention to the thoughts and emotions of people who have been bereaved by the actions of paramilitary groupings as those bereaved people watch paramilitary spokesmen on television. Although that is an understandable sentiment, it is not a basis for legal or political decisions. Will the Secretary of State accept that the real damage will be done, not to the UDA or the Provisional IRA, but to the highest standards of judicial and legal practice in this country? Does he accept that he is doing exactly what the gangsters in the Provisional IRA and the UDA want him to do? Those organisations will be laughing all the way to the European election and the district council elections because they now have the street issue that they did not previously have. Would the Secretary of State care to speculate about how many of the hard-line activists in west Belfast, South Armagh and Derry will lay down their guns because they cannot watch Gerry Adams on television?
Mr. Hurd: I have never heard the hon. Gentleman inveigh with that eloquence against the provisions in the Republic of Ireland. I listened to the hon. Gentleman on the radio this morning and thought that he gave a very idealised version of what actually happens. His constituents and those of other Northern Ireland Members do not hear Sinn Fein supporters being grilled by challenging professional journalists. What they hear, and what I used to hear, are supporters of Sinn Fein having the skill to stay just within the law and using the right of direct access to the media to glory in violence and death. We propose to stop that. Of course, the measure in itself is not decisive, because no single measure can be decisive. It is part of the strengthening pattern of action against terrorism and it has an important part to play.
Mr. John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of men and women of common sense in this country will fully understand and agree with the measures that he has proposed? Secondly, does he agree that the measures are not dissimilar to those that have operated for many years
898
in the Republic of Ireland, save that they are considerably more liberal and that broadcasters, whether on television, radio or elsewhere in the media, will not be affected by the proposals when they are reporting events?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is on the crucial point. This is not censorship, because it does not deal with or prohibit the reporting of events. It deals with and prohibits direct access and its extra impact on terrorism and its supporters. Broadly, we are putting broadcasters on the same basis as representatives of the written press.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Bearing in mind the looseness of the term—I say that as politely as I can—"and supporters of', will the Home Secretary assure the House that before any organisation or its members are proscribed under the terms of this notice the House will be given details? If that is not done we will lay ourselves wide open to an ever-growing catch-all pool of persons or groups banned from commenting on radio or television.
Mr. Hurd: It would be very reasonable for the House to be kept informed of any variation in the two notices that I have issued.
Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of people will undoubtedly agree with the step that he has taken? What other changes implemented by the Irish Republic in its handling of Sinn Fein might he consider? Will he consider advising those in the European Union of Broadcasting Nations about what he and his colleagues from the Irish Republic have done?
Mr. Hurd: We did not work out this proposal with the Irish Government, but we informed them yesterday of what we proposed. There is an increasing amount of consultation and discussion across this whole range of issues and, as my hon. Friend says, those discussions are not just between the Irish Government and Her Majesty's Government, but go right across Europe.
Mr. Peter Archer: Will the Secretary of State answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)? Have the paramilitaries not achieved one of their major purposes by maneouvring the Government into chipping away at the institutions of a free society? What precedents are there for proscribing the content of a broadcast, not on security grounds, but because the Government find unacceptable the opinions that are likely to be expressed?
Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with that classic statement of the Opposition case. We are not in the ordinary business of the tossing to and fro of arguments and controversy. We are dealing with two things that are different from the traditional arguments. They are the direct impact of access to the media, and the people who use that access, not to out-argue me or the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but to spread the aura of fear that surrounds their acitivities. [Interruption.]Conceivably we should have known before, but we think that it is now right to take this step.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although these measures are welcome, they do not go far enough? When may we expect a statement from our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about further measures to be taken against the IRA, including the banning of Sinn Fein?
Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been careful to say that my hon. Friend's last point is kept under review. My hon. Friend should not feel that this is an isolated measure. As I have said, some steps have already been announced. For example, we have announced the proposals that we intend to include in forthcoming legislation to get at the funds of the IRA. Other measures, of which I hope my hon. Friend will approve, will be announced in due course.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement will be seen as a massive extension of state control over the broadcasting authorities, and that it is precisely comparable to the ban on the Zircon film and the attempt to ban the Spycatcher book? Any attack on the rights of elected representatives has always historically been seen as an attack upon those who elect them, the people who have chosen to use the ballot to express their views. The powers that the right hon. Gentleman has used are so general that they could be extended to anybody. There is no limit to those powers. I once exercised them when I was Postmaster General. Is he also aware that, as Lord Scarman said on television, it is questionable whether broadcasters will be so timid as to obey the law? There is no moral obligation to obey an unjust law that attacks civil liberties and democracy.
Mr. Hurd: The legal standing of the power is as clear now as it was when the right hon. Gentleman exercised a parallel power.
Mr. Benn: I never did.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that he did. There have been occasions, whether in his time or since, when this power has been used, and its legal status is not in question. What it does is to bring into the open, and state as clearly and precisely as we can, an obligation with which the broadcasters have been wrestling, case by case and programme by programme, with some difficulty for many years. We know, and I believe, that although the broadcasters will share some of the disquiet that has been expressed by the Opposition—they would not be human if they did not—as they reflect on it they will see that this gives them a clearer and better way to proceed than they have ever had.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Tomorrow I shall attend the funeral of a constituent who was blown bloodily asunder by an IRA car bomb. His wife, who was bespattered with the blood and flesh of her husband, had a miraculous escape, but both she and her two children are distraught to the point of extreme agony. Does the Home Secretary know that the IRA put out a statement immediately after that outrage in an attempt to justify its obscene crime—a statement that was a tissue of lies, but was broadcast by the media? Is there not, in addition to the right of free speech, the greater, fundamental right to life, which is being denied to a vast number in Northern Ireland by the IRA, which is the enemy of democracy, and will make use of democracy in order to defeat it?
Mr. Hurd: What the hon. Gentleman has said is necessary, because we find it easy to forget, this side of the water, the kind of emotions which are not manufactured but which are genuine, particularly in the aftermath of such outrages. I would draw a distinction, which I believe is crucial, between the right and duty of the media to
900
report what happens, including the views of all kincls of people, and the right, which I do not accept, of people who support the kind of outrages which the hon. Gentleman mentioned to march into l:he studio and parade their support for terrorism. It is that which we are addressing.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Does the Home Secretary not realise that the IRA, and probably the paramilitaries of the other side as well, will recognise this measure as being born of panic? What is new, or what is worse than it was some years ago when he or his predecessors did not introduce such a measure? Why is it being introduced now? They will construe it as their victory. Is the measure a capitulation to the ultra Right-wing of the right hon. Gentleman's party, as embodied in the Tory party conference—the floggers and hangers—which is demanding that he do something like this, which, it seems to me, is against his own essential nature?
Mr. Hurd: The conference was last week, so I do not think that it is entirely relevant to this. I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's question in answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). In a whole range of Northern Ireland policy issues there are several things lying around—issues and decisions that are possible and options that are conceivable. It is foolish for a Secretary of State or a Government to say never in these matters. There are several issues—the hon. Gentleman knows them as well as I do. It is foolish to say never, and it is sensible, as things change, to look again at the different options, to look at them afresh to see whether they make sense in the circumstances of 1988, although they did not make sense in the circumstances of 1986. That is what we have done, issue by issue, and option by option, and this decision is one of the results.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend accept that anybody must welcome the actions of the Government to diminish the threat of terrorism, not only in this country, but anywhere in the world? Will he also accept that hon. Members, on both sides of the House, will welcome his commitment to have a debate on this question because of the real problems raised about the intervention into free speech, which is probably conceived as a short cut to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who advocated the total banning of those whom my right hon. Friend now wishes to ban from the television sets? I hope that he will be able to develop that argument when we debate this question.
Mr. Hurd: That is an important point. When we come to a debate it will clearly be necessary, in a way which is not possible in a statement, to link the various strands to show how this fits into the pattern which several hon. Members have raised.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Is it the case that people will be banned even when it is not known what they will say if they are given the chance of an interview? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unlike the situation in the Irish Republic, hardly a week goes by in this country without some local government by-election? What is to stop the propagandists of the IRA coming over here week by week to seek election in local government by-elections, using the excuse that they are

901
prevented from talking in Northern Ireland? Has the Home Secretary considered the media circus that will go around if that comes about?
Mr. Hurd: That is an extraordinary unlikely supposition. People would soon tire of that game and find it extraordinarily unnewsworthy. The wording of the notice, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's first and serious point, is that we are talking about—to a large extent this is drawn from the Irish wording—words spoken by a person who appears or is heard on the programme on which the matter is broadcast where the person speaking the words represents, or purports to represent, one of the organisations specified.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the logic and explanation that he has used to advance his argument today will be appreciated and understood by the British people, as the arguments of the Labour Opposition will be misunderstood and deeply resented by the British people? Will he accept that the British people look to the editors of newspapers voluntarily to understand that they do not want newspapers to be used as a platform for the IRA and its apologists?
Mr. Hurd: The press certainly has a responsibility, just as the broadcasters have. We are not discriminating against the broadcasters. We are bringing them to the same level as the writing press by allowing them to report and by not encroaching on their ability to report, but denying some people the extra dimension of radio and television, by denying direct access to these media.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Before taking this decision, did the Home Secretary receive any briefing from the intelligence services on the likely impact of this decision on the flow of funding from Canada and North America for the IRA? If he did not, why not? How was it that the IRA managed to sustain itself, decade after decade, from the 1922 bombing campaign through into the 1930s and 1950s, without access to television? Is this not simply a diversion in response to the increased level of violence in Northern Ireland during the summer? Has the Home Secretary not thrown this bauble into the House of Commons, where it will be debated at great length, and with which the media will be obsessed because it affects them, rather than deal with the real problem, which is to find the answer to the violence, either by defeating terrorism, or by negotiating a peace settlement?
Mr. Hurd: We considered this decision over a considerable period and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we took into account every consideration that could be relevant. The decision was not taken quickly or in a panic, as some people have suggested. Of course it is not the answer, as no single measure could be the answer, to the problems of terrorism or of Northern Ireland. What it does is to remove from the men of violence—we have been even-handed in this, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) urged upon us—an extra weapon which the existence of direct access to the media has provided for them.
Rev. William McCrea: No doubt the Home Secretary has heard the "do nothing against the
902
mouthpiece of terrorism lest we offend" brigade. Will he take it from me that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, and within the United Kingdom, accept this as a step in the right direction and hope that it will be followed by many other steps to bring an end to the catalogue of violence that the people of Northern Ireland have suffered? Will he also accept that the people of Northern Ireland find it greatly offensive that the spokespersons for terrorism can parade themselves in front of the television screens and gloat over brutal acts of terrorism? It is about time that it stopped, and we welcome this proposal.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Harold McCusker: Is the Home Secretary aware that the real welcome in Northern Ireland will be, not for the detail of what he has said today, but for what he subsequently confirmed, namely, that his statement heralds the beginning of an inevitable process designed to squeeze Sinn Fein out of the political system in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is paraphrasing boldly. I did not say anything that could reasonably bear that interpretation. I simply said that, as he knows very well, my right hon. Friend is considering a range of possibilities and has published a consultation document. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's party has responded copiously to the invitation, and my right hon. Friend will reach and announce his conclusions in due course.
Mr. Michael Morris: Does not the evidence of history, such as our troubles in Malaya, and the experience of our European partners, such as West Germany with Bader Meinhof, demonstrate that the one thing that terrorists do not like, and will not accept, is being denied access to the media? What exactly are the sanctions available to my right hon. Friend for those who choose to flout the new regulations?
Mr. Hurd: The two notices are from me to the regulatory authorities, the BBC and the IBA. It is then for them, as regulatory authorities using their powers of discipline, to ensure that those notices are respected. If they are not respected, that is a matter for my action against the regulatory authorities.
Mr. Hattersley: I asked the Home Secretary about the definition of the individuals whose direct broadcasts will be prohibited under these regulations, and other hon. Members pressed him on that point. He said that it was individuals—he was quoting from the notice—who represent or purport to represent the listed organisations. What is the situation if people express equally unacceptable opinions, views on killing and murder, which would be unacceptable to everyone in the House and deeply offensive to the people of the United Kingdom, but can demonstrate that they are not attached formally, or in any way that can be demonstrated, to one of the proscribed organisations? Will they be allowed to broadcast?
Mr. Hurd: They would be caught by paragraph (b). The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps misunderstood the significance of the word "or". Let me re-read paragraphs (a) and (b) for the sake of clarity. They state:

903
"the person speaking the words represents or purports to represent an organisation specified in paragraph 2 below, or"—
this is the point about which the right hon. Gentleman
asked me—
"the words support or solicit or invite support for such an organisation".
Mr. Hattersley rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the next debate. We have had a good run on this statement and I have listened to what the Home Secretary has said. There is to be a debate later and I am sure that these matters can be raised then. I will ensure that those hon. Members who have not been called to put a question have some precedence when we come to that debate.

Scottish and Newcastle Breweries
4.23 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House. under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed takeover of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries by Elders IXL."
The matter is urgent because the takeover bid was launched on Monday, and it has already caused widespread concern and opposition in Scotland and England. The Government's attitude must be made clear as quickly as possible.
The matter is important because Scottish and Newcastle is the second largest manufacturing company in Scotland and has 11 per cent. of the United Kingdom market. Elders has 9·5 per cent. Together they would account for 21 per cent. of the United Kingdom market. Scottish and Newcastle employs 24,000 people—4,000 in my constituency, 6,000 in Newcastle and others throughout the United Kingdom.
Scottish and Newcastle is a successful company. It is not a lame duck, but it is another in a line of companies which have been subject to hostile takeover bids, and this highlights the lack of effective Government policy on takeovers and mergers. The bid would be bad for Edinburgh and Scotland because decision-making would pass to the other side of the world. All that Elders offers is a wholly-owned subsidiary, but control would remain in Melbourne. All that it is offering is a brass plate on an Edinburgh door, and, despite all that Elders says in its glossy publicity and what its paid consultants say, the whole thing is reminiscent of the Guinness affair. It is vital that this United Kingdom company should remain based in Edinburgh. It is vital to Scotland's beleaguered industrial base and to jobs in Scotland and the north of England.
In a recent leaked Scottish Office report, it was made clear that Scottish companies were exposed because of the Government's lack of preparation for the European single market. We must make sure that Scottish and Newcastle does not fall victim to that, and we must protect those companies which have set up and flourished outside the south-east of England. We must not let Scotland and the north of England become backwaters of Europe. We cannot allow the short-term needs of the market to decide our long-term future. In those circumstances, I ask for an emergency debate to discuss the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the takeover bid made by Elders for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries."
I have listened with care lo what the hon. Gentleman has said about this matter and I appreciate the likely possible impact upon his constituents, but I regret that I do not consider the matter appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Bradford Council
4.25 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank you and the Clerks for the guidance that I have been given on how I can refer to an announcement made by the Conservative-controlled Bradford council today that, at its full council meeting next Tuesday, it intends to restrict entry by the public to the council chamber. I understand that it intends to issue 118 tickets to members of the public who, in the council's view, are not considered to be trouble makers, and to allow a further 50 members of the public to listen to a broadcast of the council meeting in an adjoining room.
There are 45 items on the council's agenda. The council is seeking the ratification of 9,000 council redundancies, the selling of 15 homes for elderly people and the denial of funding to 25 voluntary organisations. I am sure you understand, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great desire on the part of people in Bradford to——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter, but he must find another, more appropriate method of raising it before the House. It seems to me that it is a matter for the local council, not for the House of Commons. I understand his concern and I hope that he will follow the guidance that I gave him previously.
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I can help the hon. Gentleman any further.
Mr. Pat Wall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not devaluing the role of this House as the issue has been debated nationally and
906
discussed in the press? The issue of Bradford can apparently be discussed everywhere but in this House. That is a deplorable situation.
Mr. Speaker: I must have regard to the rules of our House and we must discuss here matters which are within our rules and within ministerial responsibility. Both the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) must try to find other ways of raising the matter.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you briefly whether you will keep an open mind on the question of applications under Standing Order No. 20 regarding the announcement of 9,000 sackings in Bradford by the Tory-controlled council? The situation continues to develop. Fresh announcements of serious cuts are being made. The whole council system is being gerrymandered on the mayor's casting vote, so I ask you to keep an open mind on this serious constitutional issue.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the significance of this to hon. Members who represent that important city, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate, I must have regard to the rules of the House. The hon. Members concerned will have to seek other ways of raising the matter.

Defence Debate
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we come to the defence debate, I should like to ask your guidance. Two amendments have been tabled to the Government's motion.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman raised that at the beginning of the debate. He does not yet know my decision.

North West Regional Assembly
4.30 pm
Mr. lan McCartney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of an elected North West Regional Assembly as a regional authority and of a North West Development Agency, and to specify their functions and powers; and for other purposes.
When a devolution Bill was last introduced in the House it brought down the then Government. I sincerely hope that my personal proposal will have the same result.
The concept of devolved government for the regions of England, and the north-west especially, is not a publicity stunt. It is a genuine attempt fairly to redraw the political and industrial map of the United Kingdom. The north-west region comprises the counties of Cheshire and Lancashire and the industrial conurbations of Greater Manchester and Merseyside. It has a population of 7 million, and since the industrial revolution it has been one of the two great engines of the British economy. About 4 million people live in the Liverpool-Manchester industrial corridor, and last year they contributed over £31 billion to the nation's economy. That represented 11 per cent. of the wealth creation of the United Kingdom. We are the second most important wealth-creating region in the United Kingdom. Our contribution to the United Kingdom is larger than the income of Greece, which is an equal partner m the European Community.
It is tragic that under the present Government the people of the north-west have been prevented from participating in wealth creation. We are ruled over and bludgeoned by a Government of the south-east who are in and for the south-east. The Prime Minister talks of glasnost and perestroika, but these policies are not put into practice in Britain. Double standards are applied when it comes to listening to the needs of the northern parts of the nation. Since the Prime Minister came to power, unemployment in the north-west has shot up by 91 per cent. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and my other colleagues who have stood four square against the 1,200 redundancies announced at the Royal Ordnance factory at Patricroft. We shall not desert the work force or throw it to the asset-stripping wolves of the City of London who are growing fat on the Government's privatisation programme at the expense of the north-west industrial base.
Manufacturing employment in the north-west has fallen by more than 38 per cent. since the Government came to power. Over 350,000 of my fellow north-west citizens have been out of work since 1979. North-west weekly earnings are slipping behind those for the rest of the country. In 1979, male average weekly earnings were £9·30 less than those in the south-east. In 1987, the gap leaped to a staggering £41·60. Local services and democracy are suffering as well. Rate support grant for local authorities in the north-west has been cut by a staggering £1 billion by the Government. Housing improvement programmes have been cut by 80 per cent. Homelessness has increased by 200 per cent., and house building has declined by 35 per cent. There has been a net loss of 20,000 skilled jobs in the north-west construction industry. The Health Service within the region is also in crisis, with 96,000 of my fellow north-west citizens on waiting lists. About 25,000 of them have been on lists for
908
over a year. Is the House aware that 6,400 hospital beds have been closed? The community care programme has been all but suspended.
Those of us who live in the north-west and who are committed to it are hitting back. Local government and private enterprise initiatives are trying to promote tourism, inward investment, alternative industries, improvement of the infrastructure, the utilisation of derelict land and the initiation of meaningful training programmes.
For ideological reasons the Government continue to undermine the most successful municipal airport in the world. Manchester International airport is under pressure in respect of second terminal investment, and the Government have refused to allow the airport to have additional air routes to Europe and the United States. That means that 1,100,000 north-westerners are forced each year to fly from Heathrow or Gatwick, at considerable extra expense, instead of from their own airport. Under the threat of privatisation, one of the great success stories of north-west industry has been put at risk. That is the result of the Government's ideology.
With the abolition of the strategic Greater Manchester council and Merseyside county council, the Government have almost wiped out strategic planning for two thirds of the region. My Bill is about bringing democratic government to the north-west, in the north-west and for the north-west. It would provide for the formation of a 158-member assembly on a four-year fixed term. It would be responsible for strategic social and economic policy initiatives.
The Bill provides for the establishment of a north-west regional development agency. which would be similar to the Scottish Development Agency. Its membership would come from local government, industry, banking and commerce, the trade unions and higher and further education. Its job would be to further economic development, maintain employment, promote industrial efficiency and competitiveness and improve the environment.
We want to create an office of the north-west to co-ordinate and administer the activities of all Government Departments in the region. We want a Minister for the north-west who will be accountable to Parliament and will report to the regional assembly.
The north-west is not looking for favours at the expense of the nations of Scotland and Wales or of other hard-pressed English regions. However, there is a growing feeling among the people—whether they be industrialists, community groups, local government officers, trade unionists or members of chambers of commerce—that there is sufficient talent, skill, ideas and vision to ensure that, if the region is given a chance and resources, those with ideas and vision can rebuild the north-west and govern it to the eternal benefit of the region and of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Keith Bradley, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Peter Pike and Mr. Ken Eastham.

NORTH WEST REGIONAL ASSEMBLY
Mr. Ian McCartney accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of an elected North West Regional Assembly as a regional authority and of a North

909
West Development Agency, and to specify their functions and powers; and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be printed. [Bill 215.]

Orders of the Day
  Defence Estimates

    FIRST DAY'S DEBATE
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. As I have said previously, many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. Although this is a two-day debate, I hope that we shall have brief speeches today.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that an amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition must be called. However, there is a further amendment on the Order Paper that has much support in the House and in the country as a whole. This support is not confined to the Labour party or any other party. It would seem right that hon. Members who agree with the amendment should be able to vote upon it. This has happened in the past. Amendments that were tabled on prices and incomes policy, for example, were debated and voted upon. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider your decision not to select the amendment in the names of 13 of my hon. Friends and myself. We shall then be able in general terms to support the official Opposition's amendment and vote specincally on an amendment that some of us consider to be of the utmost importance.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to support the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). It appears that the amendment in his name and those of his hon. Friends is closer to the policy that was approved at the Labour party conference two weeks ago. Is this not an example of the twin-track approach of the Labour party on defence policy?
    Mr. Robert Hayward: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is stated specifically on page 466 of "Erskine May" that Mr. Speaker will select the most important amendment. That was a ruling given by one of your predecessors in 1919, Mr. Speaker. Given the decision of the Labour party conference on defence policy, the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) demonstrate that his amendment is more important than that of the official Opposition.
    Mr. Speaker: "Erskine May" states also that Mr. Speaker makes his selection and gives no reason for doing so. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman in that respect, but I will try to help him by ensuring that he is able to make his case during the debate.
    4.40 pm
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
    That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988 contained in Cm. 344.
    Due to pressure of other business in the House, today's debate on the statement takes place five months after it was published, but that has given hon. Members of all parties time to digest the report on the statement by the Select Committee on Defence. As we have come to expect,

    911
    the Committee has produced a thoughtful and thorough report, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to express its gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and all his colleagues on the Select Committee.
    The theme of this year's statement on the Defence Estimates is the maintenance of security in a changing world. The House needs no reminders of the signs of change. Nineteen eighty-eight has seen the start at long last of a Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the beginning of the removal and destruction of a complete class of nuclear missile. We have witnessed the beginning, perhaps, of a new era in relationships between East and West.
    Those momentous events present us with opportunities for greater security in Europe. They are opportunities we must grasp. Equally, we owe it to the people of this country to explain what the risks are, and to test the avowed intentions of the Soviet leadership by their deeds and not by their words. We owe it to our people to ensure that we do not sacrifice our hard-earned and long-term security for easy and deceptive short-term gains.
    Over the past nine years, the Government have carried out our promise to strengthen Britain's defences and to achieve verifiable arms control agreements. If we had followed the siren call of the unilateralists, represented on several sides of the House, today there would have been no intermediate nuclear forces treaty and no removal of the SS20 missiles. In contrast, the Opposition parties have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. The Labour party's policy of unilateralism has guaranteed its defeat in two general elections. Today we find that the Labour party has not one but two defence policies.
    I must confess that I have great sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) a few moments ago because, as he rightly pointed out, two alternative amendments have been tabled in the proper way. There is the strange situation that the amendment which has been selected is supported by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, but is not the official amendment of the Labour party of which the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) is the leader, and that another amendment, which has not been selected, represents the official view of the Labour party. That puts hon. Members in considerable difficulty in knowing where questions should be raised and to whom their attacks should be directed.
    The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has not helped very much, because in a speech to the North Atlantic Assembly a short time ago he pointed out that by the time the Labour party comes into office again— whenever that is, although he appears to know—there will be little money left to save on the Trident programme, even supposing that the right hon. Member for Islwyn carries out his undertaking to scrap it and decommission it right away. Unfortunately, that is in complete conflict with the second of the amendments which, as I understand it, is in tune with the official position of the Labour party, which is to scrap Trident and use the money saved on welfare.
    I hope that it may be possible for discussions to take place during the next few weeks and before tomorrow between the various parts of the Opposition so that they can decide, and give us all some indication, which policy we are to counter in this debate, by whom it is supported,
    912
    and the view of the Leader of the Opposition, who has been placed in an enormously uncomfortable position today.
    Mr. Ian Gow: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, will he draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is no amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the leader of the Liberal party? My right hon. Friend has rebuked the Labour party, but will he not add some further rebuke to the Liberal party, the position of which on defence is every bit as confused as that of the Labour party?
    Mr. Younger: Not for the first time, I am greatly indebted to my hon. Friend for putting his finger unerringly on another difficulty, which I confess I had not noticed. He is right to say that no amendment has been tabled in the name of the Liberal party, but if I understand correctly, that party has ceased to exist—or it has ceased to exist until next year's conference of the Social and Liberal Democratic party decides on its name. That is one difficulty, but the other difficulty—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this to my attention—is that the official defence spokesman of the Social and Liberal Democratic party is not in his place. I hope that that does not mean that he is unable to be here or that he is ill. However, it is unusual for the official spokesman of any party represented in this House not to be present for a major debate—indeed, the only major debate that we have on the Estimates per year.
    Mr. Frank Haynes: The Secretary of State for Defence is a joke today. He realises—and I realise— what my party's policy is on defence—[Laughter.]It is not a laughing matter. It is serious. People in this country are behind us and support what we want to see happen. Why does the Secretary of State not agree with the American and Soviet Union policies of getting rid of nuclear weapons, instead of hanging on to them like him and that woman at No.10? The Soviets and the Americans are achieving Labour party policy.
    Mr. Younger: I am greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his joke this afternoon. It reminds me of the pleasant fact that I had the pleasure of speaking after him when he made his maiden speech. I recall saying then that I hoped very much that we would hear him often. I did not realise how important that was and how much I would appreciate it today. We can hear a great deal more from him on that subject and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Islwyn will be glad to hear from him on that.
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to what the Secretary of State has said about the speeches I make here. I have made many speeches here, but he has not been present to hear them.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order; it is a point of information.
    Mr. Haynes: The Secretary of State should come here more often.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Younger.
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is being unduly moclest. I have heard many of his speeches and enjoyed all of them.

    913
    There is clearly a large unilateralist policy on the Left of the Labour party and we must recognise that. There is also still unilateralism by stealth among the leadership of the party that the right hon. Member for Islwyn represents. Neither of those two policies provides Britain with a credible defence policy in a changing world. Today, only the Government have any sound defence policy which balances the opportunities and the risks and ensures that we can meet the challenges of the 1990s effectively.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: The Secretary of State has said that he is meeting the challenges. How does he meet the challenge of the 132 non-nuclear nations which have signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty and which have called on the United Kingdom to carry out the treaty that we signed under clause 6 to get rid of our nuclear weapons? Does the Secretary of State not support those 132 non-nuclear nations?
    Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman says, we are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty. We not only believe in it and support it: we actually implement it. We have been major supporters of the effort to make the first ever reduction in nuclear weapons, about which I will say more in a moment. That is an immense success and is due entirely to the policy followed by this Government and our allies abroad.
    We need to be clear about the nature of the changes taking place in the Soviet Union. President Gorbachev has clearly decided that a lessening of external pressures and distractions is required if his programme of internal reform is to succeed. To that end, he must reduce the costs of Soviet foreign policy by abandoning the old and failed policy of intervention and confrontation. The Government have been unstinting in welcoming the greater signs of openness and reform within Soviet society. Unfortunately, we cannot infer from those signs that Soviet leaders have renounced their foreign policy ambitions.
    Despite all the talk of interdependence and reasonable sufficiency, and despite the reductions in intermediate nuclear forces under way—which I welcome warmly— there has been no noticeable slowing down in any sector of Soviet military research, development or production. That is borne out today by the latest edition of "The Military Balance" produced by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, reports of which appear in this morning's newspapers.
    For example, in the Soviet Union, new submarines are being completed at the rate of one every six weeks. Each day, two new aircraft and eight new tanks roll off the production lines. The Soviet chemical warfare capability remains the largest and most comprehensive in the world. Therefore, we ignore the Soviet Union's military capability at our peril. Soviet leaders may have ceased threatening to bury capitalism, but they show no signs yet of throwing away the spade.
    Responding sensibly and safely to changes in Soviet policy is a major challenge for NATO, but the way to meet that challenge is clear. NATO has a well tried and tested security strategy supported, I remind the House, by all members of NATO, whatever may be the political complexion of their Governments. It remains solidly based on the twin and complementary principles of the Harmel
    914
    report. They are that the Alliance should maintain sufficient military strength and political solidarity to deter aggression and that, at the same time, NATO should seek a more stable relationship with the East in which we can find political solutions to underlying problems. We should adhere to those principles. They have proved their worth. Indeed, the INF treaty is a triumphant vindication of our policy of negotiation from a position of adequate security.
    The treaty was a major milestone in at least two ways. For the first time, an entire class of nuclear missile will be eliminated. Secondly, the Soviet Union has accepted the need for asymmetrical reductions to reflect imbalances in force levels and for intrusive verification as an essential part of arms control. To those who fall for the idea that the Soviet Union should get credit for the treaty, I commend the essay in the statement outlining the history of the negotiations.
    The fact is that the treaty is very similar to that composed by NATO in 1981. We should not forget, for instance, the claims made early on by the Soviet Union that a rough equivalence in intermediate range systems existed. Similar claims, with as little basis in fact, are now being made in the preliminary rounds of the conventional stability talks. However, the Alliance held firm despite a succession of tactical ploys by the Soviet Union and despite the unceasing efforts in this country of the Labour and Liberal parties and CND to weaken our resolve and our negotiating position.
    No amount of sophistry can disguise the fact that the INF treaty is a triumph for NATO and the result of a NATO initiative. Similarly, Western proposals have provided the basis and agenda for the other arms control negotiations. Our priorities are: a major reduction of 50 per cent. in the strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union; an agreement on the establishment of a stable and secure level of conventional forces in Europe, in which our aim is to concentrate on the dominating and destabilising Soviet military presence in Europe, with its capability for large-scale offensive action and its readiness for surprise attack; and not least, a global ban on chemical weapons, with adequate verification.
    The arms control process depends crucially on openness about military activities. We therefore welcome the limited moves towards Western standards of openness shown by the Soviet Union. Those Western standards are exemplified by the United Kingdom's policy of maximum openness about chemical warfare. We abandoned our offensive chemical weapons capability in the late 1950s. Since then, we have provided detailed information about our former production and stocks of chemical weapons. The exchange of visits between the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down and the Soviet chemical weapons facility at Shikhany followed a British initiative and was a significant move forward.
    However, many questions and concerns still remain. It is clear that the Soviet definition of openness remains, even now, very different from ours. In any arms control process, confidence is essential to underpin an effective agreement. We need much more frankness from the Soviet Union about its chemical weapons activities before we can say that we have that confidence.
    The arms control journey will be long and complex, but we have a clear idea of our goals and priorities. Reducing the level of armaments cannot be safely an end in itself. Our objective must be to preserve, and if possible enhance, our security at lower levels of armaments. That will be

    915
    difficult enough as things stand in any of the areas under negotiation, but it will be impossible unless we as an Alliance maintain our defences, keep our forces—both nuclear and conventional—modern, effective and up to date, and provide the resources necessary to that end.
    The NATO summit in March set that out in the clearest possible terms. The summit also reaffirmed the Alliance's continuing common purpose and solidarity. Ours is not a static Alliance. It has evolved over four decades. It was founded in the dark years immediately after the last war. The American military presence on this side of the Atlantic bolstered western Europe as a bulwark against Soviet military power and subversion, and it encouraged the Europeans to make a stand against Soviet ambitions.
    At that time, European nations were emerging from the war with demobilised or shattered forces. They could barely scrape together at that time 15 divisions to face the 100 or so across the iron curtain. Those 100 were backed by war industries at full stretch and by the political will to use them to further Soviet aims.
    Since then, the European members of the Alliance have expanded in number and in the forces that they contribute to the common defence. Today, we in the Western Alliance can muster about 80 divisions. Something like 90 per cent. of the military manpower and an overwhelming proportion of the tanks, artillery and aircraft stationed in Europe in peacetime and provided by the Europeans. Therefore, we have made major advances in strengthening what has come to be called the European pillar of NATO.
    Nevertheless, recent pressures on the United States to reduce its trade and budget deficits have breathed new life into the debate about burden-sharing within the Alliance. Although we must expect the United States to look again at its range of commitments in the light of changes in the world, I am sure that the American commitment to the defence of western Europe will be maintained.
    The American contribution of a strategic guarantee backed by a substantial military presence in Europe remains vital to the Alliance's security. Furthermore, it is no more provided out of charity than is our contribution to forward defence in Germany, for Europe represents a vital interest to the United States. Moreover, all our Alliance partners are agreed on the importance of relating any force reductions to solid progress in arms control negotiations.
    But we must ensure that the costs and risks of Alliance membership, as well as the benefits, are shared fairly among its member nations. This principle has always been at the heart of NATO, and reflects the fact that it is a free partnership of 16 sovereign nations. We need to take further steps to strengthen the European pillar as a means of strengthening the Alliance as a whole—not, as some would propose, to create a European security identity distinct from the Alliance. That remains neither a desirable nor an achievable aim.
    While there is no doubt of the commitment felt by European members of the Alliance, some member countries devote a disappointingly small share of their national wealth to defence. They should give particularly careful consideration to increasing it to levels closer to the NATO average, and we must all consider how we can further improve our contributions to the common defence from the resources available.
    Mr. Keith Speed: On the question of burden sharing, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the
    916
    American Congress in particular is made aware of the contribution that this country and other European countries are making— by way, for example, of bases such as Diego Garcia, the sovereign base areas in Cyprus and out-of-area activities such as the Armilla patrol and many others? When I was in Washington, I found there a profound ignorance of what many European defcnce forces are doing around the world to help and bolster up their American allies.
    Mr. Younger: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I, too, have found, whenever I have had the opportunity to talk about this in America, that audiences are usually amazed by how much Europe does for its own defence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that extremely important point. It suggests that, while expressing our efforts more clearly to Congress and to others in America, we must all consider how we can further improve our contributions to the common defence.
    European nations are already striving to strengthen their contribution through the revitalised Western European Union and through the Independent European Programme Group. The United Kingdom assumed the presidency of the Western European Union in July. We shall use the period of our presidency to strengthen co-operation among European nations and encourage practical contributions to the common defence. We shall also work to secure a satisfactory outcome to the negotiations on the entry of Spain and Portugal into the organisation. The Western European Union also played a key role in co-ordinating the presence of European navies in the Gulf in the last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) just mentioned.
    We are also seeking actively to extend bilateral links with our European allies, as they can make an important contribution to strengthening the Alliance. In particular, we are examining a number of proposals for closer co-operation with France and the Federal Republic, covering a wide range of defence business, and we have recently agreed to establish a joint study with the Federal Republic to consider how the close links that already bind us can be further developed within the Alliance framework.
    European nations have a special role to play in the basing of theatre nuclear forces. These forces give vital support to the Alliance strategy of flexible response. As with other forces, they must be kept properly structured and up to date. That is nothing new. It is part of the enduring responsibility which a full and active member-ship of the Alliance carries with it. Decisions on these matters will be taken as and when required, and will be reported to the House at the appropriate time.
    Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend referred to the role of the Western European Union. Does he accept that the North Atlantic Assembly consists not just of the WEU nations but also of the Americans and the Canadians, which means that NATO as a whole is represented in that assembly, that it ought to be encouraged to reflect the political will of the Alliance to as great an extent as WEU and that it ought to play as great a part as WEU?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. The North Atlantic Assembly is another useful forum in which to explain to our friends across the Atlantic how much the Europeans are doing, and vice versa.
    r. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My right hon. Friend will remember that he and the British Government most kindly hosted a WEU symposium on research co-operation within Europe in the military sphere. Is my right hon. Friend able to report to the House that any progress has been made on implementing its recommendations, which were contained in the Vredeling report to the Independent European Programme Group —that there should be a single permanent secretariat for the IEPG and a common research fund for military research within the IEPG nations?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I remember the symposium very well. I shall be in a better position to answer his question in a fortnight's time. Another meeting of IEPG Ministers is to take place in Luxembourg in about two weeks' time. Good progress was made at the last meeting, but we are still awaiting final decisions. However, we are working very much along the lines that my hon. Friend has mentioned. I hope to be able to report to the House before very long that further progress has been made.
    To get the greatest benefit from these developments and improvements, we need well trained and highly skilled people. We expect a great deal from our service men and women and from the civil servants who work with them. Happily, they always seem to be able to meet our expectations, but we must not take their efforts for granted.
    Consider, for example, the range of professional skills that they must demonstrate—from the traditional skills of the battlefield to state-of-the-art knowledge of electronics and computers. The Army alone has no fewer than 150 different categories of employment. No other work force in the country can match the range of skills and of training available in today's armed forces.
    Consider also the diverse tasks that we ask our service men and women to undertake, often in difficult and dangerous circumstances. We have had many occasions in the past year to admire the skill and efficiency with which they perform their operational duties. Nowhere are these qualities more apparent than among the personnel from all three services who support the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. These qualities have been demonstrated in the light of the recent upsurge in violence which has brought tragedy to so many families, both service and civilian.
    We are all aware of the great personal courage that it takes for the security forces to discharge their duties in the hazardous circumstances of the Province, but we should not forget that these duties also require of them enormous patience, discipline and professional expertise. Our troops there face a ruthless enemy who deliberately brings death, destruction and misery to all the people in the Province, to their own community as much as anyone else. Our service men's contribution in enabling the ordinary law-abiding people of Northern Ireland to go about their daily lives in peace is beyond question. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing our admiration and appreciation to those many thousands of service men and women who continue to serve us so well.
    A similar level of professionalism has been shown by the men of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary who have been carrying out the Armilla patrol since 1980 in tense and trying circumstances. The reduced tension in the region means that
    918
    conditions are now right for the Armilla patrol to move away from closely accompanying British merchant shipping to patrolling the areas of the Gulf most used by British shipping, but we are not reducing the size of our naval forces in the Gulf, and we shall continue to provide protection for British merchant shipping for as long as a significant threat to their safety remains.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Secretary of State still feel that there is a significant level of danger to British shipping in the Gulf, in view of the decisions taken by Iran and Iraq? How many foreign ships have re-flagged to the ensign in order to take advantage of the Armilla patrol, which many Opposition Members think has been using the British Navy as a mercenary force? Would it not be appropriate to ask some of those countries that have re-flagged to pay part of the cost of the Armilla patrol?
    Mr. Younger: I am always grateful to anybody who offers to pay any part of the costs of what we do, but I must resist that temptation in this case. A very small number of countries have changed to British or to British dependent territory flags. The British Armilla patrol has been prepared to accompany only British-flagged or owned ships. In doing so, it is interesting to note that the Armilla patrol has escorted in and out of the Gulf more ships than all other countries added together. As the Armilla patrol is supporting only British shipping, that is a remarkable contribution to the British shipping industry, to our interests overseas and to the rights of world shipping to use international waters. It has been a very fine chapter in the long history of peacekeeping by the Royal Navy.
    It is our duty to ensure that we provide the equipment and support that the services need to undertake their multifarious tasks, consistent with operational and value-for-money considerations.
    Our defence budget, at £19,215 million this year, is among the highest in NATO, both in absolute terms and in the share it represents of our national wealth. The cash increases in planned provision published in the last public expenditure White Paper enable us to consolidate that past real growth and to maintain our defence spending at a level almost one fifth higher in real terms than 10 years ago. We can thus carry through the necessary modernisation of our strategic nuclear deterrent.
    The Trident programme remains on course for entry into service in the mid-1990s. However, the bulk of the real increase in defence spending has been devoted to improving our conventional forces. Since 1978–79, we have spent some £21·5 billion more on defence than would have been the case if expenditure had been kept at 1978–79 levels. Of that increase, only £2·5 billion has been spent on strategic nuclear forces.
    We have yet to reap the full benefits of that investment. I can cite various examples of major items of equipment ordered for delivery during the next few years. Twenty-seven of the 64 major vessels ordered for the Royal Navy since 1979, almost two thirds of the 500 aircraft ordered for the RAF since 1979, the bulk of the new armoured personnel carriers for the Army, a further regiment of Challenger tanks, three multiple-launch rocket system regiments and a new air defence regiment equipped

    919
    with the Starstreak high velocity missile have still to be delivered, although they have been ordered and are currently being produced.
    Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The Secretary of State has made claims about the Government's shipbuilding programme that were made, again and again, by his predecessors. It is easy to make such claims—even in this House—and avoid close examination, much less analysis.
    The plain fact remains that under this Government the ordering rate for new vessels has been only 1·6 per year. Because of the attention paid to the effectiveness and size of our fleet during recent years, all hon. Members must be aware that even to retain a reduced surface fleet of about 50 calls for an ordering rate of three ships per year. How can the right hon. Gentleman get around those two figures? The Government's record stands at 1·6, against the three ships required to carry out Government policy.
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about these important matters. It is not surprising that the ordering rate during the past few years has been lower than usual, because we are changing from one type of frigate to another, and there is always a pause when changing to a new type. Of course, the number of ships ordered per year is only one factor in keeping the size of the surface fleet at the required level, which is about 50 destroyers and frigates. The Select Committee clearly said that the required number was, in fact, 2·6 and not three as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that, through a combination of new ordering of ships and keeping old ships operational until the end of their useful life, we intend to maintain the destroyer-frigate force at about 50 for the near future. I hope that that is the assurance that he seeks.
    The fleet is benefiting from a substantial programme to keep our surface escort force up to date, with 10 frigates currently on order. Those include the three new type 23 frigates ordered in July from Yarrows. They will provide a major improvement in our anti-submarine warfare capabilities. We expect to invite tenders for more of those ships next year. Our ability to counter the submarine threat in the north Atlantic will be enhanced further by the three nuclear-powered fleet submarines and four type 2400 Upholder class conventionally powered submarines that are on order. Major programmes are continuing to update the fleet's air defence and mine countermeasure capabilities, and to improve underwater weapon systems and sonars.
    The Army's contribution to forward defence in Germany is being strengthened by the formation of 24 Airmobile Brigade, bringing a new degree of flexibility to 1(BR) Corp's operations in NATO's central region. An additional Challenger regiment is in place, and Saxon and Warrior armoured fighting vehicles are being deployed. The most modern equipment, including the SA 80 rifle, the LAW 80 anti-tank weapon, the S10 respirator and battlefield thermal imaging systems, is steadily being introduced. That programme will greatly improve the Army's capability, especially its mobility and firepower. We are continuing to examine both an improved Challenger and foreign options as possible replacements for the Chieftain tank.
    920
    The RAF's major modernisation programme is well under way. Two thirds of the strike attack version of Tornado are now in service and the first two squadrons of the air defence variant have formed during the last year. The first squadron of the improved Harrier, the GR5, has started to form. Since the statement was published, the Government have signed a memorandum of understanding for the full development of the European fighter aircraft. That is a major step towards providing the RAF with the next generation of air defence and offensive support aircraft. The Government remain determined to continue to provide the resources necessary for effective defence and to ensure that we get the best value for these substantial sums of money.
    During recent days, there has been a good deal of speculation and rather wild allegations in some parts of the press and from some Opposition Members about the sale of Royal Ordnance to British Aerospace last year. I should like to put the record straight. The fact is that we held an open competition and BAe won it. What it bought for £190 million was the business as a going concern, with its weaknesses as well as its strengths. It is all very well to speculate about the profits that BAe may or may not make from developing the sites at Enfield and Waltham Abbey, but the minuses must also be taken into account. For example, BAe faces substantial costs in reproviding the Enfield and Waltham Abbey facilities elsewhere; the company has embarked on a major rationalisation programme which will lead to costs for providing equipment and for redundancy; many of the sites being disposed of will need a good deal of decontamination work before they can be developed; and BAe also took on existing contracts at Royal Ordnance, whether profitable or not.
    The benefits that might be derived from any property development depend very heavily on whether planning restrictions for the areas concerned are relaxed. All these factors have to be weighed together, and that was the commercial judgment made by BAe and the other competitors when framing their offers. The Government, as advised by their merchant bankers, Rothschild, believed that the price obtained was very fair. Indeed, it was almost twice the £100 million that Rothschilds advised would have been obtained had we floated the company. That is the answer to all those who try to take one aspect of a perfectly genuine sale while ignoring all the other facts that led to a balanced judgment, after competition, with the best price being obtained for the public purse.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, one of the important Royal Ordnance factories is in Scotland. Will he confirm that it was always open to the Government to reject any offer, even that made by British Aerospace? Therefore, the responsibility for losing finance and resources for the nation, which will now accrue either directly or indirectly to British Aerospace, lies with the Government.
    Mr. Younger: There will be no such effect. It was, of course, the Government's decision to transfer Royal Ordnance to private ownership. It is well known how that was done—through competition, with the best price being taken. That fact cannot be denied. The hon. Gentleman knows that the objective—which looks like being attained —is to produce a more profitable, more successful Royal

    921
    Ordnance that can export more successfully. That will be of benefit not only to the country but to the company's employees.
    Dr. John Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the staggering difference between the value of the land when it was sold to British Aerospace and the value of such land if it is sold now? Will he confirm that the excuses that are being given—namely, the distinction between what is called the use value of the land and the market value of the land, which is the get-out for the Department now—are a step backwards for him a reconversion to Marxism?
    Mr. Younger: I am not sure about the last point. The hon. Gentleman would be much more of an expert on that matter than I am. On the first point, the clear fact is that consideration of the value of the business as a whole took all that into account. Even if it had not, there was an open competition in which everybody knew all the facts, and the best price was taken.
    On his second point about land values, I remind the hon. Gentleman that land values can be affected by many things, one of which is whether land has planning permission. Much speculation has centred upon making exotic calculations about land values without planning permission and assuming that planning permission might be granted. The disposal of land also depends on the condition of the land. Because of its condition, some of this land, if it were to be disposed of, would require quite a lot of money to be spent on it. I hope that that has answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
    This year's statement outlines the measures in hand and the successes so far to ensure that resources are used effectively. Civilian staff numbers are now down by over 40 per cent. from 1979 levels. The Department is adopting a new management strategy. By the early 1990s, we shall have a system of budgets for running costs operating in all parts of the Department and in commands. Managers will have greater freedom with approved budgets to determine how best to meet their objectives, for which they will be accountable. We have set ourselves ambitious annual targets for improving the efficient use of resources. These improvements may be secured either by reduced input for the same output or increased output for the same input.
    In response to the "next steps" initiative, we are examining two possible candidates for agency status—the Meteorological Office and the non-nuclear research establishments—and how they could provide us with a more responsive and more effective service. Another key element in our strategy is the continued pursuit of a more commercial approach to equipment procurement. The benefits of the more rigorous approach to competition are already apparent. An indication of the savings to be obtained is given by the 11 examples quoted in the statement, which will yield savings of over £100 million, and the competition for this year's order of type 23 frigates obtained significant savings over earlier prices.
    We are also redeploying service manpower to enhance operational capabilities. Since 1981, the proportion of Royal Navy personnel serving in the front-line or immediately in its support has increased to 70 per cent. About half the savings of 4,000 uniformed support posts, under the Army's "lean look" programme, have now been
    922
    achieved, to the benefit of front line units, and the RAF has saved some 1,700 uniformed posts in the support area over the past four years.
    In its report on this year's statement, the Defence Committee expressed concern about the defence implications of reduced spending by my Department on research and development. I can assure the House that the primary objective will continue to be to ensure that sufficient R and D resources are provided to meet essential defence needs.
    Mr. Tony Banks rose——
    Mr. Younger: I should press on, to enable other hon. Members to speak. However——
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps if there had been a bit more R and D, scientists and military personnel would have known the size of rifles. I understand that 42 million bullets were bought from India, and it turns out that the rifle bore does not match the size of the bullet. Is that true? How much has that cost the British taxpayer? What is the shelf life of a bullet?
    Mr. Younger: I understand that the ammunition in question is no longer satisfactory. I also think that the hon. Gentleman may unwittingly be scoring one of his celebrated own goals, because it was ordered and obtained by the last Labour Government.
    The decisions earlier this year to participate in full development of two major collaborative programmes, the European fighter aircraft and the Trigat guided weapon system, are clear proof of the better use of R and D resources.
    On the reduction, it has to be recognised that the nation's resources of qualified scientists and engineers, and of skilled manpower to support them, are not infinite. While meeting our essential defence requirements, we must also ensure that the successful working of the civil economy is not hampered. Appropriate restraints on Government-funded defence R and D spending are necessary to free resources for civil work, but companies will be encouraged to offer technology that they have developed for civil purposes when tendering for defence equipments. This approach implies no change in our criteria for selecting new equipment.
    Our policy will continue to be to secure the best long-term value for money in national terms in procuring the equipment needed by the armed forces for their tasks. In most cases, that will involve national programmes of development and production or collaboration with our allies. In some cases, as in the past, we shall find that best value is obtained by turning to a foreign supplier.
    I entirely share the Select Committee's view that the effects of the constraints on defence R and D spending must be carefully watched, and any disadvantages minimised. My Department fully recognises the need to support and to have access to sufficient R and D to maintain effective defence, while avoiding a situation where such demands might hinder the long-term economic development of the United Kingdom as a whole. Other Departments besides my own will play an appropriate part in this, in particular the Department of Trade and Industry as regards the impact on civil R and D effort.
    The House will of course recall that British industry, with the energetic encouragement of the Government, has itself had notable export successes this year, particularly with the memoranda of understanding that we have

    923
    concluded with the Governments of Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. The total value of export contracts signed in 1987 was some £3·5 billion.
    On the more general point about the defence budget, the House will understand that I can say nothing at this stage about the 1988 public expenditure survey, beyond reaffirming the Government's commitment to a strong and credible defence policy.
    The Select Committee recognised that, in the 1987 survey, the Government allocated extra resources to defence over those planned in previous years. This provided broadly level funding in real terms until 1990–91, and some necessary room for manoeuvre in the programme. But there will always be, as we have said, difficult decisions about priorities, of the sort faced every year, and by all Governments, in the course of the usual planning cycle. It may be necessary to make changes at the margins of the programme, to allow for cash pressures, to offset necessary enhancements in capability elsewhere in order to construct a sustainable, balanced programme.
    Mr. Derek Conway: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I shall not delay his concluding remarks. In view of what he has said, and in view of the fact that 50,000 Territorial Army troops are committed to the British Army of the Rhine, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the phase 2 enhancements for the Territorial Army are progressing well and are safe from cuts or whether they, too, will be within the remit of "further consideration"?
    Mr. Younger: All items in the programme are under consideration at all times, but the expansion of the Territorial Army has gone extremely well. We should like to see it go further, but we require better recruitment and better retention of people in the Territorial Army to get the numbers that we wish.
    We have already had to face some difficult choices. We would have preferred, for instance, to buy eight AWACS aircraft, but we had to conclude that we could afford only seven at this stage. We have had to conclude that we should not fit a 360-deg radar to Royal Navy Lynx mark 8 helicopters. Undoubtedly there will be other difficult choices, but we shall maintain all our main defence roles and commitments, as this year's statement makes clear.
    Mr. Douglas: Surely the Secretary of State will make some comment about armed forces' pay and the fact that, in 1989, in Scotland in particular the armed forces will have to pay the poll tax. What provisions are being made for some consideration of that and the removal of the anomalies involved?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has raised a point that has nothing to do with armed forces pay. The armed forces will be treated the same as every other citizen with regard to the community charge. I do not think that they are likely to be treated in the same way as the hon. Gentleman appears to be planning to treat himself—by not paying it.
    The world is changing with regard to arms control. It is changing in a way which presents this country and NATO with new challenges and opportunities. The best means of pursuing those opportunities is to remain faithful to policies which have proved their worth and develop them to meet the new challenges ahead.
    924
    We will seek, as we have done, to move to lower force levels, but the journey will be a long one and will be undertaken with caution. The West's need to maintain its security by preserving and modernising the structure, range and equipment of its forces will continue.
    In their first defence White Paper, the Government pledged to restore our defence effort to the level needed to give the best possible guarantee of safety and peace, using the most economical means possible. In this one, the Government continue to pursue a programme which has been proved to be successful and has been designed to fulfil that pledge.
    5.31 pm
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'believes that the plans outlined in the Statement on Defence Estimates, Cm. 344, and in particular the Government's acquisition of Trident which is neither British nor independent, are already having a deleterious effect on the conventional defences of the United Kingdom, especially the Royal Navy surface fleet, and on related defence procurement industries; calls upon the Government to cancel Trident and use resources to secure our non-nuclear defences and to work actively for the reduction and abolition of nuclear weapons in Britain and elsewhere and the adoption by NATO of a strategy of No First Use; applauds the signing of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty by the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union and would be opposed to any nuclear arms deployment which would undermine the effectiveness of that Treaty; welcomes the progress being made towards a Chemical and Biological Weapons Ban Treaty, and the anticipated 50 per cent. cuts in ballistic missiles which would result from the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks; and further believes that the Conventional Stability Talks will provide the means whereby NATO and Warsaw Pact troop numbers can be asymmetrically reduced, forward troop deployments can be withdrawn, and short-range ground and air-launched dual capable systems can be eliminated.
    This debate is long overdue. It is five months since the White Paper was published and we are now more than half way through the period of estimated expenditure. I realise that part of the delay is due to the time required for the Select Committee to prepare its report and its commentary on the report. We welcome the report and the helpful, if at times somewhat understated, criticisms that have been made.
    Our contention is that after nine and a half years of Government the time has come for a comprehensive defence review that will take account of the budgetary crisis that the Secretary of State skated over in his closing remarks. The review should assess the impact of the cost of Trident on the rest of our defence provision and place Trident in the context of the emerging arms control consensus between the two alliances. It should also consider how we should respond to the challenges made to many of the assumptions upon which the flexible response theory and nuclear deterrent are based.
    In the light of the INF treaty and the confusion that exists between the Government and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany about the time and nature of the modernisation of short -range systems, these matters must be looked at in a cool way. We will endeavour to raise them this afternoon, but I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the words of one of his predecessors, when he said:
    "We have a choice. Either we can continue to pretend that there is no problem, that we can wish away the threat or

    925
    imagine that the United Kingdom can somehow sustain, replace and enhance its operational effectiveness without a fresh look at how we perform our tasks—what we are doing, and why—or we can continue to drift down the path that led… to cuts".—[Official Report,19 May 1981; Vol. 5, c. 160.]
    That statement was made in the House by the former Secretary of State for Defence, Sir John Nott. The task which he set himself, and from which he had to back down, is one that the Government, nine and a half years into their period of rule, should look at again. There are a number of problems which must be dealt with and which would strengthen the hand of the Secretary of State in his battle with the real chief of defence at the moment, namely, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. Edward Leigh rose——
    Mr. O' Neill: I should like to carry on, but I shall be happy to let the hon. Gentleman speak in a moment or two.
    Since 1984–85, and including this year, 1988–89, defence spending has fallen by 7·1 per cent. in real terms. That may be greater if inflation continues to rise above 4·5 per cent. and the spending outturn falls below the planned level. It is likely that the real reduction over the past five years will be about 8 per cent. I quote those figures from the work of such people as Professor Greenwood at Aberdeen and Dr. Channers at the University of Bradford. They are people from varying positions in the political spectrum but who, as defence economists, come to pretty much the same conclusions. Their work has suggested that up to 1991 the budget will stabilise around its current level, but that will depend upon the Treasury allowing an increase in the MOD cash limit to compensate for higher than expected inflation projections. If that does not happen, we can expect defence cuts during the next three or four years of about 1 per cent. per annum in real terms.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that defence spending by the Government since 1979 in real terms has increased by 20 per cent.? Will he tell the House whether the Labour party, if it were ever elected, would continue defence spending at the same level?
    Mr. O'Neill: I confirm the first question. I shall reply to the second question in the course of my remarks.
    The decline in certain critical areas of the budget is in large measure due to the expenditure on Trident during the past three or four years. As expenditure on Trident increases, with the accompanying rise in personnel costs, the funds for conventional equipment will continue to fall. Non-Trident expenditure on new equipment will have fallen by 26 per cent. between 1984–85 and 1988–89, and is likely to fall by a further 10 per cent. up to 1992. Spending on spares and repairs, excluding Trident, will have fallen by 15 per cent. in the five years up to 1989. By June 1991 more than 50 per cent. of the Trident budget will have been spent, with another 10 to 20 per cent. contractually committed. By 1992 it will be in excess of 60 per cent., with savings from the cancellation amounting to between £1 billion and £3 billion. Even in those circumstances, the saving will depend upon the contract interpretation.
    926
    I say to my hon. Friends who have an alternative amendment that they are deluding themselves if they believe that cancellation of Trident would release countless billions for social expenditure. My contention is that the deleterious effect that Trident spending will have on our conventional defences will require such a response that little of this money could be released from the defence budget in the early years of a Labour Government.
    The Select Committee on Defence has pointed out that the difficulties of measuring the cost of replacing equipment in terms of generation-on-generation costs are often far in excess of what even the most sophisticated statistical tools at our disposal can predict. I shall repeat the examples quoted in the Committee's report. A type 22 frigate costs four times the price of the Leander that it replaced. The Challenger tank costs two and a quarter times the price of a Chieftain, and the Sea Wolf costs three and a quarter times the price of Sea Cat. In paragraph 2.11 of its seventh report the Select Committee says:
    "There is no reason to think that the effect of this phenomenon is declining; indeed, in the areas of highest technology there is every reason to believe that it is increasing substantially."
    It is not the equipment that forms the basis of our defence; it is the quality and morale of our service personnel.
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for a review of defence policies. Will he review his own defence policy? Does he recall writing in 1988 in the "Journal of European Disarmament" that he was opposed to END's over-emphasis on human rights in eastern Europe? He said that if it came to a choice between reducing the threat of war and defending human rights in eastern Europe, he knew which course he would take. Will the hon. Gentleman also tell us whether he still believes that the Labour party's commitment to nuclear disarmament is greater than ever? Does he belong to that wing of the Labour party that wishes to consult the British people, or to that wing that wishes to ignore the wishes of the British people? Perhaps he could come clean.
    Mr. O'Neill: I was mistaken in letting the hon. Gentleman intervene. I appreciate that, as a lawyer, his capacity wilfully to misrepresent statements is a way of life. My first point is that I do not believe that the process of disarmament negotiations should be unnecessarily involved in questions of freedom and civil liberties at the same time. That is a dangerous precedent that clutters up discussions, and that is something that is accepted by all those who are seriously concerned about the prospects for arms control. I am whole-heartedly behind the present moves to reduce the threat of nuclear war on the continent and throughout the world.
    The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) interrupted me as I was trying to raise the matter of the pay and conditions of service men, to which the Minister did not refer. I welcome the Government's implementation of the pay review board award. That was necessary, and it is desirable that we seek to treat our troops as fairly as possible. However, it should be borne in mind that, under the new budgetary arrangements, any increase in the amount contained in the Supply Estimates, over and above that increase estimated for inflation, will have to be borne within the defence budget. An inflation

    927
    rate of 6·5 per cent. is mentioned, and that means that we are talking of an RPI of 4·5 per cent. We know that that is a gross under-estimate of the ultimate rate of inflation.
    This year the Ministry has already overspent its budget for food and accommodation by some £230 million. An ever-increasing element of the defence budget will be accounted for by enhancements to pay and conditions. Unfortunately, such enhancements will be paid for by resulting inadequate equipment and reductions in supplies. Such enhancements must be found within the budget, and they will be at the expense of the kit and conditions under which service people must work. Since 1983 the pay awards to the services have been underfunded by the MOD to the tune of £725 million.
    Such is the disenchantment with service life that, in certain critical areas, such as air crews, we are training fewer pilots than are leaving the service. All too many high-grade technicians are leaving the naval technical staff and they are exactly the type of people whom we wish to retain to man our high-tech frigates in the 1990s.
    I am surprised that no one has referred to the previous Labour Government and the days when recruitment was lower and resignations were higher. I accept that that took place, but unemployment is now twice as high as it was in 1979, yet we still see valuable people leaving the services at an alarming rate. In constituencies such as mine, male unemployment is still sticking at around 20 per cent., and in some of the villages young adult male unemployment stands at 40 per cent. We do not need to be reminded that unemployment is still the best recruiting sergeant.
    We look to the future with some concern, because the Government have not properly taken into account the fact that that cohort of the population between the ages of 16 and 19, who account for about 80 per cent. of recruitment into our forces, will fall from 1·8 million, as recorded in 1987, to around 1·3 million in 1994. I concede that in Germany the population change is more dramatic, but it has established a plan that will take it through to the year 2000 that will accommodate that change. Germany already operates a system of conscription, and we are not talking about such a system. The Government must take into account the changes in the age groups within the population and the reduction in the birth rate, not only in terms of military planning, but because of their effect on the labour market. The cost of such planning must be borne by the defence budget.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I wish to refer to what the hon. Gentleman said about the problem as it affects Royal Air Force pilots. Does he accept that the requirements for a modern fast jet pilot are much higher than they were some years ago? The numbers volunteering have not dropped. The problem is finding sufficient numbers of the right quality, and that means aptitude as well as everything else, and included within that is attitude. It has been most difficult to find sufficient numbers with the right attitude. This is a qualitative problem rather than a quantitative one.
    Mr. O'Neill: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's great interest in the works of W. E. Johns, and I recognise his experience in such matters. However, fewer pilots are joining the RAF than are leaving it. It is not just a qualitative problem, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman's comments are a slur on those recruits that are taken on. I accept that the rigour of the training is
    928
    considerable, but we should consider how to keep those men on whom we have spent so much money and training and who are so valuable to our defence effort.
    Population figures are important and the Ministry should anticipate that problem. Perhaps we shall hear something about this in the debate. The pay and conditions of the armed forces are important, and will become increasingly so as there are greater and greater pressures on the labour market.
    We recognise and welcome the work that has been done in the "tail to teeth" programme, which is a useful and helpful enhancement of the armed forces. We also recognise and pay tribute to the work of the Territorial Army. We hope that the programme that the Secretary of State instituted a couple of weeks ago will be a success. There have been problems with the TA, and research has shown that its image and conditions have not been as good as they might have been. The Government are now learning a lesson that has been spelt out to them by Members on both sides of the House since they took office.
    Mr. Conway: The hon. Member has been reasonable in his remarks, and I am grateful to him for giving way. During the course of the recent election campaign his leader made a commitment to expand conventional forces to counteract what his party was saying to the public about nuclear forces. Given that that commitment still stands —notwithstanding the other amendment tabled by some of the hon. Gentleman's recalcitrant hon. Friends—and bearing in mind the reduction in the number of adult males available for military service, how does the hon. Gentleman marry those two precepts? He rightly says that the Ministry must think about this problem, but, given the commitment that the leader of his party has made, where will those young service men come from? Is he not actively saying to the young British public that the Labour party stands for the reintroduction of conscription?
    Mr. O'Neill: I do not believe that there is any basis for that argument. I believe that it is the Government's responsibility to anticipate the dramatic drop in the number of young people who will be available for recruitment within the next five years. That drop will, I hope, be accompanied by a change in the labour market, and any Government taking office in 1992 will have to address that problem. It is incumbent upon the present Government to consider it.
    Some of our allies have had to extend conscription and that is fair enough as they have more pressing problems than our own. That has been the German solution, but it is not the British solution. It is not one that I would advocate, and I do not believe that any of my hon. Friends would be prepared to support such a solution. I am not suggesting that the Labour party considers that there is any possibility of the reintroduction of conscription, but the Government have a responsibility to come up with a solution. The Government are making estimates about what they want to spend within the next three to four years, and we are entitled to know what plans they have regarding recruitment. We do not know their plans at present, and surely it is one of the items that should be included in a defence review.
    Mr. Duffy: In the face of inquiries from Conservative Members about what a Labour Government would do, is it not helpful to put on record what the Labour Government did in 1978–79 in respect of these two matters

    929
    with which my hon. Friend has dealt at length? The Secretary of State for Defence is smiling, but I wonder whether he is aware that the Labour Government removed the pay claim from the defence budget. They entered into a commitment to increase defence spending by 2 per cent. I know that that was a NATO sanction, but the understanding was that it would be for conventional equipment. That is the record.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. O'Neill: One must take refuge when one can.
    I have dwelt on the cost of personnel, where economies cannot be made. Greatest savings can be made in procurement, and the Government's solution, as I am sure we shall hear tomorrow if not later today, is competitive tendering. That means that, instead of the old cosy relationship between defence manufacturers and the Ministry, where a figure was set for a contract and an additional percentage provision made for increased costs —the cost-plus approach, as it was known—we now have competition between suppliers, and the lowest tender wins. Naturally, if the Government continue to think that the cost is too high, they re-tender, forcing the price down further. That happened with the contract for the latest batch of type 23 frigates.
    But that is only half the story. When the Secretary of State does not have the money, or when it is earmarked for something else, it is only too convenient for him to delay the process by requiring a new round of bids. That has the effect of forcing companies into corners, and in shipbuilding it leads to a beggar-my-neighbour, and uitimately a beggar-myself, approach. That is evidenced by the difficulties that both Yarrow and Swan Hunter had in meeting the challenge of the contracting process for the type 23. As a consequence, both the design teams and the work force must be declared redundant.
    That tough value-for-money approach is seen in other areas where competitive tendering is inappropriate. The recent contract with British Aerospace for the ROFs munitions and supplies showed that macho-negotiating can reduce a price from £700 million to £400 million. It could be argued that since British Aerospace is a monopoly supplier it is reasonable to protect the taxpayer, but it is neither reasonable nor prudent for the Government to impose a price and cost regime on a supplier such that the surplus capacity—it was recognised that the ordnance factories were always required to meet increases in demand in time of crisis—would be threatened. That is yet another example of the shortsighted short-termism that so characterises the Government's approach to our industrial base and to procurement generally.
    It is certainly true that the way in which the privatisation deal with British Aerospace was finally concluded resulted in an improper valuation of the real estate. We are told that the possibility of getting changes in planning permission was not taken into account. I defy the Secretary of State to give us more than 10 instances from the period when the present Secretary of State for the Environment has had planning appeals before him for the change of use of development land and he has refused it. If there has ever been a Government who are a soft touch
    930
    for property developers, it is this one. For the Secretary of State for Defence to hide behind such a feeble excuse ill becomes his office and his responsibilities.
    Mr. Keith Mans rose——
    Mr. O'Neill: I have already given way four times, which is a reasonable amount, and I must proceed.
    I hope that the Public Accounts Committee will investigate the propriety of the whole privatisation and that the Select Committee will examine the impact of a reduction in capacity on the ability of British Aerospace —the only realistic supplier—to meet our needs in a time of hostility. According to the White Paper, the Navy has sufficient stocks of fuel, spare parts and ammunition to meet NATO requirements, but even now plans exist to eliminate shortfalls. In the somewhat convoluted language of paragraph 310 of the White Paper we read that, although we meet NATO requirements, we do not satisfy the MOD. The Army's performance is not set out so explicitly, but it is stated that substantial resources are devoted to ensuring that adequate supplies of war materials can be obtained. Does that mean that targets are being met? The RAF already meets NATO requirements for virtually all war stocks and has plans to remove the remaining shortfalls.
    British Aerospace is being required to cut its capacity because of the strictures of a contract which in the short term may be of advantage to taxpayers, but in the long term may be our undoing. If we strip away the gloss of the Secretary of State's remarks, clearly there are shortages in all the services, and we can only shudder at the problems that could arise. The RAF is merely another example of where the Government pursue value for money in the short term, but will sacrifice the defence of the country in
    The Secretary of State gave cast-iron assurances in the House to the work force of the ROFs that their jobs would be safe after privatisation, but he now says that that is not his concern but the responsibility of management. If the management alone were to blame, perhaps we could expect some condemnation from him about the way in which those to be made redundant heard that they would lose their jobs. At six in the evening they switched on their television sets to discover that their jobs were to disappear. Neither the trade unions nor the work force, in any shape or form, were informed on 6 October. The Secretary of State says that it is not his fault or responsibility, but he was responsible for privatisation, for selling the factories to British Aerospace, for the price he accepted and for the deal which enabled the company to reduce capacity and sell the land. He will be responsible, too, for the lives of the service men, which could be endangered if the forces do not get the munitions that they will require in times of hostility.
    The picture is similar for other MOD privatisations. We have seen disastrous job losses at Devonport, where more than 5,000 people will have to leave the yard by 1990. The Secretary of State knows my concern and that of the whole work force on this issue. The unions and I appreciate his willingness to meet us and hear the case, but I must say to him what we said in his office: urgent attention must be given to the diversion of additional work to the yard—the Southampton is an obvious case. I realise that it is still somewhat early, but I hope that the work that Devonport has done in the past will be taken into account and that it will be given a fair chance of getting a share of

    931
    the work. The Secretary of State must take another look at the docking and rental charges, which he conceded were unreasonably high and impose an unfair burden on that yard.
    Mr. Younger indicated assent.
    Mr. O'Neill: Despite the Secretary of State's nods and sympathetic noises, action must be forthcoming speedily, because a yawning gap will open between the time of the new development and the need to close existing facilities quickly. He owes it not only to the Navy, which has been served so well by the yard, but to the work force and the people of the south-west who have depended on the yard for so long.
    The problems that procurement presents for the Government are primarily due to the absence of any coherent strategy. Sadly, the only threat that can be discerned is the attempt to postpone decisions for as long as possible. The MOD is the biggest single customer of Britain's manufacturing industry. It has three responsibilities: to ensure that taxpayers' money is wisely spent and to obtain the best possible kit, to ensure that British industry gets the best possible chance, consistent with taxpayers' interests to meet the needs of the armed forces, and to enable United Kingdom suppliers to plan ahead and so arrange their research and development and productive capacity as to meet future demands in peacetime and war.
    We read in The Sunday Telegraph,which on defence matters is never 100 miles away from the truth, that we are considering the purchase of a tank from the United States. Will the Minister who is to reply to the debate tonight deny that the Abram M1 tank will be bought off the shelf without even the prospect of production under licence? Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he is satisfied with the fact that AEG and Ferranti are competing over the contract for the European fighter aircraft radar, which is not so much a fight between AEG and Ferranti, but a fight to the death between Marconi and Ferranti, and possibly our last opportunity to have a presence in the new generation of radar systems? Would the Germans or the French behave in that way? I very much doubt it. They have a sense of what one may call undue nationalism about the defence of their industries. But they certainly do not sell the pass in defence procurement, as the British Government do.
    The British defence industry is demoralised, despite its success in selling abroad, which success we welcome. The first thing that defence contractors tell us about is the difficulty of obtaining consistency and forward planning from the Government. Just as the deployment of our men and materials requires planning and the development of our new equipment requires foresight and research, so we need strategic thinking for the defence industry to restore the confidence of the managers who run it, the people who work there and the armed forces, whose lives will depend on it.
    Behind all the distortions to the budget lies Trident— the weapons system that we do not need, that we cannot afford and that will hardly be ours if it arrives. We know from the Select Committee report that problems have arisen with the capital works at Aldermaston, which will be two years late. The Committee was worried about the implications of those problems for the Trident warhead
    932
    programme, which would have repercussions for the three other SSBNs that will enter service in the second half of the 1990s.
    Equally important is the problem of staffing at Aldermaston and Burghfield because of low rates of pay. The Committee concluded in paragraph 90, in the light of all the prevarication, the misleading statements, the half truths and the economies with the truth from the mouths of officials and others:
    "We consider that the MoD can have little cause for complaint if future assurances are not taken at face value."
    Trident is the most prestigious programme which the Government are backing, we believe wrongheadedly, but the watchdog of the House—the Select Committee—has said, in the light of the assurances that it has received from the Government, enough is enough and that it will no longer easily take their word for it.
    Mr. Michael Mates indicateddissent.
    Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Member for Hampshire, Elast (Mr. Mates) shakes his head. Perhaps the Chairman of the Select Committee chooses his words injudiciously when trying to achieve ambiguity in his reports and in trying to ensure unanimity. The hon. Gentleman may not understand what he is saying, but I understand the report all too clearly to mean that he and his colleagues are sick and tired of the short change that they have been getting from the Government in respect of that area of the Trident programme.
    The production of the warhead is the only part of the programme that is distinctly British. In almost every other area the work is done under licence from the United States. Last year the Secretary of State said that the warhead was made entirely in Britain, although the Select Committee states at page 22:
    "The purchase of elements of the re-entry body and certain warhead-related components within it are mainly incurred in the U.S."
    Not only are the missiles American, but the guidance system has been purchased from the United States. The only part that is British built will be the fissile material, which we are having difficulty obtaining at present. Sadly, we are years behind with the construction of buildings and the recruitment of staff, and although we may have the boats we shall certainly have to wait for the warheads.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) discovered when he visited King's Bay in Georgia earlier this year, the Trident D5 missile pool will provide us with "drawing rights". We shall be able to obtain equipment as and when required, but we shall have to take missiles back there for servicing and the whole process will take about 18 days. If there is a war —I sincerely hope not—we can only hope that the Russians give us three weeks' notice before launching any nuclear weapons.
    So much for our independent deterrent. Apart from the problems that are being caused to the services as a whole, the problems of the Navy are manifest in the declining size of the fleet. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would give us the latest figure. In a previous debate we had a running total on a daily basis. One day officials gave the Select Committee a figure, and the next day junior Ministers told us that the figure was slightly more, but that it might be slightly less depending on what happened. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us whether it is about 50 or under 40.

    933
    We must take account of the Armilla patrol, on which I welcome the Secretary of State's remarks. It has done an outstanding job in difficult circumstances. It is no secret that that is not the easiest place in the world in which to work. I hope that in the very near future, when circumstances allow it, the Secretary of State will consider bringing back some of our men, because the conditions in which they operate are not only dangerous but, in the context of the climate, extremely uncomfortable. We owe that much to the men who have displayed such fortitude and professionalism throughout the operation.
    The size of the fleet was the subject of a major report from the Select Committee this year. Referring to the previous report "The Way Forward", the Select Committee said:
    "The philosophy underlying that paper has been quietly discarded without being replaced by a Ministerially approved coherent long-term plan for the Navy."
    It came out in evidence to the Committee that the confusion derived from the fact that if the Navy wished to participate in a forward maritime strategy, its contribution in more traditional terms to the campaign in the south-western approaches might be limited to a surprising extent.
    Yet the entire purpose of the northern maritime strategy has been the highly provacative aim of taking out a large section of the Soviet fleet that is based in the Kola peninsula. It was somewhat inelegantly described by a former Under-Secretary for the Navy in the United States as bearding the bear in its lair. There are grave doubts in the mind of the Norwegian Government about the good sense of having this highly provocative presence in northern waters.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman has experience in some matters relating to the armed forces, but the Navy is not his specialist subject, so I shall not give way.
    The White Paper seems to suggest that the Soviet threat is reducing in the northern waters, because it says that Soviet naval deployments away from home have been reduced steadily during the past two years. It is time for NATO to reconsider that provocative and potentially destabilising strategy which, in purely national terms, debilitates and confuses our contribution to the overall maritime strategy of the Alliance and causes alarm and misgivings among the people whom it is supposed to protect—the Norwegians.
    NATO is reconsidering its approach to the modernisation of short-range weapons. The March meeting of the NATO Heads of Government was somewhat confused in its intentions. The Prime Minister's view of what was decided was very different from that of Chancellor Kohl. Perhaps that was because he got to President Reagan the week previously and stitched up the entire deal. He said that there would be no modernisation of short-range weapons in the foreseeable future, which means beyond the West German elections in 1990 and well into the 1990s.
    Furthermore, the Germans are most reluctant to replace theatre or tactical weapons. The reasoning for that is clear. No one who lives in either of the two Germanies wants nuclear weapons which, if fired, could either land in his own country or endanger the lives of his family who
    934
    live on the other side of the border. Even the French, whom we normally associate with the level of bellicosity to which the Prime Minister seeks to aspire, have now recognised that the use of such weapons from within France could result only in their landing in the Federal Republic. The fallout from Chernobyl in central Europe has left an indelible mark on the minds of the people who live there. They now recognise the dangers of blitzkrieg, whether nuclear or conventional.
    It appears, from what we have heard from the Secretary of State today, and from repeated statements by the Prime Minister, that they do not begin to realise the political sensitivity of the issue on the continent of Europe. The simplistic and wrong-headed notion that the use of small nuclear artillery shells in the face of massing troop formations will result in the troops' withdrawal, and not retaliation, is incredible.
    As we approach the conventional stability talks, the Government should open up a debate on the concept of flexible response. When the upper rungs of the ladder are about to be reduced by half because of the strategic arms reduction talks, when the middle rungs have already been removed, and when many do not want the obsolete bottom rungs replaced, should not Britain, which has its own strategic missiles and 55,000 troops in the firing line in Germany, take a lead in making the first step towards European disarmament by advocating a policy of no first use of weapons for our Alliance? If such steps were taken, we should be seen as a nation that was interested in disarmament.
    It is becoming all too obvious that in the management of the post-INF environment Britain is collaborating with the United States in the building up of compensatory systems in Britain. An article in tomorrow's edition of the New Statesman will show that the F 111 will be kept in this country for the foreseeable future and that it will soon be equipped with long-range air-launched systems. Indeed, on 5 March this year, the Washington Post carried a report that some 50 F 111 Gs will be based in Britain under an agreement between the United States and Britain, which was made at a private meeting in Norway last year following the NATO meeting there.
    That is contrary to what the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Defence on 18 May, in paragraph 58:
    "no … proposals have yet been made".
    I realise that when the article appears tomorrow that will be the time for someone to respond, but we in the House are all too well aware that the last people who ever get to know about the deployment of other people's weapons in this country seem to be Members of Parliament. It seems that the first to know are those in the United States, who enjoy the benefits of freedom of information legislation and a press that is a great deal freer and more independent than are sections of the British press.
    We are seeing the undermining of the spirit, if not the wording, of the INF treaty. That shows a form of irresponsibility that could endanger many of the discussions on which so many of us place such optimism and hope. Instead of rehearsing the old arguments about the Soviet build-up, does the Secretary of State agree that he cannot have it both ways when he complains about increases in Warsaw pact armaments while at the same time he does nothing about the offers and overtures that Mr. Gorbachev continually makes and to which the Prime Minister never responds? Surely we do not have to wait

    935
    until we have a good grip of the United States' skirts before we start talking to the Soviet Union. We should be doing it now.
    Mr. Gorbachev has pulled off one propaganda coup after another, while we are cast in the role of warmongers. Of the 13 initiatives that Mr. Gorbachev has taken since 1985, some are important and some are irrelevant, but none should have been rejected out of hand. For example, the offer to look at Krasnoyarsk in return for Fylingdales may be absurd, but when we start obtaining serious discussions about listening stations one would think that it would be of some interest to the country that is the host for that facility in our Alliance.
    A NATO Assembly paper of September 1987, written by one of my colleagues in the SPD, Karsten Voigt, stated:
    "Like it or not the initiative in arms control is being taken by Secretary Gorbachev. It is therefore incumbent on the Western Alliance that as a matter of urgency it

    (a) determine what it actually wants from Arms Control

    (b) exploit every avenue with the Soviet Union on how to get there."

    As another German, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, said:
    "If there is a chance after 40 years of confrontation there could be a turning point in East-West relations, it would be a mistake of historic dimensions to let it slip away because of habits of thought which expect only the worst from the Soviet Union."
    Discussions on the conventional stability talks mandate will soon be complete. I hope that we shall play our full role in those sessions and that both sides will take the lessons of the mutual balanced force reduction experience.
    With regard to the chemical and biological weapons ban talks, some fiexibility would stand us in good stead. One of the interesting points about the White Paper is that it makes no reference, in the area of the chemical and biological weapons ban, to the role of the United States. It is as if the Government do not wish to mention the United States' reluctance to accept our proposals on unchallenged inspections. I hope that credit is given to the sincerity of Soviet intent on that matter and that the Government will find ways of taking advantage of Soviet willingness. If we cannot get a global ban on chemical weapons, at least we should try to proceed to a NATO-Warsaw pact agreement. If we dig in our heels too deeply for a global ban, we could be in danger of allowing the best to become the enemy of the good.
    In other areas, the Soviets have shown a willingness to consider asymmetrical cuts. The first display of such cuts was the INF treaty, when the Soviet Union gave up far more than we did. Superiority in numerical terms would appear to be in the Soviets" favour, but in force comparisons we must avoid bean counting. The threat assessment paper provided by the Western European Union stated:
    "Sometimes divergent, even contradictory, estimates of Soviet forces or equipment used in public statements by different allied national authorities can only detract from the credibility of the estimates".
    That did not come from anyone on the peace wing of the Labour party; it did not come from anyone on the war wing of the Labour party, if one wants to designate it in that way; it came from one of the coolest of the cold warriors in the House, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) who, unfortunately, is not here, but who, as rapporteur for that WEU committee, made a reasonable and fair point.
    Perhaps it is unfortunate that the International Institute for Strategic Studies report, voluminous and
    936
    valuable as it is, was published today, so that we did not have enough time to look at the nature of the balance. We should avoid over-simplistic bean counting. We should seek the publication of the net assessments, which are presently classified but which are available to NATO Council members, so that we can find out the true picture of the balance between East and West. We should avoid the mistakes of the tank counting, where we still include 23,000 Soviet tanks built before 1947.
    We need to look not only at the quantitative matters, but for qualitative contributions to arms reduction that can be seen by the Warsaw pact, by showing willingness to modify and progressively eliminate many of our provocative forward strategies such as the air-land battle plan and deep strike. Those suggestions are being made in a context that involves the UK both independently and as a member of the Alliance. We in the Opposition recognise that there are opportunities for initiatives and new thinking.
    The ownership of nuclear weapons and the substantial contribution that we make to NATO are supposed to give us a seat at the top table. In his speech to the Tory party conference the Secretary of State praised the Prime Minister as the leading statesman of the free world. If that is so, she can claim credit for a great deal: the sorry state of Britain's defences, the underfunding of our convention-al defences, our distorted Trident-led priorities and our slavish commitment to outdated doctrines of flexible response—all of which stand in the way of lasting peace and disarmament.
    I ask those of my hon. Friends who have signed the other amendment to support the official Opposition amendment. If they do not, they will show themselves to be out of touch with the feelings of the breadth of the Labour party and of the millions of our supporters across the country. They will be cast in the same position as the Conservatives, who refuse to participate in the process of disarmament unless it suits their purposes and their distorted view of the world.
    In Scandinavia, in central Europe, in the two Germanies and in the Warsaw pact an historic opportunity is opening up. That is why the outdated and outmoded thinking that lies at the heart of these Estimates must be changed by our amendment and why, before next year, the Secretary of State or his nuccessor must institute a wide-ranging review of our defence commitments and of where we shall find the resources to meet them.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Michael Mates: This is the first defence White Paper debate to take place since the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was catapulted into his present office by the somewhat quixotic early-morning departure of his predecessor. I congratulate him on the way in which he has mastered some of the complexities of a wide-ranging subject. I should like to say that he has mastered his brief, but, nice chap though he is, it is beyond him or, I suspect, anyone else. To speak for the Labour party on defence matters is an almost unmasterable brief. Nevertheless, I wish him well in what must be the most uncomfortable seat in the shadow Cabinet.
    Before I come to the substance of my remarks, I want to say a word about the rationalisation of the Royal Ordnance. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for

    937
    Clackmannan spent so much time talking about that, or that the loutish tendency behind him shouted and screamed at him—anything rather than talk about Labour's defence policy. There has been no foul or fix. I think that I am right in saying that it was Sir John Nott who first tried to move Royal Ordnance in this direction when he was Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) had a go at it, too. Nobody wanted it then because it was unsuccessful, unprofitable and inefficent. The changes made over the years were enough to persuade some people that it was worth buying. It was put out to competitive tender and went to the highest bidder. One or two of the other bidders might well have been preferable customers, but the going rate was assessed in fair competition and paid.
    That is the end of the matter, except to say that, sad as it is when jobs are lost—that is always sad—the following must be said. The Ministry of Defence has just let another contract of about the same quantity, guaranteeing the same amount of procurement over the next five years; Royal Ordnance, in private management, will do that with 2,000 fewer people. There is a moral in that for us all: under public ownership industry is not efficiently run, and that is the beginning and the end of it.
    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the kind remarks that he made about my Committee and the report that we produced on the White Paper. As the hon. Member for Clackmannan constructed most of the first half of his speech around what we said, it seems that the Committee got the balance about right. In the nine months of its existence in this Parliament the Select Committee on Defence has had a busy year. We produced nine reports on a wide range of subjects. I hope that they are of help to the House and show that we are genuinely trying to do the job that we were set up to do. We have visited troops in Northern Ireland and in Belize. We have been on a carrier in the North sea that was taking part in an exercise, and, most recently, we visited exercise Teamwork in north Norway—a large NATO amphibious exercise. That was all in addition to introductory visits to the three headquarters—Wilton, Northwood and High Wycombe. So it has been a busy year for the Committee, and I am grateful to my colleagues on it for the extra work that they put in to make all the visits and reports possible. I know that I speak for them all when I say that we are grateful to the staff who worked so hard to allow us to produce the amount and quality of reports that we have issued.
    There have been nine reports, some more controversial than others. I suppose that the one that hit the headlines the most was the one about the surface fleet. A number of my hon. Friends will no doubt speak about the Royal Navy's capacity, so I shall confine myself to saying that, despite the MOD's reply to that report, I see no reason to change a word of it. I hope that the fruits of what we have done, culminating in the acknowledgment by the Secretary of State that our estimate of the ordering rate required was correct, and his commitment to meet it mean that what was a challenge—it was not a crisis—to the Government's intent has been properly met.
    I shall confine my remarks to the widest issue in the White Paper and the report that we wrote on it—the size of the budget and its forward commitment. That obviously presents the greatest difficulty. It will not have been lost on
    938
    the House that certain talks have been taking place in seaside towns—perhaps even in London—in the past week or so. I do not believe everything that I read in the press, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend has had to fight robustly for the funds that he thinks he needs to carry out the job that the Government have given him. If my spies are correct, I think that he is not doing too bad a job fighting defence's corner.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Could do better."] Let us wait and see what emerges. Time will tell how successful he has been. This is a serious matter and we should not laugh about it.
    If my right hon. Friend has been locked in mortal combat with the Chief Secretary, I hope that when he went to see him he took with him not Mr. Gorbachev's statements but some of the reports that our Committee has produced over the years. We are establishing a track record of making forecasts that are more often right than wrong. In our report on the White Paper of 1985–86 we said:
    "The principal conclusions we draw from our survey of the defence budget … to 1988–89 are:—
    —that following the ending of the commitment to annual growth of 3 per cent."
    there would be a slight reduction. That is now common knowledge. We further said
    "that management of the budget and improved efficiency alone will not avoid consequent cuts or delays, particularly on equipment;
    —that there is a risk of an adverse effect on operational capability, but not in itself amounting to the ending of a major role or commitment;
    —that any further economies will have a direct effect on capability".
    Some of us suggested that from about 1989 onwards the hard decisions about which the Secretary of State has told us almost every time he has visited the Committee would become pressing and would have to be taken.
    That is why it is so important that, even though the atmosphere is better and siren voices are saying and will say in this debate that now is the time to stop spending on defence, that Mr. Gorbachev is a nice man and that the Russians do not intend to threaten us further, we must still look at what they do, not at what they say. It is against the background of my right hon. Friend's remarks about the Russians' rate of build and their daily increasing offensive capability that we must set our needs for a defence budget. Although my right hon. Friend could never have said that to us, this was a crunch year.
    It is important for all of us who care about our country's defence not to slip from the very high standards that we have set ourselves for nearly a decade. That is why I am certain that common sense will prevail, if it has not already prevailed. We look forward to hearing that our commitments will be met not because of some arbitrary increase or decrease in budget but because the Ministry of Defence is determined to get the best value for money. The procurement executive is doing that and saving millions of pounds. We have a team of Ministers determined to see our commitments, some of which are growing while others, mercifully, are receding, carried out by fighting troops of all three services backed by a Government who are really behind the job that they are doing.
    That is the criterion by which I feel sure my right hon. Friend carried on discussions with his colleagues. It is axiomatic to say that they have listened to a sensible argument. The worst argument of all, the worst decision, would be for us to come down from our plateau of efficient

    939
    operation of defence forces for the sake of a ha' porth of tar. We must allow the defence budget the money that it needs to fulfil these commitments.
    6.31 pm
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that you were unable to select the amendment standing in my name and the names of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Some Conservative Members may think that, because some of us are passionately in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament, we want to leave our country without defences. I have great memories of what war did to my family. I had an uncle in the first world war who refused to fight with weapons and decided to become a medical man in the war. He was killed in battle and received the Military Medal as a result. My father was wounded three times in the first world war. His leg was shattered and to his dying day he had difficulties with that war wound. Many of my uncles were involved. None of my brothers were involved in the second world war, because they were dead by the time it started.
    Not unlike some other hon. Members, I did not have a gallant and wonderful war. I spent four and a quarter years in the RAF and like many others I was lucky to survive. I have always regarded the time since the end of the war as borrowed time. It has been a bonus to continue to be alive. I make those points because many people who take the stand that I take have been accused of not believing in the defence of our people and our country. That is absolutely untrue. I was proud to be in the Royal Air Force and I am proud to have been in the Royal Air Force Association since the war. I am not saying that we are not concerned about the future of our people. It is precisely because we are concerned about it and about the future of mankind that we take our point of view.
    I think it was Arthur Koestler who said that once the atomic bomb was dropped the whole nature and character of war was changed. He said that we no longer lived in the situation that we had before that bomb was dropped. That is true. I do not know what hon. Members who were alive at the time felt when that bomb was dropped. I remember the horror that people felt about a whole city being practically wiped out and about all the people who were killed or maimed. I remember the horror of the second bomb. From that time, we have lived under the shadow of the atomic bomb and we must think in those terms.
    I note that the Government clearly see the changes that are taking place in the Soviet Union. Their White Paper says:
    "We are now at last beginning to see signs of change in the Soviet Union, reflected elsewhere in Eastern Europe. At home, Mr. Gorbachev has set in train a series of wide-ranging reforms. Abroad, he has argued the need for 'new political thinking in the nuclear and space age, and has laid stress on the growing interdependence of the countries of the world community."
    That is right, but I have never believed that the Soviet Union wants to dominate the world. Over the years I have been one of the greatest critics of the internal regime in the Soviet Union. I would never have wanted to live in a society where the state apparatus and the party machine dominate the lives of everyone, and in which there is no free discussion, dissent and argument. If I had lived in such a society, I would probably have been one of the first people to find out what the inside of a Russian
    940
    concentration camp was like, because I believe passionately in free debate and discussion. If we do not have that, life is not worth living.
    As I say, I have never believed that the Soviet Union wants to dominate the world. We have reached the present position precisely because over the years people in the West took the view that Soviet troops and armour were ready at any moment to march into and dominate western Europe. The Soviet Union marched into various parts of eastern Europe because it wanted to create buffer states. The Soviet Union suffered—my God, how it suffered—in the second world war, in which 20 million of its people were destroyed. The Soviet Union will never forget that war. We would not be here now—certainly I would not be here—if the Soviets had not lost so many people, because we would have been living under a German fascist dictatorship.
    Mr. Brazier rose——
    Mr. Heffer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I do not want to break the flow of my argument.
    At one time, I was the only Opposition Member who attacked the Soviet Union for going into Afghanistan. I was the first Opposition Member to say that I did not agree with what happened in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was wrong, and I argued all the way that it was wrong. Now that the Soviet Union has recognised the stupidity of going into Afghanistan and is withdrawing its troops, are we suggesting that it is about to land massively in Britain, in Westminster, with armoured troops to dominate this country? It is an absurdity, and the Government have gone part of the way to accepting that it is an absurdity, so why are we not going the rest of the way? Why are we to be stuck for ever with this?
    The INF treaty has not changed the position very much. It has changed, but to what degree? At the height of the cold war, we argued that it was vital for us to get rid of nuclear weapons, but when we began, on an international scale, to reduce such forces, we said that we did not need to get rid of our nuclear weapons because it was being done on an international scale. It is even more important now that we do it than it was in the past. It underlines the argument that we were using. It does not detract from the point that we were making: that is the real issue.
    Earlier, Conservative Members sneered when I asked whether our second amendment was to be selected, and they asked which side of the Labour party I was on. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) talked about a peace party or a war party. I do not believe that anybody in our party is in the war party, and I have never believed that. I do not believe that any member of my party wants to see warfare or to see nuclear weapons or is, in any case or at any time, in favour of nuclear weapons. There is an honest argument about how we get rid of those nuclear weapons. It is not a question of whether we are in a war or a peace party. We all want to get rid of nuclear weapons.
    Sometimes, Conservative Members want to get rid of nuclear weapons, but at the same time they want to build them up, back those who are making them and get more and more of them. I have been disgusted by the Prime Minister. She goes around the world making wonderful speeches. Repeatedly in this House, she has said how much

    941
    she welcomes what Mr. Gorbachev is doing in the Soviet Union and how she welcomes his openness and how she can do business with him. Then she says that we should not trust the Russians or believe what they are doing, and that we must continue to build up our nuclear weapons. In the last part of his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan was right to say that, while the United States of America, together with the Government, is rebuilding and developing nuclear weapons—with which none of us agree, which we do not want and which we are exposing—it is also saying how much it is in favour of what is happening in the Soviet Union.
    Such people should remember that Mr. Gorbachev and those like him who want to get rid of nuclear weapons so that the Soviet Union can build its economy on a new basis, rather than on a war basis, need the assistance, sympathy and support of everyone because the generals and the Right wing are looking over their shoulders. They do not want changes; they want things to go on as they have been. The Government have been helping such people by taking the attitude that they have taken.
    My party conference had a serious debate on nuclear weapons, and not for the first time. Ever since the first party conference I attended, 30-odd years ago, we have been having that debate. I remember us debating it, and the rank and file—I suppose I will have to put it in those terms—won the debate on one occasion, when Mr. Gaitskell was there. He got that decision knocked over in the next election. [Interruption.]We make decisions in our conference. We do not go along and cheer the great leader, or leaderette, or whatever she is called. We had that debate, and we have been having it consistently, and we did not arrive easily at our decision. It took us a long time and much argument and discussion, but we finally came to that decision. I am delighted that this year my party conference reiterated a policy decision that we have now had for a number of years.
    The second amendment is in line with that decision. We tabled that amendment before the Labour party conference reaffirmed the decision, so confident were we that the decision would be carried. We had no hesitation in tabling it. We are arguing for the cancellation of Trident. I did not quite understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan meant when he said that practically all the money for Trident had been spent, so that we were deluding ourselves. It is always a good idea to read the relevant documents before coming to debates such as this so that one knows what they say. On page IV of its third report, the Select Committee on Defence says:
    "The programme continues to include a substantial contingency provision—£1,251 million or some 20 percent. of the remaining expenditure … As far as the progress of the Trident programme is concerned, the conclusion of the Comptroller and Auditor General in July 1987 is still valid".
    I know that this was written in April of this year, but it was still valid then.
    The Committee report continues:
    "the bulk of the expenditure still has to be incurred, and the sterlingcost of the US part of the programme is vulnerable to any future unfavourable movement in exchange rates. The US missile development programme is significantly more advanced than the United Kingdom Trident programme and there is no indication of any US problems which would jeopardise the UK programme. However, some sources of risk to the UK programme remain, particularly in the
    942
    building works and AWRE capital programmes and also as a result of shortages of specialist staff in MoD weapons system software".
    The point is:
    "the bulk of the expenditure still has to be incurred".
    The Committee also says:
    "Thus expenditure during the coming two years will be £1,866 million, or on average £77·75 million a month."
    What could we do with £77·75 million a month if we cancelled Trident straight away? We could use that money to help the Health Service or other services, and some of us do not believe that, having got rid of nuclear weapons, we should use the money saved for building up the conventional side of the weaponry. I shall rest my case on this point.
    Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful for the comradely fashion in which my hon. Friend has addressed my remarks. However, I should point out that the public expenditure White Paper published in January this year says that by 1991–92 all but £1·8 billion of the cost of Trident will have been expended. We shall have to take it that the Government will continue until then. These were the figures that I was using, and we shall have to agree to disagree on our sources.
    Mr. Heffer: That often happens with disagreements, but, even on the basis of those figures, we are arguing that it should be cancelled. If the Government remain in office, it will not be cancelled, but even the figure given by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan could be put to good use instead of being spent on weapons of destruction. Let us just think about that. All the money that we use on those weapons is sheer waste. How wonderful it would be to provide people with decent homes——
    Mr. Tony Banks: With education.
    Mr. Heffer: Exactly—with education. My hon. Friend is making my speech for me. He is absolutely right on all those points. That would be wonderful, instead of using the money on weapons which, in the end, may never be used and which, after a period, will go out of existence because they will be outmoded. Let us think of the money that could be used to help people—that is our argument. That is why we shall continue to argue that case and why I regret that I shall be unable to vote for the amendment tabled by the official Opposition. I have set out what I believe in and what my party believes in, and we shall have to look seriously at the official amendment. At the present moment, I should not like to say what I will do.
    6.53 pm
    Sir Antony Buck: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I have great respect for him, but I profoundly disagree with him on defence and with the amendment to which he has put his name. He suggests that the money spent is wasted. It is not wasted. That "defence" money has preserved peace in Europe for the longest period that Europe has ever had. It is not wasted, for the same profound reasons that caused the previous Labour Government to maintain a nuclear deterrent. Those reasons are valid today and were put forward by a Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.
    I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's patriotism. His popularity is self-evident, judging by the way his billets doux are coming in. His patriotism—I hope to have his

    943
    attention—is not in doubt, but Conservative Members and probably a majority of his hon. Friends think he is profoundly misguided. It is sad that he is seeking to deal with yesterday's situation. As a result of the unity of purpose between many Opposition Members and Conservative Members, Europe has experienced its longest period of peace, and we are all devoted to maintaining that peace, although we disagree about methods of so doing.
    In one respect this is a sad occasion because Sir John Biggs-Davison, the late Member for Epping Forest, is not here with us this evening. I hope that I will be forgiven for mentioning him because I was with him in Angola just before his death and, looking back through past Hansards,I see that he has made valuable contributions to our defence debates. For Conservative Members, he was the acceptable face of the Royal Marines. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the ex-Royal Marine who leads the Social and Liberal Democrats, is not entirely acceptable to us.
    My hon. Friend and I were together in Angola in difficult circumstances. That trip will no doubt be billed as a parliamentary jolly, but it comprised two middle-aged politicians—my hon. Friend suffering from cancer and the effects of chemotherapy treatment and myself with minor ailments, such as back trouble and others that I will not mention in such a serious debate—in a grass hut in Angola. All hon. Members were fond of and shared respect for my hon. Friend, and they will be glad to know that we learned a great deal and had a great deal of fun. Sir John laughed so much about the marvellous instructions for the outside lavatory facilities next to the grass hut in which we slept. There was a "thunderbox" with a straw hut about it. The firm instructions were, "Before you sit down, look inside to make sure there isn't a snake or a scorpion there." That was perhaps the acceptable face of a parliamentary jolly.
    We watched the UNITA forces—this is perhaps a little more in order than my last remark—tackle an assault course with great vigour; vigour worthy of the Royal Marines of which our former hon. and gallant Friend was a member. As they came over the assault course, robust non-commissioned officers were firing, "Bang, bang, bang," at their feet. We both stepped forward to look at this as we thought they were firing blanks. We were told to step back quickly because it was live ammunition and it was nearly a case of two Members of Parliament being shot in the foot by their friends, although I shall not comment on that further.
    That was a classic occasion and John came back undermined, no doubt, by the chemotherapy that he had undergone, but invigorated in spirit by the trip. He stayed on for a little while in South Africa, but I had to come back. It was a matter of enormous distress to all of us that, because his health had been undermined by the treatment and the robust time that we had had, he succumbed so rapidly to pneumonia and other ailments. The sympathy of the House goes out to his family as the regard in which he was held was not confined to Conservative Members or to the Royal Marines, but extended to Opposition Members and to those who were not of his political persuasion. They all respected his integrity.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will deal with the future of the amphibious capability of our armed forces. That was dear to Sir John Biggs-Davison's heart and is dear to me and many other
    944
    hon. Members. We must now decide whether Fearless, Intrepid and other parts of our amphibious capability should be maintained and, if so, how. Perhaps the Minister will be able to update the House on how that will be done, as the devotion of hon. Members on both sides of the House to the Royal Marines is considerable.
    That matter concerns our local and domestic, but very important, capability, I should like to mention next a broader matter before dealing with other matters involving our forces. This is our first debate without Lord Carrington as Secretary-General of NATO and it is appropriate for the House to pay tribute to the work that he has done.
    Mr. Duffy indicated assent.
    Sir Antony Buck: I see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy)—like me, a former Navy Minister —nodding agreement.
    We should pay tribute to what Lord Carrington has done in the defence sphere over so many years and to his important work in NATO. It is not an easy task to keep together a disparate organisation such as NATO with so many different constituent members.
    The only matter over which I have had a minor disagreement with Lord Carrington—"quarrel" is perhaps too strong a word—was over the geographic limitation of the operation of NATO. I have always thought that there was something to be said for recasting N ATO as the shield of the western world—a world with western values— rather than confining it to the geographical guidelines of NATO. There has been flexibility of approach through the establishment of special deployment forces which can go outside NATO, but I should be glad to hear from the Minister about the Government's thinking on this aspect of NATO's affairs.
    Best wishes and firm support go out to the new Secretary-General of NATO, to Mr. Wôrner, certainly in toto from this side of the House and, with respect, in the main, from Opposition Members too. It is appropriate that we send—this is the first opportunity that we have had to do so—a message of support for and confidence in the new Secretary-General. It should be an exhortation of encouragement to him and an affirmation of our support.
    We are extremely lucky that there is such tremendously high morale in the armed forces. Some hon. Members have suggested that there is disunity and demoralisation, but that is not so. I have no doubt that if a Labour Administration were returned, the morale of the armed forces would plummet. I accept that there is not a monopoly of concern about defence matters on the Government Benches for I know that Opposition Members care about defence. The difficulty is that in the Labour party there is a substantial minority whose defence policy is akin to that of many Scandinavians—fortunately, fewer now—which is to send a telegram stating, "We surrender."
    Mr. Tony Banks: That is not true.
    Sir Antony Buck: We have debated the issue in my constituency, where I found that there were unilateralists who took almost precisely that view. I accept that they were few in number.
    Mr. Banks: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Labour party.
    Sir Antony Buck: The hon. Gentleman is a Whip, and no doubt he has engaged in a more accurate count of those in his party who take such a view. I concede and hope that there are not very many.
    Mr. Banks: On invitation, I shall visit the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency on any occasion, if he will have me, to debate the issue. He must understand that what he has suggested is not the policy of the Labour party. It is not even the policy of those who say that we should not have nuclear weapons, that we should relinquish them unilaterally. We believe that the country is best defended by being united within. We shall not merely send out a surrender note.
    Sir Antony Buck: I am delighted to have that exhortation of support for firm defence policies. I accept that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. Unfortunately, a minority—I am prepared to accept that it is a small minority of those who have allegiance to the Labour party —do not take that view. I shall be delighted if the hon. Gentleman will come to my constituency. If he does so, my majority will zoom. I shall be delighted to have him in my constituency at any time.
    We should all be proud of our armed forces. It would be inappropriate, however, if I were not to say a word about Northern Ireland. I do not think that any armed forces other than ours could have sustained the Northern Ireland burden. Certainly no other armed forces could have sustained it with such forbearance and expertise. A message of support for the activities of those in our armed forces should go forward from both sides of the House. Their self-restraint and performance is something of which we should all be proud.
    I see our armed forces being maintained at the present level. It is important that we ensure that they are properly and fully equipped with the latest equipment, whether in the Navy, the Air Force or the Army. We must have an assurance to that effect from my hon. Friend the Minister when he replies. I am sure that he is as determined as my right hon. and hon. Friends to see that they are so equipped in future.
    I represent a garrison town, and I have been in close touch with the armed forces over many years. I know that they are in good heart. We must ensure that they are sustained by a continuation of proper support by way of equipment and otherwise. If my hon. Friends the Ministers are in difficulties with the Treasury, they had better inform us fairly soon. There will be many supporters of maintaining a proper level of defence expenditure. That may not be sufficient to provide everything for which the Chiefs of Staff ask, but we must ensure that the efforts of the armed forces are sustained by the provision of first-class equipment. That is their entitlement. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be determined to ensure that that happens.
    Meanwhile, I thank my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for what they are doing. They are maintaining the credibility of our defence effort within NATO and they are giving just sufficient support to our armed forces to ensure that their superb expertise is supported by being equipped with the finest equipment at all levels. They are entitled to that.
    7.6 pm
    Mr. John Cartwright: Despite the fundamental differences on defence policy that have been revealed in the debate, there will be general and widespread satisfaction that it takes place against the background of much more encouraging East-West relations than we have seen for many years. We have the historic INF treaty and the progress towards a 50 per cent. cut in strategic missiles. There is the prospect of an early start to conventional stability talks. These talks offer the prospect of securing what surely all sides want to see— greater stability of security at lower levels of military deployment.
    Although we welcome the progress that has been made, we must not fall into the trap of assuming that everything before us will be plain sailing. Despite the much greater sense of realism and pragmatism that Mr. Gorbachev has shown, the removal of the threat of Soviet conventional military superiority in Europe will not be easy. NATO is correct to define its negotiating position on the conventional stability talks as concentrating on the aspects of Soviet military power that are threatening to western Europe and that give rise to fears of a surprise attack.
    The NATO concept of equal ceilings that limit the numbers of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and artillery on both sides is a logical response to the current situation. If it is agreed, it will reduce much of the unease that is now felt in western Europe. The removal of the threat of Soviet armour would at the same time remove the most powerful military justification for short range and battlefield nuclear weapons. That is another argument for following up the current NATO priorities.
    To persuade the Soviets to accept ceilings of 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. of NATO's current deployment will involve them accepting massively unequal reductions. Despite the INF precedent, that will not be easy. We shall not see the swift progress that some might have us believe. In the meantime, we see no obvious evidence of any slowdown in the Soviet military build-up. Therefore, it seems prudent common sense that we remain on our guard. We must maintain effective levels of defence and deterrence, while negotiating as toughly as we can to secure reductions of arms on both sides.
    We have all watched the Secretary of State's spirited rearguard action against the Treasury with great interest. It seems to have taken place in hotel bedrooms and elsewhere. We are aware of the problem of the defence budget. We do not know how successful the right hon. Gentleman has been, but we know that, however successful he has been in his negotiations with the Treasury, it will not be the end of the story. Pressures on the defence budget are here to stay.
    The Secretary of State has often made it clear that difficult choices must be faced in making the best use of available defence resources. Some of the choices will undoubtedly affect the capability of our forces to carry out the tasks that are assigned to them. The Government have consistently refused to review existing defence roles. They have consistently declared their determination that they will all be maintained. As the Select Committee on Defence states in its report, which is before the House, the question is how well this can be done, not whether it can be done. That seems to underline the widespread fear that defence resources are now being stretched too thinly to meet too many commitments.

    947
    The pressures are increasing. Each new generation of weapons systems will cost at least twice as much in real terms as those that they replace. We have the additional problem of manpower costs. For example, the cost of service pay and pensions has increased by 30 per cent. since 1984·85. Expenditure on equipment within the defence budget has fallen this year from 45·5 per cent. to 43 per cent. There is a risk that it will fall to a still lower percentage because of the pressure on manpower costs.
    As other speakers have pointed out, we shall soon have to face the emerging problem of demographic changes— the time bomb that has been ticking away for years. In the early 1990s, the number of 15 to 19-year-olds in the population will be down by 30 per cent. When I have referred to that in previous defence debates, Ministers have said that they are well aware of the problem of demographic change, but that it can be dealt with by ensuring that the pay and conditions of the armed forces keep pace with those provided outside.
    In response to that assurance, I would point out that competition for the available young people in our population will be very fierce in the 1990s and beyond. We shall need substantial pay increases to keep pace with what is offered in civilian life, so that we ensure adequate levels of recruitment and, more importantly, retain those trained personnel—key personnel—who will be in demand by civilian employers. Not only pay but conditions of service and the general quality of life in the armed forces will have to keep pace with improving opportunities in civilian life, if pressure from wives and families is not to persuade more of our key personnel to leave the armed services.
    The prospect is of continued and growing pressure on the defence budget. The Government have produced one welcome response—a tougher and more commercial approach in the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and defence contractors in an effort to obtain better value for money in defence spending. I welcome that, but I cannot believe that the savings produced will be enough to bridge the gap between demands and resources.
    It cannot seriously be argued that cancelling Trident would produce substantially extra resources to improve conventional defences. We can debate how far advanced the Trident programme is now, or how far advanced it will be by 1991. Cancellation now would not release massive new resources to improve conventional defence; cancellation costs would involve the nation in a massive waste of public money in converting half-built submarines into some other purpose and in scrapping the warhead production at Aldermaston—and that is in addition to the costly impact on employment levels throughout the defence industry. There is no magic solution in the cancellation of the Trident programme.
    The one ray of hope in a fairly gloomy resource prospect is that all NATO members are facing similar problems. That has reactivated the old interest in burden-sharing and in rationalisation within the Alliance. The impetus comes from the United States, which is determined that Europeans should shoulder more of the burden of their own defence. That is not a new argument from the United States, but it is being presented with much more force because of the anxieties about the United States budget deficit. That American determination has been expressed in many different ways. For example, the Taft commission has toured western European capitals
    948
    twice during the current year. There have been attempts in Congress to make United States defence spending conditional on greater Allied defence efforts.
    Clearly, the problem will not go away, and we must take it seriously. It is sometimes presented too simplistically. Deputy Defence Secretary Taft, for example, recently split the 16 NATO nations into four divisions based solely on an arbitrary assessment of the level of their defence spending. The counter-argument from the Eurogroup is equally predictable. It is true that Europeans provide 90 per cent. of NATO's manpower; 95 percent. ofitsartillery; 85percent. of its tanks; and 80per cent. of its combat-ready aircraft. It is equally true that, in mobilisation strength, 7 million troops could be provided by the Europeans, compared with 3·5 million by the United States. However, such arguments do not cut much ice with the American nation, which is convinced that it is carrying too much of the burden of defending Europe and that it should be showing rather greater interest in other parts of the world.
    There is a need to break out of what has been a fairly sterile argument about input figures for defence spending contrasted with output figures of force levels. NATO's secretary-general, Manfred Wörner, warned us in July this year that the
    "burden sharing debate must not be allowed to degenerate into a numbers game or a trans-Atlantic slanging match".
    That: is sensible advice. There is no point in wasting a great deal of time and effort searching for some magical equity between each of the Alliance partners. That would be as elusive as searching for the philosopher's stone.
    NATO technicians were reported to be hard at work on a burden-sharing formula as long ago as 1951. We do not have a lot to show for their efforts in the intervening 37 years. That is partly because rationalising our defence efforts depends on political will, and there is an understandable fear that national sovereignty will be threatened. Faced with current pressures, we cannot go on with unseemly arguments about who is spending most, who is doing most and who is freeloading. We need a rational assessment on who can do what best on behalf of a united NATO Alliance.
    Within the Alliance, we now have a NATO executive working group which is examining the roles, risks and responsibilities within the Alliance to try to improve our collaborative defence effort. That offers us the opportunity to make some real progress at long last. The aim was well defined by Professor David Greenwood of Aberdeen university in a paper that he produced earlier this year for the North Atlantic Assembly, which stated:
    "The Alliance must look to the distribution of tasks among its members, to remedying the fundamental inefficiency that exists because each member seeks to maintain a broad spectrum of national military capabilities. In short it must contemplate some measure of role specialisation—an intra-Alliance division of labour in the performance of roles and missions, based on the comparative advantages of different countries in different forms of defence provision."
    That involves some loss of national sovereignty, but the days when any one European member of NATO could provide on its own the full range of defence capabilities have long gone. All European nations within NATO now face the same problems: growing pressures on defence budgets, falling manpower resources, and the growing and powerful United States insistence that Europeans must do more to defend themselves. The logical response is to grasp the opportunities provided by closer European defence

    949
    integration within the NATO Alliance. The aim must not be to try to replace the United States effort but to complement and supplement it.
    We have talked about these issues for many years. We cannot now escape the need to get on and do something about them. I urge the British Government to accept a leading role in seeking to establish a genuine and effective European pillar in NATO.
    7.17 pm
    Mr. Keith Speed: I think that I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) has just said. His remarks about NATO's role concentration are sentiments which all of us, whether working for the Western European Union, NATO or the Government Front Bench, accept. All of us in NATO must do a great deal more to bring that about because, as has already been said, resources are limited.
    This debate is bizarre because there are two Opposition amendments—or, rather, there is an official Opposition amendment and another Opposition amendment. The Opposition Front Bench are speaking to what is apparently not official Labour party policy. It is certainly not its conference policy. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made a moving speech on the second amendment. I did not agree with most of it, but I was certainly impressed by the thoughts, the philosophy and the undoubted feeling behind it which, as I understand it, represents the Labour party's conference policy and the policy upon which he and many others will no doubt be fighting the next election. I do not know what the great British public will think of all that, but I do not think that that is a constructive attitude for an official Opposition on such a fundamental subject as defence.
    I turn to more constructive thoughts. I congratulate the Select Committee on Defence, of which I used to be a member, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and his colleagues on a number of excellent reports, including that relating to the White Paper and the one relating to the Royal Navy and the surface fleet. Over the years Select Committees on Defence have asked the Ministry of Defence questions about the numbers of ships, the budget and the squeeze on resources that they forecast several years ago. They did not always receive answers that were relevant or carried a great deal of weight.
    At the end of the day, the way to cut expenditure is either to cut commitments or, as the hon. Member for Woolwich said, increasingly to have role concentration in concert with our allies. Under this and virtually every Government since the war, we have successively increased our commitments while at the same time we have restricted and denied the resources to meet those commitments. I need only state some of the commitments for that to be self-evident. They include the British Army of the Rhine, our forces in the south Atlantic and out maritime and air forces in the eastern Atlantic. They also include the Armilla patrol and offshore patrols for oil and fisheries protection; also, as I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends saw, a Ton class minesweeper which patrolled off Brighton as part of the security for the Conservative party conference.
    950
    We have many commitments in different parts of the world as well as to NATO. We are not entirely fulfilling our NATO commitment, and in that we are not alone as no other NATO country is doing so. However, we know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence now faces a major and important battle with the Treasury for the last tranche of expenditure that he deems necessary. He deems it necessary, I deem it necessary and I believe my right hon. and hon. Friends deem it necessary.
    I must tell my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and his team in the Treasury that at this stage I do not wish there to be unilateral disarmament for the United Kingdom by stealth from the Treasury Bench, for the following reasons. First, there are problems with personnel. The hon. Member for Woolwich and others were right to highlight that. There are not simply problems with pay or conditions of service. Increasingly, nuclear watch keepers, technicians and pilots face real competition from the outside world. For example, a pilot who may be a squadron leader or a lieutenant-commander is aware that his salary cannot compete with that offered by, for example, British Airways or KLM. It goes further than that.
    Whether we like it or not, there have been profound social changes in this country and in the western world. We have heard much about family life, which for many people means spending evenings and weekends at home, enjoying a regular existence from nine to five and spending a lot of time with one's wife and children. Undoubtedly, there are problems with particular aspects of service life stemming from foreign travel and long periods at sea. We have heard about the sea-shore ratio today with more of the Navy's front line spending more time at sea. That causes many difficulties, which reflect pressures and forces on our young men and women. Even if they have been trained in the services, they do not stay in the services or give a full return for their training.
    We must address that problem, which is not unique to this country. Every NATO country which does not rely on conscription for its full professional forces faces that problem. Reference has also been made to the demographic time bomb. That problem has been grossly underestimated by the Ministry of Defence, by British employers and by others.
    There are problems also with equipment, and reference has been made to a figure of about 50 frigates and destroyers. That figure has not been plucked from the air. The Select Committee on Defence examined the issue very carefully. It is an important figure. It represents a minimum required to fulfil our national and NATO commitments. It is a rock-bed minimum to fulfil our NATO force goals, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues are aware.
    About 50 really is not good enough. There should be 50. Fewer than 50 will not be good enough to support the present rate of shipbuilding of type 23 frigates. With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for whom I have a great deal of time, it is no use saying that we can run on some of the existing ships. A Leander frigate has 100 more crew than a type 23. That is wasteful of skilled manpower and very expensive. The chief petty officers, petty officers and junior officers are the people we find it difficult to retain at present. There are also heavy costs involved in running those old ships, which are steamships compared with the modern gas turbine type 23.

    951
    It may be argued that we can run the type 21 and type 42 destroyers longer. All those ships were designed in the 1960s. The Leanders were designed a decade before that. If the Falklands showed us anything, it was that we must have state of the art technology to deal with a state of the art battle. The type 23 is designed for that. It is designed to be our state of the art anti-submarine platform.
    The present very low rate of shipbuilding is no good for commercial shipyards, which are important. We must keep that capability. It is also no good for the maritime activities of Rolls-Royce. Although it has an excellent export record, it needs to continue to supply the Royal Navy. It is also no good if we want to maintain the number of ships that the Select Committee stated was vital.
    The problem with equipment goes further than the Royal Navy. The tank situation is a scandal. I am worried that we may have to go abroad for tanks. The present electronics and optics of existing British tanks are not good enough. It worries me that we have to withdraw from international competitions because our tanks are not good enough to compete with tanks of other forces. Select Committees have referred to that problem in the past.
    There are areas in which we do not do our service men or ourselves a favour by pretending that all is well. We must modernise our tanks and have the minimum number of ships to carry out our capabilities. The same thing could be said about helicopters and aircraft.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) has already referred to the long-delayed decision about an amphibious capability, on which the whole future of the Royal Marines rests. The amphibious capability will not just provide a future for the Royal Marines; it is right for NATO's northern flank and everything that we are supposed to be doing in that important part of the world. The continuing uncertainty about that capability is not doing much good for the Royal Marines, the Royal Navy or for our partners in NATO in that part of the world.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that he has put his finger fairly and squarely on the dilemma regarding role specialisation and buying equipment from this country? He mentioned the importance of role specialisation earlier, yet he has just referred to the importance of buying a new British tank.
    Mr. Speed: With respect to my hon. Friend, I did not refer to the importance of buying a British tank. I said that I was very unhappy because it looks as though we may have to buy a tank from the United States or Germany. I believe that we should have an indigenous armoured fighting vehicle and tank capability in this country. I am certain that we need a new tank for the next decade. If it cannot be provided from our resources, at least I hope that it can be built here, even if it must be from a design from abroad.
    Our first priority must be to get the kit and equipment, which must be among the best. It cannot be second best. I was greatly impressed by the Leopard 2 and Abraham tanks. If we can produce a British tank as good as those —and I hope we can—fine, but time will not wait. There is also a constraint on money, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of that.
    Mention has already been made of the real problems posed by Gorbachev's era of perestroika and glasnost. Many people make the point, which was perhaps
    952
    encapsulated in the speech made by the hon. Member for Walton, "Don't worry. We can afford to cut our defences. We can afford to give up our nuclear and other capabilities because all is now going to be right with the world." If that is so, why are the Soviets continuing with an enormous tank programme? Why the Oscar 2 and the Typhoon 2 submarines? The Oscar 2 submarine is not even a strategic nuclear missile submarine. It is designed to attack surface ships. It has on board cruise missiles and SS19s with a range of about 240 nautical miles. The Oscar 2 submarine is 510m long and nuclear-powered. It is virtually unsinkable by conventional weapons.
    Why are the Soviets building two nuclear-powered conventional aircraft carriers? Why are they building submarines of the Akula class, one of the quietest submarines in the world and extremely difficult to detect? When we look at what is happening we see no sign, despite all Mr. Gorbachev's words, that, on military procurement, the Soviet Union is cutting down its expenditure on submarines, aircraft, rocket launchers, artillery and tanks. The Soviets are still building overseas bases in Syria and elsewhere, notwithstanding Mr. Gorbachev's speeches about closing down overseas bases and withdrawing to the Soviet Union. That is not happening at the moment.
    We need at least an extra £1 billion to meet the problems faced by our armoured fighting vehicles, our amphibious capability and the frigate force. The Ministry of Defence could save considerable sums of money in a number of areas. If there were an office reduction programme in line with the dockyard and workshop reduction programme, there might be quite a saving on real estate and people. The Ministry of Defence has offices dotted all over London—some leasehold, others freehold —that must be costing a great deal of money. We all know how high office rents and capital values are in London. Does the Ministry need all those offices? We have heard a great deal about the diminishing number of admirals, generals and air marshals who are needed for the shrinking number of aircraft, ships and tanks, but what about the square feet of office space? That is one exercise that ought to be carried out.
    Secondly, do we really need—all within 100 miles of each other, and within commuting distance of London —Farnborough, Boscombe Down and RAE Bedford—all very valuable real estate? They are doing an excellent job, but the functions of all three could be concentrated on two sites and one could be sold off. The mind boggles at its capital value. It would make the Royal Ordnance factory sales seem a mere bagatelle. Substantial sums of money could go into the Ministry of Defence coffers and be used for the sort of jobs that my hon. Friends and I want to have done. Getting rid of these large capital commitments has revenue implications. I suspect that a great deal more could be squeezed out of the Ministry of Defence's real estate, but that there is not very much more to be squeezed out of the front line, whether it be the soldiers, sailors and airmen or the dockyards and the support facilities. I ask my right hon. Friend to have a really good look at that point.
    However, even if the Ministry of Defence sold one of the airfields or got rid of three major office blocks tomorrow, that would not solve the short-term problems. I hope that the Treasury has been listening to this debate and that it will give to my right hon. Friend the extra money that he needs this year. We are far from being out of the wood. The Alliance needs to do a great deal more,

    953
    not least to make sure that we have a strong hand to play within the Alliance in the conventional disarmament talks that have hardly yet begun.
    7.33 pm
    Ms. Joan Ruddock: Yesterday evening British television showed American technicians destroying physically, under the scrutiny of Soviet observers, the first cruise missiles to be removed from Western Europe. I am certain that ordinary people around the world felt a degree of satisfaction and enhanced security at the sight of those pictures. This unprecedented step towards real nuclear disarmament is symbolic of the profound changes that are taking place around us— changes which, while superficially described in the White Paper, have clearly not impinged on the thinking of the British Government.
    We are witnessing nothing less than the crumbling of the old post-war order, with its cold war certainties and rigid policies. New thinking and new expectations are challenging established totems, which would have been unheard of even a few years ago.
    In the Soviet Union signs of change are increasingly evident, despite what Conservative Members have said, in the new language of modernisation and democratisation. New thinking is challenging accepted ideas not only in internal Warsaw pact relations but in the ideas of security and defence. The stranglehold that the concepts of "deterrence", "strategic superiority" and "parity" have had on super-power thinking show signs of weakening. In his book "Perestroika" Mr. Gorbachev speaks of amending the USSR's
    "strategic concepts to gear them more to the aims of defence".
    In his public statements he speaks of "reasonable sufficiency" as a military goal. According to United States military experts, this represents a fundamental shift from a military doctrine of offence to defence.
    I suggest that Soviet willingness to make asymmetric cuts in military forces could allow a restructuring of the armed forces of both NATO and the Warsaw pact so as to preclude surprise attack. It is a shift in thinking that is clearly advantageous to the West, offering, as it does, the solution to the British Government's frequent assertion that it is the imbalance of conventional forces that determines the need for nuclear weapons. But where in the White Paper and where in the statement that we have heard tonight are the Government's plans? Where are the Government's responses to these remarkable new ideas? Perhaps the Secretary of State will enlighten us.
    In the United States, too, a re-evaluation is going on, largely precipitated by its changing economic role in the world. Faced with a decline in economic pre-eminence, the United States is confronting an enormous budget deficit at the same time as there is a challenge to its world view. Recent reports suggest that the Pentagon is aiming for cuts of around $227 billion, so it would not be surprising if the $150 billion poured every year into NATO by the United States is receiving sharp scrutiny and demands that European countries should contribute more towards the costs of NATO.
    Many of the signals coming from the United States are contradictory, but few doubt that America's increasing
    954
    interest in the nations of the Pacific rim and its strategic interests worldwide will lead to a re-evaluation of its European role.
    These discussions are echoed in Europe, not least in the Western European Union. The successful conclusion of the INF treaty has raised many questions about the kind of defence that is needed in Europe, ranging from suggestions of a third European nuclear super-power to proposals for an ultimately non-nuclear Europe.
    What is the British Government's response to these times of change? I shall give two examples. Last November the Prime Minister stated:
    "What I think we have to watch is that there do not grow up substructures in Europe which could have the effect of undermining the links across the Atlantic."
    In May, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
    "We have been looking at perestroika and at the speeches of Mr. Gorbachev and we have not found much which justifies any decrease in our efforts to keep up our defences."
    The Government are in the forefront of opposition to change. I can express it no better than a man who, I believe, may be a friend of the Conservative party, Christopher Coker. In his recent publication, "Conservatives and Defence," he writes:
    "The ignorance, complacency and ill-placed sense of moral and intellectual superiority of the Conservatives have prevented them from observing the changed nature of the strategic environment. As a result, they have failed to devise policies which would enable them to deal with the reality now confronting them. It is the Tories who now appear to be encouraging the most dangerous trends of all."
    The Government fear, above all else, the collapse of the old post-war, cold war order—an order that gave Britain an ostensible role as a major power, a role that has never had much substance and that masks Britain's real place in the world as a middle-ranking power. Yet the Prime Minister persists in an old-fashioned subservience to the United States that not even the Americans want. There is no special relationship, other than that of dependence. Britain is dependent upon the United States for the construction, delivery, maintenance and, indeed, use of the so-called independent nuclear deterrent. Our defence policy continues to be formed on false and nostalgic premises.
    I had hoped that some of the new thinking might just have crept into the "Statement on the Defence Estimates," but I found none. Instead, the White Paper devotes only a few paragraphs of grudging acknowledgment to Gorbachev's reforms and the importance of the INF treaty, followed by pages of traditional cold war nonsense about the Soviet desire to impose their will upon the world. The immense frustration engendered among Opposition Members by such attitudes is shared by many of our European partners who recognise that the British Government are standing in the way of better East-West relations. The Italian Prime Minister obviously felt that recently when he sarcastically told Britain's Foreign Secretary that the European Community could not wait for the Soviets to adopt Victorian values before talking to Mr. Gorbachev with one voice.
    The White Paper—and, indeed, the Secretary of State this evening—makes the time-old assertion that NATO strength brought about the INF treaty. The fact is that that treaty came about largely through the persistence of Mr. Gorbachev, who called NATO's bluff by accepting the zero option originally proposed—and it is on record— precisely because NATO believed that the Soviet Union would never accept it. In practice, the Government's

    955
    response to the INF treaty has been mealy-mouthed. As far as we can glean—and we have only a dribble of information—the Government are wholeheartedly com-mitted to a so-called modernisation programme that will allow compensatory deployment of new nuclear systems. That will make a mockery of the pictures on television last night and will circumvent the INF treaty. The new plans will bring in United States sea-launched cruise missiles under NATO control, develop new air-launched stand-off missiles, upgrade nuclear artillery systems with weapons of longer range and higher explosive power and deploy more United States nuclear bombers. With those new systems following so soon after the INF treaty, no breathing space is being allowed to test out new thinking and to allow for the consideration of less confrontational developments.
    Perhaps the Secretary of State could tell the House why that is happening and why, in the defence Estimates, there is no explicit mention of the cost and implications of those new weapons systems. In particular, why are the Government showing their indifference to the peace process by their enthusiasm for modernising short-range nuclear missiles, even though—as my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill:) said—the German Government are so clearly opposed to such modernisation?
    The Government also appear to have back-tracked on one of their policies. Their lukewarm support for a comprehensive test ban treaty has now been reduced to support for the principle of such a treaty. Perhaps the Secretary of State could say why, together with the United States and France, Britain voted in the United Nations against resolution 42/26B last November, which called for a cessation of nuclear testing. The resolution was supported by the Soviet Union and it was passed in the United Nations. Since then, several countries have called for an amendment conference to be convened to discuss converting the partial test ban treaty, to which Britain is a signatory, to a comprehensive test ban treaty.
    Will the Government now give a more positive response to that initiative? Will the Secretary of State say whether they will back the call for an amendment conference? I guess that it is more likely that he will tell the House, yet again, that verification is a problem. I must tell him that it is now commonly agreed that seismic tests can detect explosions down to a threshold as low as 1 kilotonne. Even if he cannot bring himself to believe the scientists, he might at least acknowledge that by the time any such treaty were concluded the rapid advance in technology would mean that verification would satisfy even him.
    It is clear that the Government's policy offers nothing new or radical, just more of the same old incantations that we have heard from the Conservative Benches tonight. Yet, no matter how loudly the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State keep chanting those messages, they cannot arrest changing perceptions. Even Conservative Members appear not to be immune. In a recent poll almost half of the Conservative Members who replied expressed support for Gorbachev's declared objective of a nuclear-free world by the year 2000, and 98 per cent. showed support for the START proposals for a 50 per cent. cut in strategic systems, despite the implications for Britain's purchase of Trident. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) has displayed previously unsuspected radical tendencies with his call for a Europe free from short-range nuclear weapons and a tank-free central Europe. Furthermore, in a recent Gallup
    956
    poll, 61 per cent. of Conservative voters were opposed to modernising nuclear weapons and wanted more negotiations for further reductions. The Government are way out of step with the wishes of their supporters, let alone the country.
    Instead of nostalgically clinging to outdated ideas, Britain should be in the forefront of post cold war thinking. That is our major challenge. Although it may be hard for Conservative Members to understand, we are dealing as much in the realm of ideas as in arguments about hardware. As the recent Brundtland report said,
    "We must learn to think globally and in a long-term perspective. We share the responsibility for a common future. We must change our perceptions so that sustainable development and the conservation of our planetary heritage comes to the forefront."
    We can no longer afford the luxury of simple nationalism and of ignoring the effects of our actions upon our neighbours. National security no longer means just protecting our nation from the threat of invasion. It must mean dealing with the much greater and more real threat of environmental disasters—global warming, ozone layer depletion and acidification of forests and lakes. Those are the real threats, not some archaic ideas about Soviet hordes sweeping across Europe.
    Our future foreign and defence policies must be based on notions of common security, not just national security; of respect for different ideologies and cultures, not primitive fear of difference; of breaking down the barriers that lead to concepts of the enemy, not setting them in concrete. In any society based on notions of peace and justice there can be no place for weapons that depencl on a threat to destroy the world. Nuclear deterrence is no longer a credible policy. As Olaf Palme stated in his report,
    "States can no longer strive towards strengthening their security at another's expense. It is only possible to achieve it through joint effort."
    Unenlightened self-interest lies at the heart of the Government's policies. It is no wonder that their enthusiasm for arms reductions is so lukewarm. The Government are not, and never will be, the party of multilateral disarmament or, indeed, any sort of disarmament, because their ultimate goal is not the denuclearisation but the renuclearisation of Europe— preferably with, but, if not, without, United States involvement. In contrast, the Labour party knows that many concrete steps could be taken now to further disarmament and that many are already on the agendas of other west European countries and of the Soviet Union. Most are viewed with suspicion, if not hostility, by the Government.
    Within NATO, we could make a major contribution to the peace process by divesting ourselves of British nuclear weapons. We could join the majority of non-nuclear NATO countries. We could encourage other countries, notably West Germany, which are already uneasy about modernisation and NATO dependence on nuclear weapons, to move towards a non-nuclear policy. Within NATO, a timetable could be set on a step-by-step basis for a reappraisal of NATO's strategy and a meeting of the proposals that were made in the Soviet Union.
    As part of that new thinking, it is inevitable that we loosen our ties with the United States and plan our future within Europe. However, it will benefit no one if Western Europe were to replicate super-power relations by becoming a third nuclear-based power. It is already worrying that the Western European Union is committed

    957
    to increasing harmonisation of Europe's security based on nuclear weapons. The alternative, supported by everyone in the Labour party, is to build on the INF treaty, fully to exploit the opportunities of nuclear and conventional arms reductions and to move towards a vision of common security. As a spur to such efforts, I suggest that the House remembers that we, the Americans, the West Europeans and the Soviets hold hostage the majority of the people on this planet. They suffer destitution, poverty and early death as a direct or indirect result of our policies.
    The Government are ill-equipped to deal with these challenges. They have no new ideas. They are becoming isolated in Europe because of their inflexible stance on nuclear weapons and their cold war mentality. They are an obstacle to progress on arms control agreements and to the growth of peace and mutual understanding in Europe, which is what our people want and what the White Paper fails to serve.
    7.51 pm
    Mr. Michael Jopling: I have never agreed much with what I have heard the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) say. She told us tonight—I wrote it down—that she thought the INF treaty had been achieved because Mr. Gorbachev had called NATO's bluff. That is the most arrant piece of nonsense that I have heard for a long time.
    I must begin by apologising to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). I was unable to be in the House for the last few minutes of my right hon. Friend's speech and for the early part of that of the hon. Member for Clackmannan. I am sorry, as I should have liked to have heard what they said.
    I agreed with my right hon. Friend when he emphasised that we must not lower our guard in the NATO Alliance at this time and that we must maintain the policy that has led us to be able to look to a more peaceful future because of the strength that we have maintained. I wish that my right hon. Friend had had a little more time. He might have said a little more about the need for taking public opinion with us. The majority are with us at the moment. I disagree with the hon. Member for Deptford. It is crucial that we continue that process in the years ahead.
    All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have welcomed the international efforts to reduce the numbers of weapons of destruction around the world and to move to a greater degree of arms control. We have heard about the range of current discussions. I refer to discussions on the already agreed INF treaty, to the discussions on the proposed 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear weapons, to the forthcoming discussions on conventional arms reductions and, finally, to the discussions on chemical weaponry. I shall express my concern about the events that would face us if we were to have a successful conclusion to all such talks and where such a successful conclusion would leave the Soviet bloc.
    A successful conclusion to all the talks could leave the Soviets almost as potent a military force as they are now. If that is so, we must always remember that Mr. Gorbachev's years in power are finite and that there is no reason to suppose that the old and the cold in the Soviet Union will not be reinstated in power. I shall mention each
    958
    of the four sets of discussions that are taking place and state where their successful conclusion could leave the Soviet Union.
    First, I refer to the INF treaty. Of course we all welcome it, but its agreement constitutes only a tiny part of existing nuclear weaponry. In any case, as we know, it covers only land-based weapons. Again, as we know, Warsaw pact countries and the NATO powers are fast developing alternative weapons to fulfil their roles. A successful conclusion to the INF treaty does not greatly dent Soviet armoury.
    Secondly, I refer to the START discussions. I am sure that we would all like to see a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear weapons. Even if such a reduction has not been achieved by the outgoing Reagan Administration, it would still leave a massive Soviet weaponry overkill with the 50 per cent. of weapons that would be left. In the event of a successful START agreement, the Soviets would be only marginally less a military threat in the hands of a more malevolent regime than the existing one in the Soviet Union, and we should not forget that.
    Thirdly, I refer to the discussions that we hope will shortly begin on conventional arms reductions. They are the most important part of current international diplomacy. Conventional weaponry matters are of the greatest urgency, given the huge Soviet advantage in tanks, artillery and submarines, to which my right hon. Friend referred. At the moment the signs are that the Soviets may well be prepared to talk of heavy asymmetric reductions to move towards parity in conventional weaponry. Of course, we must realise that a considerable part of their huge conventional advantage is in the form of outdated equipment, particularly tanks, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Clackmannan. That advantage is also partly manifest by gross Soviet troop overmanning.
    I was recently in the United States with my colleagues from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We were told of an American estimate of Soviet conventional forces in the western part of Europe. They could be reduced by 30,000 tanks—I think that is near the figure that the hon. Gentleman used—and by 150,000 men without impairing the strike power of Soviet forces in Europe. We must remember that, even if we can agree on substantial Soviet conventional arms reductions on a massively asymmetric scale, their strike power would be only marginally reduced.
    Fourthly, I refer to the discussions on chemical weaponry that are taking place between East and West. There has been far too little discussion of, and attention paid to, the threat of terrible weapons that are almost as horrific as atomic or nuclear weapons. Again, the Soviets have a huge advantage. We have seen in the recent Iran-Iraq war what devastating agents of death they can be.
    In the United States one can meet many people who will say flatly that an agreement on chemical weaponry is impossible either to monitor or to verify. That means that the capacity for cheating is immense.
    In this fourth sector, again we have the prospect of a so-called successful conclusion to the current discussions, but it could still leave us with a massive Soviet threat.
    To sum it all up, under Gorbachev the Soviets give us cautious grounds for real hope and optimism. That hope will increase if more agreements can be made and, most important, if we can see at last a reduction in the flood of Soviet defence spending and construction in preparing its military machine. It is now, and to a greater extent in the

    959
    years ahead, that it is essential that we are not carried away on a flood of complacency on the back of mass public euphoria within the NATO Alliance countries. We must never forget that we have reached this point of optimism only because of our refusal to budge from a position of strength in the years ahead. As my right hon. Friend said, if the strategy of the NATO countries had followed the lines that the hon. Member for Deptford advocated we would not have had a sigh of a chance of reaching an agreement of that sort.
    We are already seeing within NATO some of the backsliders acting as though one swallow does make a summer. I shall take as examples some of those countries that have abysmally low defence spending as proportions of their GNP. Canada, with its miserable 1·2 per cent. of GNP, is already opting out of its responsibilities on the northern flanks. Spain is seeking to banish the 401st Air Wing. Denmark is refusing access to ships which it suspects might be carrying nuclear weapons. Already we are seeing this false euphoria, which we should resist. The United States, which no one could possibly call a backslider, is demanding more equitable burden sharing. Given the size of its deficits and the need for the new Administration to deal with that, it is hardly surprising that it should be seeking to reduce its NATO responsibilities and get others to step into the breach.
    I have tried to show why it would be insane to reduce our defence capacity by more than we are forced to do by the current encouraging arms reduction talks. There is a massive job to do with public opinion. All of us who believe in the principles proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must do everything possible to explain why we must not throw away our strong position, which has led to such promising prospects.
    I commend to the House the recent report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs entitled "The Political Impact of the Process of Arms Control and Disarmament", which I was happily involved in producing. The report attempts to explain that reduced defence budgets are not just around the corner. If we can demonstrate to the public that defence spending must be kept up in the years ahead, I believe that we can continue to progress towards disarmament, a fairer balance in arms between the great nations and a greater prospect of peace.
    I read in the press that my right hon. Friend is still negotiating in the horrors of the annual PESC round, which I remember so well. It may be that, like the prisoner at the bar, he will be hauled before the Star Chamber court. I remember being in that most uncomfortable position for several years. On at least two of those occasions I think that my right hon. Friend was one of the judges. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is well experienced in arguing and dealing with that rather intimidating body. I hope that he will not give in and will demand that defence spending is not ruthlessly cut. I am sure that is what the Treasury is seeking to achieve, because its great desire is to wish to cut everything in sight. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that our defences are not reduced, because that would be fatal at this time.
    8.6 pm
    Mr. Ted Garrett: I was not surprised when the Secretary of State chided Labour Members on the Labour party's defence policies, because I do not understand them either. I am concerned that, in the
    960
    struggle within the Labour party, no one will lose sight of the essential need to defend this country—sometimes at a heavy cost. Nothing remains static in this world. The role of the armed forces is to defend this nation in its hour of need. We never know when that need will arise. In my lifetime, as in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), desperate situations have arisen.
    I was in the Labour party before the war as a young Socialist, and I used to think I was a militant. I was looked upon as being rather odd because I supported the Churchill stance on rearmament. As an apprentice, I worked in an armaments factory. We used to make 25 lb field guns and light tanks with two-pounder guns and anti-tank weapons which were useless. They were pea shooters. However, with the grace of God, this nation was able partially to rearm at the outbreak of the 1939–45 war. Had we not done so, none of us would be here today as democrats.
    I have always considered it my paramount duty to look at the practical side of life and—perhaps I lack the intellect —not get too involved in the intellectual discussions on nuclear rearmament or non-nuclear arms. I am disappointed with some of those who have spoken. When we are dealing with nuclear weapons, we should realise that we are not dealing solely with the Soviet-United Kingdom-American complex. How do we know that China, India, Pakistan, Iraq or Israel cannot release a nuclear weapon next week? Until that threat is negotiated away during such discussions as have been mentioned, we must face the reality of having a counter-threat.
    I know that what I have said may be unpopular with some of my colleagues in the House, but it is an inherent gut feeling that my constituents in the north have. The vast majority have that gut feeling. One of the problems that faces the British Labour movement is that it cannot convince the electorate that it is a party that is prepared to defend this nation.
    Having made those points, I will come back to the bread-and-butter issues.
    I have been impressed by the arguments that have been made to keep the Corps of the Royal Marines intact—the House should remember that it has been threatened with abolition since 1981. It is difficult to see how morale can be at its best within that group of professional soldiers.
    I have a special interest in the case of Swan Hunter, which is in my constituency. Studies have been made of the aviation support ships that will carry troops. Troop-carrying helicopters would be those ships' main capability in the event of or need for an assault. The Fearless and the Intrepid, both assault ships, are nearing the end of their lives and I was interested to learn that consideration is being given to extending their lives.
    Before this two-day debate ends, I hope that the Minister will give us some idea how we are progressing in placing contracts for aviation support ships. Preferably, there should be one for Swan Hunter. In the long run, would it not be possible to consider building two, or possibly three, more assault ships if the Royal Marines are to remain a fighting unit and the unit with responsibility for NATO and the northern waters? We need such ships. It should also be borne in mind that Swan Hunter built the Sir Galahad to replace the one that was sunk, and that therefore it has the knowledge and expertise to carry out such contracts.

    961
    I draw the Minister's attention to page 52, paragraph 516, of the statement. I am heartened to realise that some of my worst fears about the publicity given to the armed forces because of various pranks, horseplay, bullying or whatever one may like to call it and which got into the media and were given prominence have not been realised. The paragraph appears to suggest that the adverse effects of such behaviour have not been as bad as expected. I trust that the Minister can assure me that that is correct.
    Contrary to some views expressed, morale has been slightly sapped within the armed forces at this time. I think that one of the problems is that some of the units are over-stretched. For example, I would like to know whether all the infantry battalions are up to their strength of 650; I would be surprised if they were. I would like to know how many soldiers from those battalions are sent on training courses or exercises, thereby undermining the capability of those battalions.
    As for welfare, I want to know how service men are to combat the rise in house prices when their terms of contract are ended and they must look to the market to find alternative accommodation. This applies to all ranks, from brigadier down to the ordinary corporal or fusilier. What financial assistance can be provided to put them back in civvy life and to help them compete in the house price market?
    In view of the time, I shall cut the further remarks that I had intended to make. I hope, however, that the questions that I have put will produce reasonable replies from the Minister.
    8.13 pm
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The House has heard two remarkable speeches tonight from the Labour Benches, both sincere and both genuine. The hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) made those speeches. I can only say that the views that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Wallsend are those that are expressed to me by genuine Labour voters, who say that they cannot vote for Labour candidates who espouse views like those expressed by the hon. Member for Walton.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman rose——
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall not give way, because there is not much time and many hon. Members wish to speak.
    I welcome what the hon. Member for Wallsend has said. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who is not with us at the moment, said that we are isolated in Europe on the question of nuclear deterrence. Alas, she has failed to read the common platform which was adopted by the Western European Union:
    "We are each determined to carry our share of the common defence in both the conventional and the nuclear field, in accordance with the principles of risk- and burden-sharing, which are fundamental to allied cohesion"
    The hon. Lady has also failed to recall that Spain and Portugal wish to join the WEU. To my knowledge, Spain does not have a Conservative Government and to join the
    962
    WEU it must subscribe to The Hague platform. Spain is desperately anxious to join, and we are anxious to have it within the WEU.
    The hon. Member for Deptford is right in one thing when she says that Britain is isolated in Europe, but she got it slightly wrong. The hon. Lady should have said that British Socialists are isolated in Europe because one has only to watch the faces of other European Socialists to see that our Socialists are out on a limb—I exclude the hon. Member for Wallsend.
    It is at least 10 years since I last spoke in a defence debate. I used to be a member of the Defence Committee along with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert). In those days, the Defence Committee did, as it does now, a first-class job. Alas, I do not notice some of those same views coming forward tonight from the Labour Benches.
    I have the great privilege of having followed my friend Sir Frederic Bennett in leading the United Kingdom delegation to the WEU. I am glad to see the references to the WEU in the White Paper, particularly in this year when Britain is in the chair of that organisation. I must say as firmly as I can that what is now being done by the Foreign Secretary and by the Secretary of State for Defence is setting an example to all who have to follow in the chair. They are making the organisation work effectively.
    The WEU was very much like the sleeping princess. It was created in 1954 and virtually slumbered for 30 years except for the interest expressed by the parliamentary Assembly of the WEU. Its reactivation in Rome was designed to create a European pillar. It was intended not to be a rival to NATO, but to complement NATOs work. It should be borne in mind that France is an active participant in the WEU, which she is not in NATO, and that France played a major role in the reactivation of the WEU.
    The two major events which are referred to in the Statement on the Defence Estimates and which are extremely important are The Hague platform, which bound all the members to the defence of their partners at their borders, and the use, if necessary, of nuclear weapons. Those are extremely important binding undertakings agreed by the sovereign nations who are members. One may say that those are just words, but how have those words been translated into action? They were translated into action during the recent troubles in the Gulf, when all the nations of the WEU joined in the minesweeping operation. That even included the non-naval nation of Luxembourg, which made a financial contribution to the operation and was thus involved with her other partners in this vital work.
    The WEU's action in the Gulf shows what can be done in a very difficult situation. Many of us were aware that that conflict held the seeds of a third world war.
    Now the WEU awaits the accession of Spain and Portugal. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies tonight, I hope that he can say that, when the ministerial council meets next month, it will be able to say that it endorses the accession of those two countries so that the parliamentary Assembly of the WEU can welcome them as full members later this year. There has been a great deal of delay on this issue, not by United Kingdom Ministers, but by Ministers generally. The parliamentary Assembly has wanted Spain and Portugal to join us for well over three

    963
    years, but only now, under the British chairmanship, is real progress being made. I hope that this will move fast enough for the decision to be taken at the November meeting.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, had those who espouse the cause put forward by the hon. Member for Deptford in her previous incarnation, been successful, there would have been no INF treaty. What worried me was the view in the United States that the INF treaty was not good for Europe. I was glad, as a member of the presidential committee of WEU, to go to the Hill and talk to Mr. Taft, representatives and senators in order to convince them of the urgent necessity of ratifying that treaty. WEU played an important part in convincing the Americans of the need for an early and substantial ratification.
    During our visit, we heard clear evidence from a Congressional sub-committee and others that, whoever wins the election next month in America, the burden-sharing issue will not go away. We have a responsibility because Europe has signally failed to get over in America the message of what Europe is doing in its own defence. I hope that attention will be turned to spelling out loud and clear the message that Europe is doing more than its fair share. It is satisfied to do it, but we do not want it said in America that we are hiding behind what the Americans are doing. We are in the forefront, doing an enormous amount, but the message is not getting across.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who is a colleague of mine on the WEU delegation, has already told us that, whenever one talks in America about what WEU is doing in its own defence and what NATO is doing for Europe's defence, it is greeted almost with amazement. Few people understand either the depth of commitment of the Europeans to their own defence or the financial sacrifices being made by a vast number of countries.
    I have one slight quarrel with my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). He was absolutely right about the role of Canada in NATO under a Liberal Government, but the present Conservative Government are making massive efforts to reverse that disastrous trend. They are moving as fast as they can with increased expenditure to try to bring Canada closer to what should be an acceptable level. The sudden volte-face of the new Democrats is interesting. They no longer say that they will pull out of NATO at once if they win; they realise, unlike the Labour party, that that is not popular among those whom they expect to vote for them.
    Mr. Douglas: We have never said that.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Some Labour Members wish to pull out of NATO, and we know it.
    Otherwise, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserves our full support for his efforts to get value for money in his Department. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made clear, we still need to make better use of Ministry of Defence assets, many of which are unused or under-used, and more attention needs to be paid to cost overruns and to the constant specification changes which have bedevilled many of the major projects that the Ministry has tried to initiate over the past decade. [Interruption.]I leave aside the bullets ordered by the Labour Government, which were mentioned earlier in the debate.
    964
    I look forward to my right hon. Friend trying to decide quickly on the new generation of battle tank. It is better to have something which is available and practicable than to continue hoping for Utopia, because Utopia ain't going to come, whether in the world of commerce or in defence. We need something to replace our aging tanks as quickly as possible.
    It has already been said, and I make no apology for repeating it, that we owe a real debt to those who serve in our armed forces. I am glad to know that, at least on this side of the House, we give full, unqualified support to them, whether they be marines or members of the SAS doing a difficult job in Gibraltar.
    8.25 pm
    Mr. Thomas Graham: I should like to express to the House the anger, resentment and concern of my constituents at the recently announced closure of the Royal Ordnance factory at Bishopton. Anger and resentment at job losses are commonly felt emotions in my area which, in recent years, has suffered major closure after major closure.
    Everyone associates Renfrew, West and Inverclyde with the closure of the Talbot car factory at Linwood—a company which was bolstered by public funds but which deserted more than 5,000 of my people and then sold its assets to realise as much money as possible from a community which served it well for so many years. Coincidentally, the assets of Talbot at Linwood were largely sold to foreign countries and Talbot consolidated its profit base at its factories abroad—a familiar tale when one stops to consider the background to the closure of the ROF in Bishopton.
    But while the community has barely recovered from this massive closure, it has had others heaped upon it. There was the closure of India Tyres at Inchinnan, Prescold at Hillington, Levi Strauss in Inchinnan, and massive reductions in staff at Rolls-Royce, Chivas Regal, Babcocks and a host of small factories. So the litany continues, leaving my constituency with one of the highest levels of unemployment in Scotland.
    It is against the background of a community beset by job losses and with little hope that my people are trying to come to terms with the effect of the closure at Bishopton. It is against that background that the work force at Bishopton accepted loyally, and with no small measure of trust, the privatisation of the ROF when it was bought by British Aerospace. They recognised the Government's philosophy, the drive towards the free market and the abandonment of the underpinning of key defence industries through social ownership, and, with their new owners, they set themselves the task of working productively to make the new arrangements work. The work force accepted new production targets, they co-operated in decreasing unit costs and helped to implement new flexible working conditions. The installation of new plant and methods of working commissioned by the company received the full support of the workers. But it is that sort of work force in a specialised industry which demands high skills and commitment. The workers take pride in their service to the defence of their country. The industry is renowned for the long service of its employees and it has an exemplary industrial relations

    965
    record. To many, working at ROF Bishopton is more than just a job. It is a way of life for them, their families and the community.
    To that group of loyal servants came a new employer, British Aerospace. I have the annual report of that company for 1987. It boasts wide success in many aspects of its operation, not the least of which is its relationships with its employees. It states:
    "The commitment to business objectives which stems from employee involvement strategies is a key feature of the company's employment relations policy. 1987 has seen further development of the Company's communications practices which provides the business awareness upon which such involvement can be built. Joint problem-solving and consultative forums are increasing in number and impact, thereby increasing the opportunities for employees to contribute to business decisions."
    The workers at the Royal Ordnance factory at Bishopton embraced that generous spirit of participation. Indeed, several other hon. Members and I joined the union and management at Bishopton at a meeting which marked the involvement of the factory, its management and workers with elected members of the community. At that "joint problem-solving and consultative forum"—to use the words of the chairman of British Aerospace—there was no mention of redundancy, rationalisation, lack of profitability, rundown and closure. But, only a few weeks later, on 6 October, the rumours started. The very mention of closure was unthinkable to the work force and alarming to the community. Sadly, the rumours were confirmed the following day in a statement from the company announcing the closure of the factory at Bishopton with the loss of 1,200 jobs.
    In sheer human terms, that was a breathtaking example of the callous and cynical indifference of a private company which, on the one hand, boasts about its positive relationship with its work force and Members of the House while, on the other, it prepares detailed plans to ditch 1,200 jobs and devastate a community. We are angry about the secrecy and deception of the company, whose representatives met us a few weeks ago, not in a joint problem-solving and consultative exercise but to pull the wool over our eyes while it prepared the destruction of a factory and a way of life.
    We are even more angry about the deception of the Government, who have extolled the virtues of privatisation and alleged the efficiency of the market place and the freedom of enterprise while turning a blind eye to the effects of the closure on my constituents. The entire community will be affected. Behind the 1,200 workers who will be made redundant are 1,200 families who will lose an income and lose the dignity of employment. Behind the 1,200 redundancy notices that will be issued lies the shattered pride of a community which for generations has tried to acquire the skills necessary in this essential work. Behind 1,200 lost jobs are the innumerable training opportunities lost to our children—skills lost for ever to a country proud of the tradition of defending itself in times of crisis. Behind the 1,200 severance pay slips that will be issued lies an economic loss to the entire community, with small businesses already closing due to the lack of trade. The effects of the closure will be long-lasting and far-reaching.
    The platitudes of the Scottish Office are insulting because we realise, just as the community has been shown
    966
    yet again in sharp relief, that the Government do not care about the individuals who make up the society that they are elected to govern. The Secretary of State has never suffered unemployment, as I and my constituents have. The Secretary of State has never had to survive on the poverty income that awaits the workers at Bishopton when they go on the dole. The Secretary of State has never experienced the numbing reality that, at his age, if he were made redundant from Bishopton, he would never work again. Yet that is the fate to which he and the Government have consigned my constituents.
    The announcement of the closure not only pinpoints serious questions about the Secretary of State's personal competence to ensure that the country's defence is adequately underpinned by long-term strategic resource planning which is under the direct control of Her Majesty's Government, but lays bare the bankruptcy of the argument that privatisation is good for industry, for Britain and for our people. In one fell swoop, British Aerospace has shown us what loyalty the private sector has to our people, our defence and our industries. In one fell swoop, British Aerospace has demonstrated, first, that money knows no loyalty to this country; secondly, that profit respects no sense of national or personal pride; thirdly, that the balance sheet dictates all conscience and responsibility; and, of course, it has shown the country that the ever-seductive quick profit will undermine our security.
    There can be many ideological arguments about public versus private, and academics and politicians may debate the legalities of corporate accountability. I have no doubt that in the debate we shall hear much about the adequate provision of the defence of the realm, but I say to the House, to the country and directly to the Secretary of State for Defence, "You cannot control what you do not own."
    Of course, ownership has never been important to the Government, and the sense of ownership—of having a stake and a say in their jobs—which the work force at Bishopton has will be cast aside by the Government as surely as it has been cast aside by the accounting minds of the British Aerospace board. But was that not always the intention? Were not the circumstances surrounding the sale of the Royal Ordnance factories such that the Government wanted to press ahead with privatisation at any price?
    What answers does the Secretary of State have for the questions asked in the Financial Times of 5 March 1987, which allege that the Royal Ordnance factories were fattened up for sale? What answers does he have to the allegation, substantiated by the report from the National Audit Office last November, that the Royal Ordnance factories were sold at a bargain basement price and that land assets, which were never taken into account, can now be sold off at profits of many tens of millions of pounds —going not to the Exchequer but into the pocket of British Aerospace? Does the Secretary of State accept that, with the so-called sale of the Royal Ordnance factories, the Government did not just sell the family silver; they threw it away?
    Can we expect a frank answer from the Secretary of State about these matters? When we examine not just the irresponsible actions of the Government in this affair, but the lack of foresight and the lack of commitment to Scotland—where the right hon. Gentleman once served as Secretary of State—I think not. If the Secretary of State is suffering from the episodes of selective amnesia that often

    967
    assail Ministers of this Government when they change responsibilities, let me remind him of a speech that he made in his constituency in November 1986. In that speech he attacked the Labour party's defence policy. The terms of his attack may have been fresh to his constituency then, but they have been repeated by him so often and so monotonously that their meaning may escape the notice of the House now.
    Let us remind ourselves of the key phrases used by the Secretary of State in his attack. He said:
    "Labour's Job Destruction Plan was not just bad for security but bad for jobs also. It could have devastating consequences for local communities but nowhere more so than here in Scotland."
    The right hon. Gentleman went further by coining phrases which, in the light of the giveaway of the Royal Ordnance factories and the closure of at least two vital factories, now take on a chilling reality. The "Job Destruction Plan" of which he accused the Labour party in 1986 has taken on a new and more terrifying meaning when applied to his actions and the consequences with which the people of Bishopton must now live.
    But not only the people of my constituency will be affected. Every Member of the House should be aware that on 16 October 1988 a spokesman for British Aerospace said:
    "There is no active consideration of sites other than those announced. Of course that doesn't mean there won't be further closures in the future as programme needs accelerate."
    Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance here and now that not only will he halt the closure of the factories that are currently under threat, but he will intervene to stop the closure of other Royal Ordnance units; or are we to believe, as is more probably the case, that his very own jobs destruction plan is well under way? If the cost of a quick profit, a fast buck, is a few thousand jobs, a few thousand lives and a few hundred communities, that is the inevitable price of the free market.
    I have no doubt that what will come from the Secretary of State will be an increasingly callous and unconvincing speech about the free market and the Government's non-interventionist policy. He might well try to convince the House that he has no job destruction plan, but let me remind him of his photo finish at the general election. Few people in Ayr believed him then and no one in Scotland believes him now.
    Dr. Godman: As my hon. Friend well knows, I have constituents working in the Bishopton factory. What he is seeing today, with the decision taken over Bishopton, is the continuing bad faith displayed by Her Majesty's Government towards the people of the lower Clyde. It is all of a piece—it is remarkable in its consistency. With Bishopton, my hon. Friend must remember Scott Lithgow. I am pleased that he referred to the fact that the Secretary of State sits ridiculously and precariously on a tick-tack of a majority. The Scottish people are out of tune with the Conservative Government on this and other issues.
    Mr. Graham: With the decision at Bishopton, we see a further dramatic reduction in Scotland's share of defence procurement—and who wins? The south-east of England has benefited in the past, but now the company's recently announced plan to shift resources to America reveals another sinister aspect of the jobs destruction plan. All that is, of course, a far cry from the Secretary of State for Scotland last week at Brighton exhorting the Tory faithful
    968
    and businesses to come north to Scotland—presumably a land fit for profit. At Bishopton there is an immediate opportunity for the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Defence to stop more Scottish jobs being lost. If their words in Ayr in 1986 and in Brighton in 1988 mean anything more than empty political rhetoric, they will take action now to prevent the closure, with all its devastating implications for our people and industry. Let us not be mistaken: the wider effects on industry, on the broad private sector, will be substantial.
    The National Audit Office, in its report No. 505 of 11 July 1985, described the defence sector as
    "one of the largest purchasing organisations in the country as well as the biggest single customer of British industry."
    So what will be the multiplier effects of the closures in terms of jobs, people and communities? My people in Bishopton demand that the Secretary of State should intervene now to stop their jobs, their skills and their contribution being lost. Any hesitation, any inaction or any weak excuses can only be the final evidence to the country that the Government, with their profit motive, have no loyalty to British defence, British security, British industry, British jobs or the British people.
    I have never heard anything so ludicrous in my life as British Aerospace paying £192 million when the real value is well over £1 billion. It is like telling someone who wants to buy one's furniture, "Here you are, you have bought my furniture. Take my house and garden for nothing—I'll throw them in."
    8.44 pm
    Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I commend to the House—I hope that the officials responsible will be congratulated—the presentation of the White Paper this year. Those of us who have studied White Papers for some time will remember when they were a dull and boring document. The coloured graphs and diagrams, and so on, make for much easier reading.
    I propose to speak briefly on just two subjects, one because of its inclusion, and one because of its virtual exclusion. Although Westland has a much reduced work force in my constituency, I remain deeply interested in the future of the helicopter as a battlefield weapon. It is a subject on which I have spoken many times. I was therefore delighted to see the somewhat simplistic, but nevertheless heartening, diagram on page 24. Can it be that at long last the Army is beginning to appreciate the importance of the helicopter, both for moving troops on the battlefield and as an attack weapon? I say to my hon. Friends who have been discussing our amphibious capability that the helicopter can be used in that role most effectively. The simple landing platform that is required is much less costly than a purpose-built assault ship. Those who say, "But what about the weather?" will recognise that no seaborne assault can be carried out in weather conditions that would preclude helicopters from flying.
    As part of the argument, occasionally it has been my practice—it will be tonight—to say a word about the vulnerability of armoured vehicles on the battlefield. That usually draws a stinging letter from GKN, which manufactures some of our new armoured personnel carriers, but it has just bought one quarter of the shares of Westland. It is ahead of the Ministry of Defence in appreciating that one can no longer turn a blind eye to one

    969
    particular arm in the complex modern battlefield. I shall quote from the press handout that was issued at the time of that important purchase:
    "In Land Systems important changes are underway. These relate directly to the greater responsibility being placed on conventional land forces, and the increasingly sophisticated threats these forces will face. The response to this is revised land battlefield doctrines, which are moving towards closer integration of front line equipments, on land and in the air, to provide a strong, cohesive, highly mobile and flexible fighting force."
    How difficult it is to move the military mind. History is littered with examples of armies going to war equipped for the previous conflict and therefore at a hopeless disadvantage. The American experience in Vietnam showed to the world the way in which the helicopter can give the field commander flexibility to place his troops in the most appropriate position swiftly and safely and, similarly, to withdraw them as and when required. That the tank should remain the be all and end all, backed now by millions of pounds' worth of armoured personnel carriers, ignores the undoubted ability of even quite small infantry units to knock out tanks with hand-held weapons. If one includes the whole substantial armoury directed against the tank, there cannot be much hope that many will survive long on the modern battlefield.
    I am therefore appalled to learn that there is now a debate in the Ministry of Defence about replacing the aging Chieftain tank fleet—at a cost of no less than £1 billion if the press is to be believed—solely with new tanks, wherever they may come from. I say to my hon. Friends who have been arguing the merits or otherwise of buying American that there is almost no item of defence equipment that cannot be bought more cheaply in America, but that is not a good argument for so doing. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will hear that message coming loud and clear from both sides of the House today.
    Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend accept that if we purchase a tank, the Challenger 2 tank made by Vickers probably has the best turret in the world, the best weapons system, the most robust hull and the best engine—the Rolls-Royce? Will he pay tribute to that tank, which is produced by a fine British company employing many thousands of people in Newcastle and Leeds in the most modern tank factories in the world?
    Mr. Wiggin: As the gist of my argument is that I hope that the Ministry of Defence will not buy any tanks—or a great deal fewer than £1 billion worth—I shall not join in my hon. Friend's request, even though I am sure that what he says about that tank is correct.
    If my doctrine is too revolutionary, as I suspect it is bound to be, what about splitting the money—half of it going on helicopters? That is a bad compromise, but it is better than going for a whole new generation of weapons that will unquestionably be out of date before they are in use.
    I strongly welcome the creation of the air mobile brigade. Although the 25 EH 101 s ordered in the troop-carrying role will not be delivered until the 1990s, I am doubtful whether much air mobility is open to the brigade, in spite of its name. The aircraft to carry it about do not exist. Every autumn there is an exercise, after which
    970
    the generals express their wonder at the benefits of helicopters and then do little or nothing about converting that lesson into action.
    I am sorry that Ministers brought to an end the exercise that they were conducting into the transfer of responsibility for helicopters from the Royal Air Force to the Army and the Navy. They stopped it because someone said that the change would not be economic. But this is not about economics: it is about operations. It is extremely difficult to expect ground commanders to trust their transport if it is run by a separate service. I hope that if, at any time, my right hon. Friend has a little money to spare he will reinstitute that study. He has only to talk to those involved in the Falklands and in exercises to hear them reiterate their need to have command of their own air transport.
    Lieutenant General Sir David Ramsbotham, commander of the United Kingdom field army, is quoted as saying:
    "The Soviets are ahead of us in their concept for employment of helicopters, having acted while we have been thinking."
    That says it all. If one asks the time in the MOD, one will be told that officials will conduct a study of the matter. Never has a decision of this importance been taken in such a lethargic and languid manner——
    Mr. Brazier: I thoroughly endorse my hon. Friend's views about bringing air transport under the command of those who have to use it, but I put it to him that the Soviet Union has 35,000 tanks. It has some heavy armoured battlefield helicopters—about 1,000 Hind D and Hind Es —and some lighter ones, but its main effort is still in tanks, not helicopters. So, to some extent, we must look at what the Soviet Union is doing.
    Mr. Wiggin: Just because the Russians are doing it, that does not make it right.
    I referred earlier to an omission from the White Paper —the scant commentary on the Territorial Army. That is symptomatic of the way in which lip-service is paid to the value of the TA and of all the reserves by the regular services. When it comes down to finding resources and manpower to assist what is a substantial part of the front line, the contribution is extremely inadequate. The reserve and auxiliary formations, as shown in the graph on page 50 of the White Paper, take up 2·2 per cent, of the defence budget, less than 1 per cent. of services manpower and 1·8 per cent. of civilian manpower. For that, the Army obtains a third of its front-line strength—50,000 men in Germany alone—the Navy a substantial part of its minesweeping capability and the Royal Air Force a number of airfield defence units.
    The report of the Reserve Forces Policy Board of the United States of America devotes 180 pages to a detailed analysis of all American reserve forces. I commend it as good reading for Ministers on their way to bed. It has much to say about the importance that the United States attaches to its reserve forces.
    Increasingly, the Regular Army is providing commanding officers for TA units, few of which now have territorials doing that job. For reasons unknown to me, I have heard that these territorials cannot even draw the same allowances as their regular equivalents—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look into that. Honorary colonels are being appointed from the Regular Army or from the ranks of retired regular officers. No longer are

    971
    they distinguished local people with a TA background. Arms directors have too big a say in this. It is being seen as a nice little perk for friends in the Regular Army. I hope that Ministers who have the right to veto these appointments will examine that point.
    My right hon. Friend appreciates the serious problems created by the large number of men who leave the service every year. He recently announced that he was spending £10 million on a recruiting campaign. I welcome his obvious determination to tackle the problem, but I doubt whether even this intervention will prove completely successful.
    In recent years the Regular Army has argued that because of the importance of the TA its standard of training should be exactly the same as that of the regular forces. That is a fine idea, but it ignores the demands on the individual and his family—demands which eventually drive him out. Sadly, that is what is happening. Reluctantly, therefore, I suggest that, as numbers count, a somewhat lower standard of training after the initial period would be an acceptable alternative. Instead of spending £10 million on advertising, will the MOD think about the possibility of making the regulars responsible for recruiting the reserve forces? That would concentrate their minds greatly on making the TA attractive to the volunteer and would enable a considerably greater amount of time to be spent on welfare, families and on other things that help retention. It is significant that the American forces practise this and seem to have a much smaller problem of retention than we do.
    We have already heard in this debate about the demographic problem that will shortly be with us. The expanded TA can help with it, and no stone must be left unturned to ensure its continued success. If my right hon. Friend is still battling in the Star Chamber for resources, I add my voice to those of my hon. Friends in saying that Conservative Back Benchers will be determined to ensure that our forces are thoroughly funded in all their aspects and maintained at their present high standards.
    8.57 pm
    Mr. Dick Douglas: This has been an interesting debate, set against a background of constraints on defence expenditure. Several Conservative Members have alluded to the Secretary of State winning or losing battles. I suspect that, following a leak in the course of this evening, we shall read tomorrow in the press that he has partially won the battle. I do not know what figure to put on this: perhaps he or his junior Minister will give us one. Something below £1 billion—perhaps £900 million —is the figure that has been circulating as the amount that he has got out of the Treasury. If so, we should like to be told tonight, rather than reading it in the press tomorrow. I think that I speak for all parts of the House when I make that request.
    We are worried about the problem of resources. In paragraph 2 of its fifth report the Select Committee said:
    "When in 1986 the previous Defence Committee examined the Statement on Defence Estimates 1986, it concluded that, instead of the 'broadly level' funding expected in 1985, there would be a fall in real terms of between 4·5 per cent. and 7 per cent. in the period 1986–87 to 1988–89. Since then, defence spending in real terms has reduced from £18·5 billion in 1986–87 to £17·5 billion in 1988–89. We calculate that the cumulative real reductions in defence spending from 1986–87 to 1990–91 will total £3·2 billion. Historically, the effect of reductions in defence expenditure has borne most heavily on
    972
    the equipment programme; the equipment share of the budget has fallen from 46·3 per cent. in 1985–86 to 43 per cent. in 1988–89, and is now at its lowest in proportionate terms since 1979–80."
    [Interruption.] I do not dispute that. It is against that background that we view the Secretary of State's oft-repeated comments about tough and difficult decisions to be made. We know that those tough and difficult decisions are being made against the background of a commitment to maintain a strategic nuclear deterrent.
    Hon. Members spoke earlier about people going to other constituencies to make speeches. During the general election, the Secretary of State came to my constituency and made a speech. I would welcome it if he came again, because that speech quadrupled my majority. Perhaps he should have stayed in Ayr, where his majority was reduced from about 7,000 to about 100. My constituency contains a vast number of workers, not on the base itself, whose work is directly related to repairing and maintaining the Polaris fleet. So far in the debate we have not heard anything about Polaris, certainly not from the Opposition. It is deplorable for the Opposition to put down an amendment to the defence White Paper and not mention Polaris. I shall deal with that later. There are constraints.
    The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence spoke about the vast number of reports—nine—that the Select Committee has produced. I shall confine my speech to Merchant Navy and Royal Navy matters. One of those reports was about the merchant fleet. There have been vast reductions in the merchant service, not just in the number of ships but in the important matter of the availability of British crews. I shall not weary the House by quoting from the report, but I should like to draw attention to paragraph 54 of the fourth report of June this year.
    In that report, we dealt with reductions in the merchant fleet and in the personnel. Able seamen are very important, but so are cadets and training. We are an island nation, but we have no maritime strategy. It is farcical to reduce the number of British flagged vessels and Merchant Navy manpower and simultaneously to argue the case that if we have a conventional war somehow or other nations will help us with resupply and replenishment across the Atlantic. In his speech the Secretary of State did not mention that.
    The Select Committee also produced a report about the surface fleet. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who is very knowledgeable about these matters, pointed to the defects in the ordering pattern for frigates and destroyers. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to come to the House in July and in a splurge of activity say that he has ordered three type 23 frigates from Yarrows. That is welcome but there has been a break because in the previous year no ships were ordered. I suspect that, unless he has won a substantial battle with the Treasury, next year no ships will be ordered.
    We have seen cuts in our shipbuilding capability. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke about that. I suspect that on the Clyde, unless we are very lucky and retain the very small yard with which I used to be directly associated— Appledore Ferguson, as it is now called—we will have one shipyard on the Clyde, Yarrows, wholly dependent on naval ordering. That yard is designed to build three type 23 frigates. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) drew our attention to the need to maintain shipbuilding capacity in the north-east of England.

    973
    If ordering is carried out in a feast or famine manner, not only will the Navy be dislocated but so will the reliability and performance of shipyards. It might be argued that certain things can be done in commercial yards, but we cannot re-create overnight the sophisticated personnel in naval shipyards. The Secretary of State should come clean. The Select Committee on Defence searchingly and patiently wheedled out the fact that it is not just a commitment to "about 50" frigates and destroyers but an indication of their operability and availability. I challenge the Minister who is to wind up to tell us the number of these vessels that are available now. It will be well under 50. It will probably be nearer the 40 mark.
    My interest in the dockyards concerns the refitting and maintenance of the SSNs, the SSBNs and conventional vessels. The promises made when we discussed the privatisation or commercialisation of the dockyards, particularly Devonport, have been reneged on. In particular, the one relating to the core programme has not been fulfilled, and that resulted in massive reductions in the dockyard work force. To some extent, Rosyth has escaped that, but I have told my constituents not to be complacent, because if we run on with the Trident programme the facilities at Barrow will become a competitor in the refitting and maintaining of these boats. I pointedly ask the Secretary of State whether that is in his mind, that of the Ministry of Defence or that of Dr. Leach, at Barrow. I tell my constituents not to be complacent because, unless there is either a further commitment to SSNs or a further generation of SSBNs at Barrow, there will be problems. It is reasonable to ask for some clarification about that.
    There is a problem about the nuclear waste at Rosyth. By the year 2000, it is likely that there will be 10 SSNs and SSBNs to be decommissioned. Rosyth has the first decommissioned SSN, the Dreadnought. There is no discernible plan within the Ministry of Defence to dispose of these boats. There is certainly a plan to take out the reactors and the fuel, but there is no plan to dispose of the hulls. The valuable resource at the dockyard ought not to be used to tie up the hulls of these boats until kingdom come.
    The Select Committee has said that it expects answers about this point to be forthcoming before we next study the problem. It is not good enough to talk vaguely about plans when there is a real problem in disposing of these vessels. We cannot do what the United States does—cut up the vessels and bury them in the Nevada desert—nor can we dump them at sea.
    I am utterly bemused when I try to discover what defence policy the Labour party is trying to evolve. It is credible to say that we shall run on the strategic deterrent, and it is credible to say that we shall get rid of it, and cancel Trident and decommission Polaris, because that runs on into the 1990s. Either of these policies is credible, but we cannot sell a halfway house. The British people will not buy something in between. As an old-fashioned shop steward, I do not believe that it is a useful negotiating posture to be on record as saying that one will not press the button while at the same time trying to fool the Soviet
    974
    Union into thinking that we shall use this deterrent as a negotiating ploy, either for strategic weapons or for some form of conventional weapons.
    I am disclosing real difficulties, which have to be faced by my party. It is better that my party faces them now and comes to a considered and deliberate conclusion. My view is that this will be the last time—whatever the party—that we shall go through the pretence of kidding ourselves that we have an independent strategic deterrent. The boats and the warheads are ours, but the important part in between is totally American.
    The decision to refit and maintain the missiles at King's bay is also a clear indication that, although we can take the missiles off the shelf when we have put them there, in a strict sense they do not belong to us. There is a rolling commitment which no one would accept in relation to a motor car. If someone wants a car repaired, after 10,000 miles, he does not say, "You can give me another one off the shelf."
    Mr. Younger: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman of all people would know that that is exactly what much of industry does with cars all the time.
    Mr. Douglas: Yes, but they do it on leasing deals. Is the Secretary of State saying that there is a leasing deal on Trident? One does not do that if one owns the facility. In this case, we are not getting something new; we are getting a refurbished item. I do not want to labour this point because it is generally conceded, unless the Secretary of State wishes to enlighten us.
    We shall come up against this again in the year 2000. It is better for the Labour party to face this now, to say that we will be committed to ending the United Kingdom's role as a strategic nuclear power and to begin arguing that case to the British public. That is what I had to do in the last general election. I refuse to believe that people in Rosyth, whose employment is directly related to the issue and who voted Labour, are different from people in the rest of the United Kingdom. They cannot be convinced by the force of argument that the possession of a strategic deterrent is a waste and an attrition of our valuable resources—not only economic resources, but valuable, unique, costly and scarce intellectual resources. Some of the best people whom we have employed have been taken in by our continued possession of a strategic deterrent.
    I do not know what will happen when people go to Moscow, but it would be preposterous for us to try to sell some wishy-washy in-between measure. We either keep the deterrent or we say to the British people, "This is the last time. It is our commitment to get rid of it", and come clean, particularly if we have a leader who is not committed to pressing the button. It is a different argument if we have a leader like the previous leader of the Labour party, who said, "If I have to press the button, it is a sign that the deterrent has failed." However, if we have a leader who says that he will not use it, there is no reason for anyone to negotiate.
    9.13 pm
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: That was an honest statement from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). I want to add my voice to those who have expressed concern about the alleged battle between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury.

    975
    I have no doubt that, since my right hon. Friend took office nearly three years ago, he has earned our confidence and we have respected his judgment. We have had three years of virtual standstill of budget in the face of the rising costs of military technology and manpower. We know that those three lean years have followed seven good years in which we had a much-needed expansion of our defences. Nevertheless, as we look to the future, we must be careful not to allow essential schemes for keeping our forces up to date to fall behind, as some of us suspect may happen.
    There are three reasons. The first has already been mentioned. We do not know what Mr. Gorbachev will do, but we know that the conventional capability of the Soviet Union is strong and growing stronger and more efficient. Whatever may happen between the United States and the Soviet Union, we shall find ourselves playing a notable part in trying to get an agreement on chemical weapons and conventional arms. If we are to succeed, we must negotiate in strength, as we did during the INF talks.
    After three years of standstill, I do not believe that what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is asking for is extravagant. The alternative approach would weaken the effectiveness of our forces and allow structural disarmament to take the place of a properly negotiated arms control treaty in which everyone gives up something.
    My second reason for expressing the hope that we shall continue to be determined to maintain the effectiveness of our contribution to NATO is a political one. We all know that the United States is deadly serious—it is obvious that it is not bluffing—about the burden that it bears. It expects us in Europe to do more than we are doing already. I cannot think of a decision that would be more badly timed than for Britain of all countries to appear to be reluctant to shoulder its responsibilities now, before the election in the United States, and before the new President has taken his place.
    My third reason for backing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is based on my belief that we should take no precipitate action following the burden-sharing debate. I believe that my reasoning is more positive than that which is based on comparisons between the spending of various countries. Burden-sharing will be a profitable debate if it is based on ascertaining how we can better organise the roles, risks and responsibilities of the different members of the Alliance. That is exactly why NATO has established a working party to examine the roles, risks and responsibilities and then to decide where there is a need for adjustments, and to make recommendations accordingly.
    We know that the working party will report to the NATO Defence Ministers in December, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to consider its report. That is another reason why I think that it would be wrong, out of respect for our allies, to undermine our current defence responsibilities in the interests of short-term financial criteria. We should not forget either —I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who is the leader of our delegation to the Western European Union—our obligations to WEU members. We are obliged to defend a fellow member country at its borders if it is attacked. Any fundamental change that we may be forced to make if we starve our defence forces of the resources that are necessary for an adequat". modernisation programme will bring into question our reliability as a staunch member of the WEU.
    976
    I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that next month, in Hamburg, we who are members of the United Kingdom delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly, which I shall have the honour of leading, will be attending the autumn session. We shall be addressed by the Chancellor and Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Supreme Allied Commander. The session will be attended by parliamentarians from all the NATO countries, including prominent Senators and Congressmen. I am sure that all those who attend will emphasise the importance of the occasion.
    My right hon. Friend is trusted by other NATO Ministers as a Minister who fully comprehends the significance of NATO in clrawing up and funding our defence priorities. We fully support him in his arduous task of ensuring that Britain will continue to take its defence decisions with a full understanding of the long-term needs of the Alliance, which has for so long kept the peace in Europe.
    9.20 pm
    Mr. Frank Cook: We have this round of discussions each year, and each year I feel some sympathy for the Secretary of State for Defence and his ministerial colleagues. We find that they are in the same dilemma each year. The Government seek to persuade the United States that we spend sufficient on defence, despite its protestation that a greater degree of burden-sharing is necessary. The Government seek also to persuade our NATO partners that we spend more than our fair share and that they must increase their contributions to equate with ours.
    At the same time, the Government seek to persuade the Labour party that they are right to escalate expenditure on nuclear missiles and on the vehicles to deliver them and to spend less on conventional weapons and equipment. In doing that, they seek to persuade the electorate that all is well in defence provision—indeed, that all is so well that the Treasury can afford to stuff billions of pounds back into the pockets of the rich, who do not need the cash in the first place. While that contradictory melange is presented to the media, the Government seek to distract attention from those contradictions by knocking the Labour party. We have had plenty of attemps to do that today——
    Mr. Mates: The Labour party knocks itself—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Cook: I shall continue. The hon. Gentleman has simply proved my point.
    It is our job to examine the Defence Estimates. The need now is to put an end to all the posturing and to discuss properly the full range of defence issues in the light of changing technology, changing economy and changing global circumstances.
    Before developing that theme, I should like to inform the House of my involvement this year as a participant and assessor in the pilot period of the Parliamentary Armed Services Trust. I shall try to explain the trust quickly, as I do not have much time. The scheme was started to try to give newer Members of Parliament more direct experience of the needs of the armed services, the duties we require them to perform, the equipment that we provide for that purpose and the conditions that they expenence. I understand that the scheme was dreamed up by the hon.

    977
    Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). I pay tribute to him for his initiative and pay tribute also to the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces for the ready way in which the scheme was accepted and for the helpful and gracious manner in which his staff have enabled the three trying hon. Members—very trying in my case I am sure—to carry out our duties. The other Members are the hon. Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce). They are looking at the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, respectively. I was assigned to the 24th Air Mobile Brigade and have so far spent almost three weeks in total either working with that unit or with the units that support it.
    The opinions that I express today have been well ventilated and truly discussed, and the examples that I use have been gleaned from exchanges on those occasions and during the many other defence visits that I have made this year. I could recount a list that would almost reach parity with that of the Select Committee on Defence. When I register my views and analyses today, I keep faith with commitments made to serving men and women of all ranks during many exchanges which have helped to make clear to service personnel, who were previously misinformed on the subject of Labour's defence policy—usually by a frequently mischievous and occasionally malicious media —what the Labour party really thinks on defence. The Labour party has always maintained that, if we are to consign young men and women to advanced areas of confrontation, we must ensure that they are adequately supported, fed, clothed, equipped, armed, trained and led. I have noticed tonight that some hon. Members, notably the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and for Ashford (Mr. Speed), are not shy to admit that all in the garden is not lovely and that it is no good pretending that all is well. Serving men and women have not been slow to inform me of that.
    In response, the Labour party maintains that we cannot expect full effectiveness and efficiency if there is a shortfall in resources and resolution. It is patent nonsense to formulate our strategy to resist the perceived threat from the Soviet bloc around a precommitment to a five-day reliance on conventional exchanges if we fail to ensure that the resources will last that long. Supplies of some munitions can be guaranteed for less than two days. Supplies of some fuel can be guaranteed for less than a day and a half and some spares, essential for mobility, are still awaited from suppliers in Czechoslovakia. I sympathise with the Minister. After all, procurement is his personal fiefdom, his personal forte and his bag. He must help carry the fight to the Treasury so that our services can be made ready to carry the fight to our attackers. I am sure that he has tried but failed, as others have failed before him, to get enough and to apportion it properly or in a way that would equip and empower our young men and women to fulfil the role that we require of them.
    In leaving our young men and women short, do we expose them to an earlier death—God forbid—perhaps at the hands of our armourers as they launch our American ballistics in response to Soviet supremacy? Is this House happy to consign the cream of our youth to such kamikaze tactics? If it is, it had better make that clear tonight so that mothers and fathers can understand what is said and reform their opinions accordingly.
    978
    Apparent inadequacies can be more trivial, but in the day-to-day concerns of service personnel they can be more telling and immediate. By that I mean items like the new boot which was awaited with eager anticipation by so many units which considered it to be the answer to all foot problems. Those units which have it already would readily return to the previous issue tonight if given the preference, because it is bloody uncomfortable.
    Issues of pay, allowances, accommodation and house purchase are even more telling for service personnel. As we have heard tonight, all those issues can cause resentment throughout the three arms of Her Majesty's forces, despite previous ministerial assurances that this year's review board would remove some of the causes for complaint.
    Pay was always inadequate in the barrack room. It was ever so. However, comparisons between the military police and civil police reinforce the view that there are greater disparities between what is demanded of military personnel and the way they are rewarded and what is demanded in civvy street and how such a service is rewarded. Pay differentials were always said to be unjustifiable. However, comparisons between com-missioned pilots and non-commissioned pilots—and flying instructors, in particular—reveal what is wrong. Until I was forcefully told by a flying instructor from Middle Wallop, I did not know that non-commissioned flying instructors receive £6 a day flying pay, whereas a commissioned instructor receives double that. That anomaly is very difficult to explain, unless one falls back on traditional explanations of RAF flying supremacy over the Army Air Corps. Differentials in travel conditions, living overseas allowances and accommodation rates are sources of bitter comment. House purchase is patently most difficult for those military units required to move more readily than their comrades in the Royal Navy or the RAF who can more easily acquire property close to more stable garrison placements.
    So many of the promises made by the review board this year have failed to keep faith with the commitments. The disillusion with review board procedure is widespread, and I must report that resentment runs deep in almost every unit that I visited. Early disengagement from service in the armed forces is clear evidence of that. As the Minister is aware, many units are suffering as much as, and some more than, 30 per cent. wastage per year. That is not fantasy. It is verifiable, and to some extent it is justifiable.
    The change in circumstances related to strategic need vis-a-vis the East-West balance of power is also verifiable. That brings me to the main thrust of my comments and I want to refer to points made by the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and his reports on reviews currently taking place within NATO. I hope to join the hon. Member for Wealden on some of those reviews. I am pleased that I shall be joining such a review next week when I attend a three-day seminar at the NATO defence college in Rome.
    It is just as important that the Labour party should be able to explain to its political opponents, as well as to its political supporters, some of the subtleties of its quest for nucleardisarmament. [Interruption.] Somehon. Members find that amusing. One or two of them have been so misinformed as to equate the Labour party's views on disarmament with difficulty in amassing votes at elections.
    I remind the House that in 1983 I was a parliamentary candidate for the first time in my life against someone who had been a Member of this House for 21 years. He was the

    979
    author of a pamphlet called "The Case for Cruise." He had regularly attended seminars in America, at which he had said why we should retain our nuclear stance. Despite his 21 years as a Member of this House and his nuclear commitment, he was placed third in the poll. I was placed first. There is no difficulty over acquiring votes while professing an anti-nuclear stance. We maintained the same unilateral nuclear disarmament policy in 1987. I stood as a candidate against even younger Tory opponents and even more vigorous middlemen but I increased my majority fivefold. Anti-nuclear policies do not lead to disaffection among voters in the north-east—at least, not in my constituency.
    We should put an end to the posturing and consider all the options. It is improper and unreal to take any individual defence factor and to consider it in isolation. Nothing could be more dangerous. I hope to contribute constructively to NATO's strategic review and to put forward the nuclear disarmament view. If we approach the problem by considering the existence of the threat, its nature, size, the direction from which it may come, how we should prepare for it and how we should equip our young men and women and train them instead of considering the restricted amount of money that the Treasury is prepared to make available, we may be able to adopt a bilateral stance and go some way towards meeting our genuine defence needs.
    This week I spent two whole days in Northern Ireland. I was in the Castlederg salient with the commanding officer, Light Infantry. I experienced at first hand some of the conditions that our young men and women have to tolerate. We are asking them to do a bloody awful job on our behalf. There appears to be no political solution on the horizon, yet the conditions in which those personnel operate are disgraceful, the hours that they work are unbelievable and the conditions in which they sleep, at least near the frontier, are unspeakable. Yet they are the lucky ones. They have a positive role to play, which they understand and perform admirably, brilliantly and with a determination and commitment that is indescribably exemplary. Along with them, in permanent resident postings, they have their families—young wives, many with young children, living on bases with perimeter wires that are totally secure. They are afraid to go out beyond the perimeter wires and into the broader community because of the kind of retaliatory action that may be taken against them by hostile communities. When I say hostile, I really mean hostile. It might be fine and funny to criticise the dilemma that the Russians face in Afghanistan, but it is sobering to experience the same degree of real, vile hostility within the United Kingdom.
    I plead for a comprehensive review that will make us examine each and every condition that we foist upon the young people who give us good service. I refer not only to pay, pensions and the ability to leave the service after 22 years wishing to obtain a house in our society—conditions that do not condemn a regimental sergeant-major to take a job as chauffeur to a civic head simply because that is the only way that he can get council house accommodation —but to conditions that provide such people with the equipment that allows them to do the job for a little longer than the five days that we demand before we make a nuclear response. We must ensure that the back-up reserves that we offer them are adequate.
    The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare spoke about the TAVR. I must honestly report that some officers who
    980
    have been in charge of TAVR. units for as long as two years confidently tell me that there is no way that the men can do the job, that there is no way that they will turn up for parades on time, and that there is no way that they will accept rebuke for any sort of misdemeanour. Yet other officers have said that anyone who has suggested that to me is failing in his duty because it means that he has organised the training badly and not motivated the forces. I have no doubt that there is an element of truth in both those statements. I offer them to the Secretary of State because we must take the truth from both and ensure that we remedy any wrongs.
    Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that every rank in all three services is now paid more in real terms under this Government than when I was a serving RAF officer during the previous Labour Administration?
    Mr. Cook: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to register the resentment that he obviously felt when he was a serving officer. During the past seven months I have spoken to serving officers, NCOs and rankers, and I am reporting what they have told me. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to accept that, I challenge him to join the Parliamentary Armed Services Trust, preferably in a branch of the services in which he did not serve, and listen to some of the criticisms. I am confident that he will hear even more than I heard.
    I have asked for a review that begins from the basis of the need of our defence commitment, not from the greed of the Treasury, and from the need of the people who ask us to perform that role on their behalf. I ask for it to be carried out quickly and in conjunction with the NATO review.
    9.38 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State lbr Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I welcome the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on his first contribution from the Labour Front Bench during a defence debate. I am sure that most hon. Members were glad to hear his remarks about the armed forces parliamentary scheme and his experiences of it. I hope that the House will be grateful for his support for the members of our armed forces.
    The hon. Gentleman expressed sympathy with my right hon. Friend and his Ministers, and we are glad of his concern for our welfare and his sympathy for us. However, the sympathy that we feel for him and his hon. Friends on the Front Bench who have to debate defence on behalf of the Labour party is a great deal deeper. Perhaps I should also welcome the first speech from the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) as a leader of what I must say appears to be a divided army. The hon. Members for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) would classify themselves among those who would sign "Bemused of the Labour party" when it came to what was, or indeed what was not, their own party's policy.
    We heard a deeply sincere speech from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). Nobody who heard that speech would doubt his sincerity. What most of us doubt is the truth of the views that he holds. He may be in the majority in his own party but, as was pointed out to him by an Opposition Member, he is not in the majority in

    981
    the country, as the last general elettion decisively showed. I shall return to some of the comments from the hon. Member for Clackmannan.
    Some issues were raised during the first day of this important debate, particularly matters relating to pay, recruitment and retention, which I shall leave to my hon. Friends the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces who hope to catch your eye tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
    Many hon. Members have commented on the possible outcome of the current PESC round and the implications for the Defence Estimates. I refer particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) in that connection. They and others will not be surprised that, on this important point, I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks. Equally, many hon. Members have spoken about the importance of obtaining for our forces the best equipment while at the same time getting value for money. My hon.*Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsburg) referred to that point. I hope that we shall not have to wait another 10 years for his next contribution to a defence debate.
    It was Cato the Elder who was reputed to have used the same phrase in every one of his speeches, "Delenda est Carthago"—Carthage must be destroyed. In one sense at least, I should seek to emulate him by saying in every speech that I make from the Dispatch Box that value for money must be obtained. I think that "Utilifas ex vectigali publico maxime est capienda" would more or less cover the point. If I may return the vernacular—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is in order. I think that some hon. Members would like it to be translated.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The sense is that value for money must be obtained. It is essential to extract maximum benefit from public taxation. I am sure that we would all agree with that sentiment.
    One of the most important ways that we have of getting that drive for value for money in procurement is competition, and we are maintaining our sustained efforts to secure full benefit from competition. In 1983–84, the proportion by value of contracts let on a competitive basis was only 38 per cent.—that, of course, was up from the level that we inherited from the Labour Government— whereas, in each of the past three years, over half our business has been done by competition.
    Naturally, we must expect variations in the figure from year to year, mainly due to fluctuations in the value of large contracts for items such as nuclear submarines, for which competition at the prime contractor level is not feasible. In such cases, however, we insist on the greatest possible competition for the award of sub-contracts.
    Our drive to reduce the number and value of contracts let on a cost-plus basis has also been significant. The value of contracts let on that basis—cost plus percentage fee —fell from 15 per cent. in 1983–84 to only 7 per cent. in 1987–88. Each of those contracts is now subject to a cost ceiling, so that we are no longer entering into open-ended commitments.
    Of course, because of the length of procurement cycles, it takes time for the full benefits of increased competition and our more commercial approach to work through.
    982
    Typically, it might take two to three years between the signing of a production contract and the receipt of and payment for the first piece of equipment arising from that contract, and it is only at that stage that the real savings are seen.
    Underpinning our drive for greater competition are the steps that we have taken to provide ourselves with a greater choice of companies by seeking wherever possible to widen our supplier base. We continue to encourage small firms to break into the defence market, and the amount of direct defence business won by small firms is running at £1,000 million a year. That figure excludes the substantial sub-contract work that they also undertake. The efforts of our small firms advice division have encouraged several thousand small enterprises to seek out defence business. Our competitive base is therefore in very good health, and we shall maintain our efforts to ensure that it remains so.
    The benefits to the defence industry of increased domestic competition are evidenced by its growing competitiveness in international markets. That is shown by our outstanding export record. Defence exports have tripled in real terms since 1979.
    I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating our defence suppliers on their recent export achievements. Foreign sales represent a most valuable addition to the order books of United Kingdom companies, while the consequent longer production runs help to reduce the unit cost of our own purchases. In addition, some of the overseas sales enable the development costs of equipment, which are often very substantial, to be recovered from a much increased volume of sales. They also, of course, create a large number of jobs for British workers.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate to pay a tribute to his own defence sales organisation and to the alteration in the attitude of the corps diplomatique, which is no longer orientated against sales? Therefore, trade is no longer a dirty word and many of our ambassadors are in fact orientated towards selling for Britain.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. I shall be paying a tribute, as he suggests, later in my remarks, but what he has said is very true.
    There are a number of other aspects of our drive for value for money to which I should like to refer, but before I do so I will respond to some of the other points which have been raised in the debate.
    The hon. Member for Clackmannan welcomed our greater use of competitive tendering, but it appears that he was somewhat equivocal about the consequences of that policy. He seems to welcome lower prices, but he cannot accept the consequential adjustments of the resources, both men and materials, to the size for efficient production. Surely he cannot want the Ministry of Defence to subsidise and so perpetuate inappropriate or inefficient production, which seemed to be the tenor of some of his remarks.
    Mr. O'Neill: What I was trying to point out was that there is a danger in adopting an unduly simplistic approach to competitive tendering. There must be some flexibility, which I have not seen in some of the Government's approaches to the problem. It is necessary

    983
    to have competitive tendering as part of a coherent strategy in terms of the Government's relationship with the defence industries.
    Mr. Sainsbury: It may not be apparent to the hon. Gentleman, but I assure him that we bear in mind the long-term interests of the Ministry of Defence in our policy of competitive tendering. We are finding it the most effective way of obtaining value for money, and we intend to continue with it.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and the hon. Member for Wallsend raised a question about our amphibious capability. I confirm that the Government remain committed to maintaining an amphibious capability in the longer term. My Department has just received the results of three feasibility studies carried out by industry that have looked at the option of replacing the assault ships Fearless and Intrepid. They will now be evaluated alongside a study completed last year that looked at the option of extending the lives of those ships. No decision will be made before next year, but it will be made in good time before the ships reach the end of their planned lives, which is not until the mid-1990s. We hope to make in the near future an announcement on the invitation to tender for the aviation support ship.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West sought an assurance on escort numbers—and I am happy to give it. Our commitment is to maintain a force of about 50 destroyers and frigates. We will order enough ships to sustain that size. I was glad to announce an order for three new type 23 frigates this summer and I look forward to announcing a competition for another batch order for type 23s next year.
    Dr. Reid: Does the Minister recall that, during the Secretary of State's speech, it was pointed out that the ordering rate of 1·6 per annum is less than the 2·6 recommended by the Committee? The Secretary of State pointed out that part of this difference at least can be related to the quality of the new orders that are going out and to the quality of the new fleet. When it comes to a comparison of numbers, can the Minister explain how surface fleet quality should be an important factor in balancing those numbers, but that when it comes to comparing the number of tanks held between the Russian forces and our forces on the western front quality is apparently dismissed?
    Mr. Sainsbury: Quality and quantity are both important, and they apply to our surface fleet. I refer the hon. Gentleman to what was said during our debate on the Royal Navy earlier this year.
    Mr. Douglas rose——
    Mr. Sainsbury: Time is running short; I must go on.
    Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Clackmannan, mentioned the disposal of Royal Ordnance plc to British Aerospace. My right hon. Friend has set out quite clearly the competitive background to the sale of Royal Ordnance, but I would like to spend a few moments on the property aspects of this matter. As someone who was once an adviser on property management to Her Majesty's Government, I can appreciate why those who
    984
    are perhaps not familiar with the complexities and uncertainties of property development should be puzzled by the contrast between the price paid by British Aerospace and some of the sums quoted in the press as the value of the redundant sites. The fact is that some of those figures are highly speculative and take no account of the major offsetting costs which would have to be set against proceeds. In my view, those figures are likely to turn out to be greatly exaggerated.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What are they?
    Mr. Sainsbury: Wait for it. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for most of the day, so perhaps he can wait for what I have to say.
    The first and most important point is that the speculative figures that have been quoted appear to be based on what I believe to be totally over-optimistic assumptions about the planning permission that might be obtained for sites, which, although developed, are in the metropolitan green belt. They also overlook the considerable closure and transfer costs to which my right hon. Friend referred.
    The speculative figures overlook the substantial costs that would be necessary to provide road access and services to the sites. They also overlook the costs involved in carrying out the cleansing and decontamination work that would be necessary in view of the long previous use of those sites for ammunition. They do not take into account the fees, expenses and delays that are inevitable in complex redevelopment proposals.
    The information memorandum issued before the sale made it clear that major rationalisations would be required, and would be costly. Bidders were aware that there was the possibility of developing the Waltham Abbey and parts of the Enfield sites.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: A little earlier, the Minister said that he was an adviser on property management to the previous Government.
    Mr. Sainsbury indicated dissent.
    Mr. Rogers: Well, an earlier Government.
    We accept that the Minister is an expert in property management. In that case, would he like to try to quantify the so-called offset costs that he and the Secretary of State have mentioned so nebulously? My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) demolished the Government's case on this issue. The only way in which the Government will be able to stand up in this scandal and to hold their head up high is if they can quantify the offset costs. When will the Government be able to do this?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is displaying the difficulty of those who are not familiar with the process of understanding the costs. Obviously, nobody would set about quantifying those costs—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question, so perhaps he will wait for the answer—without both a detailed study of what was involved and calling in the experts. One would first have to determine what planning permissions might be available. We do not know; nobody knows. Therefore it would be a waste of time to quantify the costs.
    Mr. Rogers rose——
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman has had his say and there are many other points to be made. I strongly suggest to the House that the issue is different from that suggested by some Opposition Members.
    The Select Committee raised an important point about its concern for reliability and maintainability. The Government, in reply to that valuable report, underlined how significant we believe these issues to be.
    Good reliability and maintainability are the two key constituents of equipment availability, which would be crucial to our armed forces in any future conflict. Furthermore, improvements in reliability and maintainability reduce support costs, making it possible to transfer resources to the front line. With this in mind, we are now pursuing several initiatives in this area as part of our overall value-for-money policy. With competition now well established, attention is turning increasingly to the need for contractors to produce more reliable and more easily maintained equipment, on time and to cost.
    To do this we have to base our procurement decisions on a sound assessment of both the initial purchase price and the through-life support costs, as the Select Committee said. It is important that we seek to place the onus for achieving the required levels of reliability and maintainability, along with the other requirements of the specification, on the contractor.
    We are also seeking ways of making industry accept a greater share of the responsibility: there is a wide range of options, from reliability incentives to the provision of spares support on a fixed price basis. We are making a determined effort to ensure that industry realises that we are committed to achieving reliability, and it will be an increasingly crucial element in the control milestones we set for projects as they move through development into production and into service.
    Our pursuit of value for money extends beyond equipment. The application of competition to the defence support services, as my right hon. Friend has made clear, has also allowed us to secure considerable gains in terms of enhanced efficiency and greater value for money. Excluding the royal dockyards, contracting out of defence support services has resulted in savings of over 13,000 posts and net annual savings of some £50 million since 1979. We shall continue with our drive to increase that annual level of savings.
    986
    Another aspect of value for money to which we are giving Department-wide attention is relocation, which we see as potentially a key factor in our continuous search for economy and improved efficiency. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford referred to an office reduction programme, which would find sympathy with many. I can confirm to the House that the relocation initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General in March is being energetically pursued as a matter of good management and best use of resources.
    The successful transfer of 1,400 jobs to Glasgow under the 1979 dispersal programme is almost complete, and I am pleased to be able to report a high general level of satisfaction among those—about a third of the total number of staff—who moved north of the border. We are now examining a range of further relocation possibilities which, among other things, should significantly reduce the amount of work that must remain in London. It is, however, often overlooked that the majority of our civilian staff are already located outside London and the south-east, and this number will be increased still further.
    The House will readily understand that extensive consultations are required before any final decision can be taken on the transfer of work to a new location, but this is an area of departmental management to which my right hon. Friend and I attach considerable importance. It holds out the prospect of a happy combination of useful gains in operational efficiency and substantial cost savings.
    The wide-ranging search for better value for money through better designed and more reliable equipment, through better project management, through collaboration with our allies and through clearer and more flexible management arrangements is made effective by the hard work and skill of the people who implement it. As the Statement on the Defence Estimates makes clear, competition makes demands on the Procurement Executive's staff as well as on defence contractors. Therefore, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the commitment and skill of all those involved in helping to bring about these changes in industry——
    being Ten O'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

    Glenochil Prison
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
    10 pm
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: When I requested an Adjournment debate at the beginning of the recess I did not think that my wish would be granted as speedily as it has been, and I immediately express my gratitude, although I question the timing a little. But as it is only the second time in nine and a half years that I have been granted an Adjournment debate, I do not suppose I have many grounds for complaint.
    The subject of my debate is the disturbances at Glenochil prison in my constituency. In recent years the prison has had a chequered history—often because of matters unrelated to its general administration—and over the years many hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to correct misapprehensions and misunderstandings about the regime in that institution.
    The problems that arose in the summer, although sadly all too common in other Scottish institutions during the past two or three years, occurred for only the first time at Glenochil. They involved vandalism, disturbances and a breakdown in discipline, and they required what seemed at the time, to some people at least, stern, if not oppressive, corrective action.
    I must refer to the strenuous efforts of the staff, and especially the man whom I am proud to call my friend —Gordon Jackson, the governor—who, with his staff, has sought to re-establish discipline, which is the first priority in any prison regime. I pay tribute, not only to the prison service, but to the directorate and the Minister for the courageous decision that they took when the recess began to allow the press into the prison to assess for themselves the conditions in which the prisoners were living and who was responsible for those conditions. When the press saw for themselves the conditions and the manner in which they had been created, it was all too clear that the blame rested not with the prison authorities but with elements within the prison who were trying to disrupt the life and work of the prison service.
    At the same time, I recognise that some of the problems that caused the disturbances flowed directly from the somewhat crude and simplistic approach to the relocation of prisoners that was implicit in the grand design. That involved the movement within the Scottish prison service of a number of prisoners, some of whom were disruptive, to institutions that were incapable of receiving adult prisoners of the temperament that they subsequently displayed. In the case of Glenochil, which had specialised in the care and treatment of young offenders, in the first stages at least, the grand design programme was ill-conceived. However, I recognise that there had to be changes in the distribution of prisoners within Scotland. There were areas of overcrowding, and at the same time areas of under-use, so the programme was necessary, but my complaint is that it was carried out in a hurry, without adequate preparation.
    The prison service, not least at gubernatorial level, is aware of the problems that confront the prison system. In Scottish prisons we now have a class of prisoner who is in for crimes that involve large sums of money, usually raised through the drug trade. The prisoners have access to people and to forces outside the prison which seek to
    988
    influence the families of other prisoners. That power is used to undermine the authority of the governor and his staff. The new approaches that are being developed, in intelligence gathering, identifying changes in behaviour patterns in the prison and the simple but time-consuming and often frustrating business of trying to stop or at best to discover the flow of narcotics into the institutions, have come from the experience of people such as Governor Jackson at Glenochil and his staff.
    At the beginning of the recess I took out an insurance policy by putting down a marker for an Adjournment debate. At the time I was aware that the prison was not under the control of the staff and that there were areas that could only be called "no go areas", but I was also aware that the governor and his staff had a plan which they thought they could carry through and that by September or October they would be back in control of the institution. When I saw the governor a couple of weeks ago, before he fell ill, he told me that he was happy at the way in which things were progressing. He felt that the programme to restore discipline and control in the adult section of the prison was going smoothly.
    Since that meeting I have been approached by the Scottish Prison Officers Association branch in the prison. It expressed grave concern about a change in the regime, which it does not think is in the short-term interests of the institution. The Minister contacted me at the weekend to inform me of his intention to visit the prison and invited me to accompany him. For reasons that he may understand, because of the business that preceded this debate, I was unable to accept the invitation.
    The substance of the prison officers' complaint was this. The detention centre is an institution which I have long attacked because the short, sharp shock programme of sentencing was grossly inappropriate to the needs of young people and young offenders. The inmates were being transferred to the Polmont institution—we still call it Polmont borstal. It used to be in my constituency. The premises previously inhabited by young offenders were being used as a remand centre for young offenders under 21 who were awaiting trial and sentence.
    I have heard that the prison staff are concerned about the speed with which these changes were carried through, about the lack of notice and of the training that they felt they would require for the new circumstances. They have also told me of their concern about the building. Many of the young people who are awaiting trial—we cannot yet call them young offenders, as they are innocent until proven guilty—often behave little better than vandais. They have taken advantage of the thin walls between the prison cells and have broken through from one cell to another. As the Minister knows, we are discussing a discreet entity in one section of the complex at Glenochil, and this grouping in the institution has been imposed on it at short notice, and without the necessary training or proper architectural preparation. That is a recipe for disaster, about which the prison officers are extremely concerned.
    The officers have been corresponding with the Minister and, if I had not known that I was to have this opportunity to raise the matter, I should have written to him too, but I hope now to hear at least part of the story this evening.
    I recognise the strenuous efforts that have been made by the Scottish prison service during the summer to try to correct the tragic circumstances that obtained in the early summer as a result of the disturbances. Stability has been

    989
    largely restored, but keeping order and running a prison are not necessarily the same things. I hope that we can start from the foundations that have been laid over the summer and that a more relaxed and meaningful regime, which will benefit both prisoners and the safety of prisoners and staff, can be established. Staff satisfaction is severely limited now because they have had to operate in difficult conditions, which they have done with a remarkable degree of restraint, for which they have not been given the credit they deserve.
    I should not do my views on the Scottish prison service and system justice if I did not say that overcrowding is one of the basic problems in our prisons. We send too many people to prison because there are no other places for them to go. A report has been issued, but it would not be appropriate to debate it this evening. I note in passing that the time that we have in this House in which to debate penal issues is all too limited. All parties in the House take the view that there are no votes to be gained in prisons: prisoners do not vote. There is not enough public concern about the prison system. When it is felt, it tends to relate to crises such as prison riots, the taking of hostages and suicides. I have had my share of those at Glenochil. Once such difficulties have been resolved, at least in the short term, the public gaze is averted and people carry on as before.
    The Minister has shown flexibility in his handling of some of the Scottish prison system's problems, and I pay tribute to him for that, but he must take on the biggest problem of all—our judicial system, which sends far too many people to prison and to institutions which are often not suitable for the prisoners or for the offences of which they have been found guilty. The latest round of reorganisation that the Minister has undertaken has been painful in Glenochil. The situation will take some time to improve.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been left in no doubt about the local feelings on the matter. He must now start to look at a prize bigger than just discipline and stability—the prize of a prison system that is effective and humane. We still have some way to go until we achieve that. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us the up-to-date position in the prison and that he will join me in paying tribute to the staff who this summer took on an extremely difficult job and carried it out with a degree of restraint that was truly remarkable.
    10.15 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am glad to join the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) in paying tribute to the governor and staff of Glenochil prison, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks. We have brought forward a consultation paper on fines and I hope that it will meet the points that he made at the end of his speech. I agree with the inference in his speech that it is important to match a prisoner to an appropriate regime. In terms of grand design, Glenochil was designed as an adult training prison with good, modern facilities, and prison staff are trained to cope with any and every inmate, both adult and young offender.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke about drugs. Staff in the Scottish prison service are conscious of the need to prevent
    990
    illicit drugs being smuggled into and used in prison establishments. Some measures have been or soon will be introduced to try to combat this problem. Among these are the introduction of closed-circuit television systems in visiting rooms and the use of sniffer dogs and strip searches which have been in use. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. His concern is well known to me. He came to see me and the director of the prison service earlier in the summer and he highlighted some points that were of considerable value to us.
    I visited Glenochil prison only yesterday. I met representatives of the local branch of the Scottish Prison Officers' Association and also saw the chairman of the visiting committee, Councillor Watt. I toured both the main prison and the detention centre. In particular, I visited A hall, where I spoke with the prisoners and saw conditions at first hand. On Monday, I also went to Polmont young offenders institution where I saw the local branch of the SPOA and met the prison service chaplains and discussed the way forward with them. I was also able to pay a visit to the prison service college and saw the training courses for new recruits.
    I should like to answer straightaway the concerns of the hon. Gentleman about the recent change in the use of Glenochil detention centre. The background to the change was a very serious situation towards the end of September at Barlinnie which developed quite suddenly. Admissions to Barlinnie prison rose sharply, leading to a degree of overcrowding and stress which I regarded as unacceptable. The prison department looked at a number of possible solutions, but none was entirely satisfactory. The best option appeared to be to transfer the young offenders then located in the Glenochil detention centre to Polmont, and, in turn, to move a number of under-21-year-old remand prisoners from Barlinnie prison to the Glenochil detention centre. This was not an easy decision to take. However, there was a serious situation at Barlinnie with overcrowding, and we had to look at ways in which the service as a whole could help. I felt that the decision to make these temporary changes was the right one in the wider public interest.
    I stress that the changes are temporary. Later in the year, when the numbers in Barlinnie allow, it is our intention to transfer the young offenders from Polmont back to the Glenochil detention centre buildings. By that date I anticipate that the detention centre as such will have ceased to exist. We are working towards 1 November as the date for the introduction of the new generic sentence for young offenders, at which point all detention centre sentences will become young offender sentences. It is our intention to return a brisk young offender regime to Glenochil, which will incorporate the more positive aspects of the detention centre regime.
    The transfer of the detention centre inmates took place after discussion with the governors of Glenochil and Polmont. I have explained the reasons for the urgency with which the changes were introduced. This meant that it was not possible to consult the trade union side in advance, as would be our normal practice. However, officials visited Glenochil on 30 September and held discussions with representatives of the local branch of the SPOA. The situation in relation to the movement of young offender inmates was explained to them and they accepted that Glenochil had to play its part in the wider prison system.

    991
    I have been able to discuss the detention centre changes in recent days—only yesterday—with both the SPOA local branches involved. Members of the local branch at Glenochil have three concerns.
    First, they felt that remand prisoners were more prone to disruption, as the hon. Gentleman said, and they expressed concern about the future of the detention centre. I was able to give them assurances that it is our intention that Glenochil should revert to holding convicted young offenders once the situation at Barlinnie had eased.
    Secondly, they were concerned about the staffing, both in the detention centre and in the main prison. The prisons department has agreed a staff complement for the detention centre, involving the provision of extra stafT on detached duty, and I was able to assure the local branch that that agreement would be honoured.
    The department monitors closely the staffing needs of Glenochil as a whole. The average number of staff in post since April has been 233 and equates with the complement of figures agreed with the governor. Currently, however, the number of operational discipline staff in post is 237. A further appraisal of staffing needs was completed earlier this month and the department will shortly be discussing its findings with the senior management at the prison.
    The third concern of the local branch was for the physical fabric of the detention centre. They felt that it was prone to damage—the hon. Gentleman touched on this —by the young remand prisoners. This is obviously a point of which we were aware when the change of use was agreed. I understand that, to an extent, the fears expressed have not materialised and that no major damage has been caused to the detention centre so far. Management staff at Barlinnie are helping by sifting inmates before they are sent to Glenochil, and they have agreed not to transfer major security problems there. Conditions for the inmates are very much better at Glenochil, since each inmate has his own room, rather than being located three in a cell, as was the case at Barlinnie. Although the representatives of the Glenochil local branch pointed out these concerns to me, I was much impressed by their readiness to assist, their selfless dedication, and their recognition that Glenochil had to play its part in the interest of the service as a whole.
    I visited Polmont last Monday and discussed the position in relation to the detention centre inmates with the governor and the SPOA, and both intimated that the arrival of the detention centre inmates at Polmont had created no problems for them. The inmates had become readily integrated into the Polmont regime.
    The main part of Glenochil prison houses adult male offenders with a medium security classification. Since the incident at the adult prison in May, the governor and his staff have been working towards the introduction of a progressive regime. The pace of progress has, however, had to be dictated by the need for the governor and his staff to remain firmly in control at the prison.
    When I visited Glenochil yesterday, I was able to see at first hand the conditions. I should say that everything has been done to ensure that the inmates receive their due entitlement to exercise and visits, even during the immediate aftermath of the incidents, when conditions were very difficult. The majority of the adult offenders are being allowed periods of association, during exercise and recreation. Three of the prison's workshops have reopened and about one third of the inmates are at work on a regular basis. It has also been possible to reopen vocational
    992
    training and educational classes for a number of inmates, and there is limited use of the sports facilities in the gymnasium.
    A minority of inmates—mainly those in A hall, which has the most difficult prisoners—are receiving only limited periods of association, when exercise is taken. In addition, 13 prisoners, all in A hall are being held out of association under the conditions of rule 36 of the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952. Staff in A hall are no longer wearing riot gear. I spoke to staff and inmates in A hall. The relations between staff and inmates have improved, and the hall was quiet. There is now a system of progression at the prison and inmates who behave can move to a less restricted regime. Overall, I can report that gradually the prison is returning to normal. Glenochil is calm and staff have restored control and good order.
    However, it will take time to restore the full range of privileges and opportunities for inmates. Change can be introduced only as quickly as staff feel confident to proceed. The incidents in May were a very significant betrayal of the trust which management and staff had previously shown inmates. Inevitably, in such circumstances, the restoration of trust and confidence is a gradual matter, but I have spoken with both management and staff and I know that they are working at this as a matter of the highest priority.
    Perhaps I might say something now about the physical fabric of Glenochil. A programme of window replacement is well under way. Resources devoted to this have recently been trebled, with the approach of winter. One hall has already been completed and the other three halls should be finished within a month. A rolling programme is under way to refurbish the many cells which were damaged. I have seen the new type of cell and was very impressed. Facilities and furnishings have been upgraded, and I believe that this was welcomed by the inmates to whom I spoke. At the same time, the opportunity has been taken to strengthen a number of the cells which were damaged in May.
    The refurbishment programme obviously has the highest priority in the interests of the health and well-being of inmates. We are also looking urgently at ways of improving the external security, so that opportunities for outside recreation and exercise can be restored. I can also report that the prison is much tidier than when the press saw it in May. Inmates are now co-operating better, and less litter accumulates. Also tidying up and cleaning operations are carried out regularly, and daily if possible, depending on weather conditions. Inmates are now prepared to work with staff on keeping the prison clean.
    I welcome this opportunity to debate conditions at Glenochil prison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clackmannan. I pay tribute to the professionalism and responsibility shown by all the staff at Glenochil. There was no justification at all for the disruption and damage carried out by inmates at the prison. Such activities benefited no one. They are a betrayal of trust. Their immediate result is a loss of opportunities and privileges —not to mention a deterioration in the accommodation —for all inmates. The process of restoring opportunities and rebuilding trust cannot be accomplished overnight. I am confident, however, that management and staff are taking all the necessary steps and are now well on course for a return towards normal regimes for the large majority of inmates.

    993
    I should like to say something about the events which occurred at Glenochil in May. There had been a number of incidents at the prison since its use was changed to hold adult offenders in June 1987, but none as serious as those which occurred on 5 and 6 May. During rioting over the ensuing days, in which the majority of inmates took part to varying extents, 40 cells were completely wrecked, over 300 windows smashed and considerable damage, estimated at around £200,000, was caused to the fabric of the prison.
    Hon. Members will recall the background to these events. They occurred during a week in which there had been some unrest in the prison system, including an incident when an officer was taken hostage at Perth prison. That incident was resolved, but Glenochil prison remained tense. On 4 May an isolated incident occurred, when, it is alleged, an inmate assaulted a member of staff. The prison was in a state of unrest and in the evening a fire was started. The following morning it was decided that inmates should be restricted to their halls while police were investigating. At lunchtime there was an attempt to take a member of staff hostage. The governor ordered that all inmates return to their cells. Inmates in two of the four halls refused. When the governor again asked the inmates to return to their cells and the inmates again refused, they were returned forcibly by prison staff. Prison staff did this using approved techniques of control and restraint and during the process nobody was hurt. I may say that when I was at Polmont prison service training college on Monday I was able to see the training of prison officers to deal with this type of disturbance. The training is thorough and to a very high professional standard. Once the inmates had been returned to their cells, they commenced on a programme of destruction, as I have described.
    There was no justification at all for these acts of destruction. The inmates had no legitimate grievances to justify their behaviour; they simply refused to obey prison officers' orders and then became abusive and violent. Nobody benefited from the inmates' actions. Before the incident, the policy of the governor and his staff had been
    994
    to provide inmates with access to all privileges and facilities at Glenochil on trust. If an inmate betrayed this trust, privileges could be withdrawn.
    Following the disturbance, the immediate priority was to reassert control and reimpose good order at the prison. It was clearly necessary for management and staff to reassert the principles of custody and control, which they did.
    It has been suggested that the imposition of the restricted regime punished all inmates, including those who might have taken no part in the incidents. However, my information is that a majority of the inmates took part in the disruption, to varying degrees. It will be appreciated that, in the confused circumstances which prevailed, it would have been very difficult for staff to distinguish between those who may have participated willingly, others who may have participated unwillingly and those who took no part at all. Control had to be re-established, and the imposition of a general restriction was the only practicable way forward.
    The basis of the new progressive system is now in place, and slow but steady progress is being made in restoring opportunities and facilities for inmates. I should like to pay tribute to the professional way in which the governor and staff have coped with difficult circumstances. I am impressed by the caring and responsible attitudes which staff have shown. I think it would be fair to say that staff regarded the disruption in May as a very serious betrayal of trust on the part of inmates. Clearly, once control had been reaffirmed, the process of returning the prison to normal has had to take place at a measured pace. The confidence and trust which previously existed between staff and inmates cannot be restored overnight; this will take time. I am satisfied, however, that order has now been restored now that the process of introducing more positive regimes is proceeding at a satisfactory pace. Indeed, I saw at first hand yesterday what was being done in the way of reopening workshops, vocational training, education and indoor sports facilities. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Clackmannan for his remarks.
    The motion having been made at 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 half-past Ten O'clock.

WALES

  Temporary Traffic Lights
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many temporary road traffic lights there are on trunk roads in Wales at present; and what are the two longest times of operation and their locations.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  There are 25 temporary road traffic lights associated with roadworks on trunk roads in Wales at present. The two longest times of operation and their locations are:

  (a) A494 Drws-y-Nant, Gwynedd, in operation from January 1979 and expected to remain until June 1991, and,

  (b) Aberaeron-Aberarth, Dyfed, in operation from January 1984 and expected to remain until September 1989.

  Information regarding temporary traffic lights for statutory undertakers' works is not held centrally.

  Curriculum Council
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the establishment of the Curriculum Council for Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Curriculum Council for Wales, which I appointed in shadow form in May 1988, was formally established on 16 August 1988. Its chairman is Mr. Hywel Evans OBE, JP, headteacher of Aberconwy school, Gwynedd. The other 13 members are:—

  Mr. Richard Daugherty—Senior Lecturer, Department of Education, University College Swansea, West Glamorgan

  Mr. Alwyn Evans—Chief Adviser, Gwynedd LEA

  Mrs. Margaret Hemmings—Headteacher, Lewis Girls School, Mid Glamorgan

  Mr. Michael Jones—Solicitor, Cardiff, South Glamorgan

  Mr. Wynne Lewis—Head of Science Department, St. Cyres School, Penarth, South Glamorgan

  Mr. John Love—Headteacher, Dyffryn Comprehensive School, Newport, Gwent

  Miss Anne Powell—Headteacher, Birchgrove Infants School, Swansea, West Glamorgan

  Mr. Eddie Roberts—Director of Education, Mid Glamorgan

  Mr. Ieuan Roberts—Headteacher, Ysgol Croesatti, Flint, Clwyd

  Mrs. Olwen Chapman—Headteacher, Llanefyl Church in Wales School, Powys

  Mr. Ieuan Price—Principal, Carmarthen College of Technology and Art, Dyfed

  Mr. Peter Winterburn—Lecturer in Biology, University of Wales College of Cardiff, South Glamorgan

  Mrs. Beryl Brewer—Personnel Manager, Marks and Spencers, Cardiff, South Glamorgan.

  The council was given its formal remit on 12 October and a copy of the remit has been placed in the Library of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received recently on the reform of the legal profession; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General
  I have received three representations since 1 April 1988 and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has received 28 representations, from the same date, on such matters as rights of audience, fusion, legal education and training and entry to the profession.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Attorney-General how many refusals of visitor visas have gone to immigration appeals; what were the outcomes of such appeals; and what is the total cost of such proceedings.

  The Solicitor-General
  Appeals against refusal of applications for visitor visas are not recorded separately, but are recorded together with appeals against refusal of applications by foreign students for temporary entrance clearance. In the period 1 January to 31 August 1988 a total of 3,277 separate appeals in this category were received by the adjudicators and 28 by the immigration appeal tribunal. Because of the way in which statistics are recorded by the appellate authorities, it is not possible to show the outcome of appeals received within any particular period. However, between 1 January and 31 August 1988, a total of 1,226 appeals against refusal of applications for visitors' visas and from foreign students were disposed of by the adjudicators of which 302 were allowed, 656 dismissed and 268 withdrawn; and 65 appeals were disposed of by the appeal tribunal of which 19 were allowed, 25 dismissed and 21 were considered to be outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

  It is not possible to distinguish accurately the total cost of dealing with particular categories of appeal. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average cost of holding an immigration appeal hearing.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the administration of the immigration appellate authorities. It is not possible from current records to give a precise average cost for an immigration appeal hearing. However, in the calendar year 1987, a total of 9,943 appeals were dealt with by the immigration appellate authorities. The total cost of the appellate authorities in the financial year 1987–88 (the first full financial year in which the Lord Chancellor had responsibility for the IAAs' administration) was £2,411,088. From this information it would be possible to state as an informed, but not precise, estimate that the average cost of dealing with an appeal was of the order of £240.

  It is estimated that in the same period hearings outnumbered appeals by approximately 20 per cent.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General what has been the total cost to public funds from all efforts made by Her Majesty's Government to prevent the publication and reporting of the book, "Spycatcher".

  The Solicitor-General
  The total amount expended to date on legal costs both here and abroad in respect of litigation and advice, and on travelling and subsistence, is about £1,019,000.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Parliament
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken or are planned by any institution of the European Economic Communities to implement the opinion of the European Council meeting at Hanover, that there was a need to associate the European Parliament more closely with its decisions; and for what reason she concurred with that opinion.

  The Prime Minister
  The conclusions of the Hanover European Council reflect our wish to encourage the continued constructive involvement of all the institutions, including the European Parliament, in the business of the Community. The co-operation procedure laid down in the Single European Act provides a further way of associating the European Parliament more closely in the decisions of the Council.

  Social Services
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister whether responsibility for social services will rest with the Health Department and under the ministerial responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. Responsibility for personal social services is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Parliament Square (Access)
  Mr. Bowen Wells
  To ask the Prime Minister what central Government funds have been spent on proposals for improvements for Parliament square and the environs of the Palace of Westminster which benefit the public and make access easier for hon. Members; and when such proposals will be implemented.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have committed some £186,000 to studies commissioned by Westminster city council into ways of improving the environment and traffic conditions in Parliament square. Westminster's consultants have recently reviewed options for long-term improvements. The Government will be considering the way forward with Westminster, the House authorities and other interested parties. The implementation date for improvements will depend on which scheme is selected.

  European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if any definition has been proposed by Her Majesty's Government of the phrase "European union", as contained in the preamble to the Single European Act; and if she will provide any appropriate references or text.
  850
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on 23 April 1986, at column 325.

  Separation of Powers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will bring forward legislation to ensure a constitutional separation of powers in order to enhance the powers of the elected representatives vis-a-vis those of Government.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what further representations she has received calling for an inquiry into allegations of illegality and domestic subversion made against the British secret services in the book "Spycatcher"; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received no such representations and I have nothing to add to the statement issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department on 13 October, immediately after the publication of the House of Lords judgement on the book "Spycatcher". A copy of this statement has been placed in the Library.

  Interviews
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many requests for British media interviews have been received by her during the past 12 months; and how many were granted.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive a considerable number of requests every year, but I am only able to accept a few owing to my many other commitments.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister which towns in the United Kingdom she has visited during the past 12 months, showing if she had any discussions with elected civil leaders in each of the towns listed.

  The Prime Minister
  During the past 12 months I have visited numerous towns in the course of my official duties. They include:

  Aberdeen

  Greenock

  Ashford

  Halifax

  Belfast

  Inverness

  Bilborough

  Lisburn

  Cambridge

  Mablethorpe

  Coleraine

  Newhaven

  Daventry

  Nottingham

  Drumahoe

  Perth

  Dundee

  Plymouth

  Edinburgh

  Redditch

  Enniskillen

  Salford

  Folkestone

  Scunthorpe

  Glasgow

  Wellesbourne

  With regard to discussions with civil leaders, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on 8 February 1988 at column 46.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the countries she has visited, together with dates, during 1988 to date.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is as follows:
  851

  Date

  Country visited

  4–8 January

  Kenya, Nigeria

  12–13 February

  Belgium (EC)

  17 February

  Belgium (NATO)

  2–3 March

  Belgium (NATO)

  6–8 April

  Turkey

  10 June

  France

  18–22 June

  Canada

  27–28 June

  Germany

  29 July-9 August

  Bahrain, Oman, Singapore, Australia, Malaysia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates

  20–23 September

  Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) Department of Health and Social Services offices and (b)jobcentres she has visited in the past 12 months.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 15 April 1988 at column 245.

  Official Meetings
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) which trades union leaders she has met officially for discussions during the past 12 months;

  (2) which local authority leaders she has met officially for discussions during the past 12 months.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on 8 February 1988 at column 46.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many requests for official meetings have been received by her during the past 12 months; and how many were granted.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive a considerable number of requests for official meetings each year, and agree to a substantial number of these.

  Australia (Visit)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the purpose of her visit to Australia in 1988.

  The Prime Minister
  I visited Australia at the invitation of the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Hawke, to mark Australia's bicentenary, to open British day of Expo 88 and to hold discussions with members of the federal and state governments.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the total cost for maintaining contact with the United Kingdom when she was visiting Australia and other countries in August 1988; and how many officials were involved at(a) home and (b) abroad;

  (2) what was the total cost to public funds of her visit to Australia and other countries in August 1988; how many officials accompanied her; and what were their functions.

  The Prime Minister
  It is too soon after my visit to Australia and the middle and far east to be able to give detailed information on the cost to public funds. A provisional estimate of the total cost of the visit, including communications with the United Kingdom is £174,000.

  I was accompanied on the visit by three officials and 11 support staff including two communications officers. A third communications officer was temporarily moved from Hong Kong to Canberra for five days to assist with the
  852
  increase in messages. All other staff involved with communications handled telephone calls and messages as part of their normal duties.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many journalists accompanied her in officially provided transport on her visit to Australia and other countries in August 1988; which organisations they represented; and what was the cost charged to each journalist.

  The Prime Minister
  There were places for 15 journalists in the official aircraft. All were taken by representatives of newspapers and radio and television organisations. Each journalist was charged £1,750 for the whole tour.

  Cabinet Office (Staff)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the latest available figures for the Cabinet Office in the London pay area of the number of vacancies by grade and the proportion this is of the grade complement in London.

  The Prime Minister
  The position as at 1 October 1988 is as follows:

  Grade

  Vacancies

  Complement

  Grade 7

  6·5

  169·0

  Senior Executive Officer

  2·5

  51·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  3·0

  77·5

  Executive Officer

  5·0

  134·0

  Administrative Officer

  10·5

  179·0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  0·5

  50·0

  Personal Secretary

  6·5

  68·5

  Typist

  3·0

  58·5

  Support Manager 3

  0·5

  5·0

  Support Grade Band 2

  4·0

  74·0

  Senior Psychologist

  1·0

  4·0

  Senior Occupational Health Nursing Adviser

  1·0

  3·0

  Occupational Health Nursing Adviser

  1·0

  3·0

  Sister

  1·0

  3·0

  Graphics Officer

  3·0

  9·0

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will provide the latest available figures for the Cabinet Office for(a) numbers of staff in receipt of local pay additions, by grade, (b) location of those offices awarding local pay additions and (c) annual cost.

  The Prime Minister
  The numbers of individuals in receipt of local pay additions in the Cabinet Office by grade and location are:

  Grade

  London

  Sunningdale

  Basingstoke

  Administrative Assistants

  38

  1

  52

  Administrative Officers

  169

  27

  81

  Executive Officers

  133

  1—

  1—

  Typists

  54

  3

  16

  Typing Managers

  6

  0

  2

  Personal Secretaries

  62

  2

  5

  Senior Personal Secretaries

  50

  0

  1

  1 LFAs not payable to these grades in these locations

  The figures are based on the number of staff-in-post as at 1 October 1988. The estimated annual cost is £365,700.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  ODA (Transfer)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for further transfer of the Overseas Development Administration from London; and what basis he uses as a critierion in this respect.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The ODA now has some 500 posts in its East Kilbride office, and is in the process of moving some 390 posts to the former Royal Navy dockyard in Chatham; 680 posts remain in central London. The bulk of the ODA departments currently located in central London are planned to remain there, as close as possible to the rest of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, the requirement for accommodation in central London is kept under review by the ODA, in common with other Government Departments, to hold this to the minimum necessary bearing in mind the need to administer the aid programme cost-effectively.

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of aid to Kampuchea; and what criteria or conditions will influence or determine any decision of Her Majesty's Government to again provide official aid to that country.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans there are for United Kingdom aid to the people of Kampuchea.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We do not give official aid to Cambodia, and shall only be able to consider the provision of such aid when a government acceptable to the majority of Cambodians is in place. We are currently considering the provision of humanitarian aid via British non-governmental organisations working in Cambodia, and we contributed £100,000 to the World Food Programme/Food and Agriculture Organisation appeal launched in May.

  Rhinos (Protection)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the assistance given to the Governments of Kenya, Zambia and Zimbabwe for the protection of rhinos in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Conservation of wildlife, including the rhinoceros, has been supported through the aid programme in both Kenya and Zimbabwe during the last five years, although precise figures are not readily available. We currently have three experts in Kenya, one of whom co-ordinates the Kenya rhino rescue project. We are ready to discuss with the Governments concerned what further assistance we might provide.

ENERGY

  Power Stations (Safety)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the substantive documentation which 854
  demonstrates the safety of construction, operation and decommissioning of the pressurised water reactor power station now under construction at Sizewell.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The safety documentation on which the Health and Safety Executive granted the CEGB a site licence for Sizewell B is the pre-construction safety report together with its supporting reports. A copy of the PCSR is available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the Sizewell B pre-construction safety report is to apply, other than for site specific related changes, to the similar station proposed for Hinkley Point C.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Yes. The CEGB proposes that, other than for minor changes made, with the agreement of the HSE's nuclear installations inspectorate, to the Sizewell design after licensing and for changes to deal with site specific requirements, the Sizewell PCSR can be directly applied to Hinkley Point C.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make the proprietary version of the pre-construction safety report available to hon. Members, members of the public and to objectors who have registered with the Hinkley Point C secretariat.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Copies of the Sizewell PCSR, together with CEGB documents covering the site-specific related changes for Hinkley Point C, are available in the Libraries of both Houses. They are also available for inspection by the public at several CEGB premises, and at the Hinkley Point C inquiry public office, and have been put before the Hinkley Point C inquiry inspector as inquiry documents.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether all the references cited in the Sizewell B, pre-construction safety report, are available in unabridged form.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. Commercially confidential information contained in the PCSR supporting documents is not publicly available. The Nil has, of course, been supplied with unabridged versions of all safety documents.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy for what reason each deletion and abridgement of the Sizewell B, pre-construction safety report, and supporting reference documents has been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Deletions of material in the PCSR supporting documents have been made for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) following his understanding that British Coal has now taken steps to introduce the option that claimants may have subsidence damage repair work undertaken by a contractor of their choice, what steps have been taken to publicise this option in the last year; how many claimants have requested this option within the last year; and in how many cases British Coal has agreed to this option within the last year;
  855
  (2) within what period of time of the British Coal Corporation receiving a claim are claimants against the corporation for subsidence damage in active mining areas now being visited; and what percentage of claimants have not been visited within four weeks (a) in the last 12 months for which figures are available and (b) in the last three months for which figures are available;

  (3) since the Government's response to the Waddilove report on subsidence damage, what percentage of claimants have chosen to have repairs carried out by a contractor of their choice; how many requests to have repairs carried out by independent contractors have been refused by the board; and how many references there have been to independent adjudication.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These are management matters for British Coal, and I have asked the chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy since publication of the Government's response to the Waddilove report on subsidence damage, how many requests have been received by the board for reference to independent adjudication; how many requests have not been referred because of lack of agreement by the board; and where references have been made to independent adjudication, in what proportion of cases British Coal has agreed to meet the costs of the adjudicator.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a management matter for British Coal, and I understand that the deputy chairman has already written to my hon. Friend on this subject.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the effect on the initial market value of a privatised electricity industry, of a requirement that at least 20 per cent, of generating capacity should now be non-fossil fuel based.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The market value of the electricity industry will depend on a wide range of factors including the profitability of the companies, their capital structures, their future prospects and the state of the market. It is imposssible to say to what extent any particular factor will contribute to this.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals there are to require private companies operating nuclear power stations after the privatisation of the electricity industry to take out insurance against major nuclear accidents.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Meirionydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 3 March 1988, col.649.

  South Africa (Oil Embargo)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to help prevent the circumvention of the international oil embargo against South Africa.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have made it clear to companies operating on the United Kingdom continental shelf that they must comply with the the export guidelines which state that North Sea oil shall only be exported to members 856
  of the European Community and the International Energy Agency or countries with whom there is already an existing pattern of trade.

DEFENCE

  Irish Sea (Exercises)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what naval vessels, maritime reconaissance aircraft or other defence equipment were involved in exercises in the Irish sea on 5 September; whether any incidents or collisions occurred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There was no exercise in the Irish Sea on 5 September and there were no incidents or collisions involving royal naval vessels.

  Conservative Party Conference 1988
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what services were provided by members of the armed forces for purposes connected with the 1988 Conservative party conference; and what was the total cost involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In response to requests from the chief constable, Sussex constabulary, small numbers of military personnel were deployed to assist the police in searching the conference area for explosive devices and in potential bomb disposal tasks. In addition, the minesweeper, HMS Nurton, was. stationed off Brighton, and three rigid inflatable boats crewed by Royal Marines were provided to assist the police in patrolling inshore waters. In line with normal arrangements for such operations no charges for the small extra costs incurred by my Department for transport, accommodation, and so on, were made to the Sussex constabulary.

  Australia (Prime Minister's Visit)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to his Department of the Prime Minister's visit to Australia and other countries in August 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence made available an RAF VC10 aircraft and crew for the Prime Minister's visit to Australia and other countries in August 1988. A provisional estimate of the cost to be borne by the Management and Personnel Office is £195,000.

  Armilla Patrol
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost to date of the Armilla patrol; and what is the current monthly cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 5 November 1987 at column 888, by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart).

  Rhino Poaching (Kenya and Zimbabwe)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will offer the services of British combat
  857
  troops to the Governments of Kenya and Zimbabwe to assist in the campaign against the poaching of rhino; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. Such operations would not be appropriate tasks for the armed forces. The Government have, however, provided other forms of assistance to African Governments in their attempts to halt the illegal trade in endangered species, including staff and equipment to be used by wildlife departments. In addition, the United Kingdom is a party to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, and has been in the forefront of those calling for even stricter controls on such trade.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  National Union of Students
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if(a) the National Union of Students and (b) the Federation of Conservative Students have been asked to submit evidence to the inquiry on voluntary membership of the National Union of Students.

  Pupils under 5 in Maintained Nursery and Primary Schools

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Nursery

  Primary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Barking

  0

  2,284

  0

  2,630

  0

  2,607

  0

  2,587

  0

  2,174

  Barnet

  489

  3,465

  496

  3,608

  500

  3,646

  495

  3,617

  520

  3,568

  Bexley

  175

  1,067

  174

  1,223

  175

  1,204

  175

  1,180

  175

  1,257

  Brent

  277

  3,755

  281

  3,946

  271

  4,021

  268

  4,074

  278

  4,035

  Bromley

  0

  1,961

  0

  1,137

  0

  1,136

  0

  1,140

  0

  1,097

  Croydon

  384

  2,489

  426

  2,659

  410

  2,696

  411

  2,740

  404

  2,728

  Ealing

  626

  2,816

  630

  3,106

  605

  3,125

  610

  3,078

  577

  4,236

  Enfield

  0

  3,066

  0

  3,349

  0

  3,487

  0

  3,399

  0

  3,321

  Haringey

  226

  3,387

  219

  3,553

  216

  3,555

  213

  3,418

  201

  3,356

  Harrow

  0

  1,482

  0

  1,466

  0

  1,562

  0

  1,555

  0

  1,414

  Havering

  0

  1,854

  0

  2,058

  0

  2,088

  0

  1,987

  0

  1,967

  Hillingdon

  101

  3,315

  119

  3,590

  116

  3,653

  117

  2,832

  120

  2,780

  Hounslow

  0

  3,381

  0

  3,606

  0

  3,837

  0

  3,779

  0

  3,703

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  231

  1,348

  237

  1,437

  238

  1,461

  238

  1,394

  244

  1,417

  Merton

  208

  2,159

  209

  2,298

  180

  2,413

  173

  2,221

  0

  2,388

  Newham

  1,038

  3,242

  982

  3,492

  962

  3,840

  979

  3,756

  952

  3,686

  Redbridge

  0

  1,213

  0

  1,239

  0

  1,286

  0

  1,253

  0

  1,228

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  70

  1,417

  75

  1,467

  62

  1,500

  68

  1,475

  61

  1,491

  Sutton

  232

  426

  233

  439

  233

  489

  240

  490

  240

  466

  Waltham Forest

  431

  2,843

  373

  2,938

  339

  2,998

  292

  2,799

  329

  2,693

  Birmingham

  2,092

  10,483

  1,973

  14,319

  2,187

  15,065

  2,245

  15,332

  2,302

  15,634

  Coventry

  387

  3,690

  402

  4,018

  391

  4,055

  464

  4,048

  445

  4,109

  Dudley

  475

  2,272

  472

  2,449

  481

  2,782

  471

  2,753

  398

  3,040

  Sandwell

  157

  5,037

  159

  5,403

  155

  5,616

  208

  5,730

  203

  5,867

  Solihull

  0

  2,650

  0

  2,764

  0

  2,872

  0

  2,640

  0

  3,037

  Walsall

  848

  5,109

  790

  5,517

  753

  5,481

  770

  5,296

  727

  5,369

  Wolverhampton

  823

  3,669

  831

  3,994

  824

  4,054

  810

  3,937

  830

  3,956

  Knowsley

  0

  2,372

  0

  2,608

  0

  2,873

  0

  3,254

  0

  3,350

  Liverpool

  565

  8,500

  528

  8,999

  555

  9,198

  548

  9,636

  550

  9,433

  St Helens

  74

  2,399

  75

  2,532

  70

  2,613

  76

  2,825

  73

  2,916

  Sefton

  312

  3,724

  311

  3,938

  315

  3,977

  316

  3,836

  319

  3,948

  Wirral

  240

  3,658

  263

  3,875

  221

  4,012

  219

  3,938

  226

  4,094

  Bolton

  599

  3,746

  614

  4,010

  618

  4,185

  601

  4,270

  549

  4,464

  Bury

  157

  1,841

  152

  2,071

  146

  2,018

  142

  2,052

  145

  2,076

  Manchester

  386

  7,009

  425

  7,378

  512

  7,666

  540

  7,782

  540

  8,425

  Oldham

  0

  3,360

  0

  3,776

  0

  3,947

  0

  3,883

  0

  3,952

  Rochdale

  870

  2,541

  891

  2,765

  894

  2,783

  885

  2,793

  910

  2,743

  Salford

  776

  3,602

  780

  3,965

  812

  4,101

  870

  4,025

  862

  4,106

  Stockport

  736

  2,277

  759

  2,524

  773

  2,553

  779

  2,370

  771

  2,537

  Tameside

  318

  3,422

  335

  3,689

  325

  3,729

  324

  3,721

  332

  3,842

  Trafford

  80

  795

  0

  929

  0

  1,016

  0

  991

  0

  992

  Wigan

  183

  4,029

  183

  4,468

  190

  4,571

  199

  4,423

  193

  4,479

  Barnsley

  165

  3,475

  161

  3,570

  167

  3,579

  173

  3,562

  175

  3,570

  Doncaster

  0

  5,107

  0

  5,351

  0

  5,513

  0

  5,505

  0

  5,523

  Rotherham

  331

  3,392

  340

  3,455

  365

  3,530

  352

  3,467

  336

  3,436

  Sheffield

  741

  5,828

  735

  6,137

  731

  6,294

  722

  6,193

  714

  6,194

  Bradford

  571

  6,284

  565

  6,860

  592

  7,437

  510

  7,311

  515

  7,206

  858
  Mr. Jackson
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) on 18 April at column 292, in which he announced the intention to conduct a fact-finding survey of student services and the links between local student unions and the National Union of Students. He also indicated that he would be glad to receive any information or suggestions which interested parties might wish to put forward. Beyond that, no formal invitation to submit evidence has been issued to either body mentioned.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the total number of children under five, by education authority, at(a) nursery schools and (b) primary schools, for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Butcher
  The total numbers of pupils aged under five in maintained nursery and primary schools in each local education authority in England in January of each year since 1983 are given in the table. Many of these pupils in primary schools were in nursery classes.
  859

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Nursery

  Primary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Calderdale

  97

  2,688

  91

  2,904

  95

  2,963

  87

  2,941

  88

  2,865

  Kirklees

  849

  3,730

  751

  5,591

  713

  5,797

  699

  5,288

  666

  5,193

  Leeds

  272

  8,184

  265

  8,759

  273

  9,214

  275

  9,383

  274

  9,341

  Wakefield

  478

  4,248

  500

  4,596

  472

  4,949

  484

  4,883

  464

  4,968

  Gateshead

  59

  3,084

  59

  3,274

  58

  3,274

  64

  3,097

  52

  3,256

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  592

  3,785

  593

  4,202

  579

  4,202

  586

  4,306

  621

  4,264

  North Tyneside

  307

  3,243

  287

  3,588

  276

  3,854

  315

  3,743

  286

  3,620

  South Tyneside

  806

  2,242

  807

  2,482

  797

  2,483

  688

  2,486

  695

  2,431

  Sunderland

  905

  4,345

  927

  4,742

  933

  4,754

  927

  4,626

  964

  4,616

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  7

  0

  10

  0

  10

  0

  6

  0

  13

  ILEA

  4,015

  22,881

  4,075

  24,384

  4,208

  24,892

  4,152

  25,210

  4,150

  25,296

  Avon

  1,477

  7,536

  1,465

  8,072

  1,465

  8,958

  1,461

  8,600

  1,459

  8,677

  Bedfordshire

  1,358

  3,600

  1,366

  3,799

  1,387

  3,632

  1,320

  4,050

  1,356

  3,966

  Berkshire

  1,740

  2,554

  1,809

  2,705

  1,941

  3,005

  1,938

  3,052

  2,015

  3,157

  Buckinghamshire

  507

  2,633

  519

  2,684

  514

  2,535

  515

  2,530

  512

  2,495

  Cambridgeshire

  647

  5,416

  633

  5,829

  631

  6,166

  635

  5,951

  655

  5,964

  Cheshire

  796

  7,440

  810

  7,986

  816

  8,102

  819

  8,172

  828

  11,422

  Cleveland

  445

  10,011

  360

  10,704

  279

  10,996

  156

  10,969

  156

  11,196

  Cornwall

  103

  4,209

  96

  4,492

  91

  4,880

  94

  4,517

  92

  4,303

  Cumbria

  681

  4,785

  705

  5,114

  701

  5,353

  694

  5,325

  738

  5,220

  Derbyshire

  1,115

  6,786

  1,119

  7,441

  1,127

  9,721

  1,129

  10,205

  1,162

  10,152

  Devon

  142

  3,894

  140

  4,564

  141

  4,369

  247

  4,170

  257

  5,235

  Dorset

  0

  1,464

  0

  1,615

  0

  1,765

  0

  1,797

  0

  1,727

  Durham

  2,206

  7,044

  2,303

  7,917

  2,272

  7,951

  2,266

  7,809

  2,405

  7,570

  East Sussex

  272

  4,019

  274

  4,545

  290

  4,689

  296

  4,692

  285

  4,714

  Essex

  248

  6,375

  255

  6,496

  259

  6,879

  249

  6,739

  254

  7,664

  Gloucestershire

  0

  3,493

  0

  3,883

  0

  4,136

  0

  3,807

  0

  4,007

  Hampshire

  257

  6,876

  256

  7,122

  259

  7,599

  260

  7,479

  258

  7,396

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  1,904

  0

  2,327

  0

  2,724

  0

  2,402

  0

  2,584

  Hertfordshire

  1,720

  9,532

  1,728

  9,960

  1,734

  10,145

  1,701

  10,044

  1,663

  9,916

  Humberside

  983

  8,083

  889

  9,298

  897

  9,581

  910

  9,851

  946

  10,173

  Isle of Wight

  0

  903

  0

  955

  0

  957

  0

  897

  0

  921

  Kent

  87

  4,638

  79

  5,088

  90

  4,730

  84

  4,518

  78

  4,409

  Lancashire

  3,229

  11,369

  3,330

  12,563

  3,386

  13,375

  3,358

  13,182

  3,400

  13,318

  Leicestershire

  48

  6,280

  50

  6,526

  49

  6,871

  50

  7,072

  50

  7,012

  Lincolnshire

  358

  2,835

  393

  3,078

  335

  3,215

  284

  3,287

  282

  3,259

  Norfolk

  365

  4,576

  363

  4,871

  375

  4,792

  393

  4,754

  382

  4,512

  North Yorkshire

  311

  4,493

  320

  5,048

  322

  5,971

  315

  6,213

  314

  6,199

  Northamptonshire

  494

  5,590

  499

  6,063

  504

  6,698

  503

  6,528

  502

  6,694

  Northumberland

  155

  3,379

  156

  3,822

  131

  3,886

  136

  3,890

  134

  3,957

  Nottinghamshire

  513

  11,435

  560

  12,210

  557

  12,351

  536

  12,537

  580

  12,302

  Oxfordshire

  794

  1,370

  539

  1,796

  494

  1,865

  502

  1,815

  496

  1,806

  Salop

  157

  2,531

  188

  2,779

  160

  2,758

  160

  2,933

  160

  2,782

  Somerset

  28

  2,518

  0

  3,287

  0

  3,525

  0

  3,436

  0

  3,358

  Staffordshire

  1,838

  8,594

  1,879

  9,392

  1,836

  9,962

  1,844

  9,321

  1,843

  9,440

  Suffolk

  144

  3,516

  172

  4,069

  157

  4,151

  167

  4,173

  162

  4,295

  Surrey

  502

  4,001

  497

  4,211

  506

  4,287

  404

  4,234

  420

  4,162

  Warwickshire

  623

  3,905

  649

  4,228

  665

  4,281

  726

  4,773

  730

  4,761

  West Sussex

  454

  854

  452

  953

  454

  926

  451

  897

  452

  904

  Wiltshire

  0

  2,527

  0

  2,983

  0

  2,649

  0

  2,303

  0

  2,467

  Pupils under 5 in maintained nursery and primary schools

  1988

  Nursery

  Primary

  Barking

  0

  2,455

  Barnet

  500

  3,561

  Bexley

  174

  1,250

  Brent

  274

  3,867

  Bromley

  0

  1,071

  Croydon

  400

  2,569

  Ealing

  535

  4,338

  Enfield

  0

  3,414

  Haringey

  246

  3,358

  Harrow

  0

  2,231

  Havering

  0

  1,970

  Hillingdon

  120

  2,816

  Hounslow

  0

  3,804

  Kingston Upon Thames

  236

  1,442

  Merton

  0

  2,464

  Newham

  972

  3,001

  Redbridge

  0

  1,336

  Richmond Upon Thames

  64

  1,538

  Sutton

  240

  595

  Waltham Forest

  329

  2,828

  Birmingham

  2,317

  16,235

  860

  1988

  Nursery

  Primary

  Coventry

  443

  4,130

  Dudley

  401

  3,080

  Sandwell

  209

  6,030

  Solihull

  0

  3,024

  Walsall

  755

  5,440

  Wolverhampton

  843

  3,924

  Knowsley

  0

  3,466

  Liverpool

  560

  9,568

  St. Helens

  66

  2,851

  Sefton

  315

  3,995

  Wirral

  262

  4,050

  Bolton

  553

  4,501

  Bury

  161

  2,331

  Manchester

  535

  8,577

  Oldham

  0

  4,041

  Rochdale

  910

  2,899

  Salford

  845

  4,119

  Stockport

  766

  2,511

  Tameside

  322

  3,955

  Trafford

  0

  1,175

  Wigan

  186

  4,582

  Barnsley

  181

  3,563

  861

  1988

  Nursery

  Primary

  Doncaster

  0

  5,677

  Rotherham

  355

  3,486

  Sheffield

  738

  6,470

  Bradford

  502

  7,454

  Calderdale

  88

  2,972

  Kirklees

  651

  5,392

  Leeds

  254

  9,487

  Wakefield

  463

  5,103

  Gateshead

  50

  3,132

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  623

  4,255

  North Tyneside

  291

  3,642

  South Tyneside

  713

  2,430

  Sunderland

  949

  4,652

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  17

  Inner London

  4,232

  25,731

  Avon

  1,420

  8,923

  Bedfordshire

  1,329

  3,957

  Berkshire

  2,021

  3,175

  Buckinghamshire

  512

  2,502

  Cambridgeshire

  637

  6,158

  Cheshire

  838

  11,949

  Cleveland

  153

  11,374

  Cornwall

  101

  4,429

  Cumbria

  758

  5,447

  Derbyshire

  1,217

  10,754

  Devon

  255

  5,484

  Dorset

  0

  4,658

  Durham

  2,463

  7,570

  East Sussex

  284

  5,007

  Essex

  252

  7,522

  Gloucestershire

  0

  3,923

  Hampshire

  260

  7,474

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  2,505

  Hertfordshire

  1,733

  10,146

  Humberside

  963

  10,434

  Isle of Wight

  0

  994

  Kent

  81

  4,287

  Lancashire

  3,399

  14,005

  Leicestershire

  50

  8,442

  Lincolnshire

  286

  3,361

  Norfolk

  399

  4,556

  North Yorkshire

  308

  6,440

  Northamptonshire

  525

  6,752

  Northumberland

  137

  3,999

  Nottinghamshire

  575

  13,044

  Oxfordshire

  499

  1,896

  Shropshire

  166

  3,063

  Somerset

  0

  3,419

  Staffordshire

  1,824

  9,653

  Suffolk

  95

  4,496

  Surrey

  416

  5,094

  Warwickshire

  755

  5,064

  West Sussex

  446

  811

  Wiltshire

  0

  2,525

  Docklands
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the London borough of Newham concerning the future capital investment in education in docklands; and what timetable he expects to pursue in order to meet the needs of the area for new school places.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have received the London borough of Newham's education capital plans for 1989–90 and future years. In addition, officials from my Department have discussed capital needs in the dockland area with representatives of Newham.

  Newham is responsible for providing sufficient school places in their area. Its capital plans are currently under consideration and capital allocations for 1989–90 are expected to be announced before the end of the year. In formulating allocations priority will continue to be given to the establishment of new or enlarged schools to meet population growth.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had and what preliminary conclusions he has reached concerning the establishment of a city technology college in the London borough of Newham.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Newham was listed in our booklet "A New Choice of School" as a suitable location for a city technology college, and my officials have had discussions with a number of potential sponsors about the establishment of one there. No formal proposals have yet been made to us, but we shall be delighted to consider any that are.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what level of financial contribution has been made by Marks and Spencer towards the cost of the proposed city technology college in Nottingham; what proportion this represents of the total cost; and what other indications he has received of Marks and Spencer's degree of commitment to this project.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I can confirm that Marks and Spencer is one of the sponsors of the Nottingham CTC. It is for sponsors itselves to decide whether or not to announce the degree of its sponsorship.

  Schoolchildren (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action his Department is taking to ensure continued health care for schoolchildren within the Nottingham district health authority area in the light of the district health authority's reduction of 20 whole-time nursing posts, including five in the schools health service.

  Mr. Butcher
  The responsibility for school health service matters lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Museums, Colleges and Institutions (Funding)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the museums, adult education colleges and other institutions presently funded by the Inner London education authority which the Government intend to support after 1 April 1990; if he will give an estimate of the financial support involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department of Education and Science circular 6/88 listed the museums and adult education colleges for which the Government were willing to consider a measure of central funding. The detailed arrangements are now under discussion with the institutions, the Inner London education authority and other bodies as appropriate. A copy of the circular has been placed in the Library of the House.

  University College and Middlesex School of Dentistry
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of the University college and Middlesex school of dentistry and its associated dental hospital, and the consequences of closure for staff.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have accepted the University Grants Committee's recommendations for the rationalisation of dental education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and their implications for health service provision. In line with the agreed need to reduce the current over-provision of dental graduates, there will be a net intake reduction of 55 places in October 1989, principally through the withdrawal of funding from the University college and Middlesex school of dentistry. The consequences for the staff of that school will be for the college to decide, in consultation with London university and the University Grants Committee. Arrangements will be made for students on courses, including those currently registering, to complete their studies.

  As regards Scotland, the health service implications of the University Grants Committee's recommendations are more complex. Consequently, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has established a small working party whose remit is to recommend changes in the current provision of dental education in Scotland which best safeguard services to NHS patients. The intention is to secure necessary changes in provision from October 1990.

  School Examinations and Assessment Council
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the establishment of the School Examinations and Assessment Council.
  864
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The School Examinations and Assessment Council, set up in shadow form earlier this year, was formally established under section 14 of the Education Reform Act 1988 on 15 August with a full complement of 15 members. The council's chairman is Mr. Philip Halsey, CB, LVO, who will also act as the council's chief executive. The council has been designated the body responsible for approving syllabuses and syllabus criteria under section 5 of the Act. I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of my letter to Mr. Halsey of 28 September about the work of the council.

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the establishment of the National Curriculum Council.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The National Curriculum Council, which was set up in shadow form earlier this year, was formally established under section 14 of the Education Reform Act 1988 on 15 August, under the chairmanship of Mr. Duncan Graham CBE who will also act as the council's chief executive. The council currently has 13 members, including its chairman. I intend to make two further appointments to bring the membership up to the full complement of 15 provided for in the Act.

  I have approved the council's proposal to locate its main offices in York.

  I wrote to Mr. Graham on 26 August about the work of the council. Its initial tasks include conducting statutory consultations on my proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study in mathematics and science for pupils aged five to 16 which I sent to the council on its establishment. Copies of my letter and of the proposals have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

EMPLOYMENT

  Community Programme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make: a statement on the future of community projects currently operated by the community programme in Nottingham and elsewhere.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Local officials of the Training Agency held a series of presentations with all community programme agents and sponsors to ensure, wherever possible, the satisfactory transition of community programme projects into employment training. Project-based places have an important role within employment training and substantial provision has been made for this in the new programme.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has had regarding redundancies in community task force.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In July 1988 community task force sought advice from the Training Agency about the issue of redundancy notices to CTF employees whose services would not be required from 5 September 1988.

  In response, in August, the Training Agency outlined the procedures, which included details of financial help available to CP agents/sponsors, including CTF.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees of the community task
  865
  force have had redundancy notices sent to them as a result of replacing the community programme and the jobs training scheme with the adult training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of 235 employees were issued with redundancy notices by community task force as a result of the change to employment training.

  All of those concerned had the opportunity to apply for alternative posts in employment training and in the event 138 people actually left.

  Wages
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing(a) on a national basis and (b) on a regional basis the average weekly wage for (i) full-time male employees, (ii) part-time male employees, (iii) full-time female employees and (iv) part-time female employees in both cash terms and real terms based on 1987–88 prices for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  I am sending the hon. Member the available information, a copy of which has also been placed in the Library.

  YTS
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were on YTS schemes in the constituencies of(a) Burnley, (b) Pendle, (c) Rossendale/Darwen and (d) Hyndburn on 31 August.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is shown in the table:

  Number of young people on YTS at 31 August 1988

  Local authority district1 2

  Number

  Burnley

  343

  Pendle

  900

  Rossendale and Blackburn3

  1,311

  Hyndburn

  1,169

  1 Young people do not necessarily train in the local authority district in which they live.

  2 The Training Agency's computerised management information system does not collect information by constituency. Figures have been given for local authority districts (LADs).

  3 Statistics for Darwen are not available, but are included in Blackburn LAD.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of people living in(a) Lancashire, (b) greater Manchester, (c) Merseyside

  Unfilled vacancies analysed by industry—5 August 1988

  Industrial classification

  North-west region

  Lancashire County

  Jobcentres covering Burnley constituency

  Jobcentres covering Pendle constituency

  Jobcentres covering Rossendale & Darwen constituency

  Jobcentres covering Hyndburn constituency

  Agriculture forestry and fishing

  96

  28

  2

  1

  0

  1

  Coal extraction

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mineral oil and natural gas extraction

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mineral oil processing

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nuclear fuel production

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gas, electricity and water

  105

  21

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Extraction of other minerals and ores

  9

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Metal manufacture

  29

  7

  1

  3

  0

  1

  Manufacture of non-metallic products

  83

  21

  2

  6

  4

  2

  Chemical industry

  201

  58

  8

  6

  31

  0

  Production of man-made fibres

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  866
  and (d) Cheshire who have never worked since leaving school; and if he will indicate how many people under the age of 18 are in this situation in each area.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in the requested counties who had not entered employment since leaving full-time education along with those aged under 18 in this group on 8 September 1988. These figures include some temporary over-recording.

  Unemployed school-leavers, 8 September 1988

  Total

  Aged under 18

  Lancashire

  3,542

  526

  Greater Manchester

  11,632

  1,845

  Merseyside

  12,943

  2,034

  Cheshire

  3,456

  511

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of unemployed people in(a) Burnley and (b) Pendle who have been unemployed (i) for more than one year and (ii) for more than two years.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants for the requested durations in Pendle travel-to-work area and Burnley travel-to-work area on 14 July 1988.

  Unemployed claimants—14 July 1988

  Travel-to-work

  One year and over

  two years and over

  Burnley

  1,537

  1,070

  Pendle

  949

  614

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of vacancies which exist by industrial classification in(a) the north-west, (b) Lancashire, (c) the Burnley constituency, (d) the Pendle constituency, (e) the Rossendale and Darwen constituency and (f) the Hyndburn constituency: and if he will list other vacancies according to whatever similar criteria his Department uses for the same areas.

  Mr. Lee
  Following is the available information, which is also in the Library. The tables show the number of unfilled vacancies analysed by industry at jobcentres in the north-west region, the county of Lancashire and at jobcentres covering areas closely corresponding to the requested parliamentary constituency areas on 5 August 1988, the latest available date.

  Recent research has confirmed that, nationally, about a third of vacancies are notified to jobcentres. Estimates arenot available disaggregated by local area or industry.
  867

  Industrial classification

  North-west region

  Lancashire County

  Jobcentres covering Burnley constituency

  Jobcentres covering Pendle constituency

  Jobcentres covering Rossendale & Darwen constituency

  Jobcentres covering Hyndburn constituency

  Manufacture of metal goods

  305

  99

  23

  22

  13

  6

  Mechanical engineering

  747

  188

  31

  14

  15

  22

  Manufacture: office machinery/D.P. equipment

  55

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Electrical and electronic engineering

  366

  87

  11

  4

  3

  9

  Manufacture of motor vehicles

  127

  35

  3

  1

  2

  1

  Shipbuilding and repairing

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manufacture: aerospace/transport equipment

  191

  150

  4

  11

  1

  0

  Instrument engineering

  35

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Food, drink and tobacco

  338

  98

  4

  1

  1

  12

  Textiles

  323

  88

  2

  32

  15

  5

  Leather, footwear and clothing

  785

  202

  25

  14

  44

  16

  Timber and furniture

  328

  79

  16

  13

  17

  4

  Paper, printing and publishing

  271

  87

  8

  1

  11

  12

  Other manufacturing

  326

  100

  18

  11

  8

  4

  Construction

  1,460

  364

  22

  17

  25

  29

  Wholesale and distribution

  711

  147

  4

  8

  9

  6

  Retail distribution

  3,639

  1,009

  39

  138

  36

  37

  Hotels and catering

  3,384

  1,267

  37

  43

  29

  41

  Repair of consumer goods and vehicles

  253

  42

  3

  1

  1

  9

  Transport

  868

  155

  9

  4

  30

  15

  Telecommunications

  142

  19

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Insurance, banking etc., business services

  2,041

  399

  32

  18

  22

  23

  Public administration and defence

  2,476

  746

  45

  41

  33

  17

  Medical and other health services

  1287

  372

  19

  8

  27

  3

  Other services—N.E.S.

  2,292

  730

  44

  37

  28

  62

  Speculative placings/transfers/inputs

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed building workers there are in the north-west.

  Mr. Lee
  Information from the labour force survey indicates that in spring 1987 there were an estimated 13,000 people in the north-west who were currently unemployed and whose last employment (within the previous three years) was in building work in the construction industry. An occupational analysis of the Department's monthly claimant unemployment count is not available.

  Wages Council Inspectors
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many wages council inspectors are currently in post in the north-west region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are currently 12 wages inspectors in post in the north-west division of the inspectorate.

  Health and Safety Executive Area

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Q1 1986

  11986–87

  South West

  14

  16

  16

  12

  3

  17

  South

  7

  11

  9

  11

  1

  11

  South East

  17

  17

  19

  21

  3

  14

  Greater London

  33

  32

  29

  34

  5

  26

  East Anglia

  11

  13

  14

  16

  3

  13

  Northern Home Counties

  9

  8

  14

  10

  —

  10

  East Midlands

  14

  9

  8

  12

  5

  11

  West Midlands

  16

  18

  11

  11

  2

  7

  Wales

  23

  13

  23

  19

  4

  21

  Marches

  11

  12

  11

  7

  2

  6

  North Midlands

  16

  16

  10

  12

  5

  8

  South Yorks and Humberside

  14

  14

  14

  13

  3

  15

  West plus North Yorkshire

  18

  21

  19

  17

  4

  19

  Greater Manchester

  13

  11

  14

  14

  1

  13

  Merseyside

  9

  11

  16

  16

  8

  9

  North West

  13

  17

  7

  4

  2

  8

  North East

  21

  9

  17

  15

  5

  15

  Scotland East

  21

  28

  22

  17

  1

  22

  Scotland West

  26

  11

  17

  13

  8

  8

  Wages Councils (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions there were in the north-west region in 1987 and to date in 1988 under wages council legislation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There were two prosecutions of employers in the north-west division in 1987. In 1988, there has been one to date.

  Accident Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the distribution by locality of fatal accidents at work in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of fatal injuries to employees reported to the Health and Safety Executive's factory inspectorate in each of its areas are shown in the table.
  869

  Health and Safety Executive Area

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Q1 1986

  11986–87

  Total reported to HM Factory Inspectorate

  306

  287

  290

  274

  65

  253

  Total reported to other HSE Inspectorates and HSC Agencies2

  131

  108

  110

  102

  23

  76

  Total reported to Local Authorities3

  32

  48

  37

  22

  10

  26

  Grand Total

  469

  443

  437

  398

  98

  355

  1 Data for the year commencing 1 April 1986.

  2 Figures on an area basis could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  3 From 1982 to 1985 the figures include some self-employed and from 1982 to 1983 they may also include some members of the public.

  Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Unionists
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those persons who have been offered the post of Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Unionists; and what was their response.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the 270,000 employment training places agreed with prospective training managers will be provided by(a) employers, (b) voluntary or community corporations, (c) local authorities, and (d) other bodies.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 9 September, around 291,000 employment training places had been agreed. Of those, 96,500 are provided by employers (including private sector training organisations); 88,000 by voluntary bodies; 61,000 by local authorities; and 45,000 by other bodies.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sugar
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will tabulate in the Official Report in tonnes of white sugar equivalents, or raw unrefined sugar where appropriate, the quantities of sugar in the sugar year 1987–88 which were (a) imported into the United Kingdom from African, Caribbean and Pacific states of European Economic Community, (b) imported as raw or white sugar, stating their main country of origin, (c) produced from sugar beet grown in the United Kingdom, (d) exported as raw or refined sugar to member states of the European Economic Community or other countries, respectively and (e) absorbed by retail and bulk domestic sugar markets, respectively, together with any other relevant information, including stocks in hand and carried over, related to the above figures.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is as follows:

  1987–88 (October-September)

  '000 tonnes1

  United Kingdom Imports (provisional figures)

  From EC

  Ireland

  47·5

  Denmark

  43·9

  France

  21·7

  Other

  1·9

  Total

  113·5

  870

  '000 tonnes1

  From ACP

  Mauritius

  466·7

  Fiji

  199·7

  Jamaica

  129·6

  Guyana

  142·6

  Swaziland

  71·6

  Barbados

  66·2

  Other

  155·4

  Total

  1,231·9

  Other Sources

  0·5

  Total

  1,345·9

  United Kingdom production from Home Grown Beet (including carry forward from 1986–87)

  1,328·3

  Carry forward to 1988–89

  102·3

  'C sugar to be exported from 1987–88 production

  82·0

  Exports to EC (provisional)

  72·0

  Exports to third countries (excluding C sugar) (provisional)

  160·0

  Deliveries to retail market (provisional)

  587·0

  Deliveries to industrial market (provisional)

  1,538·0

  2Stocks (as at 31 August 1988)

  311·1

  1All figures in '000 tonnes white sugar equivalent—figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2 Figure comprises sugar held by producers and merchants in the EC sugar storage scheme plus preferential sugar held in store by cane refiners.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has had regarding the commercial licensing of bovine somatotropin and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received a considerable number of letters from individuals and organisations expressing opposition and some in support to the licensing of bovine somatotropin.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding the five-year delay in enforcing maximum residue limits for pesticides on fruit and vegetables; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have received several representations following reports in the media. Over 800 maximum residue levels for pesicides on fruit and vegetables have in fact been introduced under the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Food) Regulations 1988. All these limits come into effect on 31 December 1988.
  871
  There are, however, six individual commodity/pesticide combinations which were included in our second consultation document but for which MRLs have not yet been set. It was recognised in our proposal that approved uses in this country can sometimes lead to residues above the various international MRLs. It was therefore proposed in the consultation document that these MRLs should come into effect in five years time, so as to allow time for good agricultural practice to be adapted. However, I was advised that it was not normal practice to set limits so far in advance of implementation. I have asked for residue data relating to these six MRLs to be reconsidered by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. MRLs which reflect the advice of the ACP and current international standards will be introduced as soon as possible. However, in setting a timetable, I will be bound to take account of any necessary adjustments to agricultural practice which may have to be set in train.

  Coastal Defence
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what principles he has adopted in his policy for coastal defence; what proposals he has for future defence works; and what bodies may be in future responsible for their adoption.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Ministry in providing grant aid for coastal defence, gives highest priority to schemes which provide protection to people and property. To qualify for grant, schemes must be technically appropriate, economically justified and environmentally sympathetic. Coastal and drainage authorities regularly provide information on their programmes of work which assist the Ministry in planning future grant expenditure.

  In parallel with our proposals to privatise water and sewerage utilities, it is intended that water authorities' responsibilities for coastal defence should be transferred to the proposed National Rivers Authority, together with other river management and regulatory functions. Otherwise present arrangements, whereby works programmes are decided by regional or local land drainage committees and financed by precept in constituent county councils, will continue.

  Milk
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to comply with the ruling by the European Court of Justice that European Community legislation for milk quotas was deficient in that it did not take into account those who had ceased milk production under a Community-financed scheme in 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Commission has now put forward proposals to deal with this problem, and we are giving these careful consideration. It is for the Council of Ministers to make decisions on these proposals.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Milk Marketing Board concerning his practice of permitting certain drugs to be injected into cows markedly to increase yields; what action he intends to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The chairman of the Milk Marketing Board has told me of the concern of many milk 872
  producers about the possible impact if BST were to become generally available. He also reported that many wanted an EC ban on its use.

  Applications for licences for the product are being considered by the European Commission's Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products, which is required to provide an opinion before licence applications are determined nationally. Any decision in the United Kingdom will take account of our obligations under the Medicines Act 1968 and the relevant EC directives.

  Soft Drink Regulations
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received following publication of his proposals for revision of the soft drink regulations; what steps he proposes to maintain quality standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have received numerous comments on the draft soft drinks regulations and will give them careful consideration before deciding on how best to proceed. It is my intention to ensure that the new regulations enable consumers to make an informed choice when purchasing soft drinks and at the same time allow innovation by manufacturers.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning proposals for nutritional labelling being prepared by the European Commission; what representations he has made to the Commission concerning any change in the information at present provised to consumers in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I understand that the European Commission has just tabled its proposals on voluntary nutrition labelling, although we have not yet received the formal document. Earlier drafts indicate that the proposals are similar to the full nutrition labelling declarations (category III) as contained in the Ministry's guidelines, a revised version of which was issued to the industry in January. As expected, the proposals are for voluntary nutrition labelling but that where nutrition information is given it should be in a mandatory form. As soon as we receive the formal proposals from the European Commission they will as usual be circulated to industry and other interested parties for comment.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration is being given by the Food Advisory Committee to the use of graphical representations to accompany numerical nutrition declarations; if he will make it his policy to ensure that all sections of the food industry are consulted before any decision is made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Food Advisory Committee has looked into the possible use of graphical representations to accompany numerical nutrition information and has concluded that further work is required particularly regarding consumer expectations before the various options can be considered further. It is my policy to ensure that all sections of the food industry and other interests are fully consulted about any proposals which may affect them, including, of course, any on the graphical representation of nutrition information.

  EC (Surplus Produce)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what organisations were licensed to distribute the current issue of European Economic Community surplus produce; what criteria were used to select these organisations; what regulations or advice has been given to those charged with distribution of this food; what quantity is being distributed in England, Wales and in each local authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Mr. Gummer) announced to the House that 127 organisations had been designated to distribute surplus produce to the most needy. A list of those organisations was placed in the Library on that day. To qualify for designation, charitable and non-profit making organisations were required to demonstrate that they could comply with the conditions of the scheme and in particular: (i) that they were capable of arranging for the produce to be withdrawn from intervention stores (preferably in quantities of no less than 1 tonne on any one occasion), to be processed into an appropriate form for final consumption, and to be distributed to the most needy; (ii) that they were capable of carrying out the operations mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) with due safeguards against abuse and against risks to health; (iii) that the quantity of butter and/or beef received under these arrangements would be additional to quantities (if any) which the organisation normally acquires from commercial sources or from concessionary sales; and that such quantities continue to be acquired; (iv) that they would maintain adequate and satisfactory books and records and would undertake to make these available as required to the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce or its agents for verification purposes.

  Written instructions on how the scheme should be operated have been issued to all designated organisations. The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce arranged for a series of seminars for organisations operating the scheme, to be held throughout the United Kingdom. The board provides any additional advice necessary on a daily basis.

  The quantities of produce that designated organisations have been authorised to withdraw from intervention stores in 1988 can be broken down as follows:

  Organisations based in:

  Butler

  Beef

  (tones)

  (tones)

  England

  1,677

  570

  Wales

  176

  332

  Scotland

  80

  550

  Northern Ireland

  530

  320

  Figures are not available for local authority areas.

  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg on 17 and 18 October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  At this meeting, at which I represented the United Kingdom, the Council again discussed the Commission's proposal for an optional scheme of direct income aid to low-income farmers, with 874
  a Community contribution towards the cost. I repeated my considerable doubts about the cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of the proposal, and these doubts are now being shared by a number of other members of the Council.

  The Council also discussed for the second time the Commission's proposal for giving effect to the judgment of the European Court about the position of farmers who, because they had taken part in the earlier Community schemes for the abandonment of milk production or conversion of dairy herds, were not assigned a quota for milk production when the quota system was introduced in 1984. The main issues in the debate were the circumstances in which such farmers should now be considered for a milk quota, the conditions to be attached, how the extra quota should be found and how the cost should be offset. The matter is to be considered further, but considerable support was given to the views I have strongly expressed on both occasions that the quotas of existing producers should not be affected and that the conditions for beneficiaries under the judgment need to be restrictively drawn, in particular to ensure that only those clearly intending to go back into milk production should be included and that windfall gains should be excluded.

  The Commission gave an oral presentation of its proposals for changes in the support arrangements for beef and for sheep as well as the results of its discussions with the New Zealand Government about future imports of butter and sheepmeat from that country. Members of the Council were only able to give very brief preliminary reactions, and these subjects will be taken up at later meetings.

  After some discussion, the Council eventually decided on a reduction in the consumption aid for olive oil to apply during the 1988–89 marketing year, with a saving of 102 million ecu to the CAP budget.

  Along with a number of my colleagues in the Council, I expressed serious doubts about the Commission's ideas for detailed implementation of the extensification scheme, particularly in relation to control and verification, the risk of fraud and other practical difficulties. The Commission undertook to reconsider.

  There was also a discussion of the state of the pigmeat market, in which I again expressed the case for the early abolition of monetary compensatory amounts in that sector.

THE ARTS

  Property in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he expects to lay before the House the statement referred to in his written answer of 29 June to the hon. Member for Warley, East,Official Report, column 259; and whether he will make it his policy that in future years such statements in conformity with section 9 (6) of the National Heritage Act 1980, are laid before the House within three months of the close of the financial year covered by them.

  Mr. Luce
  The statement to which the hon. Member refers was laid before the House on 28 July. It is my intention that in future years the statement of disposals or transfers of property accepted in lieu of tax should, whenever possible, be laid within three months of the close of the financial year.

  Investment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether, in the light of the publication of the PSI Myerscough report on the economic importance of the arts in Britain, a copy of which has been sent to him, he will make it his policy to increase investment in the arts and entertainment industry.

  Mr. Luce
  The PSI report is a valuable contribution to understanding the role of the arts within the economy. It illustrates how useful developments can be funded by a partnership between public and private interests. It is one of the objectives of the three-year funding programme which I announced last year to stimulate such plural funding of the arts.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, what are the latest available figures for his office in the London pay area of the number of vacancies by grade and the proportion this is of the grade complement in London.

  Mr. Luce
  The Office of Arts and Libraries is located in central London and currently has the following vacancies for permanent staff:

  Number

  Executive Officer

  1

  Administrative Officer

  1

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  These posts constitute 7 per cent, of the total complement.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of the Arts if he will provide the latest available figures for his office for(a) numbers of staff in receipt of local pay additions, by grade, (b) location of those offices awarding local pay additions and (c) annual cost.

  Mr. Luce
  The number of staff expected to receive local pay additions in the Office of Arts and Libraries in a full year is as follows:

  Number

  Administrative Assistants

  3

  Administrative Officers

  6

  Executive Officers

  10

  Senior Personal Secretaries

  1

  Personal Secretaries

  3

  Typists

  1

  Total

  24

  They are located at Horse Guards road and at Sumner street, London SE1.

  The annual cost is estimated at £14,400.

  British Library
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what has been the total cost to date of the Urquhart wing at the British Library's document supply centre, Boston Spa.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 4 July 1988]: The three phases of the Urquhart wing at the British Library's document supply centre, Boston Spa, cost a total of £11,235,027 including VAT.

  Club Theatres
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on regulations for club theatres.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 28 July 1988]: I have been asked to reply.

  Public performances of plays are subject to the licensing requirements of the Theatres Act 1968. Premises licensed under the Act will be subject to local authority fire and safety regulations. Local authorities have no power to regulate the content of plays but the 1968 Act prohibits the presentation of obscene performances, whether in public or private, subject to certain defences. Performances of plays in clubs will not be subject to the licensing provisions of the Act if the public are not admitted.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A prisoners are at present held on remand at Risley detention centre; to how many strip searches they have been subjected in July, August and September, respectively, giving the number of persons involved, number of times each person was searched and if any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while a search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for the search under each of the following headings(a) making a remand appearance at court, (b) attending a trial, (c) inter-prison visit and (d) other reasons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 17 October there were eight inmates on remand at Risley remand centre who had been placed in category A. Comprehensive records of strip searches are kept only in respect of category A women prisoners, of whom there was one in Risley during July, August and September. Information from Risley indicates that this prisoner was strip-searched once in July at the time of a cell change and twice in September, at the time of a cell change and on transfer to another establishment. No unauthorised articles were discovered on any of these occasions. On no occasion did the prisoner refuse to be strip-searched.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A women prisoners there were in Her Majesty's prison, Durham, in July, August and September, respectively, and how many strip searches were made on prisoners in those months, indicating strip searches before and after consultation with legal advisers, after visits and after cell changes, wing searches and cell searches, and listing the reasons for searches; and illegal contraband or smuggled items found.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During July, August and September, there were three category A women prisoners in Durham prison. The number of occasions on which each was strip-searched during each month is shown in the table:
  877

  Inmate A

  Inmate B

  Inmate C

  July

  August

  September

  July

  August

  September

  July

  August

  September

  After legal visits

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  After other visits

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1

  1

  At the time of cell changes, and wing and cell searches

  —

  2

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  2

  1

  Others

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  No unauthorised article was found on any of the three women. I set out the reasons for such searches in my reply to a question from the hon. Member on 15 January at column 446.

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons originally from(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Irish Republic, were in prison in (i) England and (ii) Wales, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Citizens of Northern Ireland are not separately identified from other citizens of the United Kingdom. However, on 31 August 1988, about 310 prisoners in prison service establishments in England who were citizens of the United Kingdom or whose citizenship was unknown were known to have been born in Northern Ireland. A further three were held in establishments in Wales.

  The recording of nationality on the records held centrally for citizens of the Republic of Ireland is not completely reliable because it depends upon the information provided by the prisoner. On 31 August, about 470 prisoners in establishments in England were recorded as citizens of or born in the Republic of Ireland. None was held in establishments in Wales.

  Guildford Pub Bombings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times each of the four people convicted of the Guildford bombing have been subject to(a) prison moves and (b) prison disciplinary proceedings since 1974.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report of the Somerset constabulary on the case of the four people convicted of the Guildford bombing.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. It is not the practice to publish the reports of police investigations.

  Disabled People's March (Police Deployment)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the

  Club

  Season 1987–88

  Season 1988–89 (to 18 October)

  Charged £

  Paid £

  Charged £

  Paid £

  Arsenal

  161,875·96

  161,875·96

  15,955·96

  5,810·28

  Brentford

  34,078·68

  34,078·68

  9,645·95

  6,790·68

  Charlton

  49,273·65

  49,273·65

  9,960·01

  9,441·27

  Chelsea

  168,257·86

  168,257·86

  47,318·96

  30,783·20

  Crystal Palace

  37,173·59

  37,173·59

  10,176·56

  4,203·23

  Fulham

  26,526·79

  26,526·79

  5,093·81

  1,326·96

  Leyton Orient

  17,509·17

  17,509·17

  3,924·49

  1,100·62

  878
  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many Metropolitan police officers, and at what rank, were deployed on 28 July at the march of people with disabilities from Kennington Park to Elephant and Castle.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that one chief inspector, five inspectors, nine sergeants and 80 constables were deployed on the march.

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to extend the Firearms (Amendment) Bill to firearms rendered incapable of firing live ammunition, but which will accept blank ammunition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Firearms (Amendment) Bill does not amend the definition of a firearm in section 57(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 and there are no plans to do so.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions his Department has held with historical re-enactment groups concerning the Firearms (Amendment) Bill; if he will list those groups; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assistance his Department has sought from historical re-enactment groups concerning the Firearms (Amendment) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have considered carefully representations from the Sealed Knot, the English Civil War Society, the Great War Society an the World War II Battle Re-enactment Society. I am satisfied that the Bill will not impose an unreasonable burden on their activities. Most of the guns they use will still be able to be held either on a firearm or a shotgun certificate.

  Football League Clubs, London (Police Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how much was(a) charged and (b) paid by each Football League club in London for police services in the 1987–88 season and 1988–89 season to date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the information is as follows:
  879

  Club

  Season 1987–88

  Season 1988–89 (to 18 October)

  Charged £

  Paid £

  Charged £

  Paid£

  Millwall

  57,693,28

  57,693·28

  16,975·52

  12,329·84

  Queen's Park Rangers

  129,564·28

  129,564·28

  28,004·20

  16,233·40

  Tottenham Hotspur

  153,785·36

  153,785·36

  12,413·06

  Nil

  West Ham United

  176,303·08

  176,303·08

  30,433·09

  12,452·08

  Wimbledon

  81,354·26

  81,354·26

  16,897·37

  11,077·49

  Total

  1,093,395·96

  1,093,395·96

  206,798·98

  111,549·05

  Traffic Wardens (Newham)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many traffic wardens were on duty in the London borough of Newham over the weekend of 8–9 October 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner that on Saturday 8 October, one traffic warden controller, six traffic warden supervisors and 34 traffic wardens were on duty and on Sunday 9 October one traffic warden controller, six supervisors and 27 traffic wardens.

  Telephone Interceptions
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what sums of money were charged to Government by British Telecom or other telephone companies for interception services in the last financial year; and what was the average cost per interception;

  (2) how many telephone lines in total were intercepted by authorised warrant in 1987;

  (3) for all telephone interceptions in 1987, what proportion were authorised for (a) criminal investigation and (b) domestic surveillance for security purposes;

  (4) what has been the average duration of an authorized interception warrant during the past two years; who monitors them; and to whom the monitoring information is reported;

  (5) how many requests have been received from the police to have telephone lines monitored for traffic frequency in the past 12 months;

  (6) how many individual telephone lines have been intercepted on average per authorised warrant in the last two years.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Interception of Communications Act 1985 sets out the purposes for which a warrant may be issued and makes provision for the monitoring of interception under the Act by an independent judicial figure, the right hon. Lord Justice Lloyd. The commissioner's annual reports, presented to parliament by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, comment on the results of that monitoring.

  The figures for the number of interceptions warrants issued by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland in force on 31 December 1987 were given in an annex to the report of the commissioner, which was presented to Parliament in March 1988 (Cmnd. 351). I do not intend to publish statistics additional to those in the commissioner's reports. Nor would it be consistent with the practice of successive Governments to give information about the costs relating to interception warrants.

  Police Manpower (Newham)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were on duty in the London Borough of Newham over the weekend of 8–9 October 1988; and what was the total cost involved.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that there were 2,607 police officers on duty on 8 October and 2,578 on 9 October. The total additional cost was £206,959.

  Airport Police Officers (Sidearms)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it became routine for police officers at(a) Heathrow and (b) Gatwick publicly to display sidearms; why this was considered necessary; and who authorised this practice.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Armed police officers at Heathrow Airport have carried unconcealed sidearms while dressed in shirt sleeve order for several years, and, since 14 December 1987, while dressed in full uniform. At Gatwick airport sidearms have been carried unconcealed by officers in shirt sleeve order since 16 October 1987. In each case the decision was taken by the chief officer of police (the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the chief constable of Sussex constabulary respectively) in accordance with his responsibility for all operational matters, for the greater comfort of the officers concerned, and in order to render their sidearms more accessible in an emergency.

  Party Conferences (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has regarding the policing costs associated with the 1988 annual conference of(a) the SDP, (b) the Liberal-Democrats, (c) the Labour party, (d) the Conservative party and (e) any other political party in respect of which additional policing costs arose.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constables of Devon and Cornwall and of Lancashire that there were no additional policing costs associated with the 1988 annual conference of the Social Democratic party and that the estimated additional costs of policing the Social and Liberal Democrats' conference and the Labour party conference were £400 and £61,000 respectively.

  I also understand from the chief constable of Sussex that it is anticipated that the additional costs of policing the 1988 Conservative party conference will be £1·4 million, subject to the finalising of the accounts.

  There is no information held centrally to suggest that any significant additional policing costs are incurred for other political party conferences in England and Wales.

  "Dispensing with the Services of a Police Officer"
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he had with the Police Federation before the document, "Dispensing with the Services of a Police Officer", was made public.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The document to which my hon. Friend refers was not produced or made public by my Department.

  Prisoners (Food)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will set out in tabular form, for the latest convenient date, the expenditure per head for inmates in each of Her Majesty's prisons in respect of food per week; and how this relates to the actual budget.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The quantity of food for inmates is determined by reference not to cash budgets but to dietary scales designed to meet agreed nutritional requirements. Ingredients are supplied primarily from centrally negotiated contracts and from prison farms and gardens. The notional cost per inmate per week totalled £6·45 in the year ended 31 March 1988.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each south Yorkshire police division(a) the date on which the first neighbourhood watch schemes were established, (b) the crime rate on that date and (c) the crime rate on the most recent available date.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand the first neighbourhood watch schemes were established in each South Yorkshire police division are as follows:

  Division

  Date

  Location

  Rotherham

  January 1984

  Firbeck Village

  West Bar (Central Sheffield)

  August 1984

  Arbourthorne Estate

  Barnsley

  April 1985

  Greenmoor Village

  Doncaster

  June 1985

  Clayton Village

  South Sheffield

  October 1985

  Alderson Place

  North Sheffield

  June 1986

  Phenistone Road

  I regret that information about crime rates on particular dates cannot be provided.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes there are in each South Yorkshire police division; and by what percentage the crime rate has fallen or risen since these schemes began.

  Mr. John Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 July 1988 c. 642]: I regret that my answer was incomplete. The full text of the reply is as follows:

  I understand from the chief constable of South Yorkshire that the first neighbourhood watch schemes in his police force area was established in January 1984 and that by the end of June 1988 the total number of schemes had increased to 718. The following table shows the number of schemes in each police division:—
  882

  Division

  Number of Neighbourhood Watch Schemes

  Doncaster

  152

  Barnsley

  76

  Rotherham

  63

  West Bar

  44

  South Sheffield

  241

  North Sheffield

  142

  Total

  718

  Each of these schemes was established at different times between January 1984 and 1988 and it is not possible to state by what percentage the crime rate has fallen or risen since each scheme began.

  However, we welcome the fact that total recorded crime in the South Yorkshire police force area in the first six months of this year has fallen by 4·8 per cent, and residential burglaries by 10·2 per cent, compared with the same period in 1987.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on the evaluation of departmental programmes; and what proportion this constitutes of(a) the amount allocated for evaluation and (b) the Department's total budget.

  Mr. Hurd
  [holding answer 28 July 1988]: It is not possible to identify separately the resources involved in the evaluation of my Department's programmes.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance from(a) wives, (b) husbands, (c) fiancés and (d) fiancées made at British posts on (1) New Delhi, (2) Bombay, (3) Calcutta, (4) Madras, (5) Dhaka, (6) Islamabad, (7) Karachi and (8) Colombo for each quarter since January 1987 were (A) received, (B) granted and (C) refused; how many refusals at each post were (i) wholly and (ii) partly because the visa officer was not satisfied that the primary purpose of the marriage was not immigration; how many refusals at each post were (I) wholly and (II) partly because the visa officer was not satisfied that the couple could support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds; what was the refusal rate at each post; and what percentage of those refusals were (y) wholly and (z) partly on primary purpose grounds.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 20 July 1988]: Information for the Indian sub-continent for the whole of 1987 and, where available, for the first quarter of 1988 is given in the tables. Where the numbers are small, the figures for individual posts have been combined. In order to keep down the cost, only annual data for 1987 have been given. In any case, information on refusals which takes account of successful appeals is not compiled for periods shorter than 12 months. Corresponding information for Colombo is not available.
  883

  Table 1 Husbands, fiances, wives and fiancees in the Indian sub-continent applying for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom

  Number of persons or percentage

  Post

  Husbands

  Fiances

  Wives

  Fiancees

  1987

  1988

  1987

  1988

  1987

  1988

  1987

  1988

  1st quarter

  1st quarter

  1st quarter

  1st quarter

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received3

  220

  60

  340

  70

  500

  180

  330

  60

  Applications granted4

  150

  40

  130

  40

  480

  130

  170

  60

  Applications refused initially

  130

  20

  230

  50

  10

  1

  90

  30

  Refusal rate (percentage)5

  43

  ..

  59

  ..

  2

  ..

  34

  ..

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received3

  320

  70

  340

  80

  1,150

  320

  260

  70

  Applications granted4

  210

  60

  180

  30

  1,050

  280

  140

  40

  Applications refused initially

  160

  40

  200

  60

  20

  1

  50

  1

  Refusal rate (percentage)5

  37

  ..

  46

  ..

  2

  ..

  25

  ..

  Dhaka

  Applications received3

  250

  90

  20

  10

  1,430

  380

  20

  1

  Applications granted4

  100

  20

  1

  1

  1,070

  360

  10

  10

  Applications refused initially

  70

  20

  10

  1

  160

  80

  10

  1

  Refusal rate (percentage)5

  36

  ..

  2 78

  ..

  1

  ..

  2 50

  ..

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received3

  1,240

  390

  1,050

  250

  2,620

  790

  450

  70

  Applications granted4

  280

  100

  360

  80

  2,130

  600

  290

  70

  Applications refused initially

  320

  130

  450

  150

  120

  30

  40

  10

  Refusal rate (percentage)5

  49

  ..

  47

  ..

  4

  ..

  11

  ..

  1 5 or fewer, or ½ per cent, or less.

  2 Refusal rate based on fewer than 15 applications.

  3 Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

  4 Granted initially or on appeal.

  5 Applications refused, after taking account of successful appeals, as a percentage of applications decided. .. = not available.

  Table 2

  Husbands, fiances, wives and fiancees in the Indian sub-continent refused1 entry clearance to the United Kingdom in 1987

  Number of persons or percentages

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Dhaka

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Total Indian sub-continent

  Husbands

  Fiances

  Wives

  Fiancees

  Husbands

  Fiances

  Wives

  Fiancees

  Husbands

  Fiances

  Wives

  Fiancees

  Husbands

  Fiances

  Wives

  Fiancees

  Husbands

  Fiances

  Wives

  Fiancees

  Number refused because couple could not accommodate and/or maintain themselves without recourse to public funds:

  Solely for these reasons

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  —

  2—

  2—

  —

  2—

  —

  10

  —

  2—

  —

  2—

  —

  10

  2—

  20

  2—

  Partly for these reasons

  10

  2—

  —

  2—

  —

  2—

  —

  —

  10

  2—

  2—

  2—

  70

  50

  —

  2—

  80

  60

  2—

  10

  Number refused because primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to United Kingdom:

  Solely for this reasons

  100

  170

  2—

  10

  120

  160

  10

  20

  30

  —

  —

  —

  200

  250

  2—

  10

  450

  580

  20

  40

  Partly for this reasons

  10

  20

  —

  30

  —

  2—

  —

  2—

  10

  2—

  —

  —

  60

  80

  2—

  10

  450

  580

  20

  40

  Primary purposes refusals as a percentage of all refusals:

  Solely on primary purpose

  purpose

  grounds

  90

  88

  356

  13

  96

  94

  65

  38

  48

  —

  —

  —

  74

  76

  3

  40

  80

  83

  19

  25

  Partly on primary

  purpose

  grounds

  6

  9

  —

  29

  —

  3

  —

  4

  15

  357

  —

  —

  23

  24

  —

  9

  14

  15

  —

  17

  1 After taking account of successful appeals.

  2 Five or fewer, or ½ per cent, or less.

  3 Refused rate based on fewer than 15 applications.

  —Nil.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table in the Official Report, in the same format as his written reply of 25 July, on receipts to his programme classified as charges in respect of his programme expenditure over the years 1982–83 to 1990–91, and consistent with the answer of 27 May, Official Report, columns 375–76, indicating the receips in respect of running costs expenditure, together with a supplementary analysis indicating, separately, the amounts of receipts in respect of programme expenditure and of running costs expenditure estimated to have been met from other public expenditure programmes.

  Mr. Hurd
  [holding answer 28 July 1988]: The following figures, which are consistent with those given by my right
  884
  hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 29 July at columns 747–48, relate to receipts which offset running cost expenditure for which the Home Ofice is responsible. The Home Office receives no receipts classified as being paid from other public expenditure programmes in respect of running costs. Figures for receipts in respect of programme expenditure paid from other public expenditure programmes could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Science Research
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on social science research; what percentage this constitutes of total departmental expenditure and of his Department's research budget; and
  885
  how much of the research has been undertaken (a) within his Department, (b) by universities and polytechnics and (c) by independent research organisations.

  Mr. Hurd
  [holding answer 28 July 1988]: The information is not available in the form requested. That

  Percentage undertaken

  Year

  Expenditure on social science and humanities research (£m)

  Percentage total expenditure

  Percentage research budget (social science and humanities, science and technology)

  (1) within Department

  (2) by Universities by and polytechnics

  (3) independent1 research organisations

  1982–83

  3·1

  0·45

  25·6

  51·6

  12·9

  11·9

  1983–84

  3·0

  0·38

  24·6

  56·7

  13·3

  2·7

  1984–85

  2·9

  0·34

  22·0

  62·0

  17·2

  4·8

  1985–86

  2·8

  0·31

  20·4

  64·3

  21·4

  1·8

  1986–87

  2·3

  0·23

  17·3

  56·5

  21·7

  1·3

  1 Industrial research associations, non-industrial research institutes.

  Adoption
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many babies were brought into the United Kingdom for adoption by British couples during 1987; and if he will list the countries of origin.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: Information is not available in the form requested, as the statistics collected on passenger admissions do not separately identify children who come to the United Kingdom for adoption. The available information—which may not be entirely complete—is that 52 children were granted settlement in the United Kingdom in 1987 on the basis of their adoption by a person already settled here. The nationalities are shown in the table:

  Acceptances for settlement by reason of adoption

  Nationality

  Number of children of each nationality

  India, Pakistan

  7

  Canada, Korea, Philippines, Sudan, Sweden, Thailand, USA

  2

  Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, El Salvador, German Federal Republic, Ghana, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, Other

  1

  152

  1 Includes one child whose nationality is not recorded.

  General Practitioners (Misuse of Drugs)
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases there have been of general practitioners being brought before the misuse of drugs tribunal; and how many of those have been found guilty for each of the most recent five years for which records are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: The number of cases of general practitioners considered by the misuse of drugs tribunal for each of the years 1983–87 is as follows:
  886
  available and given in the table relates to expenditure not only on social science research but on research on humanities. It also includes research performed elsewhere in central Government. Expenditure on social science and humanities research is expressed as a percentage of total cash-limited Home Office expenditure.

  Year

  Number of cases

  1983

  3

  1984

  3

  1985

  1

  1986

  3

  1987

  3

  In all but one of these cases my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made, in th light of the tribunal's findings, a direction under section 13 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, prohibiting the practitioner from prescribing certain controlled drugs. In the remaining case, representations by the practitioner against a proposed direction are shortly to be considered by the misuse of drugs advisory body.

  Passports
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of employees at the passport office and the number of passports issued in 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 June 1988, c. 679]: I regret that my answer contained incorrect information. The answer as it should have appeared is as follows:

  The information, covering the six United Kingdom passsport offices, is as follows:

  Year

  Number of passports issued

  Highest number of staff in post in any month1

  Permanent staff

  Casual staff

  1979

  1,809,091

  901

  182

  1981

  1,768,538

  996

  119

  1983

  1,979,740

  949

  167

  1985

  1,799,043

  938

  111

  1987

  2,041,220

  961

  232

  1 Includes headquarters staff

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the figures for each of the last five years, broken down by sex, of persons convicted of child abuse; and of the sentences given by the courts, in England and Wales.
  887
  Mr. John Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1988, c. 420]: I am now able to provide some data for 1986. Comparable information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost, while figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  The tables bring together the readily available information on the number of defendants found guilty of

  Table 1: Persons found guilty and sentenced at all courts for sexual offences where the victim is known to have been of 16 years of age or under

  England and Wales 1986

  Number of persons

  Offence description

  Sex

  Total found guilty

  Total for sentence

  Absolute/conditional discharge

  Probation/supervision order

  Fine

  Community service order

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Otherwise dealt with

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  M

  147

  147

  5

  21

  2

  1

  5

  108

  5

  Attempts to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  M

  20

  20

  3

  1

  —

  1

  3

  12

  —

  Indecent assault on male person under 16

  M

  398

  401

  30

  121

  33

  2

  46

  156

  13

  F

  12

  12

  1

  6

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Indecent assault on female person under 16

  M

  1,318

  1,327

  103

  350

  110

  26

  164

  518

  56

  F

  9

  9

  3

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  M

  100

  100

  1

  12

  7

  2

  6

  70

  2

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  M

  339

  337

  50

  50

  70

  21

  45

  94

  7

  F

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Incest with girl under 13

  M

  75

  75

  —

  4

  —

  —

  2

  65

  4

  F

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  M

  3

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  M

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  F

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  M

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  F

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  M

  11

  11

  1

  2

  —

  1

  3

  3

  1

  F

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Gross indecency

  M

  236

  235

  19

  63

  34

  3

  27

  81

  8

  F

  7

  7

  —

  3

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Total

  M

  2,649

  2,658

  212

  624

  257

  57

  302

  1,110

  96

  F

  36

  36

  5

  12

  2

  —

  7

  10

  —

  Table 2: Persons found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences of violence against the person where the victim is known to have been of 16 years of age or under

  England and Wales 1986

  Number of persons

  Offence description

  Sex

  Total found guilty

  Total for sentence

  Absolute/conditional discharge

  Probation/supervision order

  Fine

  Community service order

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Otherwise dealt with

  Murder of infant under 1 year

  M

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Infanticide

  F

  9

  9

  —

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cruelty to a child

  M

  58

  57

  14

  7

  1

  1

  12

  20

  2

  F

  65

  65

  13

  27

  2

  1

  12

  10

  —

  Summary offences

  Cruelty to, or neglect of children

  M

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  3

  3

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  888
  certain sexual offences and offences of violence against children. For other types of offence it is not possible from the results of court proceedings held centrally to distinguish the age of the victim. As the hon. Member will see, nearly half of the persons convicted of sexual offences received sentences of immediate custody.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Transitional Arrangements
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local offices of his Department

  Four-week period ending

  15/12/87

  12/1/88

  9/2/88

  8/3/88

  18/4/88

  Number of offices suspending routine visits

  41

  51

  52

  48

  32

  Number of offices suspending out of course visits

  271

  264

  284

  291

  289

  1This period is slightly longer than four weeks in order to coincide with the end of the supplementary benefit scheme.

  (Note: The same office may appear in both categories of visit and in each four-week period.)

  (source: Internal management information returns)

  Conductive Education
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the visit to the Peto institute in Hungary, by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), in mid-September; whether the visit resulted in administrative easement of benefit transferral for the United Kingdom families concerned; and what proposals he now has for further support and development of conductive education in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Scott
  I visited the Peto institute during a short visit to Hungary from 18–21 September, and I was very impressed by the skill and dedication of Dr. Hari and her staff. I met some of the United Kingdom families whose children were attending the Peto institute, and listened to their concerns. I also saw two examples of the use of conductors in Hungarian hospitals and had discussions with Hungarian Government Ministers.

  Following an earlier visit by officials, we had already made special arrangements for co-ordinating the handling of claims by the United Kingdom families for attendance allowance, invalid care allowance and mobility allowance. The arrangements are intended to reduce the need for inquiries and to enable benefits to continue in payment abroad without interruption. Additionally, information already obtained for attendance allowance purposes will be used, wherever possible, for deciding claims for

  Unemployment benefit only

  Supplementary benefit and unemployment benefit

  Supplementary benefit only

  No benefit2

  February 1982

  2,158

  472

  2,192

  759

  February 1984

  1,490

  428

  3,220

  848

  November 1986

  1,400

  371

  2,897

  961

  November 1987

  870

  195

  2,422

  807

  Notes:

  1 Data are normally obtained as at November of each year. However as a result of industrial action during 1981 and 1984 it has not been possible to give data for those dates. Instead figures as at February 1982 and 1984 have been provided.

  2 The only figures available are for those who are "signing" at the unemployment benefit office to receive National Insurance credits.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report, for the past five years for which figures are available, the number of applications for mobility allowance received by medical
  890
  suspended the normal visits undertaken to review claims (LO2 visits) during the transitional period of the introduction of the new social security arrangements.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table gives the number of local offices suspending one visit or more during each of the four-week periods of the exercise to convert supplementary benefit cases to income support:

  mobility allowance for children reaching the age of five, to avoid the requirement to return to the United Kingdom for medical examination.

  I have seen many examples of excellent practice in this country by health and education professionals working with disabled children. I welcome the work of the Birmingham Foundation for Conductive Education, in piloting the training of United Kingdom conductors, in association with the Peto institute. I shall await with great interest the findings of the associated research project, to which Government have contributed substantial funding. I also welcome the interest shown by health and education professionals in this country in aspects of conductive education and I hope that my visit will lead to more exchanges of good practice between the United Kingdom and Hungary. All these developments have the potential of adding to the range of options open to parents of motor-disordered children in the United Kingdom.

  Benefits
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the numbers of unemployed people in Burnley by entitlement to benefit for the years 1981, 1984, 1986 and 1987 and distinguishing between the following(a) unemployment benefit only, (b) supplementary and unemployment benefit, (c) supplementary benefit only, and (d) no benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The numbers of people registered as unemployed in Burnley by entitlement to benefit for the years11982, 1984, 1986 and 1987 were:

  appeal tribunals in the United Kingdom from applicants who suffered from multiple sclerosis, as a percentage of the total applications heard by the tribunals in the same period, together with the percentage of applications from multiple sclerosis applicants during the same period whose appeals were upheld.
  891
  Mr. Scott
  I regret that it is not possible to provide information about the number of claims received from people suffering from specific diagnostic conditions.

  Social Security Payments
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the total value of(a) grants, and (b) loans, given by social security offices to persons living within the Fife North-East area over the last six months; and what was the total value of single payments made by those offices to persons living within the Fife, North-East area over the same period in 1987;

  (2) what was the number of applications received by social security offices from persons within the Fife North-East area for a grant or loan from the social fund during the last six months and the proportion of these for which a grant or loan was given;

  Local Office

  Number of SP claims

  Number of SP awards

  Percentage successful awards

  Total payments £

  Dundee East

  8,919

  4,538

  50·88

  346,712

  Leven

  3,368

  1,622

  48·16

  119,946

  Perth

  2,824

  1,532

  54·25

  120,934

  Pensions
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will propose Community legislation to oblige member states to introduce equality in respect of the ages at which men and women became entitled either to state or occupational pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The current draft directive on equal treatment would require equal pension ages for men and women within both state and occupational pension schemes. Negotiations on this draft directive are continuing.

  Disabled People (OPCS Report)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date he received from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys the report on the financial situation of people with disabilities; on what date he intends to publish the report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The complete text of the OPCS report on the financial circumstances of disabled adults living in private households was received by the Department at the end of August. On the date of publication of the report I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 7 June at column 575.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to seek to improve the workings of the family credit system with regard to the requirement to submit audited accounts; what representations he has received concerning the need to modify current regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no requirement for self-employed persons to submit any accounts in support of a claim for family credit The relevant information
  892
  (3) what was the number of applications for single payments from persons in the Fife North-East area over the six months period from April 1987; and what was the proportion of these for which a payment was granted.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Fife North-East constituency is covered by the Department's offices at Dundee East, Leven and Perth, but their boundaries are not conterminous. Information about social fund applications and awards from the social fund since 11 April 1988 is held in the Library.

  Information about single payment expenditure is not available monthly. However, the available information for the 24-week period ending on 22 September 1987 is shown in the table.

  about business receipts and expenses may be provided by completing a form supplied by my Department or by submitting accounts, as the person wishes. The legislation provides that, for accounts to be acceptable for this purpose, they have to be maintained and audited by a qualified auditor. Representations have been received from claimants and their financial advisers that this latter condition is unduly restrictive.

  We intend, shortly, to lay amending regulations to relax the rules on the acceptability of accounts, though without changing the present basis of assessing earnings from the business by reference to gross receipts and expenses allowable under family credit legislation.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families were in receipt of family credit payments during the period April to June, inclusive; and how many of thesed were paid on the basis of submitted audited accounts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of families in receipt of family credit was:

  194,000 at the end of April

  215,000 at the end of May

  236,000 at the end of June

  None of these was being paid on the basis of submitted audited accounts.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families were in receipt of family income supplement in March; and how many families were in receipt of family credit in September.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Around 205,000 families were receiving family income supplement in March. Around 242,000 families were receiving family credit at the end of September, but at that stage the situation was distorted by the effects of the postal dispute which had held up the receipt and clearance of claims. Otherwise, on the basis of claims subsequently received, the figure could have been expected to be higher than at the end of August when over 255,000 families were receiving family credit.

  Income Support
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to change the arrangements for paying income support to homeless people.

  Mr. Scott
  As a result of monitoring the operation of the new social security scheme, we have concluded that there is scope for improving the arrangements for helping homeless people. We are therefore taking the following steps.

  First, we are issuing further guidance to local offices to ensure that claimants are paid their full income support entitlement as soon as possible after the start of a claim. This will draw attention, in particular, to the power to pay some benefit in the first week of a claim, including a full week's board and lodging payment if this falls due during the period covered.

  Secondly, we will be expanding the guidance in the social fund manual to ensure that officers dealing with crisis loan applications are aware of the potential risks to health and safety that may be faced by the homeless. Crisis loans may be available in advance of the normal income support pay day to meet accommodation charges, including the payment of rent in advance.

  Finally, we are extending the direct payment arrangements. Existing provisions allow for the accommodation charge within income support to be paid direct to a hostel from the start of a claim if the hostel is akin to a resettlement unit or provides facilities for alcoholics or drug addicts. We will be extending these arrangements to cover all hostels. This should help more claimants to secure accommodation.

  We continue to believe that payment of income support in arrears is the most sensible arrangement for the majority of people below pension age. This is in line with the way wages and other benefits are normally paid.

  In addition, landlords providing board and lodging accommodation were informed of the new payment arrangements before income support was introduced and

  Caseload and costs of the community charge benefit scheme—latest estimates

  Community charge benefit

  Rate rebates

  caseload thousands

  (individuals) thousands

  Cost £ million

  caseload thousands

  cost £ million

  England

  6,860

  (9,380)

  1,525

  5,115

  1,265

  Scotland

  780

  (1,040)

  165

  600

  160

  Wales

  440

  (600)

  60

  295

  45

  Great Britain

  8,080

  (11,020)

  1,750

  6,015

  1,470

  Notes:

  1. The caseload figures in columns one and four are take-up estimates of numbers of claimants. They thus treat both partners in a married or unmarried couple as one. Column two gives the estimated number of individuals who would receive community charge benefit.

  2. The rate rebate figures are estimates for 1988–89.

  3. The community charge benefit figures are based on a maximum benefit of 80 per cent, of liability and a prescribed taper of 15 per cent.

  The current housing benefit rules for assessing the levels of the applicable amounts, the treatment of capital and income and a minimum benefit of 50p per week per claim have been used throughout. The figures are based on the most recent illustrative estimates of what community charges would have been in 1988–89 had they been in operation.

HEALTH

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the results of the recent study commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Security on the incidence and prevalence of communications and language handicaps and the need for speech therapy.
  894
  our information shows that, in practice, most are accepting payment of accommodation charges in arrears. Claimants planning to stay in this type of accommodation are provided with a letter for the landlord confirming that a claim for benefit has been made.

  We are, of course, continuing to monitor the effects of the new scheme.

  Dorsal Column Stimulators
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in the area of which regional health authorities dorsal column stimulators for pain relief have been fitted in the most recent period for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do not hold this information centrally.

  NHS Laundry and Cleaning (Accidents)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the rate of (i) fatal accidents, (ii) serious, non-fatal accidents, and (iii) minor accidents in(a) National Health Service laundries, (b) National Health Service cleaning, (c) privatised laundries, and (d) privatised cleaning in the last two years.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  Details of injuries are maintained by the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the increase in the number of claimants and the level of expenditure on housing benefit which will result from the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. Mellor
  I expect the report to be published by the researcher when it is complete.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure that the current National Health Service structure for speech therapists is retained if local education authorities are providing funding for speech therapy.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not believe that the provision of funds for speech therapy by local education authorities
  895
  would undermine the current National Health Services structure for speech therapists. Health authorities remain responsible for the provision of speech therapy services and there is in general good co-operation between health authorities and local educational authorities in the provision of services for children.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the district health authorities which have a specialist speech therapist in post.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally, but under the new flexible pay and grading structure introduced on 1 January this yar, it is possible for speech therapists in most grades to be employed in a specialist field.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide central funds for the provision of speech therapy services.

  Mr. Mellor
  None.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the respective duties of(a) education authorities and (b) health authorities to provide funds for speech therapy services.

  Mr. Mellor
  Speech therapy is one of the services which it is the duty of health authorities to provide under the National Health Service Act 1977. Local education authorities have no duty to provide funds for speech therapy services, but will have the power to do so when a recent amendment to the Education Act 1981 comes into effect on 1 November 1988.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he intends to take to increase the number of specialist speech therapists who work with deaf children and adults.
  896
  Mr. Mellor
  This is a matter for individual health authorities and speech therapy managers.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he intends to take to increase the minimum and maximum salary levels of speech therapists following the claim submitted on 1 April.

  Mr. Mellor
  Pay is a matter for negotiation in the appropriate Whitley council. I understand that at a joint meeting on 27 June National Health Service management made an offer of 5·5 per cent, increase on all points of all scales. This offer, which includes salaries ranging from £8,704 to £20,263, has been rejected. Negotiations are continuing on the offer and a further meeting is to be arranged.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many specialist speech therapists in the United Kingdom work with deaf children and adults;

  (2) how many children had speech therapy identified as a special need on special educational statements; and if he will list the number of these children that receive therapy at the level required.

  Mr. Mellor
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS (Expenditure)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown of estimates given in his reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 9 March,Official Report, columns 254–56, showing spending by age separately on (a) the hospital service and (b) community health services.

  Mr. Mellor
  This information is not available.

  Mentally Ill People
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made in meeting the 1991 targets for provision for mentally ill people outlined in Command 6233, "Better Services for the Mentally Ill and what changes he expects to occur in the next three years;

  (2) what progress has been made to meet the 1991 targets for provision for mentally ill people, by health and social services authority, outlined in Command 6233, "Better Services for the Mentally Ill "; and what changes he expects to occur in the next three years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Command Paper "Better Services for the Mentally Ill ", published in 1975 by the then Labour Government, did not set illustrative targets.

  Over the next three years we expect to see a continuing development of services, though the pace of change will depend on local needs and opportunities.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made in meeting the 1991 targets for provision for mentally handicapped people outlined in Command 4683, "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped"; and what changes he expects to occur in the next three years;

  (2) what progress has been made in meeting the 1991 targets, by health and social services authority, for provision for mentally handicapped people outlined in Command 4683, "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped"; and what changes he expects to occur in the next three years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The "targets" set in the 1971 White Paper were intended to be guidelines to the statutory authorities on the scale of provision necessary to provide better services for mentally handicapped people. The movement to community care and changes in thinking on the best form of provision have now made the guidelines less useful.

  Substantial progress has been made in expanding provision for mentally handicapped people, including support to the majority of mentally handicapped people who live at home, and increased residential provision for those who cannot, while the numbers living in NHS hospitals continue to fall. The provision of local authority day services has also increased. We expect this progress to continue.

  Between 1976 and 1986 there was a decrease of 14,800 in the number of NHS resident patients from 49,000 in 1976 to 34,200 in 1986. During the same period there was an increase of 12,600 places in residential homes from 11,800 to 24,400 and of 13,800 places in adult training centres and special needs units from 36,600 to 50,400.

  Relevant figures are available in the Department's various statistical publications on health and personal social services, the most recent of which is the "Statistical Bulletin on Personal Social Services Mental Handicap Provision," copies of which are in the Library.

  Home Helps
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates his Department has about the distribution 898
  of the work of home helps between their various client groups; and if he will indicate whether this has changed over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  This information is no longer collected centrally. However, information collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and published in "Personal Social Services Statistics, 1986–87 Actuals" contains details of the home help service for the week beginning 10 November 1986. Information for the year ending 31 March 1977 was published in "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England, 1978". Copies are available in the Library.

  The available information indicates that in both 1977 and 1986 the large majority of people receiving home help were aged 65 years and over, but it is not possible to deduce detailed trends.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of home helps in England in each local authority; and what this figure represents per 1,000 persons aged 65 plus years and per 1,000 persons aged 75 plus years, in the latest available year.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest available information for each local authority in England is given in the table. The figures do not indicate the volume of service actually provided to people in these age groups. The exact proportion of the service which goes to particular age groups is not known.

  Number of home helps (expressed as whole time equivalents) and rate per thousand population aged 65 years and over and per thousand population aged 75 years and over, by local authority, England, 1986

  Number (wte)

  Rate per thousand population

  Aged 65 years and over

  Aged 75 years and over

  Cleveland

  620

  8·8

  22·8

  Cumbria

  553

  6·9

  16·4

  Durham

  752

  8·3

  20·8

  Northumberland

  450

  9·5

  23·0

  Gateshead

  358

  11·1

  27·6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  682

  14·7

  34·0

  North Tyneside

  304

  9·6

  24·0

  South Tyneside

  242

  9·5

  23·9

  Sunderland

  622

  15·7

  39·7

  Humberside

  1,191

  9·2

  22·3

  North Yorkshire

  728

  6·2

  13·9

  Barnsley

  382

  11·6

  29·6

  Doncaster

  451

  11·4

  28·8

  Rotherham

  422

  12·5

  32·1

  Sheffield

  1,147

  12·5

  29·3

  Bradford

  716

  10·7

  24·7

  Calderdale

  316

  10·0

  23·1

  Kirklees

  524

  9·5

  22·3

  Leeds

  1,148

  10·3

  23·9

  Wakefield

  367

  8·5

  21·6

  Cheshire

  863

  6·6

  16·3

  Lancashire

  1,614

  7·0

  16·3

  Bolton

  353

  9·3

  22·3

  Bury

  235

  9·1

  21·4

  Manchester

  926

  13·4

  31·9

  Oldham

  352

  10·9

  26·2

  Rochdale

  354

  12·5

  29·9

  Salford

  357

  92

  21·9

  Stockport

  360

  8·4

  19·8

  Tameside

  407

  12·4

  30·4

  Trafford

  291

  8·8

  20·7

  Wigan

  514

  12·3

  30·9

  Knowsley

  199

  10·6

  28·2

  Liverpool

  685

  8·8

  20·6

  Sefton

  319

  6·5

  15·0

  899

  Number (wte)

  Rate per thousand population

  Aged 65 years and over

  Aged 75 years and over

  St. Helens

  405

  15·8

  39·7

  Wirral

  331

  6·0

  14·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  617

  6·4

  15·5

  Shropshire

  253

  4·4

  10·7

  Staffordshire

  958

  6·9

  17·6

  Warwickshire

  520

  7·7

  19·1

  Birmingham

  1,459

  9·8

  23·9

  Coventry

  3S0

  8·4

  21·6

  Dudley

  307

  7·3

  18·4

  Sandwell

  327

  7·0

  17·3

  Solihull

  127

  4·9

  12·7

  Walsall

  252

  7·2

  19·3

  Wolverhampton

  343

  9·1

  22·8

  Derbyshire

  1,639

  11·6

  28·2

  Leicestershire

  730

  5·9

  14·0

  Lincolnshire

  518

  5·6

  13·7

  Northamptonshire

  331

  4·2

  10·0

  Nottinghamshire

  1,279

  8·7

  21·2

  Bedfordshire

  430

  6·9

  16·9

  Berkshire

  609

  7·0

  17·0

  Buckinghamshire

  530

  7·3

  17·7

  Cambridgeshire

  627

  7·3

  17·3

  Essex

  1,377

  6·0

  14·3

  Hertfordshire

  664

  4·9

  12·0

  Norfolk

  724

  5·5

  12·8

  Oxfordshire

  250

  3·3

  7·8

  Suffolk

  499

  4·8

  11·1

  Camden

  410

  14·9

  32·5

  Greenwich

  459

  14·2

  33·7

  Hackney

  414

  16·2

  36·9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  269

  11·6

  25·5

  Islington

  282

  11·9

  27·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  121

  6·5

  13·8

  Lambeth

  493

  14·4

  32·3

  Lewisham

  560

  15·1

  34·8

  Southwark

  396

  11·5

  27·1

  Tower Hamlets

  215

  10·0

  23·0

  Wandsworth

  434

  11·0

  24·6

  Westminster

  332

  11·1

  24·3

  City of London

  11

  20·2

  48·3

  Barking and Dagenham

  210

  8·1

  19·6

  Barnet

  220

  4·5

  10·1

  Bexley

  260

  8·2

  19·3

  Brent

  454

  13·4

  31·3

  Bromley

  252

  5·2

  12·3

  Croydon

  257

  5·9

  13·4

  Ealing

  229

  5·7

  13·1

  Enfield

  274

  6·5

  14·3

  Haringey

  425

  16·1

  35·3

  Harrow

  233

  7·3

  15·7

  Havering

  223

  6·4

  16·9

  Number of places in local authority, voluntary and private residential homes for elderly and younger physically handicapped people in England, by local authority, 1979 and 1986, and rates per 1,000 population aged 65 and over

  1979

  19861

  Places in homes

  Rates per 1,000 population aged 65+

  Places in homes

  Rates per 1,000 population aged 65+

  England

  179,502

  26·1

  244,214

  34·0

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  1,499

  22·8

  1,904

  27·8

  Cumbria

  1,822

  24·2

  2,786

  35·3

  Durham

  1,867

  21·8

  2,382

  26·8

  Northumberland

  1,164

  25·9

  1,518

  32·2

  Gateshead

  671

  21·8

  769

  24·2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,295

  28·0

  1,576

  34·2

  North Tyneside

  804

  27·3

  1,221

  39·3

  South Tyneside

  488

  20·5

  674

  27·2

  Sunderland

  969

  25·5

  1,222

  31·5

  Regional Total

  10,579

  24·0

  14,052

  30·8

  900

  Number (wte)

  Rate per thousand population

  Aged 65 years and over

  Aged 75 years and over

  Hillingdon

  272

  7·8

  18·4

  Hounslow

  156

  5·5

  12·4

  Kingston upon Thames

  73

  3·2

  7·0

  Merton

  199

  7·0

  15·1

  Newham

  357

  12·8

  30·1

  Redbridge

  159

  4·2

  9·5

  Richmond upon Thames

  162

  5·6

  12·1

  Sutton

  110

  4·0

  8·6

  Waltham Forest

  399

  11·5

  24·8

  Dorset

  568

  4·1

  8·9

  Hampshire

  994

  4·5

  10·5

  Isle of Wight

  133

  4·8

  10·6

  Kent

  994

  4·1

  9·5

  Surrey

  454

  2·8

  6·5

  East Sussex

  678

  4·2

  8·6

  West Sussex

  593

  4·1

  8·9

  Wiltshire

  400

  5·0

  11·8

  Avon

  1,141

  7·5

  17·1

  Cornwall

  385

  4·6

  10·6

  Devon

  888

  4·5

  9·9

  Gloucestershire

  438

  5·2

  12·2

  Somerset

  429

  5·4

  12·3

  England

  53,706

  7·4

  17·3

  Notes:

  1 Figures exclude home help organisers and assistant and trainee home help organisers.

  2 Figures for Isles of Scilly are included with Cornwall.

  3 Figures are provisional.

  Residential Homes for the Elderly
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the ratio of places in residential homes for the elderly to the population aged 65 plus years in England and in each local authority in 1979 and the latest available year;

  (2) what was the number of places in voluntary, local authority and private homes for the elderly in England for each of the last 10 years; and how these relate to the population aged 65 plus years and 75 plus years.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information available centrally prior to 1985 does not separately identify residential homes solely for elderly people. The information given in the tables relates to places in homes for elderly and younger physically handicapped people. Information collected on places does not identify provision for specific age groups.
  901

  1979

  19861

  Places in homes

  Rates per 1,000 population aged 65 +

  Places in homes

  Rates per 1,000 population aged 65 +

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Humberside

  2,939

  24·2

  4,622

  36·3

  North Yorkshire

  3,535

  31·8

  5,186

  44·3

  Barnsley

  609

  20·0

  871

  27·0

  Doncaster

  809

  22·5

  1,118

  28·8

  Rotherham

  528

  17·4

  766

  23·1

  Sheffield

  2,060

  23·2

  2,086

  22·8

  Bradford

  2,053

  30·2

  2,984

  45·1

  Calderdale

  863

  27·1

  1,056

  34·0

  Kirklees

  1,507

  26·9

  1,665

  30·3

  Leeds

  2,558

  23·5

  3,152

  28·6

  Wakefield

  867

  21·6

  1,024

  24·2

  Regional Total

  18,328

  25·4

  24,530

  32·9

  North Western Region

  Cheshire

  2,633

  22·2

  3,753

  29·4

  Lancashire

  5,948

  25·4

  10,531

  46·0

  Bolton

  811

  21·4

  1,068

  28·5

  Bury

  762

  29·2

  1,041

  40·7

  Manchester

  2,546

  35·0

  2,763

  39·9

  Oldham

  778

  24·0

  1,126

  35·1

  Rochdale

  638

  22·7

  912

  32·5

  Salford

  903

  23·5

  1,122

  29·1

  Stockport

  849

  20·7

  1,226

  29·0

  Tameside

  512

  16·1

  792

  24·4

  Trafford

  679

  21·2

  1,134

  34·6

  Wigan

  740

  18·1

  940

  22·9

  Knowsley

  246

  14·5

  285

  15·4

  Liverpool

  2,513

  30·9

  2,579

  33·3

  Sefton

  1,600

  34·5

  3,216

  66·7

  St. Helens

  475

  19·4

  487

  19·6

  Wirral

  1,419

  26·6

  1,959

  36·1

  Regional Total

  24,052

  25·1

  34,934

  36·4

  West Midlands Region

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,227

  25·6

  3,521

  37·4

  Shropshire

  1,257

  24·5

  2,295

  41·1

  Staffordshire

  2,486

  19·9

  3,936

  29·3

  Warwickshire

  1,679

  28·1

  2,121

  32·2

  Birmingham

  3,262

  22·6

  4,287

  29·1

  Coventry

  782

  19·0

  1,175

  26·4

  Dudley

  612

  16·1

  1,147

  27·8

  Sandwell

  884

  20·6

  964

  21·1

  Solihull

  408

  19·3

  571

  22·9

  Walsall

  584

  18·7

  865

  25·3

  Wolverhampton

  789

  23·1

  1,057

  28·9

  Regional Total

  14,970

  22·1

  21,939

  30·3

  East Midlands Region

  Derbyshire

  2,734

  20·6

  4,110

  29·6

  Leicestershire

  2,604

  22·9

  3,448

  28·6

  Lincolnshire

  1,864

  22·8

  3,042

  33·8

  Northamptonshire

  1,595

  22·3

  2,462

  32·3

  Nottinghamshire

  2,811

  21·0

  3,524

  24·6

  Regional Total

  11,608

  21·8

  16,586

  29·2

  Thames Anglia Region

  Bedfordshire

  1,410

  25·5

  1,880

  30·8

  Berkshire

  1,860

  23·8

  2,770

  32·4

  Buckinghamshire

  1,906

  30·2

  2,308

  32·8

  Cambridgeshire

  1,716

  22·5

  2,319

  27·7

  Essex

  4,997

  24·4

  7,731

  34·2

  Hertfordshire

  2,743

  23·9

  3,379

  25·5

  Norfolk

  3,062

  26·2

  5,033

  39·3

  Oxfordshire

  1,801

  27·0

  1,999

  27·1

  Suffolk

  2,448

  26·1

  3,393

  33·1

  Regional Total

  21,943

  25·2

  30,812

  32·0

  Inner London Region

  Camden

  867

  29·5

  892

  32·3

  Greenwich

  835

  27·2

  943

  29·7

  Hackney

  816

  29·0

  664

  25·6

  Hammersmith

  609

  23·4

  592

  25·2

  Islington

  719

  29·7

  797

  33·5

  902 903

  1979

  19861

  Places in homes

  Rates per 1,000 population aged 65 +

  Places in homes

  Rates per 1,000 population aged 65 +

  Kensington

  1,402

  65·5

  1,065

  57·9

  Lambeth

  1,218

  31·3

  1,154

  33·5

  Lewisham

  795

  20·8

  1,058

  28·7

  Southwark

  1,015

  28·4

  1,004

  29·4

  Tower Hamlets

  614

  27·0

  538

  25·0

  Wands worth

  1,705

  39·5

  1,730

  43·6

  Westminster

  793

  23·9

  574

  19·3

  City of London

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Regional Total

  11,388

  30·6

  11,011

  31·6

  Outer London region

  Barking

  378

  14·9

  417

  16·3

  Barnet

  1,587

  33·0

  1,990

  41·2

  Bexley

  401

  13·8

  479

  15·4

  Brent

  710

  20·2

  665

  19·6

  Bromley

  1,216

  27·8

  1,488

  31·3

  Croydon

  1,659

  37·4

  1,672

  38·6

  Ealing

  1,298

  31·1

  1,320

  33·1

  Enfield

  1,016

  24·4

  993

  23·7

  Haringey

  1,018

  32·3

  989

  37·0

  Harrow

  782

  25·0

  921

  28·8

  Havering

  433

  14·7

  775

  23·2

  Hillingdon

  671

  21·6

  687

  20·0

  Hounslow

  565

  19·6

  587

  20·8

  Kingston upon Thames

  470

  20·8

  470

  20·3

  Merton

  520

  18·1

  575

  20·3

  Newham

  740

  23·6

  800

  28·5

  Redbridge

  803

  21·8

  894

  24·0

  Richmond upon Thames

  920

  31·5

  876

  30·4

  Sutton

  707

  25·3

  806

  29·4

  Waltham Forest

  444

  12·1

  613

  17·6

  Regional total

  16,338

  24·2

  18,015

  26·7

  Southern Region

  Dorset

  3,712

  29·3

  5,934

  43·1

  Hampshire

  5,402

  27·1

  8,946

  41·4

  Isle of Wight

  774

  30·4

  1,538

  55·5

  Kent

  6,083

  26·6

  6,537

  27·6

  Surrey

  4,453

  30·4

  5,993

  38·1

  East Sussex

  6,708

  41·5

  8,621

  53·1

  West Sussex

  4,596

  34·5

  6,742

  47·5

  Wiltshire

  1,428

  20·2

  2,522

  32·2

  Regional total

  33,156

  30·4

  46,833

  40·4

  South Western Region

  Avon

  4,176

  29·4

  5,638

  37·7

  Cornwall

  1,945

  25·1

  3,652

  44·1

  Devon

  6,975

  37·6

  11,049

  57·0

  Gloucestershire

  2,094

  28·0

  2,560

  31·3

  Somerset

  1,950

  27·1

  2,603

  33·1

  Regional total

  17,140

  31·1

  25,502

  43·5

  1 Latest available year.

  Number of places in local authority, voluntary and private homes for elderly and younger physically handicapped people in England, 1976 to 1986, and rates per 1,000 population aged 65 and over, and 75 and over

  Places (000's)

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  11986

  All homes

  170·0

  173·8

  176·9

  179·5

  184·8

  191·1

  196·6

  205·3

  217·7

  233·6

  244·2

  Local authority

  110·8

  112·6

  113·6

  113·6

  114·1

  114·9

  115·5

  115·9

  116·4

  116·1

  115·6

  Voluntary

  32·8

  33·0

  33·3

  33·9

  35·0

  36·9

  36·7

  37·6

  38·2

  37·5

  36·0

  Private

  26·4

  28·1

  30·1

  32·0

  35·8

  39·3

  44·3

  51·8

  63·1

  80·0

  92·6

  Rates per 1,000 population

  Aged 65 and over All homes

  25·7

  25·9

  26·0

  26·1

  26·5

  27·0

  27·7

  28·9

  30·8

  33·2

  34·0

  Local authority

  16·7

  16·8

  16·7

  16·5

  16·4

  16·3

  16·2

  16·3

  16·5

  16·5

  16·1

  Voluntary

  5·0

  4·9

  4·9

  4·9

  5·0

  5·2

  5·2

  5·3

  5·4

  5·3

  5·0

  Private

  4·0

  4·2

  4·4

  4·6

  5·1

  5·6

  6·2

  7·3

  8·9

  11·4

  12·9

  904 905

  Places (000's)

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  11986

  Aged 75 and over All homes

  71·5

  71·5

  71·0

  70·2

  70·6

  70·9

  71·2

  72·5

  74·9

  78·2

  80·0

  Local authority

  46·6

  46·3

  45·6

  44·4

  43·6

  42·7

  41·8

  40·9

  40·0

  38·9

  37·9

  Voluntary

  13·8

  13·6

  13·4

  13·3

  13·3

  13·7

  13·3

  13·3

  13·1

  12·5

  11·8

  Private

  11·1

  11·6

  12·1

  12·5

  13·7

  14·6

  16·1

  18·3

  21·7

  26·8

  30·3

  1 Latest available year.

  Meals Service
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of meals provided, for each of the last 10 years, by the meals service; how many were

  Meals service—England

  Number of meals served (millions) and rates per 1,000 population (over 65 and over 75 years)

  Year ended 31 March

  Total

  Rate (Over 65)

  Rate (Over 75)

  At home

  Rate (Over 65)

  Rate (Over 75)

  Elsewhere e.g. day centres

  Rate (Over 65)

  Rate (Over 75)

  1976

  40·5

  6,122

  17,041

  24·3

  3,676

  10,233

  16·2

  2,446

  6,808

  1977

  41·2

  6,141

  16,937

  24·6

  3,670

  10,123

  16·6

  2,471

  6,815

  1978

  41·1

  6,046

  16,493

  25·3

  3,717

  10,139

  15·8

  2,329

  6,353

  1979

  40·9

  5,943

  16,018

  26·2

  3,800

  10,241

  14·8

  2,144

  5,777

  1980

  41·7

  5,981

  15,935

  27·0

  3,874

  10,320

  14·7

  2,108

  5,615

  1981

  41·5

  5,866

  15,393

  27·0

  3,822

  10,031

  14·4

  2,043

  5,362

  1982

  40·3

  5,672

  14,602

  27·1

  3,813

  9,817

  13·2

  1,858

  4,784

  1983

  41·0

  5,763

  14,464

  27·8

  3,914

  9,824

  13·1

  1,849

  4,640

  1984

  42·4

  6,001

  14,570

  28·8

  4,085

  9,917

  13·5

  1,916

  4,653

  1985

  42·9

  6,103

  14,377

  29·9

  4,247

  10,005

  13·1

  1,856

  4,372

  1986

  44·1

  6,140

  14,454

  30·9

  4,305

  10,135

  13·2

  1,835

  4,319

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion the income from sales and fees and charges for meals provided by the meals service represents of expenditure thereon for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The available information is shown in the table. The latest available data year is 1986–87.

  Meals service—England

  Year

  Gross expenditure £ million

  Fees and charges £ million

  Fees and charges as Percentage of Expenditure

  1977–78

  22·447

  6·000

  26·73

  1978–79

  26·373

  7·221

  27·38

  1979–80

  31·828

  8·975

  28·20

  1980–81

  36·266

  11·319

  31·21

  1981–82

  38·742

  13·176

  34·01

  1982–83

  43·836

  15·568

  35·51

  1983–84

  47·728

  17·439

  36·54

  1984–85

  51·447

  19·051

  37·03

  1985–86

  54·805

  20·634

  37·65

  1986–87

  59·661

  22·834

  38·27

  Notes:

  1. Local authorities have discretion whether, and to what extent, to charge for meals. The Government's view is that they should seek to recover the economic cost of providing meals where this does not cause hardship. Where someone represents to their local authority that they cannot afford the charge, the local authority has a duty to reduce it to the amount that they consider it reasonable for the recipient to pay.

  2. Gross expenditure is wage costs, supplies and administrative expenses minus other income (eg, health authority contributions to jointly financed schemes).

  3. Data relate to meals on wheels and meals served in day centres
  906
  provided at home and how many elsewhere; and if he will relate these figures to the population aged 65 plus years and 75 plus years in each year.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is given in the table. The figures do not indicate the actual provision to people in these age groups. The exact proportion of meals provided to each age group is not known.

  for elderly people. Data are not collected centrally about meals which may be provided at other types of day centre.

  Meals on wheels service—England £ million (Cash)

  Gross expenditure

  Fees and charges

  Fees and charges as percentage of expenditure

  1977–78

  16·170

  4·219

  26·09

  1978–79

  18·773

  5·244

  27·93

  1979–80

  23·093

  6·537

  28·31

  1980–81

  26·423

  8·342

  31·57

  1981–82

  28·587

  9·648

  33·75

  1982–83

  32·103

  11·370

  35·42

  1983–84

  35·405

  12·995

  36·70

  1984–85

  38·714

  14·534

  37·54

  1985–86

  42·085

  16·079

  38·21

  1986–87

  46·360

  18·036

  38·90

  Meals in day centres for elderly—England £ million (Cash)

  Gross expenditure

  Fees and charges

  Fees and charges as percentage of expenditure

  1977–78

  6·277

  1·781

  28·37

  1978–79

  7·600

  1·977

  26·01

  1979–80

  8·735

  2·438

  27·91

  1980–81

  9·843

  2·977

  30·24

  1981–82

  10·155

  3·528

  34·74

  1982–83

  11·733

  4·198

  35·78

  1983–84

  12·323

  4·444

  36·06

  1984–85

  12·733

  4·517

  35·47

  907

  Gross expenditure

  Fees and charges

  Fees and charges as percentage of expenditure

  1985–86

  12·720

  4·555

  35·81

  1986–87

  13·301

  4·798

  36·07

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department has made available to community health councils in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department does not separately fund community health councils, the expenses of which are met from the overall allocations made to health authorities.

  Following are figures of revenue expenditure incurred by community health councils and derived from the summarised annual accounts of health authorities in England for the latest available five years:

  Year

  £000

  1982–83

  5,787

  1983–84

  6,099

  1984–85

  6,341

  1985–86

  6,784

  1986–87

  7,165

  Nurses (Back Injuries)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has, for each of the last five years for which figures are available, as to how many nurses have suffered back injuries sustained at work; and how many of those have needed surgery as a result.

  Mr. Mellor
  None.

  Drug Prescribing
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are made for a registered medical practitioner to participate on a named patient basis.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the Medicines Act 1968, doctors are free to be supplied with and to prescribe any unlicensed drug on a named patient basis if they judge it to be in the patient's best interest.

  Medical Accidents
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances other than as a result of litigation a health authority compensates the victims of a medical accident.

  Mrs. Currie
  There are two situations, other than as a result of litigation, in which a health authority may compensate the victim of a medical accident. Firstly, where an authority is potentially legally obliged to do so. This would occur where an authority is advised by its solicitors that, in the particular circumstances of a case, civil proceedings, if issued, would be indefensible and that liability should be admitted and a basis for compensation agreed or, alternatively, that payment should be offered "without prejudice" but in full satisfaction of the potential 908
  claim. Secondly, in cases where, although under no legal obligation to do so, an authority nevertheless considers that, in the circumstances of the case, compensation should be offered on an ex gratia basis.

  Nurses and Mid wives (Pay Award)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the full year cost for 1989–90 of the nurses and midwifery staff pay award.

  Mr. Mellor
  We estimate the cost of this year's pay award to nurses in the hospital and community health services in England will be £731 million. The extra £110 million my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced on 13 October together with the additional funding provided in April means we have met the cost of the award in full.

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physiotherapists have been trained in each of the past five years at Guys' and St. Thomas' schools of physiotherapy; how many physiotherapists will be trained at these schools in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The intake of student physiotherapists to the two schools is set out in the table:

  Guys'

  St. Thomas'

  1984

  38

  24

  1985

  30

  24

  1986

  30

  24

  1987

  30

  24

  1988

  30

  24

  The South East Thames regional health authority, which is responsible for managing physiotherapy training arrangements in the region, plans to cease intakes to these schools as from 1989, when new courses will begin at King's college, University of London and Brighton polytechnic.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the number of unfilled physiotherapy posts in each regional health authority in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of unfilled physiotherapy posts in the four London regional health authorities over the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have information on the number of physiotherapy posts vacant against funded establishments on a regional basis. However, the results of the most recent sample surveys of health authorities suggest that nationally about 3·6 per cent, of funded posts for physiotherapists are unfilled after three months.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what projections he has of the availability of physiotherapists in the London area over the next five and next 10 years; if these take into account the effect of the development of a new school in Eastbourne and subsequently at Brighton polytechnic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We await the report of a joint working party recently set up by the Manpower Planning Advisory
  909
  Group (which advises regional chairmen and the National Health Service management board) and the chartered Society of Physiotherapy which is urgently undertaking a reveiw of the short-term manpower situation in the profession. The results will be available by early next year. In spring 1989 we shall be issuing guidance on a supply strategy for the next five to 10 years. This work will take account of any particular supply problems of the London area and of proposals for new schools such as that proposed at Brighton polytechnic. Officials are in close touch with the region concerned on the details of this proposal.

  Resource Management Initiative
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to extend the resource management initiative.

  Mr. Mellor
  The resource management initiative is a NHS management board and a joint consultants committee jointly sponsored initiative. The pilot projects will be subject to an interim evaluation this October and a formal evaluation in October 1989. The pilots have already demonstrated that certain elements—for example, the introduction of nurse management information systems and the feeding back to managers and clinicians of existing information—are areas that the majority of acute hospitals could usefully begin to introduce. We are considering how best to programme an extension of the initiative over the country as a whole.

  Eyesight Tests
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review current proposals to introduce charges for eyesight tests.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on 22 July 1988, at column 896.

  Child Care
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of children, by local authority area in(a) local authority day nurseries and (b) with child minders, for each year since 1983.

  Mrs. Currie
  We do not have the information in the form requested. Figures for children on the registers of day nurseries provided by local authorities and places available with registered child minders in each local authority in England are published annually in "Children's Day Care Facilities" (A/F/6), copies of which are in the Library.

  Hospital Beds and Facilities
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take to assist doctors in the London area endeavouring to follow the policy of trying to get beds and facilities for their patients outside their own catchment area, who are being resisted by hospital administrators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  General practitioners are free to refer their patients to any consultant whom they consider is best able to treat them. Equally, consultants have the right to refuse 910
  to accept such a referral for any reason. Over the years this right has been extended to include consultants who agree with authorities locally that certain types of patients, usually in the non-acute services—for example, mental illness—will benefit if they are treated within certain catchment areas, normally that within which the patient lives. Consultants may also agree that they will accept referrals from GPs in other districts/regions only if the patients concerned have particular need of their specialist skills.

  Health Education Service (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will assist the Nottingham district health authority to prevent further reductions in the health education service to schools.

  Mrs. Currie
  The allocation of funds to Nottingham health authority is a matter for Trent regional health authority. The district must itself decide how best to allocate the resources available to it.

  Departmental Services
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 29 July,Official Report, column 779, which proposed changes to services his Department treats as requiring formal public consultation.

  Mrs. Currie
  The requirements for public consultation are laid down in the Community Health Councils Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No. 304). These require that when a health authority proposes to make any substantial development of the service it provides, or variation in its service, it must formally consult the relevant community health council. A departmental circular (HSC IS 207) provides that where the community health council objects to proposals which relate to a closure or change of use of hospitals, the matter should be referred to the regional health authority. If the region supports the original proposal, the matter is referred for final decision by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the parliamentary constituencies in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland, in descending order of size, showing in each case the extent to which they are either above or below the quota.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is contained in "Electoral Statistics, 1988" (HMSO), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those local authorities in whose area a population decline of 5 per cent, or over was noted between the census of 1961 and 1981; and what information he has with regard to population decline since the last official census.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the tables. Table 1 lists local authorities in England and Wales whose resident populations declined by 5 per cent, or more between 1961 and 1981. Table 2 contains a list of authorities not included on table 1 whose populations have fallen by 5 per cent, or more between 1981 and 1987 (the last year for which estimates are available).
  911

  Table 1

  County district/London borough

  Estimated mid-Year populations—thousands

  Percentage changes

  1961

  1981

  1987

  1961–81

  1981–87

  Islington

  260·0

  166·1

  168·7

  -36·1

  1·5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  219·0

  140·1

  133·1

  -36·0

  -5·0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  221·0

  151·3

  151·1

  -31·5

  -0·1

  Westminster, City of

  271·0

  188·2

  173·4

  -30·6

  -7·8

  Liverpool

  741·0

  516·7

  476·0

  -30·3

  -7·9

  Southwark

  312·0

  218·3

  216·8

  -30·0

  -0·7

  Manchester

  657·0

  462·8

  450·1

  -29·6

  -2·7

  Tower Hamlets

  204·0

  145·2

  159·0

  -28·8

  9·5

  Hackney

  257·0

  185·1

  187·4

  -28·0

  1·3

  Camden

  245·0

  179·1

  184·9

  -26·9

  3·2

  Lambeth

  340·0

  253·0

  243·2

  -25·6

  -3·9

  Wandsworth

  334·0

  262·0

  258·1

  -21·6

  -1·5

  Haringey

  259·0

  207·2

  193·7

  -20·0

  -6·5

  Newham

  264·0

  212·8

  206·5

  -19·4

  -2·9

  Lewisham

  290·0

  236·4

  231·6

  -18·5

  -2·0

  Rhondda

  100·0

  82·6

  77·1

  -17·4

  -6·6

  Salford

  293·0

  247·0

  237·7

  -15·7

  -3·8

  Blaenau Gwent

  95·0

  80·1

  77·3

  -15·7

  -3·5

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  336·0

  284·1

  282·7

  -15·4

  -0·5

  Portsmouth

  225·0

  191·4

  186·8

  -14·9

  -2·4

  Barking and Dagenham

  176·0

  151·6

  147·8

  -13·9

  -2·5

  Brent

  295·0

  254·2

  256·6

  -13·8

  1·0

  Birmingham

  1,179·0

  1,020·8

  998·2

  -13·4

  -2·2

  South Tyneside

  185·0

  162·0

  156·3

  -12·4

  -3·5

  Waltham Forest

  247·0

  217·5

  214·5

  -11·9

  -1·4

  Richmond upon Thames

  182·0

  161·8

  163·0

  -11·1

  0·8

  Preston

  142·0

  126·4

  126·7

  -11·0

  0·2

  Wear Valley

  72·0

  84·1

  84·7

  -11·0

  0·9

  Merton

  188·0

  167·6

  184·0

  -10·9

  -2·2

  Derwentside

  99·0

  88·4

  86·3

  -10·7

  -2·3

  Nottingham

  311·0

  278·2

  276·8

  -10·5

  -0·5

  Meirionnydd

  35·0

  31·4

  31·3

  -10·3

  -0·2

  Port Talbot

  61·0

  54·8

  49·9

  -10·2

  -9·0

  Kingston upon Hull

  302·0

  273·7

  252·7

  -9·4

  -7·7

  Merthyr Tydfil

  67·0

  60·8

  58·5

  -9·3

  -3·8

  Stoke-on-Trent

  276·0

  252·3

  246·7

  -8·6

  -2·2

  Sandwell

  338·0

  309·8

  298·4

  -8·3

  -3·7

  Middlesbrough

  164·0

  150·6

  143·3

  -8·2

  -4·9

  Teesdale

  27·0

  24·8

  24·9

  -8·1

  0·5

  Kingston upon Thames

  146·0

  134·3

  132·2

  -8·0

  -1·5

  Bristol

  436·0

  401·3

  384·4

  -8·0

  -4·2

  Redbridge

  249·0

  229·2

  230·1

  -8·0

  0·4

  Easington

  110·0

  101·4

  95·7

  -7·8

  -5·6

  Brighton

  162·0

  149·4

  140·9

  -7·8

  -5·7

  Barnet

  318·0

  295·2

  305·9

  -7·2

  3·6

  Cynon Valley

  73·0

  67·8

  64·9

  -7·1

  -4·3

  Greenwich

  231·0

  215·6

  216·6

  -6·7

  0·4

  Berwick upon Tweed

  28·0

  26·2

  27·1

  -6·4

  3·4

  Wansbeck

  67·0

  62·7

  59·6

  -6·4

  -4·9

  York

  109·0

  102·1

  101·5

  -6·3

  -0·6

  Ealing

  301·0

  282·2

  296·9

  -6·2

  5·2

  Sheffield

  581·0

  547·6

  532·3

  -5·7

  -2·8

  Harrow

  211·0

  199·0

  200·1

  -5·7

  0·5

  North Tyneside

  210·0

  198·6

  192·9

  -5·4

  -2·9

  Bolsover

  75·0

  71·0

  69·4

  -5·3

  -2·2

  Table 2

  County District/London Borough

  Estimated mid-year populations—thousands

  Percentage changes

  1961

  1981

  1987

  1961–81

  1981–87

  City of London

  5·0

  5·4

  4·7

  8·0

  -13·2

  Burnley

  99·0

  94·2

  85·0

  -4·8

  -9·7

  Harlow

  54·0

  79·5

  72·9

  47·2

  -8·3

  Scunthorpe

  67·0

  66·3

  61·5

  -1·0

  -7·3

  Knowsley

  152·0

  174·0

  161·5

  14·5

  -7·2

  Spelthorne

  84·0

  92·8

  87·0

  10·5

  -6·2

  Norwich

  121·0

  126·1

  118·6

  4·2

  -5·9

  Hartlepool

  97·0

  94·9

  89·8

  -2·2

  -5·4

  Sedgefleld

  82·0

  93·5

  88·4

  14·0

  -5·4

  Southampton

  205·0

  209·9

  199·1

  2·4

  -5·2

  Source:

  1961 populations: The Registrar General's Revised Estimates of the Population 1961–1971; 1981 & 1987 populations: OPCS Monitor PPI 88/1.
  912 913
  Population estimates for 1961 and 1981 are based upon the Censuses held in those years. A number of adjustments have been made to Census results so that the figures relate to usually resident populations at mid year. Mid 1987 estimates have been obtained by updating census-based 1981 figures to take account of subsequent births, deaths and migration. No adjustments have been made to remove any effects of changes in boundaries since the local government reorganisation of 1974.

  Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out in the Official Report the number of infant deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome in England each month in 1986.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table shows the number of deaths (registered in England and Wales, but usually resident in England) under one year of age with any mention of sudden infant death syndrome, cot death or similar term on the death certificate, irrespective of whether it did or did not appear as the underlying cause of death by month of occurrence for 1986. Infant deaths which may have been sudden and unexpected, but where no mention of "sudden" or "cot" death or similar term was made on the death certificate, cannot be separately identified reliably.

  Number of deaths under one year of age with any mention of sudden infant death syndrome by month of occurrence. Usual residents of England

  1986 Provisional

  Month of occurrence

  Number

  January

  159

  February

  178

  March

  140

  April

  117

  May

  114

  June

  71

  July

  67

  August

  67

  September

  74

  October

  112

  November

  140

  December

  183

  Sugar
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what reports on the health implications of sugar consumption have been received by his Department in the past five years;

  (2) when he expects to receive the report on sugar from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  In recent years two scientific reports on sugar and health have been received in the Department:

  1. "The Evaluation of Health Aspects of Sugars" from the United States Food and Drug Administration (1986),

  2. "Report on Sugars and Syrups" from the British Nutrition Foundation (1987).

  In addition, the Chief Medical Officer's Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) panel on sugars in the diet has received some 20 submissions from interested individuals and organisations. We expect the panel's report in the course of next year.

  Child Health
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure that parents throughout the country possess a standardised health record for each of their children; and if he will make a statement.
  914
  Mrs. Currie
  The Government believe that as a matter of principle people should have the right to know what is recorded about them. We have said in debate that we want progress on developing draft guidelines for general access to medical records and we hope this will be achieved later this year. We think it is in the interests of everyone, especially the health and welfare of patients, that progress is made quickly.

  With regard to parent-held child health records, we must give recognition to the fact that parents are the primary health carers of their own children. This is reflected in the Department's overall policy to encourage increased parent participation in clinical and social decisions affecting the care of their children.

  We support in principle the introduction of parent-held child health records to record details of routine screening checks on their children such as hearing, eyesight, height and weight, childhood illnesses and immunisations. Because of the number of different professionals involved in child health surveillance there are obvious advantages when parents hold such information all on one record and take it with them to each appointment. However, the decision on whether to give parents these records is a matter of professional judgment.

  There obviously needs to be a full consensus of professional opinion before a "standardised" record can be introduced throughout the country. Some of the professional bodies involved have already established a joint working party chaired by Dr. David Hall to look at and make recommendations on the content and timing of child health surveillance. The report is expected early next year.

  Several health authorities have already successfully introduced parent-held child health records on an experimental basis. We are watching closely the outcome of this work and, in the light of experience and the joint working party report, we will take any action necessary.

  Resource Management
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will make a statement on the future of the resource management pilot project at Arrowe Park hospital;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of the National Health Service resource management initiative.

  Mrs. Currie
  The resource management initiative's overriding aim is to ensure that health authorities' resources are used efficiently and effectively to the maximum benefit of patients. The main components are:

  (a) to develop new management systems that provide a central role for doctors, nurses and other professional staff in the management process;

  (b) to develop new computerised hospital management information systems; and

  (c) to equip staff for their new roles and responsibilities.

  A key feature of resource management is the active co-operation of the medical profession; the resource management initiative is jointly sponsored by the joint consultants' committee and the NHS management board, and its ultimate success will depend on the continuing commitment of clinicians.
  915
  The initiative is being piloted at six acute sites and progress at five of the six sites is both good and on schedule. More specifically, developments at two sites (the Freeman hospital, Newcastle, and the royal infirmary, Huddersfield) have reached a point where all the main new information systems will shortly become operational.

  Developments at three of the other four sites (the Pilgrim hospital, Boston, Guy's, and the royal Hampshire county hospital, Winchester) are expected to reach a broadly similar stage next spring.

  Developments at Arrowe Park hospital have to date been slower than at the other sites, although some useful work has been undertaken in developing management structures. The project plan for the hospital is currently being revised and discussed with the district and region. The NHS management board is keen that Arrowe Park remains part of the initiative.

  Progress at the sites will be evaluated, with an interim report expected in October 1988. A fuller evaluation is scheduled for completion in October 1989, and will be based on 12 months operational experience at two sites and six months operational experience at three other sites. Decisions on extending the initiative to other sites will be taken in the light both of the 1989 evaluation and of the outcome of the current review of the NHS.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Savings (Taxation)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken or what steps have been proposed to implement the conclusion of the European Council meeting at Hanover that there should be proposals for eliminating fraud, linked to the delivery of national systems for the taxation of savings and for controlling the application of these systems.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The capital movements directive agreed in June requires the Commission to make such proposals by the end of this year. No proposals have yet been made.

  Earnings (Unemployment)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the contribution to reducing unemployment of each 1 per cent, annual decrease in average earnings.

  Mr. Major
  A decrease in the level of pay settlements which brought them more closely into line with increases in productivity would have an important effect in reducing unemployment. This is now on a firm downward trend, and greater wage restraint would help to keep it there.

  Tax Cuts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effects of the tax cuts announced in the Budget on the levels of consumer expenditure.

  Mr. Major
  The Budget left the overall burden of taxation unchanged, and I therefore do not expect any significant immediate effects on total consumers' expenditure. In the longer run, by improving incentives and encouraging an enterprise economy, it will have 916
  boosted output, employment and exports, and allow a higher level of consumers' expenditure than would otherwise have been possible.

  Taxes (Western Isles)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of creating a Western Isles division of the general commissioners of taxes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the region of £30,000 per annum.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people employed by the Civil Service, prior to 1949 on permanently unestablished grades, are still in employment or are in receipt of pensions; and what is the estimated cost of counting in full their unestablished service prior to 1949 for pension purposes.

  Mr. Brooke
  I regret that this information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Taxation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of Exchequer revenues from direct taxation came from each quintile of income groups(a) before the 1988 Budget and (b) after the 1988 Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates of the percentage distribution of income tax liability in recent years including 1987–88 (pre-1988 Budget) and 1988–89 (post-1988 Budget) were given in my reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 28 July at column 488. Estimates covering revenue from all direct taxation are not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for those above and those below age 65 years the estimated number of tax units and their tax liability in the current financial year in each range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000 divided into single persons and one-earner and two-earner married couples; and if he will include the number of females within each category and their tax liability;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing for those above and for those below pensionable age, the estimated number of tax units paying income tax and their income tax liability as a proportion of their total income in a full year at 1988–89 rates, by range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000, distinguishing between single persons, one-earner and two-earner married couples; and if he will add figures showing the likely effect of his proposals for the separate taxation of husbands and wives on the numbers of tax units and the proportion paid in tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Available estimates are given in the tables. All estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. Under the present system a married woman's income is treated as her husband's and taxed as if it belonged to him. Separate estimates for single females are provided in the tables. Comparable estimates after the introduction of independent taxation of husbands and wives are not
  917
  available. However estimates of gains in 1990–91 are published in the Inland Revenue Budget press release "Independent Taxation of Husband and Wife".

  Number of tax units paying income tax and tax liability by range of total income, 1988–89

  Single Males

  Taxpayers under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income (lower limit) £ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Tax liability (£ million)

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income (Percentage)

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Tax liability (£ million)

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income (Percentage)

  2,000

  170

  10

  1·7

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  360

  80

  6·2

  60

  10

  2·9

  4,000

  360

  160

  10·0

  70

  20

  6·9

  5,000

  430

  290

  12·5

  50

  30

  10·5

  6,000

  470

  430

  14·1

  30

  20

  12·7

  7,000

  450

  500

  14·7

  20

  20

  14·4

  8,000

  390

  510

  15·6

  10

  20

  15·3

  9,000

  440

  690

  16·7

  20

  20

  16·0

  10,000

  600

  1,100

  16·7

  30

  60

  18·1

  12,000

  510

  1,180

  17·3

  10

  40

  20·2

  15,000

  290

  900

  18·3

  20

  70

  20·8

  20,000

  160

  730

  19·9

  20

  100

  23·6

  30,000

  50

  450

  25·4

  10

  80

  28·5

  50,000

  20

  510

  32·3

  1—

  100

  36·1

  1 Less than 5,000.

  Number of tax units paying income tax and lax liability by range of total income, 1988–89

  Single Females

  Taxpayers under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income (lower limit) £ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Tax liability (£ million)

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income per cent.

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Tax liability (£ million)

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income per cent.

  2,000

  180

  10

  1·5

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  440

  90

  6·1

  170

  20

  2·7

  4,000

  450

  190

  9·5

  190

  60

  7·1

  5,000

  560

  360

  11·9

  100

  50

  9·5

  6,000

  520

  450

  13·3

  80

  60

  12·5

  7,000

  370

  390

  14·4

  60

  70

  14·1

  8,000

  310

  410

  15·5

  30

  40

  15·3

  9,000

  230

  350

  16·2

  40

  60

  16·0

  10,000

  290

  530

  16·9

  50

  110

  17·9

  12,000

  250

  570

  17·4

  40

  110

  19·7

  15,000

  120

  370

  18·7

  40

  140

  21·0

  20,000

  80

  390

  21·2

  30

  170

  23·6

  30,000

  20

  190

  27·2

  10

  150

  29·2

  50,000

  10

  130

  31·9

  10

  490

  37·4

  Number of tax units paying income tax and tax liability by range of total income, 1988–89

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Taxpayers under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income (lower limit) £ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Tax liability (£ million)

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income per cent.

  Number of units liable to pay lax ('000s)

  Tax liability (£ million)

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income per cent.

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  1—

  2—

  3·2

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  110

  10

  2·3

  —

  —

  —

  5,000

  150

  50

  5·8

  120

  20

  2·2

  6,000

  230

  120

  8·0

  130

  50

  5·7

  7,000

  260

  180

  9·5

  70

  40

  8·1

  8,000

  330

  290

  10·5

  80

  70

  9·5

  9,000

  320

  360

  11·7

  40

  40

  11·5

  10,000

  720

  1,020

  12·9

  50

  80

  14·2

  12,000

  770

  1,520

  14·7

  50

  100

  16·6

  15,000

  610

  1,700

  16·1

  50

  160

  18·4

  20,000

  440

  1,870

  18·3

  30

  140

  21·4

  30,000

  160

  1,460

  24·2

  30

  250

  26·8

  50,000

  70

  1,730

  31·0

  10

  330

  34·3

  1 Less than 5,000

  2 Less than £5 million

  918 919

  Number of tax units paying income tax and tax liability by range of total income, 1988–89

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  Taxpayers under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income (loner limit) £ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax (000's)

  Tax liability (£ million)

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income per cent.

  Number of units liable to pay tax (000's)

  Tax liability (£ million)

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income per cent.

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  10

  —1

  1·4

  —

  —

  —

  5,000

  20

  10

  4·2

  20

  —1

  1·5

  6,000

  70

  10

  3·3

  20

  10

  3·6

  7,000

  110

  40

  4·8

  40

  10

  5·1

  8,000

  170

  90

  6·5

  50

  30

  5·6

  9,000

  190

  150

  7·9

  40

  30

  7·8

  10,000

  590

  580

  8·9

  80

  80

  9·6

  12,000

  1,060

  1,590

  11·1

  70

  140

  13·9

  15,000

  1,660

  3,780

  13·1

  110

  270

  15·6

  20,000

  1,470

  5,460

  15·6

  70

  290

  18·2

  30,000

  480

  3,460

  20·1

  20

  200

  23·9

  50,000

  100

  2,300

  28·1

  10

  350

  31·1

  1 Less than £5 million

  British Library
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether consideration has been or is being or will be given to the possibility of levying charges on those who will use the new British library building under construction in Euston road, London NW1.

  Mr. Luce
  I have been asked to reply.

  The British library board plans to maintain the free provision of its basic services. At the same time, consideration will continue to be given as needed to supplementing the grant-in-aid with charges for the provision of value-added or premium services as is done at present. This applies both to the library's present accommodation and to the new building at St. Pancras.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table giving for the most recent financial year the information on farm incomes for tax purposes given in his written reply dated 14 March 1985, Official Report, column 246.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: The latest available information is for 1985–86 and is given in the tables.

  Table 3: Individuals—gros: profit, 1985–86 tax year

  Number of cases

  Amount of gross profit

  Range of gross profits

  Husband's plus single people

  Wive's

  All individuals

  Husband's plus single people

  Wive's

  All individuals

  (Lower limit)

  (thousands)

  (thousands)

  (thousands)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  Nil or negative

  27

  11

  38

  28

  0

  28

  1

  25

  5

  30

  41

  2

  43

  1,000

  12

  3

  15

  20

  3

  23

  1,500

  10

  3

  13

  32

  5

  37

  2,000

  15

  8

  22

  44

  17

  60

  2,500

  16

  2

  18

  63

  7

  70

  3,000

  18

  2

  20

  79

  7

  86

  3,500

  13

  4

  16

  75

  15

  89

  4,000

  13

  3

  16

  75

  12

  88

  4,500

  13

  2

  15

  84

  10

  94

  5,000

  14

  2

  17

  106

  13

  119

  920

  Table 1: Companies

  Accounting periods ending in the financial year to 31 March 1986

  Number/Amount

  Number with gross trading profit for tax purposes

  8,000

  Gross trading profit for tax purposes

  £390 million

  All taxable income after reliefs (profits chargeable to Corporation Tax)

  £190 million

  Notes:

  1. The companies included are those whose main activity is in agriculture or horticulture. Their trading profits may include profits from non-agricultural and non-horticultural activities.

  2. Companies with a trading loss in 1985–86 are excluded.

  Table 2: Individuals (summary)

  Income tax year 1985–86

  Number/Amount

  Number of cases

  324,000

  Gross profit for tax purposes

  £2,510 million

  Taxable profit

  £1,800 million

  Notes to Table 2, 3 and 4:

  1. The number of cases is the number of married men and single people whose "main source" (usually but not always the largest source) of earned income is from self-employment in agriculture and horticulture; plus the number of married women whose largest source of self-employment income is from agriculture and horticulture.

  2. Gross profit includes balancing charges. It also includes any non agricultural/horticultural profits of individuals concerned. Taxable profit is gross profit less losses and capital allowances so far as allowed for the income tax year.

  3. Individual items may not sum to total due to rounding.

  4. Nil or negative includes losses.
  921

  Number of cases

  Amount of gross profit

  Range of gross profits

  Husband's plus single people

  Wive's

  All individuals

  Husband's plus single people

  Wive's

  All individuals

  (Lower limit)

  (thousands)

  (thousands)

  (thousands)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  6,000

  13

  2

  15

  117

  13

  130

  7,000

  10

  7

  17

  98

  -53

  151

  8,000

  13

  3

  17

  185

  30

  215

  10,000

  8

  3

  11

  111

  28

  139

  12,000

  13

  2

  15

  217

  33

  250

  15,000

  10

  2

  13

  241

  37

  278

  20,000

  12

  4

  17

  474

  132

  606

  Total

  256

  68

  324

  2,090

  417

  2,510

  Table 4: Individuals—taxable profit, 1985–86 tax year

  Taxable Profit (lower limit)

  Husbands plus single people

  Wives

  All Individuals

  Number of cases

  Amount

  Number of cases

  Amount

  Amount of Cases

  Amount

  (thousands)

  (£ million)

  (thousands)

  (£ million)

  (thousands)

  (£ million)

  Nil or negative

  27

  -8

  14

  -2

  40

  -10

  1

  25

  12

  5

  2

  30

  14

  1,000

  12

  14

  3

  4

  15

  19

  1,500

  10

  18

  6

  12

  17

  29

  2,000

  15

  33

  8

  17

  23

  49

  2,500

  16

  44

  4

  11

  20

  55

  3,000

  18

  57

  3

  9

  20

  66

  3,500

  13

  46

  2

  8

  15

  55

  4,000

  13

  57

  2

  7

  15

  64

  4,500

  13

  59

  2

  11

  15

  71

  5,000

  14

  77

  1

  7

  16

  84

  6,000

  13

  84

  3

  17

  16

  100

  7,000

  10

  76

  6

  46

  16

  122

  8,000

  13

  119

  3

  27

  16

  146

  10,000

  8

  90

  1

  12

  10

  102

  12,000

  13

  168

  1

  15

  14

  182

  15,000

  10

  177

  3

  45

  13

  222

  20,000

  12

  378

  2

  47

  14

  424

  256

  1,500

  68

  294

  324

  1,800

  Income Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing for those above and for those below pensionable age, the estimated number of tax units paying income tax and their income tax liability in a full year at 1988–89 rates by range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000, distinguishing between single persons, one-earner and two-earner married couples; and if he will provide corresponding information on the basis of the following rates of tax (a) single persons, £3,000 taxed at nil rate, £1,500 at 15 per cent., £1,500 at 20 per cent., £7,500 at 25 per cent., and five successive bands of £5,000 at an incremental rate of 5 percentage points to a

  Number of tax units paying income tax and tax liability by range of total income 1988–89

  Singles

  Married couple with wife's earnings

  Married couple without wife's earnings

  Total income (lower limit)

  Number of units paying tax

  Tax yield

  Number of units paying tax

  Tax yield

  Number of units paying tax

  Tax yield

  £ per annum

  '000s

  £ million

  '000s

  £ million

  '000s

  £ million

  Taxpayers under 65

  2,000

  350

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  800

  170

  —

  —

  1—

  1—

  4,000

  810

  350

  10

  1—

  110

  10

  5,000

  990

  650

  20

  10

  150

  50

  6,000

  990

  880

  70

  10

  230

  120

  7,000

  820

  890

  110

  40

  260

  180

  8,000

  700

  920

  170

  90

  330

  290

  9,000

  670

  1,040

  190

  150

  320

  360

  922
  maximum of 60 per cent., (b) all married persons, £3,000 exempt, £3,000 nil rate, £3,000 at 15 per cent., £3,000 at 20 per cent., £9,000 at 25 per cent., and four successive bands of £8,000 at an incremental rate of 5 percentage points to a maximum of 55 per cent., (c) the nil rate band to be reduced by one-half of the amount by which total income exceeds £7,500 and £15,000 in the case of single and married persons, respectively, on the same basis as the present age allowance and (d) all other allowances and reliefs to be abolished.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: Provisional estimates for the 1988–89 tax regime, based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal income, are given in the table. Estimates for the alternative tax regime could be produced only at disproportionate costs.
  923

  Singles

  Married couple with wife's earnings

  Married couple without wife's earnings

  Total income (lower limit)

  Number of units paying tax

  Tax yield

  Number of units paying tax

  Tax yield

  Number of units paying tax

  Tax yield

  £ per annum

  '000s

  £ million

  '000s

  £ million

  '000s

  £ million

  10,000

  890

  1,630

  590

  580

  720

  1,020

  12,000

  760

  1,750

  1,060

  1,590

  770

  1,520

  15,000

  400

  1,270

  1,660

  3,780

  610

  1,700

  20,000

  230

  1,120

  1,470

  5,460

  440

  1,870

  30,000

  70

  640

  480

  3,460

  160

  1,460

  50,000

  20

  640

  100

  2,300

  70

  1,730

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  230

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  260

  80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,000

  150

  80

  20

  1—

  120

  20

  6,000

  110

  80

  20

  10

  130

  50

  7,000

  80

  90

  40

  10

  70

  40

  8,000

  50

  60

  50

  30

  80

  70

  9,000

  50

  80

  40

  30

  40

  40

  10,000

  80

  170

  80

  80

  50

  80

  12,000

  60

  150

  70

  140

  50

  100

  15,000

  60

  210

  110

  270

  50

  160

  20,000

  50

  270

  70

  290

  30

  140

  30,000

  20

  230

  20

  200

  30

  250

  50,000

  10

  590

  10

  350

  10

  330

  1 Less than £5 million or 5,000.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing for women above and for those below pensionable age, the estimated number of tax units paying income tax in 1988–89 directly or indirectly and the estimated amount of tax payable in a full year at the marginal rate, dividing the figures to show the amounts by range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000 and distinguishing between single persons, one-earner and two-earner married couples; and if he will include tables showing his estimate of the amount of tax which would be

  Number of single females paying income tax and tax liability by range of total income 1988–89

  Aged 65 and over

  Aged under 65

  Total income

  Number

  Tax liability

  Number

  Tax liability

  (lower limit)

  total

  of higher rate taxpayers

  total

  of higher rate taxpayers

  £ per annum

  ('000)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  ('000)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  180

  10

  —

  3,000

  170

  20

  —

  440

  90

  —

  4,000

  190

  60

  —

  450

  190

  —

  5,000

  100

  50

  —

  560

  360

  —

  6,000

  80

  60

  —

  520

  450

  —

  7,000

  60

  70

  —

  370

  390

  —

  8,000

  30

  40

  —

  310

  410

  —

  9,000

  40

  60

  —

  230

  350

  —

  10,000

  50

  110

  —

  290

  530

  —

  12,000

  40

  110

  —

  250

  570

  15,000

  40

  140

  —

  120

  370

  —

  20,000

  30

  170

  140

  80

  390

  210

  30,000

  10

  150

  150

  20

  190

  190

  50,000

  10

  490

  490

  10

  130

  130

  Total

  850

  1,530

  780

  3,830

  4,430

  530

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing for one-earner and two-earner married couples under 65 years of age and married couples over 65 years of age the number of tax units paying less and the number paying more tax in each income band up to a lower limit of £100,000 at 1988–89 rates of tax in the event
  924
  payable by such tax units in 1988–89 on the basis of separate taxation for husbands and wives as proposed for 1990.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: Estimates for single women are given in the tables. They are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and are provisional.

  Under the present tax system a married women's income is treated as her husband's and taxed as if it belonged to him. The estimates requested of the tax liability on the income of married women under the present tax system and under independent taxation could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  of the proposed allowances for separate taxation of husbands and wives being replaced by a transferable allowance of £3,000 for each spouse; and if he will include figures of the consequential changes in tax yield.
  925
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: I regret that the estimates requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, further to his written reply of 2 October comparing income taxation in the United Kingdom and Germany, he will give a breakdown of the 22 to 56 per cent, range of tax showing the actual rate charged on incomes of single, one-earner and two-earner couples at intervals of DM10,000 together with the corresponding rate chargeable in the United Kingdom in terms of the gross income and the taxable income, assuming the minimum allowances in both cases; and if he will add details of the corresponding social security contribution and if child benefit is payable.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: Such information as can be produced without incurring undue cost is given in the tables, which are supplemented by explanatory notes.

  Table 1

  Germany

  Taxable income

  Income tax rate per cent.

  DM

  £

  Single

  Married couple

  18,000

  4,390

  22

  21

  28,000

  6,829

  32

  21

  38,000

  9,268

  39

  23

  48,000

  11,707

  45

  29

  Table 2

  United Kingdom

  Taxable income

  Marginal rate of income tax

  Income tax as a percentage of gross income

  Income tax and National Insurance contributions as a percentage of gross income

  £

  Per cent.

  Single

  One-earner married couple

  Two-earner married couple

  Single

  One-earner married couple

  Two-earner married couple

  4,390

  27

  17·4

  14·5

  11·2

  26·4

  14·3

  12·3

  6,829

  27

  19·9

  17·4

  14·1

  28·9

  19·3

  16·7

  9,268

  27

  21·4

  19·2

  16·2

  30·4

  22·4

  19·8

  11,707

  27

  22·4

  20·4

  17·6

  31·4

  24·4

  22·0

  14,146

  27

  23·0

  21·3

  18·8

  31·4

  24·8

  23·2

  16,585

  27

  23·6

  22·0

  19·6

  30·8

  25·1

  23·6

  19,024

  40

  24·6

  23·2

  20·9

  31·1

  25·9

  24·5

  21,463

  45

  26·4

  25·0

  22·8

  32·2

  27·5

  26·1

  23,902

  45

  28·1

  26·8

  24·6

  33·4

  29·0

  27·6

  26,341

  50

  29·7

  28·4

  26·3

  34·5

  30·5

  29·1

  28,780

  50

  31·3

  30·0

  27·9

  35·7

  31·9

  30·5

  31,219

  50

  32·7

  31·4

  29·4

  36·8

  33·1

  31·8

  Notes:

  1. The figures relate to 1987–88 to ensure compatibility with Table 1.

  2. The calculations assume that all income is earned income, there are no reliefs other than the appropriate personal allowance and that in two-earner married couples no wife's earnings election has been made but the wife makes full use of the wife's earned income allowance. National Insurance Contributions are at the standard Class 1 rate for employees contracted-in to the state additional (earnings related) pension scheme. In the calculations for income tax and national insurance contributions the assumption is made that married couples have two children; child benefit is deducted accordingly, to take into account cash benefits for children.

  Investment Income
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing for those above and for those below pensionable age, the estimated number of tax units with an investment income in 1988–89 by range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000, distinguishing between single persons, one-earner and two-earner married couples together with aggregate and the average investment income in each case; and if he will provide separate figures for those with an investment income of more than £200;
  926

  Taxable income

  Income tax rate per cent.

  DM

  £

  Single

  Married couple

  58,000

  14,146

  48

  33

  68,000

  16,585

  51

  37

  78,000

  19,024

  52

  41

  88,000

  21,463

  53

  44

  98,000

  23,902

  54

  45

  108,000

  26,341

  54

  47

  118,000

  28,780

  55

  49

  128,000

  31,219

  56

  50

  Notes:

  1. The figures relate to 1987 to ensure compatibility with the figures given in the written answer of 22 October 1987.

  2. Conversions to sterling have been made on the basis of OECD estimates of purchasing power parity.

  3. The tax rates have been rounded.

  4. The same rates apply for both one- and two-earner married couples.

  5. Social security contributions, deductible in arriving at taxable income, are as follows:—

  Old age insurance—9·35 per cent, of gross earnings, maximum
  deduction DM 6,395 (£1,560) pa.

  Unemployment insurance—2·15 per cent, of gross earnings,
  maximum deduction DM 1,470 (£358) pa.

  Health insurance—6·3 per cent, of gross earnings, maximum
  deduction DM 3,231 (£788) pa.

  6. Child benefit, not included in computing taxable income, is payable as follows:—

  50 DM (£12.20) per month for the first child

  100 DM (£24·39) per month for the second child

  220 DM (£53·66) per month for the third child

  240 DM (£58·54) per month for each subsequent child

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing for women above and for those below pensionable age, the estimated number of tax units with an investment income in 1988–89 by range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000, distinguishing between single persons, one-earner and two-earner married couples, together with the average investment income in each case; and if he will provide separate figures for those with an investment income of more than £200.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: Available estimates are in the tables. All estimates are provisional and subject to a wide margin of error because

  927
  they are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and the coverage of investment income in the survey is incomplete. In some cases, investment income on which basic rate liability is satisfied by

  Table 1

  Single people and married couples with investment income 1988–89

  Single people

  Married couples

  Total income

  without wife's earned income

  with wife's earned income

  (lower limit)

  Number

  Investment income

  Number

  Investment income

  Number

  Investment income

  £ per annum

  000s

  total £ million

  average £

  000s

  total £ million

  average £

  000s

  total £ million

  average £

  Aged under 65

  5,000

  2,700

  1,500

  540

  1,100

  580

  530

  520

  270

  520

  10,000

  1,600

  1,200

  760

  2,000

  1,200

  600

  2,900

  1,800

  620

  20,000

  170

  430

  2,590

  350

  390

  1,110

  1,300

  1,200

  920

  30,000

  50

  340

  6,960

  140

  440

  3,130

  460

  960

  2,080

  50,000

  20

  330

  21,000

  60

  730

  11,900

  100

  930

  9,120

  All

  4,540

  3,800

  840

  3,650

  3,340

  920

  5,280

  5,160

  980

  Aged 65 and over

  5,000

  480

  930

  1,950

  460

  620

  1,350

  220

  250

  1,120

  10,000

  150

  890

  5,840

  150

  580

  3,900

  270

  730

  2,700

  20,000

  40

  510

  14,600

  20

  200

  8,500

  50

  350

  6,600

  30,000

  20

  380

  25,500

  20

  360

  17,600

  20

  290

  12,400

  50,000

  10

  490

  58,600

  10

  330

  42,100

  10

  450

  35,100

  All

  700

  3,200

  4,570

  660

  2,090

  3,170

  570

  2,070

  3,630

  Table 2

  Single people and married couples with investment income of more than £200 1988–89

  Single people

  Married couples

  Total income

  without wife's earned income

  with wife's earned income

  (lower limit)

  Number

  Investment income

  Number

  Investment income

  Number

  Investment income

  £ per annum

  000s

  total £ million

  average £

  000s

  total £ million

  average £

  000s

  total £ million

  average £

  Aged under 65

  5,000

  2,000

  1,400

  680

  760

  550

  720

  330

  250

  760

  10,000

  1,300

  1,200

  940

  1,500

  1,100

  750

  2,200

  1,700

  780

  20,000

  130

  420

  3,390

  250

  380

  1,510

  970

  1,200

  1,220

  30,000

  40

  340

  8,050

  110

  430

  3,950

  370

  950

  2,560

  50,000

  10

  330

  24,800

  50

  730

  13,800

  90

  920

  10,000

  All

  3,480

  3,690

  1,060

  2,670

  3,190

  1,190

  3,960

  5,020

  1,270

  Aged 65 and over

  5,000

  430

  920

  2,130

  440

  620

  1,420

  200

  240

  1,230

  10,000

  150

  890

  5,900

  140

  570

  4,150

  260

  730

  2,850

  20,000

  40

  510

  14,700

  20

  200

  8,530

  50

  350

  6,750

  30,000

  20

  380

  25,700

  20

  360

  17,700

  20

  290

  12,600

  50,000

  10

  490

  58,600

  10

  330

  42,100

  10

  450

  35,100

  All

  650

  3,190

  4,910

  630

  2,080

  3,300

  540

  2,060

  3,810

  Table 3

  Single Females with investment income and married couples where the wife has investment income 1988–89

  Single females

  Married couples

  Total income

  without wife's earned income

  with wife's earned income

  (lower limit)

  Number

  Investment income

  Number

  Investment income

  Number

  Investment income

  £ per annum

  000s

  total £ million

  average £

  000s

  total £ million

  average £

  000s

  total £ million

  average £

  Aged under 65

  5,000

  1,500

  850

  580

  770

  200

  260

  340

  90

  270

  10,000

  530

  570

  1,080

  1,300

  380

  280

  2,200

  640

  300

  20,000

  40

  220

  5,120

  210

  80

  390

  980

  330

  340

  30,000

  10

  190

  14,200

  90

  70

  790

  360

  200

  560

  50,000

  —

  130

  52,500

  40

  90

  2,060

  80

  200

  2,640

  All

  2,080

  1,960

  940

  2,410

  820

  340

  3,960

  1,460

  370

  Aged 65 and over

  5,000

  360

  750

  2,070

  310

  180

  580

  140

  70

  540

  10,000

  110

  640

  5,860

  100

  130

  1,290

  200

  200

  990

  20,000

  20

  320

  16,600

  20

  50

  2,730

  40

  90

  2,300

  30,000

  10

  290

  28,400

  20

  100

  6,750

  20

  100

  4,730

  50,000

  10

  390

  61,700

  10

  80

  11,900

  10

  130

  11,000

  All

  510

  2,390

  4,690

  460

  540

  1,170

  410

  590

  1,440

  928
  deduction at source is not reported. No reliable estimates can be given for single people and married couples with total income of less than £5,000.
  929

  Table 4

  Single Females with investment income and married couples where the wife has investment income of more than £200 1988–89

  Single females

  Married couples

  Total income

  without wife's earned income

  with wife's earned income

  (lower limit)

  Number

  Investment income

  Number

  Investment income

  Number

  Investment income

  £ per annum

  000s

  total £ million

  average £

  000s

  total £ million

  average £

  000s

  total £ million

  average £

  Aged under 65

  5,000

  1,100

  800

  740

  400

  160

  400

  170

  70

  430

  10,000

  410

  560

  1,360

  790

  310

  390

  1,300

  550

  410

  20,000

  30

  220

  6,440

  90

  70

  800

  490

  280

  580

  30,000

  10

  190

  15,000

  30

  70

  2,030

  170

  180

  1,070

  50,000

  —

  130

  52,600

  20

  90

  4,550

  40

  190

  4,330

  All

  1,550

  1,900

  1,230

  1,330

  700

  2,170

  1,270

  590

  Aged 65 and over

  5,000

  330

  740

  1,230

  260

  170

  670

  100

  70

  680

  10,000

  110

  640

  5,890

  90

  130

  1,540

  180

  200

  1,110

  20,000

  20

  320

  16,700

  20

  50

  2,840

  40

  90

  1,420

  30,000

  10

  290

  28,400

  20

  100

  7,040

  20

  100

  4,970

  50,000

  480

  390

  61,700

  10

  80

  13,000

  10

  130

  11,600

  All

  700

  2,380

  4,960

  400

  530

  1,330

  350

  590

  1,690

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of an increase of £100 in each of the allowances and reliefs for income tax at 1988–89 income and tax levels; and if he will provide corresponding figures on the basis of the proposed 1990 regime for the independent taxation of husbands and wives.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: Provisional estimates for the main income tax allowances based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes are in the table. Estimates for increases in allowances under independent taxation are available only at 1990–91 income levels.

  Direct revenue cost of increasing allowances by £100 in a full year

  £ million

  Allowance

  at 1988–89 incomes

  Single and wives earned income

  340

  Married man's2

  265

  Additional personal and widow's bereavement

  15

  Single age

  25

  Married age2

  20

  Allowance

  at 1990–91 incomes with Independent Taxation1

  Personal allowances:—

  single and wives

  340

  husbands2

  270

  Additional personal and widow's bereavement

  15

  Aged personal

  single and wives

  30

  husbands2

  25

  1 Assuming allowances are indexed from 1988–89 to 1990–91.

  2 To provide an appropriate comparison between the present system of allowances and Independent Taxation, the personal allowances under Independent Taxation are shown separately for single people and wives and for husbands. If the married couple's allowance were also increased by £100, it would cost approximately a further £270 million for the non-aged and £25

  930
  million for the aged.

  Note:

  The additional personal and widow's bereavement allowances are defined under present legislation as the difference between the married allowance and the single allowance. It follows that all the allowances could not be increased by £100 at the same time.

  Wife's Earnings Election
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for wives with earned income the estimated distribution of the number of such wives in 1988–89 by wife's total income and the couples' joint total incomes together with the estimated revenue loss from wife's earnings elections and the estimated further loss on the 1990 basis of separate taxation of husbands and wives;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the estimated number and direct revenue cost of wife's earnings elections in a full year by range of incomes at 1988–89 income and tax levels together with tables for (a) husbands and (b) wives showing (i) the numbers separately assessed by range of total income of the relevant spouse and (ii) the aggregate total income of each spouse and the aggregate investment income of each spouse; and if he will add a table showing the additional direct revenue cost on the basis of the 1990 proposals for the separate taxation of husbands and wives.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: Available estimates are in the tables. They are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional. Further estimates for investment income and separate taxation could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Distribution of wives1 earned income 1988–89

  Income (lower limit)

  Number of wives with earned income in range

  Number of married couples (with wives earnings) with joint total income2 in range

  £ per annum

  ('000)

  ('000)

  1

  2,280

  60

  2,000

  1,970

  170

  4,000

  1,110

  340

  6,000

  950

  430

  8,000

  500

  520

  10,000

  270

  730

  931

  Income (lower limit)

  Number of wives with earned income in range

  Number of married couples (with wives earnings) with joint total income2 in range

  £ per annum

  ('000)

  ('000)

  12,000

  240

  1,190

  15,000

  100

  1,880

  20,000

  40

  1,520

  30,000

  20

  640

  Wives earnings election 1988–89

  Income (lower limit)

  By range of joint total income of married couple

  By range of wives earned income

  By range of husbands total income1

  £ per annum

  number '000

  cost £ million

  number '000

  cost £ million

  number '000

  cost £ million

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,000

  —

  —

  70

  15

  2

  —

  10,000

  —

  —

  125

  70

  5

  5

  15,000

  —

  —

  55

  60

  45

  15

  20,000

  10

  2

  35

  70

  155

  110

  30,000

  290

  245

  15

  30

  95

  115

  All ranges

  300

  245

  300

  245

  300

  245

  1 Husband's earned income plus husband and wife's investment income.

  2 Less than £1 million or 1,000.

  Elderly Taxpayers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing his estimate of the number of single persons and married couples aged 65 to 79 and the numbers aged 80 and over, the distribution by income of those subject to tax, and the numbers benefiting from age relief in whole or in part and at what cost to the Exchequer; and if he will provide a similar estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: Estimates of the numbers of single persons and married couples aged 65 and over in 1988–89 and the distribution of income for those liable to income tax are given in the tables. In 1988–89, about 2·5 million single persons and married couples, including half a million non-taxpayers, benefit from the age allowances at a cost to the Exchequer of about £400 million. Costs in 1990–91 will depend on the levels of the age allowances.

  Number of single people and married couples aged 65 and over in 1988–89

  Thousands

  Age

  Single persons

  1Married couples

  65–79

  3,300

  2,400

  80 and over

  1,700

  500

  Total aged 65 and over

  5,000

  2,900

  1 Based on the age of the husband or the wife, whichever is the elder.

  Taxpayers1 aged 65 and over2 by range of total income 1988–893

  Total income (lower limit) £ per annum

  Thousands

  3,000

  230

  4,000

  300

  5,000

  330

  6,000

  280

  932

  Income (lower limit)

  Number of wives with earned income in range

  Number of married couples (with wives earnings) with joint total income2 in range

  £ per annum

  ('000)

  ('000)

  All ranges

  7,480

  7,480

  1 Excluding some wives with earnings below the PAYE reporting limit and self-employed wives making a net loss.

  2 Combined income of husband and wife.

  Total income (lower limit) £ per annum

  Thousands

  7,000

  260

  8,000

  210

  9,000

  160

  10,000

  240

  12,000

  170

  15,000

  210

  20,000

  80

  25,000

  40

  30,000

  90

  All

  2,600

  1 Single person or a married couple.

  2 Either husband or wife is aged 65 or over.

  3 Estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and are provisional.

  Incomes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for (a) two-earner families with a wife's earnings election and (b) other higher-rate taxpayers by tax category, his estimate of the number and distribution of incomes, together with the average unearned income and average amount of mortgage interest relief in each income band in each category in the current financial year; and if he will add a table showing the gains and losses to the Exchequer from the application of separate taxation of husbands and wives as proposed for 1990.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: Provisional estimates for 1988–89 based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes are given in the table. Estimates of the effects of the introduction of independent taxation in 1990–91 were given in the Inland Revenue press release on independent taxation issued on 15 March 1988.
  933

  Higher rate taxpayers1 with wife's earnings election 1988–89

  Total income (lower limit)

  Number

  with investment income

  with mortgage interest relief

  Number

  Average amount

  Number

  Average amount

  £ p.a.

  000s

  000s

  £ p.a.

  000s

  £ p.a.

  20,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30,000

  13

  12

  2,200

  8

  1,400

  35,000

  35

  34

  2,500

  24

  2,300

  40,000

  44

  42

  2,700

  32

  2,700

  50,000

  69

  66

  9,800

  48

  2,800

  All

  161

  154

  5,700

  112

  2,600

  1 Married couples and single people.

  Higher rate taxpayers—single people 1988–89

  Total income (lower limit)

  Number

  with investment income

  with mortgage interest relief

  Number

  Average amount

  Number

  Average amount

  £ p.a.

  000s

  000s

  £ p.a.

  000s

  £ p.a.

  20,000

  32

  30

  8,200

  4

  1,100

  25,000

  63

  52

  7,700

  26

  2,400

  30,000

  35

  30

  10,000

  17

  2,500

  35,000

  20

  16

  10,900

  8

  3,000

  40,000

  19

  16

  14,600

  9

  2,800

  50,000

  32

  24

  34,200

  12

  2,900

  All

  200

  168

  13,000

  75

  2,500

  Higher rate taxpayers—Married couples with wife's earnings and no earnings election 1988–89

  Total income (lower limit)

  Number

  with investment income

  with mortgage interest relief

  Number

  Average amount

  Number

  Average amount

  £ p.a.

  000s

  000s

  £ p.a.

  000s

  £ p.a.

  20,000

  1

  1

  5,100

  —

  —

  25,000

  140

  128

  2,500

  75

  1,300

  30,000

  169

  157

  2,300

  142

  2,600

  35,000

  62

  58

  3,500

  51

  2,800

  40,000

  45

  43

  5,600

  32

  2,800

  50,000

  49

  48

  15,100

  34

  3,000

  All

  466

  435

  4,300

  334

  2,400

  Higher rate taxpayers—Married couples without wife's earnings 1988–89

  Total Income (lower limit)

  Number

  with investment income

  with mortgage interest relief

  Number

  Average Amount

  Number

  Average Amount

  £ p.a.

  000s

  000s

  £ p.a.

  000s

  £ p.a.

  20,000

  12

  11

  4,400

  3

  500

  25,000

  84

  68

  3,100

  48

  2,200

  30,000

  72

  58

  3,500

  51

  2,600

  35,000

  54

  49

  5,200

  41

  2,800

  40,000

  56

  50

  6,600

  38

  2,700

  50,000

  76

  70

  15,300

  51

  3,000

  All

  353

  307

  6,900

  233

  2,600

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing by range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000, for those above and those below pensionable age and distinguishing between single persons, one-earner and two-earner married couples, the estimated saving to the Exchequer of abolishing all allowances and reliefs other than the basic single and married allowances; and if he will provide similar tables on the 1990 basis of separate taxation of husbands and wives.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1988, c. 506]: The total direct revenue yield from
  934
  abolishing all income tax allowances (other than the basic single and married allowances) and reliefs cannot be estimated reliably. Available estimates of the direct revenue yield in a full year at 1988–89 income levels of abolishing some specified tax reliefs and allowances other than the single, married man's, and wife's earned income allowancess are in the table. Estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional. Estimates do not allow for any behavioural changes that might occur.
  935
  The introduction of independent taxation of husband and wife will not affect the estimates for single taxpayers. Changes to the figures for married couples cannot be estimated reliably.

  Direct revenue yield at 1988–89 income levels of abolishing income tax reliefs and allowances1

  Under 65 years

  65 years and over

  All

  Married couples

  Married couples

  Income (lower limit)

  Single

  Without wife's earnings

  With wife's earnings

  Single

  Without wife's earnings

  With wife's earnings

  £'000

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  0

  60

  10

  —

  100

  10

  —

  180

  5

  450

  200

  100

  80

  120

  70

  1,020

  10

  550

  540

  520

  15

  15

  20

  1,660

  15

  180

  340

  760

  5

  5

  10

  1,290

  20

  110

  180

  600

  5

  900

  25

  60

  120

  370

  5

  560

  30

  80

  220

  610

  10

  10

  10

  940

  50

  60

  190

  290

  10

  10

  560

  All

  1,550

  1,800

  3,250

  210

  170

  130

  7,110

  1 Estimates assume that tax reliefs for the following are abolished: mortgage interest, retirement annuity premiums, employees superannuation contributions, the business expansion scheme and donations to charities; and that all tax allowances other than the basic single allowance, the basic married man's allowance, and the wife's earned income allowance are also abolished.

  Composite Rate Interest
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing for those above and for those below pensionable age, the estimated number of tax units in receipt of more than £200 gross in composite rate interest in 1986–87 and the average amount received, together with his estimates for 1988–89; and if he will divide the figures to show the amounts for those above and those below pensionable age by range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000 and distinguishing between single persons, one-earner and two-earner married couples.

  Aged 65 and over with composite rate interest over £200 net

  Aged under 65 with composite rale interest over £200 net

  Lower Limit of total income

  Number

  Average Amount

  Number

  Average Amount

  £

  £

  £

  Single People

  2,200

  368,000

  1,090

  249,000

  915

  10,000

  85,600

  2,560

  139,000

  1,360

  20,000

  25,900

  4,130

  49,200

  (2,400)

  50,000

  (2,000)

  (6,800)

  4,100

  (3,000)

  100,000

  (400)

  (18,600)

  (900)

  (6,800)

  Married Couples without wives earned income

  2,200

  202,000

  960

  144,000

  (800)

  10,000

  63,200

  2,370

  116,000

  1,150

  20,000

  28,600

  3,040

  115,000

  (2,220)

  50,000

  2,160

  (5,900)

  15,400

  (2,240)

  100,000

  (500)

  (11,100)

  3,550

  4,900

  Married Couples with wives earned income

  2,200

  141,000

  830

  128,200

  880

  10,000

  140,000

  2,170

  422,000

  950

  20,000

  36,500

  3,180

  348,000

  1,270

  50,000

  (5,600)

  (12,200)

  28,700

  2,910

  100,000

  (900)

  (18,600)

  4,910

  5,110

  Property Income
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing for those above and for those below pensionable age, the estimated number of tax units in receipt of more than £200 gross in lettings and other incomes from property and the average amount received, together with his estimates for 1988–89; and if he will
  936
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: The latest information available relates to 1985–86 and derives from the survey of personal incomes. Some of these estimates are based on small samples: where this means that the actual number may be more than about one third higher or lower than shown in the tables, the figures are shown in brackets. The coverage of investment income in the survey is incomplete. In some cases investment income on which basic rate liability is satisfied at source is not reported. Composite rate interest is reported net of tax in the survey.

  divide the figures to show the amounts for those above and those below pensionable age by range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000 and distinguishing between single persons, one-earner and two-earner married couples.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: The latest information available relates to 1985–86 and derives from the survey of personal incomes. Some of these estimates are based on small samples: where this means

  937
  that the actual number or amount may be more than about one third higher or lower than shown in the tables, the figures are shown in brackets.

  Aged 65 and over with over £200 before tax from lettings

  Aged under 65 with over £200 before tax from lettings

  Lower limit of total income

  Number

  Average rental

  Number

  Average rental

  £

  £

  £

  Single people

  2,200

  41,100

  1,400

  (29,700)

  (1,900)

  10,000

  (10,900)

  (2,900)

  (17,400)

  (2,600)

  20,000

  8,040

  (8,100)

  7,500

  (4,400)

  50,000

  (600)

  (10,700)

  (900)

  (9,000)

  100,000

  (100)

  (12,200)

  (400)

  (14,400)

  Married couples without wives earned income

  2,200

  (26,400)

  (1,400)

  (19,600)

  (400)

  10,000

  (12,300)

  (2,600)

  (12,300)

  (1,400)

  20,000

  (6,900)

  (3,900)

  14,300

  2,670

  50,000

  (500)

  (6,800)

  2,420

  (4,800)

  100,000

  (100)

  (24,000)

  (800)

  (11,800)

  Married couples with wives earned income

  2,200

  (7,100)

  (1,400)

  (17,600)

  (1,800)

  10,000

  (4,400)

  (3,100)

  (39,600)

  (2,100)

  20,000

  8,720

  4,040

  42,700

  2,770

  50,000

  (2,800)

  (5,800)

  7,800

  6,240

  100,000

  (700)

  (14,200)

  1,700

  (10,900)

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, further to his reply of 22 October,Official Report, columns 858–60, on income tax allowances and rates in the United Kingdom and Germany, he will publish in the Official Report comparable figures for France and Italy.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 July 1988]: The information requested is given in the tables, which are supplemented by explanatory notes.

  Table 1

  Allowances and reliefs

  £

  France

  a. Basic exemption (zero rate band) Single person

  1,305

  One-earner married couple

  1,305

  Two-earner married couple

  1,305

  b. Employment income relief: a percentage of gross pay less social security contributions Single person

  1

  plus

  2

  One-earner couple

  3

  Two-earner couple

  4

  Italy

  a. Employment income relief (tax credit) Single person

  206·80

  One-earner married couple

  206·80

  Two-earner married couple

  413·60

  b. Married person's relief (tax credit) One-earner couple

  176·54

  Two-earner couple where employment income of spouse does not exceed £1,261

  176·54

  c. Low income relief (tax credit, given where person's employment income—and that of any spouse—does not exceed £4,623·70)

  Single person

  65·57

  One-earner married couple

  65·57

  Two-earner married couple

  131·14

  d. Deduction for social security contributions and (subject to a maximum of £1,056·86) life and accident insurance premiums and various other expenses

  938
  110 per cent. (maximum relief 4,822).

  220 per cent. Of balance(maximum 8,731).

  3As for single person.

  4For each partner: as for single person.

  Notes:

  1. The figures relate to 1987 to ensure comparability with the figures for Germany and the United Kingdom given in the written answer of 22 October 1987 referred to in the question.

  2. Conversions to sterling have been made on the basis of OECD estimates of purchasing parity.

  3. The figures relate to employment income.

  4. In France and Italy child relief is also given according to the number of children.

  5. In France relief is given to married couples by means of the income splitting system which reduces the tax payable by a married couple.

  Table 2

  Income Tax Sales

  Rate per cent.

  Band of taxable income, £

  France

  0

  1–1,305

  5

  1,306–1,364

  9·6

  1,365–1,617

  14·49

  1,618–2,557

  19·2

  2,558–3,288

  24

  3,289–4,129

  28·8

  4,130–4,997

  33·6

  4,998–5,765

  38·4

  5,766–9,606

  43·2

  9,607–13,212

  49

  13,213–15,628

  53·9

  15,629–17,778

  56·8

  over 17,778

  Italy

  12

  1–2,522

  22

  2,523–4,623

  27

  4,624–11,768

  34

  11,769–21,015

  41

  21,016–2,032

  48

  42,033–63,049

  53

  63,050–126,100

  58

  126,101–252,204

  62

  over 252,204

  939
  Notes:

  1. See Note 1 to Table 1.

  2. See Note 2 to Table 1.

SCOTLAND

  Prisons
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons originally from(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Irish Republic were in prisons in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that this information is not available in the format requested. However, in 1987, a total of 83 persons born in Northern Ireland and 34 persons born in the Irish Republic were received under sentence into penal establishments in Scotland.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, in respect of land within environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland(a) how many applications have been received from voluntary conservation bodies wishing to enter into management agreements in each of these areas, and what is the total area of land involved and (b) how many agreements have so far been concluded with voluntary conservation bodies in each of these areas and what is the total area of land involved.

  Total area has

  Estimated extent of agricultural land—has

  Estimated number of eligible farmers/crofters

  Concluded agreements

  Area covered by agreements

  Breadalbane

  120,000

  90,000

  160

  55

  26,360

  Loch Lomond

  42,000

  30,600

  89

  15

  8,250

  Whitlaw and Eildon

  8,000

  7,500

  65

  —

  —

  Stewartry

  42,000

  39,000

  300

  4

  550

  The Machair of the Uists, Benbecula, Barra and Vatersay

  7,000

  7,000

  800 + 65 Grazing Committees

  7

  65

  Dumfries Bypass
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at what stage are the plans for the A75 bypass around Dumfries, and if he will make a statement on the future timetable for this scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The contract for the Dumfries bypass has been awarded and construction is due for completion by October 1990.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the effect of the introduction of community charge on the income of full-time students in Scotland, in terms of average losses or gains per month.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made no such estimate.
  940
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  One application covering 373 hectares in the Loch Lomond ESA has been received from a voluntary conservation body. An agreement was concluded covering these 373 hectares.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to lay a report before the House in accordance with the requirements of section 18(8) of the Agriculture Act 1986 on the performance of management agreements in environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland; and whether any such report will describe the steps taken to monitor the effect of the agreements on wildlife and the landscape in each area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is too early to assess the effect of the performance of management agreements on each environmentally sensitive area as a whole. My right hon. and learned Friend is, however, considering whether a preliminary statement describing conditions in each area might be helpful. The report on the effect of agreements which will be provided in due course will describe the monitoring arrangements adopted.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State: for Scotland if he will give in respect of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland(a) the total extent in hectares, of each area, (b) the extent of agricultural land within each area, (c) the number of farmers eligible to enter into management agreements in each area, (d) the number of agreements concluded with farmers in each area and (e) the total area of land covered by agreements in each area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Scottish Bus Group
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the programme for the disposal of Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries, providing, where known, the proposed timetable for disposal.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes soon to announce the detailed pattern of privatisation in terms of the units to be offered for sale. It is not possible in advance of the necessary legislation to say when sales will begin.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the terms of reference of the non-executive members of the Forestry Commission.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The powers and duties of the Forestry Commissioners are mainly set out in the Forestry Act 1967.

  Inshore Fisheries (Helicopter Patrols)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many helicopter patrols for the surveillance
  941
  of inshore fisheries have been mounted during the current financial year; how many of these have been specifically or mainly for the surveillance of salmon fisheries; and what their total costs so far have been.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Twenty-four separate patrols have been undertaken in the current financial year by helicopters hired for surveillance of Scottish inshore fisheries, which flew a total of 91½ hours at a cost of £56,137. To isolate the cost of salmon enforcement as distinct from other forms of enforcement is not feasible.

  EC Surpluses
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what organisations were licensed to distribute the current issue of EC surplus produce; what criteria were used to select these organisations; what regulations or advice has been give to those charged with distribution of this food; what quantity is being distributed in Scotland and in each locality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions (Norman Shaw North Branch Library)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to arrange for a duplicate set of written parliamentary questions to be placed in the Norman Shaw North branch library on each sitting day; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  Palace of Westminster (Child Care Facilities)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what facilities are available for the care of the children of hon. Members and staff in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No such facilities exist. Their provision is, however, being considered, along with other claims for accommodation, in the context of phase II of the new parliamentary buildings.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Officers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if local government officers falling within the politically restricted group as defined in his Department's response to the Widdicombe committee of inquiry, who have been selected to contest elections prior to the enactment of legislation arising from this response, will be required to resign their positions or withdraw from being a candidate for the election.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The White Paper "The Conduct of Local Authority Business" (Cm. 433, paragraph 5.23) sets out the Government's proposal: local authority officers holding a post in the politically restricted 942
  group will not be capable of being elected as an MEP, MP or member of a principal local authority at or after the next election occurring after the legislation comes into force.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions his officials have had prior to his response to the Widdicombe committee of inquiry, with the International Labour Organisation concerning the implications of imposing political restrictions on the existing contracts of employment of affected local government officers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  Use Classes Order
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider revising the 1987 Use Classes Order in order to separate the office from the light industrial use classes.

  Mr. Chope
  I have no plans to amend the scope of the business use class (B1) of the 1987 Use Classes Order.

  Anti-Utter Campaign
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the achievements of his national anti-litter campaign.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The programme, launched by the Prime Minister, of experimental projects undertaken by the Tidy Britain Group is well under way. With Government support the group is running a series of project-based pilot schemes to tackle specific major problem areas over 12 months. The projects incorporate before and after studies to help assess the effectiveness of different approaches. It is too soon to reach conclusions, but I understand from the group that the projects are attracting good support from all sectors of the community.

  New Dwellings (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new dwellings have been constructed in each London borough in each year since 1979 by(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and co-operatives and (c) the private sector.

  Mr. Trippier
  Housebuilding figures reported by London boroughs and, until its abolition the GLC, are published for the local authority, housing association and private sectors in table 1 of "Housebuilding in England by local authority areas: 1980 to 1987". These figures include building outside boroughs' own areas, details of which are given in table 2(b). Geographical information on GLC build and building by housing associations assisted by the GLC are given in table 3.

  Housebuilding figures reported for 1979 are given in table 4(b) of "Local Housing Statistics", issue No. 59. Housing association figures are shown under the heading "Other public sector" and include activity by Government Departments; for London this amounted to three starts and 161 completions. A geographical breakdown of GLC build and build by housing associations assisted by the GLC is given in table 7 of "Local Housing Statistics", issue No. 53. No boroughs reported any building activity outside their own areas in 1979.
  943
  Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Figures for housing co-operatives are not reported separately to the Department. Activity will be included either in the housing association sector or the private sector depending on the type of co-operative.

  Limehouse Link Road
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost of purchasing land required for the Limehouse link road; and what is the expected cost of building the Limehouse link road.

  Mr. Trippier
  LDDC estimates that at outturn prices the Limehouse link road will cost £141·5 million to construct. The cost of associated land acquisition will be determined by the outcome of current compulsory purchase orders and of statutory compensation procedures.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department or the London Docklands development corporation is providing finances for the building of the Limehouse link road; what are the respective sums being made available from all sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The costs of constructing the Limehouse link will be met wholly by the LDDC. The corporation itself will decide what proportion of these costs will be met from its Government grant, and what proportion from land disposal receipts.

  Freshwater Biological Association
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the proposed closure of the Windermere and River Frome laboratories of the Freshwater Biological Association; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received a number of representations about the River Frome laboratory. This and the Windermere laboratory of the Freshwater Biological Association are funded by grant-in-aid from the Natural Environment Research Council which comes under the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Piers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the future ownership maintenance and operations of piers in the tidal Thames.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Thames Water Authority is currently considering the implications of the reorganisation of the water industry for the future ownership of the piers which are currently in its ownership.

  Housing Investment Programmes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities whose housing investment programme in 1988–89 is less than 20 per cent, of its housing investment programme in 1979–80, in real terms.
  944
  Mr. Trippier
  A comparison of gross capital expenditure on housing in 1979–80 with authorities' estimates for 1988–89 identifies no authorities whose 1988–89 expenditure was, in real terms, less than 20 per cent, of its 1979–80 expenditure. We have not yet received returns of estimated 1988–89 expenditure from 14 authorities.

  Owner-occupation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities in whose area there is a 75 per cent, or higher rate of owner-occupation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The most recent information for individual local authority areas is from the 1981 census. The percentages of households who were owner occupiers is shown in Table 17 of "Census 1981, Key statistics for local authorities, Great Britain", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is now taking to evaluate the impacts of proposals to utilise a new high-speed railway from London to the Channel tunnel for daily working journeys for residents in Kent to and from London; what effects he expects such proposals to have on the existing structure plan for that county; and if he will state his criteria for development in areas not scheduled for residential expansion.

  Mr. Chope
  The impact on daily working journeys for residents in Kent is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  I understand that British Rail is undertaking widespread consultations on Channel tunnel train services and is at present discussing the strategic implications of its proposals with Kent county council and the London planning advisory committee, and that Kent county council hopes to come to a conclusion on the strategic implications in January. It will be a matter for Kent county council to decide, in the light of British Rail's decision on a preferred route, whether or not to undertake a further review of the Kent structure plan.

  The Secretary of State's criteria for development in areas not scheduled for residential expansion are set out in general terms in circulars issued by the Department and more recently in the planning policy guidance notes. The detailed application of these policies in this case is primarily a matter for the local planning authorities in Kent and London.

  Irish Sea (Pollution)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what basis tests are carried out to establish the level of pollution in the Irish sea; whether he seeks the opinion of independent monitoring organisations; and if he will make a statement on pollution in the Irish sea.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Monitoring and research in the Irish sea is carried out by a wide range of organisations including United Kingdom Government Departments with responsibility for fisheries and the environment, by
  945
  water authorities and by research agencies including the National Environmental Research Council. The independent Irish sea study group offers an opportunity to interested parties including universities, industry, Government Departments and conservation groups to meet to discuss these issues. The group, whose work the Department welcomes, hopes to produce a report on the Irish sea shortly. Aspects of pollution in the Irish sea were considered in a recent report on the Irish sea, by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, which we are considering. We are in contact with the Irish Government about how best to take these matters forward.

  Vicuna
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 28 January,Official Report, column 374, he is now in a position to provide details of the amounts and destinations of trade in vicuna and stock levels of vicuna available in the United Kingdom market; what progress has been made in reconciling the discrepancy between United Kingdom and Japanese statistics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The majority of international trade in vicuna products from the United Kingdom in recent years has been to Japan. The total exports (in kg) for the years 1983 to 1987 to Japan and to the rest of the world were:

  Japan

  Rest of world

  1983

  54·71039

  20·34270

  1984

  184·43149

  20·83830

  1985

  245·01560

  14·56341

  1986

  205·88448

  6·19800

  1987

  332·42721

  25·97895

  The current stock, level of pre-convention vicuna held in the United Kingdom is 406,53 kg.

  The apparent discrepancy between the United Kingdom and Japanese statistics has been resolved and full details of the exports concerned were contained in my letter of 29 September 1988 to the hon. Member.

  Full details will be published in due course in the United Kingdom supplementary report on CITES trade for 1986 and the EC CITES reports for 1986 and 1987.

  Conservative Party Conference
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what services were provided by personnel of his Department for the 1988 Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Ridley
  None, but, in preparing for the conference, my Ministers and I drew upon material produced by my Department during the normal course of business.

  Pool Cars
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received regarding criminal offences associated with the use of pool cars; what plans he has for curtailing the abuse of pool cars; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 July 1988, c. 235]: I am sorry that my hon. Friend's question
  946
  appeared wrongly in the Order Paper addressed to the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was correctly tabled for answer by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but was transferred because of a misinterpretation of the term "pool car" as referring to the Government car service pool vehicles used by Ministers and officials, the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. There was insufficient time, once the mistake had come to light, to transfer the question back to the Home Department before the day on which it was set down for answer.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas Supply
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of gas to non-tariff customers is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The report is published today, following a reference to the commission by the Director General of Fair Trading in November 1987.

  In its unanimous report, the commission found extensive discrimination by British Gas in the pricing and supply of gas to contract customers. It concluded that this practice operated against the public interest. The commission made four main recommendations which it felt would encourage competition in the supply of gas, and restrain BG's discriminatory policy on pricing and supply of gas. The recommendations were that BG should be required:
  to publish a price schedule at which it is prepared to supply firm and interruptible gas to contract customers, and not to discriminate in pricing or supply;
  not to refuse to supply interruptible gas on the basis of the use made of the gas, or the alternative fuel available;
  to publish further information on common carriage terms; to contract initially for no more than 90 per cent, of any new gas fields.

  One of the main findings was that BG's policy of price discrimination imposed higher costs on customers less well placed to use alternative fuels, or to obtain them on favourable terms, thus placing an arbitrary cost disadvantage on these customers. In addition, BG's policy of relating prices to those of the alternatives available to each customer placed it in a position to undercut potential gas suppliers, which may be expected to deter new entrants and inhibit the development of competition in the market. Its refusal to supply interruptible gas to some customers also imposed additional costs on those users.

  The commission also concluded that BG's failure to provide adequate information on the costs of common carriage, its ability to identify potential customers of competing suppliers and the potential source of gas, and its position as a dominant purchaser of gas may all be expected to deter entry into the market.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State welcomes this report. The MMC's recommendations offer a sound basis for encouraging the development of effective competition in the supply of gas to contract customers. The Secretary of State is asking the Director General of Gas Supply to seek agreement with British Gas to modifications to British Gas's authorisation so as to effect remedies relating to British Gas's pricing and contract policies in the supply of gas to large users, and also relating to the provision of information on its common carriage

  947
  terms for transmission of gas. If satisfactory arrangements cannot be made by agreement, the Secretary of State has powers to remedy the adverse effects by order under the Fair Trading Act.

  In order to encourage the emergence of other suppliers of gas to industrial users, the Secretary of State considers that it is essential that a reasonable percentage of the output of new gas fields should be available to suppliers other than British Gas. He has asked the Director General of Fair Trading to consult interested parties on the basis of the MMC's recommendations, with a view to proposing by 31 January 1989 a scheme which will make it easier for others to buy gas from developers of gas fields. In particular, he has asked the director general to advise him whether requirements under such a scheme should be subject to a time limit, and if so what the limit should be. The Secretary of State will then consider the position further.

  The Secretary of State believes that these measures will remove distortions in the gas market with consequential improvements to resource allocation and efficiency. The remedies are designed to encourage new entrants into the industrial gas market thereby accelerating the development of competition.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the balance of trade in each of the following goods and services for(a) the second quarter of 1988 and (b) the second quarter of 1987 (i) passenger motor cars, (ii) other consumer goods, (iii) machine tools, (iv) instrument engineering, (v) tourism and (vi) banking and insurance services.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Quarterly estimates of earnings from the banking and insurance services are not available. The balance of trade for the remaining goods and services is given in the table:

  United Kingdom Balance of Trade

  £ million

  Second quarter 1987

  Second quarter 1988

  Passenger motor cars

  -840·0

  -1,316·9

  Other consumer goods

  -1,119·2

  -1,515·4

  Machine tools

  -0·5

  -20·2

  Instrument engineering

  -137·0

  -160·0

  Tourism

  -307·0

  -550·0

  Note: All figures provisional

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the last 12 months of available figures the overall balance of trade of the United Kingdom in respect of (a) the European Economic Community and (b) the rest of the world showing for each the percentage of both overall trade and of the respective surpluses or deficits.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information on United Kingdom trade with EC and the rest of the world is in the table. Because the overall trade balance comprises both surpluses and deficits it is not meaningful to express components as percentages.
  948

  United Kingdom Trade, 12 months to June 1988

  £ billion BoP basis

  Exports

  Imports

  Balance

  Total trade (exports plus imports)

  Trade with:

  EC

  39·2

  50·6

  -11·4

  89·8

  Rest of World

  40·6

  44·1

  -3·5

  84·6

  World

  79·8

  94·7

  -14·9

  174·5

  Source: Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, of 20 July,Official Report, column 619, he will give the information requested on the trade in manufactured goods between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany in the form in which it is available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Figures of United Kingdom trade in manufactures with the Federal Republic of Germany at current prices are in the table:

  United Kingdom trade in manufactures1 with Federal Republic of Germany

  Exports fob

  Imports cif

  Crude balance

  Exports as percentage of imports

  £ billion

  £ billion

  £ billion

  Per cent.

  1970

  0·4

  0·51

  ·1

  81

  1971

  0·4

  0·6

  -0·2

  72

  1972

  0·5

  0·8

  -0·3

  60

  1973

  0·6

  1·3

  -0·6

  50

  1974

  0·8

  1·7

  -0·9

  47

  1975

  1·0

  1·7

  -0·7

  57

  1976

  1·4

  2·5

  -1·0

  58

  1977

  1·9

  3·2

  -1·3

  59

  1978

  2·2

  4·1

  -1·9

  54

  1979

  2·8

  5·3

  -2·5

  52

  1980

  3·1

  5·1

  -2·0

  61

  1981

  3·2

  5·3

  -2·2

  60

  1982

  3·4

  6·7

  -3·3

  51

  1983

  3·9

  8·9

  -4·9

  44

  1984

  4·9

  10·0

  -5·1

  49

  1985

  5·8

  11·6

  -5·8

  50

  1986

  6·4

  13·1

  -6·7

  49

  1987

  7·3

  14·7

  -7·5

  49

  1 Standard International Trade Classification (Rev 2) Sections 5–8.

  Source: United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will take steps to examine the accounts of all the corporate financial intermediaries which placed client moneys in funds managed by Barlow Clowes operations in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar to ascertain whether they have kept proper books of account in each year since 1983 in accordance with the Companies Acts, and that all commission and benefits due or payable to those companies was properly included as revenue in the accounting records of those companies;

  (2) if he will appoint inspectors to those financial intermediary companies which placed in total £100,000 or more of client moneys with Barlow Clowes operations in order to ascertain whether those companies have kept proper books of account which have incorporated all

  949
  benefits, payments and commissions due to, paid or payable to the companies, their employees, their directors and their shareholders since 1983.

  Mr. Maude
  I understand the concerns of the many investors who put their money into the Barlow Clowes funds on the advice of professional intermediaries. The Financial Intermediaries Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association is looking into dealings with Barlow Clowes by its members. My Department is in close touch with FIMBRA and the Securities and Investments Board over this matter. Whether further action by my Department in this area is appropriate and, if so, what form it should take remain under close and careful consideration.

  Dr Glyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about advice given at the London Regional Transport retirement seminar to pensioners to invest in Barlow Clowes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I have received many representations from pensioners and others who placed investments with Barlow Clowes. I do not believe I have received any which refer to retirement seminars given by London Regional Transport.

  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to ensure that all stockbrokers and financial intermediaries who advised their clients to invest in Barlow Clowes will have their names published and that FIMBRA is not solely responsible for this disclosure.

  Mr. Maude
  I do not think that it would be appropriate to publish such a list at this stage.

  Ranks Hovis McDougall (Bid)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received a report from the Office of Fair Trading on the Goodman Fielder Wattie bid for Ranks Hovis McDougall plc.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is yet in a position to say if he will refer the Ranks Hovis McDougall takeover bid by Goodman Fielder Wattie to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State announced on 18 August that he had decided, in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, to refer the proposed acquisition by Goodman Fielder Wattie (GFW) for Ranks Hovis McDougall pic to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for further investigation. GFW subsequently abandoned its bid, and the reference has been laid aside.

  Pleasurama
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will now take steps to investigate the alleged insider dealing in shares in Pleasurama; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The surveillance division at the stock exchange looks at cases of price movements before price 950
  sensitive announcements, and where appropriate it passes information to my Department for consideration of whether further investigation is required, in particular by the appointment of inspectors under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986. Such appointments are not normally announced.

  City (Self-regulation)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster whether he will now introduce legislation to outlaw self-regulation in the City; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  No.

  Capital Investment (North-west)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish, using the 1979 base year figure of £971 million, the percentage charge of capital investment in the north-west in the years 1987 and 1988 to date; and if he will also give that figure as a cash sum for each year.

  Mr. Maude
  Regional capital expenditure data are available only for manufacturing industry. Results for 1987 and 1988 are not yet available. In current prices, net capital expenditure in manufacturing industry in the north-west region rose by 3 per cent, from £971 million in 1979 to £1,000 million in 1986. In constant (1980) prices, net capital expenditure fell by 38 per cent, from £1,118 million in 1979 to £698 million in 1986.

  Source: Annual Census of Production.

  Computers (Export)
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster further to the answer of 29 April 1988,Official Report, column 287, what further steps have been taken, to ease the current restrictions placed by HM Customs on the temporary export of personal computers by British business men; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The arrangements described in my answer of 29 April,Official Report column 287, eased the burden on business men visiting most free world countries. For destinations not covered by those arrangements my Department will consider applications for temporary export licences for multiple use.

  I have arranged for copies of the press notice announcing the measures to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Nottinghamshire (Structural Funds)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will agree to meet a delegation from Nottinghamshire county council to discuss reorganising Nottinghamshire as an eligible area in the revised European structural funds as well as in national regional industrial policy.

  Mr. Newton
  No, for the reasons set out in my letter of 30 September to the chief executive of Nottinghamshire county council, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many strip searches were made of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry, in July, August and September, respectively, giving the number of persons involved and number of times each person was searched; if any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for the search under each of the following headings(a) making a remand appearance at a trial, (b) attending trial, (c) inter-prison visit or (d) other reasons.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of Searches

  July

  August

  September

  Total number of searches carried out

  28

  18

  29

  Total number of inmates searched

  20

  13

  22

  Number of prisoners searched once

  12

  9

  15

  Number of prisoners searched twice

  8

  3

  7

  Number of prisoners searched more than twice

  —

  1

  —

  Reasons for Search

  First admission on remand/awaiting trial

  12

  5

  5

  First admission on sentence/final discharge

  11

  11

  21

  Attending remand court

  —

  —

  —

  Name of non-departmental public body

  Number of staff

  Functions

  Interim Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  21 full time 3 part time

  In consultation with the Department of Education and Education and Library Boards to negotiate, establish and implement educational policy in general educational matters and in areas of management of Catholic maintained schools

  Northern Ireland Centre for Learning Resources

  17 full time 2 part time

  The Centre provides high-level audio-visual and print design resources to support the education and training of teachers and to help to facilitate curriculum development work in schools

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  7

  To keep under review the care and treatment of people suffering from mental disorder and to monitor the operation of the operation of the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986

  Northern Ireland Health Promotion Committee

  Nil

  To provide services to support Government policies to promote good health and prevent disease

  Technology Board for Northern Ireland

  8 departmental staff (of whom 5 are employed by DED)

  To advise Government on strategic scientific technological and industrially related research and development issues

  Northern Ireland Advisory Committee on Travellers

  Nil

  To advise the Minister on ways and means of securing such improvements as they may deem necessary or desirable in the living conditions of the Travelling People in Northern Ireland

  Divis Joint Development Committee
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums of money have been received or applied for by the Divis joint development committee in the past year from the Department of Economic Development and the Department of Employment Belfast action team; and what are the profits concerned.

  Mr. Needham
  For the financial year 1987–88 grants were paid as follows:952

  Number of Searches

  July

  August

  September

  Attending trial

  —

  —

  —

  Inter-prison visits

  —

  1

  1

  Pre-release home leave

  3

  1

  1

  Visits to outside hospitals

  2

  —

  —

  Released on bail

  —

  —

  1

  No prohibited article was found during these searches and no prisoner refused to be searched.

  New Businesses
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many businesses have been set up in the area defined as "Catholic West Belfast'' in the document "Making Belfast Work" in the last five years using public funds; and if he will list them shewing whether they are still in business and the amounts of public funds invested, together with the numbers of jobs created, when they started and any subsequent job losses.

  Mr. Needham
  The area in the document is defined by reference to council wards. The information requested is not held at ward level and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many non-departmental public bodies, agencies, boards and units have been set up by his Department since November 1985; how many staff are employed by them; if he will list the names and functions carried out by such organisations; and how many such organisations have been wound up since November 1985.

  Mr. Needham
  Since November 1985, six such bodies have been. established (details are as shown) and four bodies have been wound up.

  £

  Department of Economic Development (ACE Scheme)

  267,736·48

  Department of the Environment (BAT)

  35,749·60

  Profits do not accrue from these programmes.

  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Housing Executive or any
  953
  other Government body is funding new premises for the Divis joint development committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I understand that there have been consultations between the executive and the committee about a possible alternative site for new premises, since the committee's present premises are scheduled for demolition. Neither the executive nor any other Government Department has proposals at present to fund any new premises.

  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to whether the Divis joint development committee has applied to the International Fund for Ireland for contributions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  This is a matter for the board of the International Fund for Ireland. I have arranged to have the question referred to the chairman.

  Union Flag
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the Union flag was not flown on the Southern health and social services board premises at The Mall, Armagh, on Sunday 21 August; and what new arrangements are being made to ensure that the Union flag is flown on these premises on all appropriate dates.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The requirement to fly the Union flag on those prescribed days relevant to Northern Ireland applies to central Government offices only. There is no requirement therefore for the Southern health and social services board to comply.

  Milk Quota
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the reply of 7 June,Official Report, column 465, how many of the 801 milk producers who were contracted out of production had applied for milk quotas to the Department of Agriculture (NI) prior to 31 July; and when they were advised that they should apply by 31 July.

  Mr. Viggers
  While various inquiries by producers had been made during the period 31 March 1984 to 31 July 1988, the exact number could not be determined without incurring disproportionate cost. The European Commission only announced in September its proposals for dealing with the European Court judgment about milk quotas and the non-marketing of milk scheme. One of its conditions for eligibility was that former producers must have applied for additional quota before 31 July 1988. Obviously advice could not be given to producers to apply before that date because the proposed deadline was not known until after it had passed. The United Kingdom and other member states have been expressing strong reservations about the proposed 31 July 1988 deadline. Consideration of the proposals continues and it is likely to be some time yet before the final arrangements are established.

  Agricultural Land (Development)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on 954
  co-ordination between the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) over the release of agricultural land for building development.

  Mr. Needham
  Both Departments are concerned to ensure that conditions favour a viable rural economy in Northern Ireland. Developments which will improve the quality of life, including employment prospects, in rural communities, while at the same time conserving the countryside are encouraged.

  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland as planning authority consults the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland on planning applications which affect agricultural land. The Department of the Environment when drawing up an area, local or subject plan also consults the Department of Agriculture to ensure that the development proposals in the plan are acceptable from an agricultural viewpoint.

  Barr Hall, Portaferry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has about the proposal to use the private residence at Barr Hall, Portaferry, as a prisoner rehabilitation centre; whether there is a planning permission for this proposal; and whether he will arrange a public inquiry before any planning decision is made for an application to use Barr Hall as a rehabilitation centre.

  Mr. Needham
  None. Should a planning application for such a proposal be received, it will be processed in the normal way, including consideration of the need for a public inquiry.

  EC (Surplus Produce)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what organisations were licensed to distribute the current issue of EEC surplus produce; what criteria were used to select these organisations; what regulations or advice has been given to those charged with distribution of this food; what quantity is being distributed in Northern Ireland and in each local authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Farm Woodland Schemes
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the response to the new farm woodland schemes: how many inquiries he has received; how many applications have been approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  There has been considerable interest shown in the farm woodland scheme which opened to applications on 1 October. The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland held two FWS open days at Seskinore and Garvagh, at which approximately 400 farmers attended. Another open day is being held at Castlewellan on 19 October and further publicity events are planned. One hundred and forty information packs
  955
  have been issued, and to date 15 applications have been received by the Department. None of these applications has yet been approved.

  Housing (Insulation Standards)
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why housing insulation standards are lower in Northern Ireland than in Scotland and England; what steps are being taken to introduce the latest standards to Northern Ireland; and when these new standards will be implemented in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The same thermal insulation standards apply in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain. It is the intention that, subject to consultation with interested parties, standards in Northern Ireland will be adjusted to reflect any increase in standards in Great Britain.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  United States of America
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit the United States of America.

  Mr. Eggar
  No dates have yet been fixed for my right hon. and learned Friend's next visit to the United States. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be there from 15 to 17 November.

  South Africa
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met a representative of the Government of South Africa; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the South African ambassador on 23 September. They discussed a range of issues of common interest.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of United Kingdom relations with South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the speech that my right hon. and learned Friend made on 17 May to the Royal Commonwealth Society, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet representatives from the African National Congress of South Africa and the South West African People's Organisation of Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to do so.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives the Government propose to take in relation to southern Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We shall continue to pursue policies designed to promote fundamental change in South Africa.

  United Nations
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the United Nations secretary-general; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the secretary-general of the United Nations; and what was discussed.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he last met the secretary-general of the United Nations; and what was discussed.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the secretary-general of the United Nations; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the secretary-general on 27 September during his visit to the general assembly. They discussed Afghanistan, Iran/Iraq, Namibia and Cyprus. The following day the secretary-general was present at a confidential meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest session of the United Nations general assembly.

  Mr. Eggar
  The 43rd session of the UN general assembly began on 20 September and is not expected to end until early December.

  International Debt
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions were held at the latest session of the United Nations general assembly on the resolution of the international debt problem.

  Mrs. Chalker
  During the recent visit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to New York for the opening of the United Nations general assembly, a number of speakers referred to international debt issues.

  Central America
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America regarding recent developments in the central American peace process.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have regular discussions with the United States Administration on a wide range of issues, including developments in the central American peace process.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit central America.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit central America.
  957
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit central America.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit central America.

  Mr. Eggar
  I will attend the San Jose V conference due to be held in San Pedro Sula, Honduras in February 1989. I also hope to be able to visit the region during 1989.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America regarding recent developments in the central American peace process.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have regular discussions with the United States Administration on a wide range of issues, including developments in the central American peace process.

  Chile
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with the Government of the United States of America regarding the current situation in Chile.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have remained in regular and close contact with the United States Government about the political situation in Chile, in particular about the recent plebiscite. Both of us have welcomed the exemplary conduct of the polling and the Chilean Government's acceptance of the result.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had had recently with other Governments of the European Economic Community regarding the current situation in Chile.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with other governments of the EEC regarding the current situation in Chile.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have remained in close and regular contact with our European Community partners on the political situation in Chile. The twelve member states issued a statement on 7 October on the outcome of the recent plebiscite. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Refuseniks
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have recently made about the plight of refusenik families in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We take every suitable opportunity to raise these issues with the Soviet authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Education and Science took up a number of individual cases during his recent visit to the Soviet Union. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State raised the case of Mr. George Samoilovich with Mr. Shevardnadze in New York on 26 September, following earlier representations by officials.

  Bophuthatswana
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards recognition of Bophuthatswana.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider giving full diplomatic recognition to the country known as Bophuthatswana.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards recognition of Bophuthatswana.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards recognition of Bophuthatswana.

  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards recognition of Bophuthatswana.

  Mr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards recognition of Bophuthatswana.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The creation of Bophuthatswana was a key element in the South African Government's policy of seperate development, to which we are wholly opposed. In common with all other states except South Africa we do not recognise Bophuthatswana as independent.

  Western European Union
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the priorities of the United Kingdom presidency of the Western European Union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our four main priorities for our presidency of the WEU remain those set out in the reply of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) on 28 June 1988, namely: to elaborate the commitments in the WEU platform in order to make practical contributions to the common defence; to use the WEU as a forum for frank discussions of key European security issues; to develop the WEU as a forum for coordinating European approaches to out of area issues; to secure a satisfactory outcome to the enlargement negotiations with Spain and Portugal.

  Spain
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Prime Minister of Spain; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary's last meeting with the Prime Minister of Spain was on 27 November 1987. They discussed EC matters and Gibraltar.
  959
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Anglo-Spanish relations.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Anglo-Spanish relations are excellent, as shown by the recent visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the current state visit by Her Majesty The Queen.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Spain.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is in Spain at the moment in attendance upon Her Majesty The Queen during her state visit.

  France
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an official visit to France.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend will visit Paris on 2 November when he will address the conference of the "Kangaroo Group" on the European single market and have talks with the French Foreign Minister, Monsieur Dumas.

  Weapons Control
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made during the summer adjournment on negotiations towards a treaty regarding chemical weapons.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the general progress of the arms control negotiations in Geneva.

  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress in all arms negotiations or conferences currently under way.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made on the negotiation of a treaty to ensure the global elimination of all chemical weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United States/Soviet nuclear and space talks in Geneva continue to make progress but their conclusion is unlikely this year. The United States and Soviet Union are negotiating verification protocols to the threshold test ban and peaceful nuclear explosions treaties with a view to early submission for ratification. We hope that a mandate for conventional stability talks covering the area from the Atlantic to the Urals can soon be agreed in Vienna. The mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna remain stalled.

  At the Geneva negotiations for a global chemical weapons convention discussion during the summer session (which finished on 20 September) continued on a series of technical issues, particularly verification.

  The United Kingdom is again playing an active role in the first committee of the United Nations general assembly which convened in New York on 17 October.

  Middle East
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the middle east.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We shall continue to encourage the parties to the Arab/Israel dispute to pursue the search for peace, and to agree arrangements for an international conference.

  Narcotics Trade
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts Her Majesty's Government are making to negotiate asset seizure agreements with third countries to counter international trade in narcotics.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have signed agreements to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking this year with the United States of America, Bahamas, Canada and Australia. Negotiations are well advanced with several other Governments and talks have opened with a further 40 countries.

  United Arab Emirates
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of United Kingdom relations with the United Arab Emirates.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our relations with the United Arab Emirates are long established and very good.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister on 26 September 1988 in New York when he called on President Mugabe. They discussed my right hon. and learned Friend's recent visit to Africa, our bilateral relations, and recent developments in southern Africa.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Mozambique.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend visited Mozambique from 17 to 19 September. He had friendly and useful talks with President Chissano, the Mozambican Foreign Minister and other senior Ministers. The visit confirmed our assessment that the Mozambique Government are following pragmatic policies, both internally and in their relations with their neighbours.

  Mexico
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Mexico.
  961
  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to visit Mexico.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to pay an official visit to Tanzania.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend visited Tanzania between 14 and 17 September. He has no plans for a further visit.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he had with the President of Turkey on his recent visit on the presence of Turkish troops in the occupied area of northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  This subject was raised in my right hon. and learned Friend's talks with the Turkish Foreign Minister during President Evren's state visit. He made clear our view that the withdrawal of Turkish troops would be an important element of any final settlement.

  Kenya
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Foreign Minister of Kenya; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met Dr. Ouko on 11–12 September during his recent visit to east Africa. They discussed a range of regional, bilateral and other issues.

  Prince Sihanouk
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Prince Sihanouk is paying a working visit to Britain on 25 and 26 October in the course of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will discuss with him the current situation in Cambodia and the prospects for progress towards a negotiated settlement.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had the opportunity to raise the issue of human rights in Eastern Europe with the Foreign Ministers of the countries concerned.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We attach great importance to the observance of human rights commitments. We take every suitable opportunity of raising abuses of human rights, both in general terms and in relation to individual cases where appropriate, with the Governments concerned.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs last raised such issues in meetings with his counterparts in Eastern Europe as follows:
  962

  Romania:

  November 1987 in London

  Czechoslovakia:

  June 1987 in London

  Bulgaria:

  September 1987 in London

  GDR:

  November 1986 in London

  Poland:

  December 1987 in London

  In addition, he wrote to the Romanian Foreign Minister in September this year about the human rights implications of Romania's rural redevelopment programme ("systematisation").

  Hungary's human rights record, though not faultless, is good by comparison with its neighbours. We have not had cause to raise human rights issues in recent ministerial contacts.

  EC (Spanish Presidency)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he expects to hold talks in the near future with his Spanish counterpart and the Spanish Minister of EEC Affairs on the suggestions which the United Kingdom intends to put forward for the period of the Spanish presidency, beginning on 1 January 1989.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend saw the Spanish Foreign Minister yesterday and discussed a number of issues including future developments in the European Community. I am also in regular contact with my Spanish opposite number on these issues.

  Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards reaching agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The negotiations on nuclear testing between the United States and Soviet Union appear to be making satisfactory progress towards their first goal: ratification of the 1974 threshold test ban treaty and the 1976 peaceful nuclear explosions treaty. The ultimate objective is the complete cessation of nuclear testing as part of an effective disarmament process. Our position on a comprehensive test ban was contained in the answer given on 27 June by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor): a comprehensive test ban remains a long-term goal; but we shall continue to rely for our security on a nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future and that means a continuing requirement to conduct tests in order to ensure that our nuclear weapons remain effective and up to date.

  Brazil
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Anglo-Brazilian relations.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom enjoys traditionally good relations with Brazil, which we are seeking to develop. We welcome her return to democracy. Brazil is by far our largest export market in Latin America. I am looking forward to visiting Brazil myself from 4–14 November. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State Department of Energy is in Brazil this week.

  Pakistan
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Pakistan to discuss progress towards the restoration of democracy.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to visit Pakistan.

  Soviet Union (Ministerial Meetings)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met Foreign Minister Shevardnadze of the Soviet Union; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met Mr. Shevardnadze in New York on 26 September. They discussed arms control questions; regional conflicts, including the role of the United Nations in resolving them; CSCE and human rights; and bilateral relations.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Anglo-Soviet relations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Anglo-Soviet relations are better than for many years, and we welcome this. We maintain an active dialogue with the Soviet leadership in order to secure progress in arms control; on the resolution of regional conflicts; greater respect for human rights; and increase in trade; and more contacts at all levels between our two peoples.

  Uganda
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Foreign Minister of Uganda; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met Mr. Ssemogerere during his visit to Uganda between 13 and 14 September. They discussed a range of bilateral, regional and other issues.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Spanish authorities and the new Chief Minister of Gibraltar on the implementation of the Gibraltar airport agreement with Spain.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made clear, both to the Spanish authorities and to the Chief Minister, that we believe that the agreement is very much in Gibraltar's interest; that we hope that the Gibraltar House of Assembly will take steps to implement it; but that we will not attempt to impose it on the people of Gibraltar.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Having visited the Soviet Union in February this year my right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans for a return visit. I will pay a visit to the Soviet Union as soon as dates can be agreed.

  Common European Policies
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to have discussions with his European Community partners concerning the development of common European foreign policies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend attended an informal weekend meeting in Yannina on 15–16 October. All his colleagues from the EC were present. They had an excellent discussion of political co-operation matters, particularly the prospects for further developments in East-West relations with Europe.

  Arms Reductions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current state of conventional arms reduction negotiations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Informal discussions are taking place in Vienna between representatives of NATO and the Warsaw pact aimed at agreeing a mandate for negotiations on conventional stability covering the Atlantic/Urals area. Few outstanding difficulties remain to be settled but the talks cannot begin before the conclusions of the Vienna CSCE review meeting. This in turn is dependent on achieving a satisfactory outcome in respect of human rights. Meanwhile the MBFR negotiations, now in their 16th year, continue in Vienna but with little prospect of substantive agreement.

  Central Europe
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest security developments in central Europe.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Implementation of the INF treaty has now begun involving inter alia the withdrawal of Soviet and US LRINF/SRINF missiles from central Europe. At the same time Warsaw pact and Alliance negotiators are meeting in Vienna with a view to agreeing a mandate for new negotiations on conventional stability. While these will cover the whole Atlantic/Urals area they are likely to focus on areas where the concentration of forces is greatest, notably in central Europe. It is hoped the conventional negotiations will begin within the next few months, in parallel with further negotiations on confidence building. Meanwhile the MBFR talks, which are directly concerned with the reduction of armed forces in central Europe, continue in Vienna but with little prospect of early agreement.

  Gibraltar Airport
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Anglo-Spanish relations in the light of the continuing restrictions imposed by Spain on British military aircraft wishing to use Gibraltar airport.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos). We continue
  965
  to press the Spanish authorities to lift the restrictions imposed on British military aircraft using Gibraltar airport, but regrettably they have not yet done so.

  Visa Fees
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about introducing last June a full visa fee for children entering the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations on this point.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation has occurred between the members of the Western European Union and those members of the European Economic Community, who are not members of the Union, concerning the conclusion of paragraph 2 of the Union's adopted document, "Platform of European Security Interests", which states that Union members are convinced that the construction of an integrated Europe will remain incomplete as long as it does not include security and defence.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No formal consultations have taken place.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those proposals placed before the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Communities which implement the objective of the progressive realisation of economic and monetary union, as adopted at the Hanover European Council.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No proposals on economic and monetary union have been considered by the Council of Ministers since June. The committee tasked by the Hanover European Council with studying and proposing concrete stages leading towards economic and monetary union is due to complete its proceedings in good time to enable the Ministers for Economic Affairs and for Finance to examine its results before the European Council in Madrid in June 1989.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Chris Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on economic progress in the Falkland Islands.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The most recent estimates indicate that the GNP of the Falkland Islands increased threefold from 1986–87 to 1987–88, from approximately £9·9m to approximately £30m. I expect this increase to be sustained in 1988–89. The islands' welcome prosperity has enabled the Falkland Island Government to finance an increasing number of its own development projects in fisheries, local infrastructure and fanning.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those decisions of 966
  the European Economic Community Council of Ministers which have been taken by qualified majority vote in accordance with the provisions of the Single European Act since it came into force, indicating those in which the representatives of the United Kingdom (a) abstained and (b) voted in the minority when a qualified majority was obtained.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information on Council decisions is not available in the form requested. About 100 decisions have been taken by majority vote since the Single European Act came into force.

  Political Prisoners (South Africa)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has of the number of political prisoners held in South African gaols.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I regret that we have no reliable estimate of the number of political prisoners in South African jails.

  Council of Ministers (Standing Orders)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the standing orders or their equivalent of the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have made arrangements for a copy of the rules of procedure of the Council, published by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  EC Treaties
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to publicise the availability of the Treaty Series No. 47 (1988) treaties establishing the European Communities (CM. 455).

  Mrs. Chalker
  I am grateful for this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the consolidated version of the three basic Community treaties as amended by the Single European Act, recently published by HMSO. Copies of the Command Paper have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Publication of the Cm. 455 was announced in HMSO's Daily List and on Prestel in the normal way. It will be listed in HMSO's September monthly catalogue and will be one of the featured titles in the July-September "New Books from HMSO" leaflet.

  In addition, HMSO is planning to mail fuller details, with information on other titles of European interest, to some 5,000 bookshops, businesses and libraries shortly.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list any statutes, treaties or other agreements which define the scope and manner of the internal and external relationships and obligations of member states of the European Economic Communities, other than those contained in Treaty Series 47 of 1988 (Cm. 455).

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are none.

  European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list in the Official Report those publications or speeches by Ministers which express the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the interpretation of the concept of European union;

  (2) what definition of the term European union is currently accepted by Her Majesty's Government; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards European union.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on 23 April 1986 at column 325.

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to initiate the convening of an international conference to promote a settlement for the Kampuchean people, containing international guarantees against the return to power of Pol Pot and his immediate followers.

  Mr. Eggar
  We fully support the efforts of Prince Sihanouk and the Association of South East Asian Nations to bring about a negotiated political settlement in Cambodia. Naturally we are ready to help when and where we can. This might include eventual participation in an international conference if, in due course, that seemed to be the best way to proceed.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to promote the exclusion of the Pol Pot faction of the Khmer Rouge from the United Nations.

  Mr. Eggar
  We see no reason to change our policy on the question of Cambodia's seat at the United Nations, which implies neither recognition of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (we recognise only states, not Governments) nor support for the abhorrent Pol Pot.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to propose the establishment of a United Nations-backed comprehensive register of international arms sales.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1982 we proposed that all states should report to the United Nations the value of their military production and of their imports and exports of arms. We followed up these proposals at the recent Third United Nations special session on disarmament with a call for greater openness on all types of international transfer of conventional weapons; we raised the possibility at that time of establishing a United Nations register of arms transfers on a universal and non-discriminatory basis. We believe that such a register could provide a means of monitoring measures taken to restrain the accumulation of conventional arms.

  Anglo-United States Relations
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had consultations with the United States Secretary of State about Anglo-United States relations.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learnd Friend met Mr. Shultz for bilateral talks in the margins of the United Nations general assembly on 29 September.

  North Atlantic Assembly (Parliamentary Delegation)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in the composition of the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Mr. James Lamond, MP, Mr. Frank Cook and Lord Lucas of Chilworth have replaced Mr. David Clark, MP, Mr. Kevin McNamara, MP and Lord Colnbrook as members of the delegation.

  Black Rhino Horn
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any representation have been made to the Government of North Yemen regarding the use of black rhino horn for dagger handles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No representation has been made to the Government of North Yemen regarding the use of black rhino horn for dagger handles.

  Vicuna
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about current vicuna stocks in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since the enactment in 1976 of the Animals and Plants (Protection of Endangered Species) Ordinance, which covers vicuna, the Hong Kong Authorities have not issued any licence for the import, export or possession of vicuna or any of its products. They therefore have no record of such stocks in the territory.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make funds available to the Government of Peru to assist them in the project to expand vicuna population; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are aware that the Peruvian Government are interested in expanding the vicuna population, but not aware of any request for financial assistance. We have recently conducted a review of our bilateral aid programme for Peru, and the question of vicuna was not raised by the Peruvian authorities.

  Prime Minister (Tour Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional costs were incurred by each of Her Majesty's embassies and high commissions arising from the tour by the Prime Minister to various countries in August 1988.
  969
  Mr. Eggar
  All separately identifiable expenditure incurred by Her Majesty's embassies and high commissions is being reclaimed from the Office of the Minister of the Civil Service. Any residual costs not separately identified will have been absorbed within posts' existing local budgets.

  Iran-Iraq (United Nations Force)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution towards the costs of the United Nations observation force supervising peace between Iran and Iraq has(a) been sought and (b) been paid.

  Mr. Eggar
  According to the latest bulletin from the United Nations the total requests for contributions towards the costs of the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group amount to $35·2 million. Of this total $16·2 million have so far been paid. The assessed contribution of the United Kingdom for the first three months of the operation of the force (9 August to 8 November 1988) is $2,085,184. This has been paid.

TRANSPORT

  East-London River Crossing
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the terms of reference given to the consultants contracted to report on the alternative design of the proposed east London river crossing, showing separately those related to(a) navigational requirements, (b) maximum height of structure and (c) any limit on additional cost over that estimated for the existing design; and if he will request a report on the design and cost implications of incorporating facilities for a single or double line for (i) a conventional railway and (ii) an extension of the docklands light railway.

  Mr. Channon
  The terms of reference of the review are as follows:

  (a)—to ascertain whether there is, within the broad order of costs of the Department's proposed bridge, an alternative design which would be practicable, acceptable, satisfy the objectives of the east London river crossing scheme and keep options open for the future use of London City airport;

  (b)—to consult interested parties including:

  (i) the Port of London Authority

  (ii) the Civil Aviation Authority

  (iii) the Royal Fine Arts Commission

  Consideration of additional rail links across the Thames is a matter for the public transport operators concerned.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the estimated costs of the newly approved east London river crossing and associated roads, broken down under the headings(a) roadworks north of the Thames, (b) the river crossing by one or more possible means or designs of bridge, (c) roadworks south of the Thames, (d) environmental conservation elements in (a) to (c) above, globally or individually and (e) the Oxleas wood tunnel and other conservation works recommended by his inspector; what is the approximate percentage cost of (e) compared to the estimated total; and what are his reasons for not authorising expenditure under this heading.
  970
  Mr. Channon
  The estimated costs of the east London river crossing, as presented at the public inquiry, excluding land acquisition and supervision costs, at average 1984 prices are as follows:

  (a) Works north of the Thames: £21 million.

  (b) The Thames bridge proposed by the Department: £56 million.

  (c) Works south of the Thames: £66 million.

  (d) It is not possible to identify separately all the environmental conservation elements of a scheme as they are not all additional items but integral parts of the scheme design. Identifiable environmental conservation measures in (a) to (c) above, including new footpaths, footbridges and landscaping, amount to some £19 million. About £1 million will be spent north of the river and the remainder south of the Thames.

  (e)—The inspector estimated that his recommendation of a tunnel under part of Oxleas wood and associated works would cost about an additional £10 million. Additional environmental measures and cycleways recommended by the inspector will cost some £750,000. These recommendations approximate to 8 per cent, of the total estimated works costs. The inspector's tunnel recommendation would also have required the deletion of the south facing slip roads at the Shooters hill interchange. Having carefully weighed the advantages of the inspector's proposals against the disadvantages, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I were not satisfied that the additional cost of the tunnel and the loss of benefits from deletion of the slip roads were justified.

  Driving Tests (Cancellation)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reduce the amount of notice which must be given by a learner driver to cancel a driving test without loss of fee from the current time of 10 days.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. The 10 days' notice was introduced on 27 June this year to cut the number of wasted test periods, shorten waiting times for all candidates and keep down fees.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will ensure that at least three days notice of cancellation of a driving test is given by his Department, except if the reason is exceptionally bad weather;

  (2) if he will ensure that driving tests are not cancelled by his Department without notice.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Every effort is made to give as much notice of cancellations as possible. Circumstances such as sudden illness of an examiner may sometimes make a last-minute cancellation unavoidable. In such cases, priority is given to re-booking the candidates involved; and claims for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses are considered sympathetically.

  General Secretary, ASLEF
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the general secretary of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the general secretary of ASLEF on 12 July, when he received a deputation from the railway unions about a report which they commissioned on quality of service on British Rail.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received concerning private funding of all or part of any new rail link between London and the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail will be inviting proposals from the private sector shortly.

  Passenger Transport Companies
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the programme for the disposal of passenger transport companies formed from the metropolitan county PTEs providing, where known, the proposed timetable for disposal together with any proposals for their subdivision into smaller parts.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no powers to dispose of passenger transport companies formed from the old metropolitan county PTEs bus undertakings. My right hon. Friend recently announced his approval to the sale of Yorkshire Rider Ltd. to its management and employees.

  Municipal Operators (Disposal)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the programme for the disposal of English and Welsh municipal operators, providing, where known, the proposed timetable for disposal.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has encouraged local authorities and PTAs to consider disposing of their municipal bus companies but no powers presently exist to require this.

  Fares (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state what instructions or other basis he hs given to the board of London Regional Transport which permits or requires it to raise fares on London bus and underground services to levels twice that of inflation.

  Mr. Portillo
  The level and structure of fares is a matter for the board of London Regional Transport.

  London Rail Services (Congestion)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the joint report from British Rail and London Regional Transport concerning congestion on rail services in central London; when this will be made public; and if he will make a statement concerning his responses.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to receive the report of the central London rail study and announce its main findings towards the end of the year.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, consequent to the receipt of the report by London Regional Transport and the British Railways Board on rail congestion in London, he will estimate the cost of extending the approved rail link from Heathrow to Paddington over two miles of new standard gauge tube 972
  tunnel to King's Cross, and investigate the implications of using such a line, and that proposed from Mottingham to King's Cross, as part of the London urban rail network.

  Mr. Portillo
  The central London rail study is taking account of the proposed new Heathrow-Paddington rail link. It is for British Rail and BAA to consider whether they wish to bring forward proposals to extend the link beyond Paddington.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, consequent to the receipt of the report by London Regional Transport and the British Railways Board on central London rail congestion, he will use his statutory power to require London Regional Transport and its subsidiaries to restore train frequency on London underground to that of pre-war or subsequent levels, where currently they do nor. reach such levels of service.

  Mr. Portillo
  The central London rail study is considering the scope for improving the utilisation of the existing network. We shall consider carefully any such proposals.

  Dial-a-ride, London
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his latest plans for the future of the London dial-a-ride service.

  Mr. Portillo
  There have been increases of 50 per cent, in funding and ridership since LRT assumed responsibility for funding the scheme. I am encouraging LRT in its objective of securing improvements in the utilisation of vehicles and drivers so that more people can benefit.

  Train Punctuality and Complaints
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now seek to place a statutory duty on British Rail to provide information on train punctuality and complaints to the Central Transport Consultative Committee and to the local committees.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that BR already provides the CTCC and TUCCs with detailed monitoring information on performance against quality standards including punctuality. Perhaps my hon. Friend could write if there is a particular problem he has in mind.

  British Rail (Investment)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the levels of investment for British Rail for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 together with the anticipated level of investment for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91, and in addition the figures to be broken down by region.

  Mr. Portillo
  The levels of British Rail investment for the years in question are as follows:

  £ million

  Cash

  1988–89 prices

  1985–86

  412

  462

  1986–87

  411

  447

  1987–88

  543

  567

  973
  BR's 1988 corporate plan shows an increasing investment programme, with total investment expenditure of around £2bn over the three years to 1990–91 (at current prices).

  BR does not break the figures down on a regional basis.

  Manchester Airport Rail Link
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent developments there have been in regard to the Manchester airport rail link; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have recently received a statement from the PTA in support of its case that this link is financially viable. I am studying that, and also British Rail's views on the need for financial support from the PTE. I have therefore asked greater Manchester PTA to set out for me the way in which it sees the link being financed, including the scope for private sector funding.

  PSV and Bus Operator Licences
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many cheques for applications for(a) PSV operator, and (b) bus operator licences bounced in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Figures on bouncing cheques are not readily available.

  Driving Tests
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving tests were carried out in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and how many cheques that were issued in payment for the driving test fee bounced.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A total of 2,096,181 driving tests of all types were conducted in the financial year 1987–88. Information about numbers of bouncing cheques is not readily available.

  Driving Licences (Recall)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances a driving licence can be recalled once it is issued.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Powers exist to revoke an ordinary driving licence for medical reasons or if it was granted in error or contained an error or omission. In addition, the statutorily independent traffic commissioners may suspend or revovke a vocational driving licence if they are not satisfied that the holder meets the required standards of fitness, or if conduct means that the holder is not a proper person to have the vocational licence in question.

  MFV Inspire (Sinking)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the sinking of the MFV Inspire on 5 September; what plans he has for an inquiry; what other vessels were known to be in the vicinity at the time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  One of my Department's marine surveyors is investigating the circumstances surrounding 974
  this tragic accident. His investigation will include consideration of whether any other vessels were in the vicinity of the Inspire at the time that she was lost.

  Collisions and Sinkings
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what incidents have been reported to him in the last 12 months involving collisions, sinkings or other interactions between vessels in the Irish sea, firth of Clyde and Atlantic coast of Scotland.

  Mr. Portillo
  The following incidents have been reported to my Department between 1 October 1987 and 30 September 1988.

  General Lapas (Phillipines) (Merchant Vessel (MV)) Osco Spirit (Liberia) (MV)—In collision in Belfast Lough on 29.10.87

  Tipperary (Ireland) (MV) Sumburgh Head (Bermuda) (MV)—In collision off Dublin on 18.2.88

  Drum (Yacht) Otis (Submarine)—Yacht contacted unlit submarine 3½ miles south of Mull of Kintyre 27.7.88

  Ardlough (Antigua) (MV)—Flooded and sank in the Irish Sea on 26.9.88

  Ocean Gain (UK fishing vessel) (FV)—Founded off Holyhead on 1.3.88

  Mhairi (UK FV)—Capsized and sank off the West Coast of Iona on 17.1.88

  Alert II (UK FV)—Founded off the Isle of Muck on or about 3.5.88

  St Patrick (French FV)—Struck North Shoals and sank on 14.2.88

  Emma Jane (UK FV)—Flooded and sank 3 miles North East of Anglesey on 18.7.88

  Kaya (UK FV)—Collided in Loch Broom on 22.7.88

  Inspire (UK FV)—Capsized and sank off Cemaes Head, Cardigan, on 5.9.88

  Village Belle III (UK FV)—Struck a rock whilst departing from Kirkcudbright on 6.9.88 and subsequently sank.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about recent loss of vessels, incidents and collisions in the Irish sea; what action he has taken as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My Department has received two representations. These are being dealt with by way of correspondence with my officials.

  Roads and Utilities (Report)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further action he has taken, or expects to take, considering on the Horne report on roads and utilities.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Proposals for legislation, developed in consultation with the street works advisory committee, are advancing.

  Progress is being made jointly with the utilities and highway authorities in producing the technical systems and documents required to support the new arrangements, including specifications for reinstatements, a code of practice for diversionary works, training and certification of workmen and a computerised street works register.

  Legislation will be introduced when a suitable opportunity can be found.

  Foreign Reflaggings
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many foreign reflaggings to the ensign have occurred since the introduction of the Armilla patrol; and which countries' ships have been involved;

  (2) if any contributions towards the cost of the Armilla patrol have been sought from countries or companies whose ships have reflagged to the ensign; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is not possible to provide this information going back to September 1980, except at a wholly disproportionate cost.

  No contributions have been sought towards the cost of the Armilla patrol and there is no intention of seeking any from countries or companies whose ships have reflagged.

  Buses (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the timetable he now envisages for the privatisation of London Buses Ltd. and deregulation of buses in London, respectively; and what steps he is taking to ensure the continuity of major existing bus routes prior to and after the implementation of each of these measures.

  Mr. Portillo
  We intend to deregulate bus services in London in the early 1990s. No timetable has been set. Detailed proposals will be brought forward in due course.

  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reports of unlicensed vehicles have been received by the London enforcement office in the period from 1 January 1988 to date.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  252,752.

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

Air Transport: EC Ministers' Council
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a Statement on the air matters discussed and progress made at the informal meeting of EC Transport Ministers on 29th and 30th September; and whether they can confirm that the next meeting of the Transport Ministers' Council is on 26th October and will indicate the main air matters on the agenda.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the presidency reported on progress towards revision of the inter-regional air services directive and the Commission announced its intention to table the proposal on air traffic control at the next meeting of the transport council which is scheduled for 26th October. Air transport is due to be taken at that meeting as an item of any other business.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister feel that he could give the House any detail on progress made towards the revision of the interregional air services directive? Secondly, as chairman of the Permanent Commission of Eurocontrol, does he believe that the commission is making a firm and definite contribution towards the co-ordination of air traffic in Europe? Finally, does he feel that some countries are not being as helpful as they might be in that respect, seeming to believe that nationalism is more important than co-operation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the first question, the commission's proposal is for an amendment to the 1983 directive on the regional air services agreement. It would remove the 70-seat and 30-tonne weight limit; it would remove the 300 kilometre minimum route length; and it would remove the protection for existing direct and parallel services and would permit fifth freedoms. It is hoped that this will be put to the Council of Ministers at the December meeting and we must hope that progress can be made on it. It is of course only an interim measure before the second stage of the entire package comes into force in 1990.
On Eurocontrol matters, I believe that there is a new sense of urgency among colleagues in Europe that this problem needs to be tackled. I was encouraged by the reception of the proposals which we put forward in the July meeting. I am encouraged by the fact that the ECAC meeting tomorrow of Transport Ministers will be devoted solely to the subject of air traffic control. But I shall look forward
1118
to seeing what comes forward at the Eurocontrol meeting in November as to what can be done to improve the situation.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there was also a report that IATA would he meeting NATO to discuss air space use by the military forces. is the Minister aware that Sir Colin Marshall said that in America something like 3 per cent. extra flying was required because of military flying, whereas in Europe it is about 12 per cent. additional flying miles? Can the Minister say whether this meeting was actually held and, if so, what the result was?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot precisely answer the noble Lord's question. I am well aware that military air space is very much in the minds of European authorities. In this country we are fortunate that we have a joint military-civil operation in national air traffic services. I do not believe that there is much of a problem in this country. If there is, it is kept continually under review and concessions have been made and will continue to be made by the military. In Europe there are problem areas which should be tackled, particularly in Germany. I hope that the various meetings which take place will result in something.

Nuclear Power: Policy
2.42 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to accommodate the costs of nuclear power within their plans for privatising the electricity industry.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, we are looking at a wide range of options on how best to ensure a continuing supply of nuclear power. The Government believe that there should be a significant nuclear component within the privatised electricity supply industry.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that there is some concern among consumers at a possible increase in prices of electricity that might result from a fixed component of nuclear energy in the privatised sector? Will he not agree that if that is so, it is unfair to burden the consumer with the extra cost based on national policy and that if there is any extra cost that should be borne by the Exchequer generally and not by consumers of electricity?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, a range of options is certainly being considered to ensure that the new company will have an incentive to seek value for money in its nuclear capacity.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, when considering these costs, will the Government take into account that the nuclear industry is guiltless as regards the greenhouse effect and the ozone layer, while the coal industry—which was presided over with distinction by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who yesterday at Question Time was much concerned

1119
about the environment—causes serious damage to the atmosphere unless expensive extractive equipment is installed?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the Minister agrees with his noble friend does he also agree that, even if nuclear power stations do not emit sulphur, they accumulate large amounts of toxic wastes which are at least as dangerous as the greenhouse effect, and that so far this Government have had no sustained policy for disposing of those?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I cannot accept that the Government have not had a policy for controlling toxic wastes which may arise from nuclear power installations. As regards the future and privatisation, every continuing consideration will be given to make sure that this matter is tackled in the right way.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the relatively small amount of nuclear and radiological waste from our power stations does not present any technological problem and that it is merely a question of finding the right sites and convincing the public that there is no problem?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, yes; I agree with the noble Viscount.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister tell us where the sites are?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, not without notice.
Lord Peston: My Lords, apropos the Question on the Order Paper, can the Minister clarify the problem? If nuclear power is economic, why must it be protected by statute? If it is not economic, why are the Government interfering with market forces?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, too great a reliance on fossil fuels would expose us to interruptions in supply and future price shocks. There is a vital strategic need for a non-fossil fuel contribution which can be made for the foreseeable future only by nuclear power.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, after privatisation, in the event of a serious nuclear accident—which heaven forfend—will there be some kind of insurance that private companies will meet the cost, which seems impossible? If the Government are to ensure and give an indemnity against the costs of any such accident, what will be the add-on to the consumer?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in that very unlikely event the costs will be met in exactly the same way as they are now. The new company will be covered by the same nuclear insurance provisions as the CEGB currently enjoys.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister remind the House of the relative costs? What are the relative costs of producing electricity by nuclear means and by other means such as coal and oil?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I do not have the answer to that question. However, as I have already indicated, the relevance of continuing with nuclear power is not entirely economic. There are strategic considerations of having diversified fuels. Apart from that point, it is not necessarily the case at all that nuclear power is uneconomic.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of the problems arising from burning fossil fuels and of the possible dangers from nuclear plants—including explosions and the difficulties of disposing of long-term radioactive waste—would the Government not be better employed in ensuring that their policies work towards renewable sources of energy and energy conservation?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the industry's safety record is second to none. There will be no question of privatisation resulting in a reduction in safety standards. As regards the relevance of encouraging non-fossil fuels other than nuclear, the matter is continually being given active consideration and pursuit.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, while we are waiting for the next generation of nuclear power stations will we be able to continue to draw nuclear power from France at economic prices? Is that a long-term contract which will carry on for some time?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, yes. There will be no restrictions on the possibility of importing nuclear power from abroad.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I refer to my noble friend's original Question. I understand that the Minister was unable to answer my earlier question and may need a thousand years to find the answer. Can he say whether the costs of decommissioning are being taken into account in the costing of nuclear power for privatisation?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, privatisation will not affect the basic responsibility of nuclear power station operators to undertake appropriate decommissioning operations within the guidelines on safety and environmental protection set by the regulators. The Government are looking at all options to ensure that the nuclear industry thrives after privatisation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether anyone knows how to decommission a Magnox reactor?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, all things are possible, and I believe we can agree that technology in the field is becoming better.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, as we have now taken more than half the normal time for

1121
Questions on this first Question, is it not time that we moved on to the next Question?
Noble Lords: Second Question!
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House who, so far, has shown an interest in purchasing a Magnox or AGR nuclear reactor, and whether he is optimistic about a sell-off?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, with respect, I think that is a little wide of the Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with respect, I believe that my noble friend Lord Nugent had a good point. Perhaps we can return to this subject on another day.

Respite Care: Income Support Policy
2.50 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on social security income support for short-stay respite care in hostels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government's policy is to make income support available to eligible individuals entering accommodation for respite care. Where this accommodation is a hostel they are entitled to help towards the charge plus meals up to a limit of £70 or £87.50 if they are elderly or disabled.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Perhaps he will forgive me if I am wrong in assuming that the introduction of income support in replacement for social security benefits was supposed to make the system simpler to operate? Can he explain why there are more than 120 different ways of calculating income support for people going into respite care? Can he give some hope to these people, who already suffer terrible hardship and complexity in their lives, that there will be some changes in the rules regarding benefit weeks and the days on which they are paid for their hostel charges?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Countess is quite right. The change of circumstance rules governing the rate of payment in each benefit week have been simplified in the changeover from supplementary benefit to income support in line with the general approach to the new income support scheme. The noble Countess very kindly tipped me off about 120 different ways of paying those benefits. I have had them investigated and I cannot see that it is possible either under the new or the old system for there to be 120 different ways. However, there are different rules for calculating the weekly amount of
1122
benefit for those in registered homes and those in hostels or lodgings, of which the latter are the subject of the noble Countess's Question. If she is aware of any other difficulties of specific cases, I shall of course have them looked into.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation is that if a disabled person is in receipt of income support and he goes into respite care and his benefit pay day is a Monday, if he goes in on a Sunday and comes out on a Tuesday he will receive a full week's benefit; but if he goes in on a Tuesday and comes out on a Sunday—in other words, if he is not in on his benefit day—he will not receive any benefit at all? Does that not convert the whole system into a lottery?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I do not believe it does, because if a person is in respite care for a very short period he will be eligible for all the social security benefits which he was receiving while at home. As regards the weekly payments either in arrears or in advance, I believe that it is all a question of swings and roundabouts. Some people will benefit from the new rules if they are paid in arrears and are in a hostel for only the last day of their benefit week because they will receive benefit at the hostel rate for the whole week. Therefore, there are rather more gainers than losers in all this.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that such people are on a swing or a roundabout? Which does he advise?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, unfortunately the rules and the administration prevent an individual applicant from deciding whether to be on a swing or a roundabout.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether he is taking any steps to inform the exhausted carers of disabled and chronically ill people of the complications to which he has referred? Is it not a fact that many of them find it very difficult to understand their rights in these matters? Can he also tell us whether it is the case that children who go into respite care do not receive benefit unless they go into a local authority hostel and that they lose that benefit if they go into a voluntary organisation for care? Surely if that is the case it does not seem reasonable or fair.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in partial answer I should say that the local officers in the social security benefit offices have been very well trained. I know that the noble Countess has said that there are some glaring alternatives to this particular statement and she will presumably be letting me know where she knows of such glaring errors.
As regards children, I repeat that anybody eligible for social security benefits in their own homes will continue to take them when they go into respite care.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the roundabouts and swings happen to concern individual people and that

1123
payments can vary by up to £50 a week? When one is on one's beam ends £50 a week is a lot of money. Does he agree that in the days of supplementary benefit, payment could be on a daily basis? Perhaps I may ask him whether he would look into altering the payment of income support for people in hostels back to a daily basis, as that would simplify matters both for the social security offices and the people concerned.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall most certainly look at the matter but my current advice is that to put people who are to go into board and lodgings and hostels on to a daily basis would, far from simplifying matters, make them a lot more complicated. I repeat what I said about the difference between hostel and board and lodging arrangements and the residential care and nursing homes arrangements, which are quite different.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the figures made public today which show that one-third of all the children in Britain are living in poverty? Why do the Government persist in erecting these complicated bureaucratic barriers against channelling resources to that grossly underprivileged section of our community?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have indeed seen the reports in the newspapers today of the CPAG's report but I should advise the noble Lord that that is rather a different question from the one on the Order Paper.
Lord Banks: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what kind of response the Government have had to the consultative document on hostel charges and when they expect to produce proposals based upon their reflections on the response?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not surprisingly we have had a large number of responses and we intend to make a decision on the consultative paper known shortly.

Water Supplies: Nitrate Content
2.57 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to prevent nitrates in public water supplies from exceeding the EC limit.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are looking at the whole problem of nitrate in drinking water supplies and we hope to make a Statement shortly. In the meantime we have asked water undertakers to prepare programmes which will achieve compliance with the nitrate parameter of the EC Drinking Water Directive as soon as practicable. These programmes have been received and are now being studied.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Am I correct in thinking that the
1124
EC limits were imposed not on health grounds but to avoid turbidity in the water supply? Is it also true that there may be some danger to small babies and very young children from excessive nitrates in the water? Can he also say whether the same problems are being experienced by other countries in Europe in finding that their water supplies are not meeting the requirements?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may take the last part of the noble Viscount's question first. In terms of geography, I understand that there are greater nitrate levels in some European countries, notably in France and Germany. As regards the safety level, particularly for babies, I assure the noble Viscount that nitrate levels in public supplies are quite safe. No connection with, for example, stomach cancer, has been substantiated; nor has there been a case of blue babies for the last 15 years.
To return to the first part of the noble Lord's question concerning the turbidity, I repeat that all public supplies are safe to drink. However, water undertakers are committed to improving the colour, odour and appearance of drinking water in areas where it is necessary. It is not a widespread problem and does not constitute a health risk. Your Lordships may be assured that, where necessary, steps are being taken by water undertakers to bring the supplies up to the standards required.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the EC limit was set far too high, that it is unrealistic, and that in many areas in this country it will be completely unattainable? Is my noble friend also aware that there is a large body of opinion in this country which is disappointed that the limit was agreed to at Brussels by our Government?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the level of nitrate content in the water was set by the World Health Organisation in 1970. The EC recommended nitrate level in drinking water is 50 milligrams of nitrate per litre. It was originally 80 milligrams but has since been reduced.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister say when the Government intend to publish the Halcrow Report? Will he confirm that that report indicates that the present monitoring programme for ground water is seriously inadequate? Does the noble Earl agree that there is an urgent need to introduce water protection zones—we have asked about this on many occasions—especially in high-risk areas and while any proposed trial treatments are being contemplated?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, water protection zones as an option are under consideration at the moment by Her Majesty's Government. I can tell the noble Baroness that a group of government officials, assisted by the water industry, has undertaken research study into alternative ways and the cost of solving the nitrate problem in different locations, including the use of denitrification processes and protection zones. The report is nearing completion.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister answer my question about the Halcrow Report, which is already in his hands?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand that the report is still being considered.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, can my noble friend reassure the House that the expression "water undertakers" that he has continually used has no conection with the providers of funeral services?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am more than happy to oblige my noble friend.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is it not true that the excess of nitrates is due to the excessive use of nitrogenous fertilisers in farming, encouraged by the EC subsidies for grain production? We have not only grain mountains but polluted rivers too. Would it not help if the Government encouraged farmers to return to the rotation of crops and the use of good old-fashioned muck—farmyard manure—instead of sacks of fertiliser?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there are many reasons for excessive nitrate content in drinking water. The use of fertilisers is one of them but the type of soil and the location in the country are also relevant.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government support of the "polluter pays" principle holds good for water? It is unfair that those who are polluted against should have to foot the Bill.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with respect, that is somewhat muddying the issue.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on broadcasting and terrorism.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether the Government propose to make a Statement following the judgment of this House in the Spycatcher case.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not now propose to make a Statement about that judgment. It is being studied and considered with care and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a Statement to that effect on the same day as the judgment. Copies of my right honourable friend's Statement have been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that in addition to the major issues raised in this important judgment itself, there have since been a number of articles, especially in the weekend press—notably an article by Mr. David Leigh in the Observer—which appear to make a prima facie case that there was a conspiracy to undermine a government in this country? If that is so, there is a further clear case for an inquiry of some kind.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am always ready to reply to a question put to me by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. However, if the noble Lord wishes to raise specific issues they ought to be raised through the normal procedures which are open to us all.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for responding to my questions, but I shall be extremely glad if he will confirm to the House that he will convey my remarks to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to this exchange.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Prohibited weapons and ammunition]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("or pump action").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I first declare an interest as a life-long shooter and chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council, which co-ordinates the views of shooting interests throughout the country. I hope it will not be necessary for me to repeat my interest every time I rise to my feet.
I spoke on this subject in Committee and I should like to bring it to your Lordships' notice again because it is illogical that rifles and firearms of this class should be lumped in with self-loading rifles, which the Bill seeks to prohibit. A pump-action rifle is entirely different. Just as any bolt-action or lever-action rifle is manually operated, so also is a pump-action rifle. Some are capable of being operated faster than some bolt-actions but that is no reason, in itself, to prohibit them.
I hope that your Lordships will consider this point carefully because there are a number of such rifles in use. Generally they do not have a large magazine capacity. The magazine capacity aspect was dealt with at some length at various stages of the Bill's progress through the other place and in this Chamber. In my submission it is illogical that rifles of this description should be lumped in with self-loading and other fast-firing weapons. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, your Lordships will recall that the whole purpose of this Bill is to get the most lethal weapons out of circulation. My noble friend Lord Swansea has argued that full-bore pump-action rifles should be exempted from the prohibited category because they do not have the same level of lethality as self-loading rifles.
We discussed this point at some considerable length in Committee. What it boils down to is that my noble friend is saying that a pump-action rifle cannot be fired as quickly and as effectively as a self-loading rifle and is therefore less lethal. I do not agree. The advice I have from the Forensic Science Service—which is, after all, expert on such matters and is called in to give evidence in the courts—is that there is very little to choose between pump-action and self-loading rifles in the hands of an experienced shooter. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that both self-loading and pump-action rifles have a significantly higher rate of fire than bolt-action rifles. That is what we are primarily concerned with.
Pump-action rifles are not commonly used for sporting and competition purposes in this country, and that might explain why they are so rare here. We can be quite sure of one thing; namely, that were my noble friend's amendment to find favour with your Lordships, pump-action rifles would become much more common than they are at present. They would be imported to take the place of self-loading rifles and I cannot believe that that is something that your Lordships would wish to see. That is why I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. This is one matter upon which I must beg to differ from him. He mentioned the question of lethality. It is very hard to see whether rifle A is more lethal than rifle B. Both are equally lethal, and I do not believe there is any such thing as degrees of lethality. Perhaps my noble friend can give me an example of something which is only slightly lethal.
Of course the pump-action rifle can be operated faster than some bolt-action rifles, but in skilled hands there are bolt-action or lever-operated rifles that can be operated almost as fast. Another point I wish to make about pump-action rifles is that they can be operated with equal facility by left-handed shooters as well as by right-handed ones. However, this amendment is not going to succeed and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Portsmouth The Earl of Portsmouth moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("except as provided by section [disabled persons]").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am also speaking to Amendment No. 7. The purpose of the amendments is to allow disabled rifle shooters who, because of the nature of their disability, cannot shoot with a full bore bolt-action rifle, to continue with their sport. Noble Lords who took part during the Committee stage of this Bill will recall that my noble friend Lord Wynford moved
1128
an amendment with a similar aim but the Committee felt unable to agree to it despite the considerable degree of sympathy which was expressed on all sides of the Committee.
In his speech my noble friend gave some examples of disabled shooters who will be affected by the Bill as it stands. They range from ex-servicemen, one of whom was disabled as a result of being wounded in action, to an arthritis sufferer and a man suffering from polyneuritis. I know of a keen rifle shot whose shoulder has been dislocated in an accident and who has had to switch to a self-loading rifle as his shoulder has been put out of joint by the recoil of a bolt-action rifle.
To allay the anxieties of your Lordships and of the Government, my amendments leave the decision to the discretion of the police. The burden of the proof of need is upon the applicant who may well be required to produce supporting evidence in the form of a doctor's opinion or a medical certificate in addition to having to fulfil all the normal requirements pertaining to the grant of a firearms' certificate. I stress that this concession would be exclusive to the disabled shooter. Therefore, there is no question that acceptance of these amendments would open the floodgates to all those who wish to own self-loading rifles.
I also draw the attention of noble Lords to the type of rifle which is specified in the amendment. This firearm is hardly in the same league as the Kalashnikov which was used by Michael Ryan in the Hungerford massacre. Unlike that rifle with its large and detachable magazine, it is incapable of holding more than four cartridges. My noble friend Lord Ferrers,with the support of some noble Lords, has made much of the lethality of the self-loading rifle and has said that this was the prime factor in the decision to ban it. I remind both my noble friend and the House that at the same time the Government have seen fit to leave in Section 1 full bore bolt-action rifles with unlimited magazine capacity together with self-loading pistols.
I am not advocating banning these weapons in any way and that is not the subject under discussion here. I refer to them in order to illustrate my point. There are many firearms experts who agree that a bolt-action rifle with a large magazine has a greater fire power than a self-loading rifle with a magazine which is restricted to four shots only. Self-loading pistols are just as lethal as self-loading rifles particularly at close range and, as the evidence shows, they are used far more often for committing crime.
There are some noble Lords whose minds are virtually closed on the issue of the self-loading rifle. I appeal to them to look afresh at this amendment. We are here dealing with people who do not have the option of changing to a bolt-action rifle. Either they are allowed a self-loading rifle or they will be forced to give up shooting. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said at the Committee stage that the Government had looked at the legitimate use of weapons such as the self-loading rifle. If he can find a legitimate reason for self-loading pistols to remain available in Clause 1 then surely he will agree that disabled shooters have a legitimate reason for being allowed to own self-

1129
loading rifles with this very limited magazine capacity.
I hope that I can prevail upon my noble friend to look at the matter again. I hardly think that this measure, directed as it is to a very small number of people, can be said to be endangering the public any more than it amounts to wrecking the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in order to let the Minister know how we on these Benches feel regarding this amendment and any which follows a similar line. At the Committee stage the noble Earl was asked by several Members of the Committee whether something could be done for the disabled. The indication was that the Minister would think about that problem, realising as he did the hardship that might be imposed upon those who were disabled without the public being endangered in any way.
In the course of his reply to this and any similar amendment, I wonder whether the noble Earl can give an indication of the Government's thinking on this matter and whether he has anything constructive to offer. I am not in any way trying to weaken the strength of this amendment, but it may well be that if we have a frank statement made before the House as to what the Government are doing for the disabled we and those who are moving amendments might be able to support them. However, if nothing is being thought of to help the disabled, then possibly we may have to take another line. In this sense, can the noble Earl help the House?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to say a word in opposition to the amendment. It involves an important derogation from the fundamental principle of the Bill that the SLR is far too dangerous a weapon to be held by private individuals whose homes and motor-cars may well be broken into and the SLR sold by the thief to an armed robber. It raises the question of derogation from principle as indeed is proposed in other amendments such as Amendment No. 3 which is grouped with Amendment No. 8.
Amendment No. 2 seeks to impose upon the chief officer of police a mandatory statutory duty, enforceable in the courts of law by judicial review, to issue certificates for SLRs with a four-shot capacity magazine to persons with disability who cannot use any other firearm. Certain questions arise. First, what is the nature of this rare disability? I ask this question with respect and sympathy. As your Lordships know, on many occasions in the House I have spoken in favour of facilities for the disabled, so I speak not without sympathy. I ask an objective question. What is the nature of this rare disability?
Secondly, how is this to be established? Many medical practitioners would not be competent to advise in any categoric terms. Thirdly, if there is to be a medical certificate, is it to be conclusive to satisfy the chief officer? Ought it to be conclusive? Fourthly, how does one control the changing of the magazine by sophisticated armed robbers with access to workshops and perhaps bent gunsmiths? Fifthly,
1130
how many of these SLRs with a four-shot capacity are available? Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, why is there to be a statutory mandatory duty enforceable in the courts?
Of course it is accepted that in a few cases this type of disability would be established—perhaps where recoil is an important and relevant consideration or perhaps where a person has only one arm. But surely one has to balance this limited and restricted personal private hardship against the greater public interest which demands that SLRs are too dangerous to be held by private individuals lest they should find their way by theft into the wrong hands.
One must seek to retain a sense of perspective. I beg leave to point out that no derogation from this fundamental principle is involved in enlarging the scope of Amendment No. 21 to include a young member of the occupier's family under bona fide instruction, which is a matter of interest to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret. Indeed there is no derogation from this principle in Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 which deal with expired certificates of members of Her Majesty's Forces and Crown servants serving abroad. Those are matters which my noble friend the Minister may consider on their merits in due course; as to the merits of this amendment, I hope that your Lordships will not accept it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I should like to emphasise the fact that the number of cases in which a disabled person genuinely could not use a bolt-action rifle would be very small, and thus that the risk of self-loading rifles falling into the wrong hands would also be very small.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should disclose that I am a patron of the Greater London Association for the Disabled, and, like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I try on occasions in your Lordships' House to speak up for the disabled. However, I am not in favour of the amendment for various reasons, some of which my noble friend has expressed. There is a fundamental defect in the amendment. It would appear to apply to any kind of disability. The rather vague words of limitation upon the discretion of the chief officer of police do not resolve that problem.
We should bear in mind that there are so many different kinds of disability. Only the very rare one could possibly justify this proposal. If the amendment were accepted, disabled people could use such rifles for sporting purposes while people who were not disabled, perhaps alongside them or on the same occasion, would be prohibited from using the same lethal weapons. We should if possible avoid that. It should be avoided on this occasion because I do not feel that the case has been made out.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I should like to speak against the amendment. I have always supported the needs of the disabled. If one permits the use of a self-loading rifle with a magazine that will hold only four rounds, will not a larger magazine that can carry eight or 16 rounds be available? If that were the case, this would not he a very good amendment.

1131
The Government are banning self-loading rifles because of the danger that if they were to get into the wrong hands—into the hands of a psychopath—they could cause the most terrible injury. Is it not possible that such a weapon could get into the hands of a disabled person who was also mentally unstable? Such a person could have a lethal self-loading rifle whereas people who were not disabled in any way would not be allowed to have such a weapon. This is a bad amendment and I oppose it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I too feel grave anxiety about this amendment. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, I thought there was a general feeling in the House that self-loading rifles were themselves so dangerous that there ought not to be any kind of mandatory obligation on the chief officer of police, even that of the restricted kind suggested in the amendment, compelling him to issue a certificate to enable a person to have a self-loading rifle. That is how I understood it. It is the rifle which is sought to be prohibited, not the person. The provision is not aimed at people. It is aimed at a particular kind of weapon. The danger is not simply that a small number of people might misuse the article. It is that the article should not be available to anybody.
I am obviously disabled. I need not emphasise the point because anyone can see the two sticks in my hands. I hope therefore that I may be excused from any suggestion that I am against disabled people or against special privileges for them. The more I think about the amendment the more I think it is flawed in its conception. Its authors have overlooked the fact that it is the weapon itself, in the wrong hands, that is the source of danger rather than the kind of person who may have the certificate to use it.
Moreover, the amendment leads us into an almost incredible degree of absurdity because it says that before one can take advantage of the amendment one must be disabled to the extent that one cannot use any kind of authorisable weapon. In other words, one cannot even use a little pistol. One has to be as disabled as that. Then, when one can take advantage of the amendment the only advantage one gets is that one will have something one may not want; namely, a self-loading rifle. If one cannot even use the pistol one can get the advantage provided by the amendment, but the only sort of weapon one is then allowed to have, as of right, is a self-loading rifle. That seems to me to be an absurd assertion. I hope therefore that my noble friend on the Front Bench will examine the matter with great care before accepting it.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I should briefly like to speak against the amendment for the reason which has already been so plainly brought out: that the type of weapon under discussion should not really, even to a small degree, be in anyone's hands in this country.
However, I should like to say a word or two about the disabled people who might be concerned and disappointed. Like many other noble Lords, I have always tried to support disabled people in the House.
1132
Indeed, I remember well a debate which took place many years ago, which I think was instigated by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, during the Year of the Disabled. During that debate, the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, made a speech in which he made the strong point that you cannot do everything for the disabled. I think that that is a truism in life; you cannot provide for them all the way down the line. For instance, he cited as an example adapting public transport, and other such matters.
Therefore I sincerely believe that, for the greater good, the very few people who have been mentioned who will be unable to use the bolt on a rifle and who need a four-shot automatic rifle of some sort must, like many of us, turn away from that pastime and sport. They must shrug their shoulders and go off and do other things which they are probably far better equipped to do, if they put their minds to it, and from which they might receive equally as much enjoyment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not wish to repeat arguments which have already been deployed, but I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said. I do so in the context of the situation where my noble friends and I have voted consistently in this House in support of the position of special rights for disabled people. I understand the immense problems that they have in getting through life but I do not believe that such an amendment makes any sense whatever, especially for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord. The amendment is far too widely drawn and indeed it imposes a mandatory obligation on the chief officer of police which in my view is wholly undesirable in terms of the legislation now before us.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, there appears to be a conviction among the general public, the Home Office and some Members of your Lordship's House that a self-loading rifle is the most dangerous weapon that exists. That is patently not true. It is no more or less dangerous than any other gun; it is the person behind the gun that matters and not the gun itself. That is the essence and reason behind the amendment, the object being that no one should shoot a self-loading rifle until such time as he has proved himself to be reasonably competent to do so.
I doubt whether it is possible to remove the blinkers—the sort of mental blockage that exists—but I wonder whether it is possible to clear up some misapprehensions in this connection. Not all self-loading rifles are Kalashnikov-type guns. They are in fact exactly what their name implies; that is, a gun with a magazine which when it is charged loads itself. It does not fire itself. It is not an automatic rifle. It is not a rapid-fire weapon; it is simply a rapid-loading gun. It takes away the necessity of manual movement of a bolt or lever and produces less recoil because some of the energy is used in re-loading the gun. In essence that means that there is less disturbance to the shooter between each shot which in effect means that he has more time to take aim. As I have already said, that does not make it any more or less dangerous, because it is the person who is more dangerous and not the gun.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I feel that the many misapprehensions which have been expressed so far in the debate are unjustified. There has also been an element of panic. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, the number permitted would he very small indeed—how correct she is. Further, those that were permitted would only be allowed with the chief officer's consent. I was somewhat confused about the remark made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that it would be mandatory upon him. I cannot see that it is in any way mandatory. The chief officer of police can refuse a permit for any number of reasons.
The number of crimes committed with stolen weapons—that is, with any type of weapon—is very small indeed. I think I am correct in saying that something like I per cent. to 2 per cent. of all crimes involving firearms are committed with stolen weapons. Therefore when one starts off with a minute quantity in the first place, the chance of anything happening is negligible. The vast majority of such crimes are committed with sawn-off shotguns, followed closely by pistols. In fact very few other weapons are used.
As one or two of my noble friends have said, the weapon will have only four rounds. It seems to be totally unreasonable, even if there are only a few people involved, that they should not be allowed to shoot at all and that they should have to give up one of their hobbies just because some people have unjustifiable fears.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I recall when I first came to your Lordships' House, that we had a Firearms Bill before us at that time. Lady Summerskill—who was then alive—was always strongly opposed to boxing and she certainly opposed firearms. I remember her saying, "You won't get very far with this, you know, because their Lordships just want to have these firearms to shoot a few harmless birds and animals."
The point is: what do the disabled want the gun for? I am trying to visualise the kind of sport that they would indulge in. I think it would be slightly difficult and awkward. I have been the recipient of various correspondence from people who seem to think that I am in the gun lobby. It is most curious. One such group has even sent me one of their raffle books so that I may sell tickets for them. I suggest that these people do their homework a little better. Indeed, some of the prizes of the raffle seem to be certain weapons, which I certainly do not want.
However, I seriously suggest that one should never try to introduce exemption clauses into such a serious Bill. The Government have had the courage to introduce the Bill—and it needs courage to bring in such legislation. If only a handful of disabled people are involved, for heaven's sake, let them take up some other sport that they will equally enjoy.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I should like to follow what my noble friend Lord Burton said, in that I think that some people are getting slightly overexcited about the matter. The concept of self-loading rifles and bullets flying off in all directions at 100 mph
1134
is obviously unacceptable to everyone. However, as my noble friend rightly said, we are only talking about four bullets in a magazine. The noble Baroness has just asked what sort of sport people would want the gun for. Moreover, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham asked how a doctor would be able to certify whether or not a person is disabled. The point is that if a sportsman is minus an arm he cannot very well reload a rifle. It does not take a doctor to decide whether one has an arm.
There are many sportsmen who have enjoyed all manner of sports with such rifles, on the hill, stalking or wherever. If they have had an accident—perhaps on Her Majesty's Service, may I say—and they do not have an arm and cannot re-load their rifle, it does not seem entirely fair to deny them the right to continue the sport which they have enjoyed.
The amendment is perfectly reasonable and I hope that after consideration your Lordships may consider that it would be right to give the disabled a chance.
Lord Nelson: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Burton brought in the word "panic". No one has said it yet, but I believe it needs to be asked if there is panic anywhere, why is the gun lobby trying to put a wedge into a blanket ban on self-loading rifles?
No one disputes that we all have sympathy for the disabled. Why, oh why do they have to be used in this way? There is no question but that some disabled people shoot. However, no one seems to have considered the other side of the argument. Many disabled people support the Bill. What is their reaction to their name or disability being used as a reason to keep self-loading rifles for a certain section of the public?
If we agree to allow disabled people to have self-loading rifles, which will be the next special case in the line? Who is next? I see the following amendment which could possibly be construed as the next special case in the line. If a self-loading rifle is in the hands of a disabled person, I am sorry to say that other people would find the temptation to use it too great. We must consider what happens if such weapons are stolen from a disabled person. A disabled person by definition would probably have a harder job to hold on to the rifle than an able bodied person if someone wanted to steal it. I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he can tell us how many people have been killed or wounded by the rifles in question over the past 20 or 25 years. If he investigates, he will find that there have been very few cases.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I shall follow what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said. The whole of the Bill is founded on last year's tragedy at Hungerford when 16 people were killed. However, only about half of them were killed by a self-loading rifle in the hands of a madman. I believe that that is the only case on record of the misuse of a self-loading rifle. The Bill is panic legislation. It is based on that one incident of a self-loading rifle in the hands of one who was mentally deranged. I am unaware of any other example.

1135
We all agree that the disabled person should be allowed to take part in the recreation of his choice if it can be made humanly possible for him to do so. I fully support the amendment.
Lord Rootes: My Lords, I live on the outskirts of Hungerford and have lived in that area for over 50 years. I was therefore especially conscious of the need for some action in regard to firearms after the tragic incidents in Hungerford last year.
In general, the Bill's provisions seem sensible. However, some amendments are necessary. I have listened carefully to the arguments in respect of the amendment. As the Bill stands, there are some disabled sportsmen who would be precluded from taking part in legitimate sports such as stalking. I therefore support the amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nelson referred to how the disabled would feel about being used as an argument for an amendment which they did not desire. The simple answer to that question is that if he does not agree with the amendment a disabled person need not apply for such a weapon.
I should like to pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Northesk. It was extremely valid. A number of noble Lords, and others elsewhere, have expressed their concern about the self-loading rifle. I fully accept the principle that the self-loading rifle should no longer be available. However, your Lordships should cast back your minds to when the Bill was being discussed at an earlier stage. It was at the last minute only that the Government decided to restrict the use of the self-loading rifle with a magazine capacity of four. Early in the discussions it was much in their mind that that weapon should continue to be allowed to be used.
I shall not take up any more of your Lordships' time. I support the amendment. The points that have been made about the rights of the disabled are so fundamental that I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept such a simple, straightforward and tight amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Portsmouth has moved a sensible amendment with great care and moderation. He wanted to see that those who are disabled are provided for. Such an amendment strikes a chord of sympathy with everyone because we are all concerned that those who are disabled should be able to live their lives as fully as possible, and it is up to Parliament to try to ensure that that comes about.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that before accepting the amendment he hoped we would consider it with great care. I am bound to tell him that we have considered it with great care and not, as my noble friend Lord Northesk said, with blinkers on.
I shall put the position as simply as possible. If we accept the premise which lies behind the Bill that there are certain weapons which are so dangerous that they should be out of circulation then it is difficult to make an exception. I understand that
1136
many noble Lords feel that there are certain weapons which we have put into the Clause 5 category which should not be there. A posse of my noble friends have explained that point and will doubtless do so again on a later amendment. If one accepts the basic premise that those weapons are so dangerous as to be put out of the light, is there a reason to make an exception?
I do not believe that we can make such an exception. I do not believe that we can make such an exception for the disabled. One of the tragic aspects of disability—there are many—is that it means curtailment of activity. One must realise that if we decide to put certain weapons out of circulation there are groups of people, of which the disabled form one, who have previously used such weapons, legitimately and responsibly, who will find themselves inconvenienced and curtailed.
My noble friend Lord Radnor quoted my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, as saying that we cannot always help the disabled. That is right. I ask your Lordships to consider that if the amendment were to be accepted one might well have people attending a shooting exercise where a disabled person can use a self-loading rifle but the next door person, who used to have a self-loading rifle, finds that he cannot. That person will say, "You, although you are disabled, can use this. I, although I am fully able, cannot use it."
The argument stands logic on its head. I do not believe that the point is sustainable. If such weapons are in the hands of disabled people, others will borrow them and others will steal them. The weapons will be in circulation. The whole point of this part of the legislation is to put such weapons out of circulation. For a number of reasons I do not believe that one can make a blanket exemption for disabled or handicapped shooters.
My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned one difficulty. He said that the new clause offers no definition of the degree of disability which would qualify a person to benefit from the provision. He is quite right. There are different types of disability, different degrees of disability, many of which have no effect on a person's ability to use a bolt-action rifle. While I accept that a very limited number of shooters may have a disability which makes using a self-loading rifle easier than using a bolt-action rifle, it is difficult to envisage one which would entirely preclude the use of a bolt-action rifle but would permit the use of a self-loading rifle, save in a very few cases.
As regards the disability, one wonders what happens when, as is sometimes the case, the disability becomes worse. A person given permission to use the weapon because he was disabled might find his disability becomes worse, but he is still entitled to use the rifle. If we are simply talking about the need to reduce recoil, there are many ways of doing that. It can be reduced by choosing a rifle of greater weight which is usually acceptable for various forms of target shooting.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that there are only a few cases where a self-loading rifle seems the only practical option. She is quite right. There may be only a very few, but I ask her to consider whether that

1137
is a good enough reason for allowing those who are disabled to have in their possession weapons which are thought dangerous for those who are fully able-bodied.
My noble friend Lord Portsmouth drew a distinction as regards pistols, and he used that as an argument against banning self-loading rifles. We have applied precisely the same criterion of the lethality and legitimate use. A self-loading pistol is less powerful and less accurate over distance. It has a very long-established use in competition and to have banned the pistol also—which is where this argument would lead—would have been disproportionate. The fact that we have not done so in any way does not reduce the force of the case for banning the self-loading rifle.
I am bound to say to the House that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is quite right. If this amendment were accepted by your Lordships it would prove quite unworkable. It refers to a person who is prevented from using any kind of firearm authorised by Sections 1 and 2 of the Act. This means that any disabled person who could handle the smallest of pistols would not be entitled to obtain a firearms certificate for a self-loading rifle. There can be few occasions when a person is so disabled that he cannot use a pistol. If he were so disabled, one wonders whether it is right for him to use a self-loading rifle. If this amendment were passed, I doubt that it would have the effect intended by my noble friends. For the reasons that I have given, I hope your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I wonder whether he can give an indication, as I requested him to do, as regards consideration of the problems of the disabled. Many of us are thinking of ex-servicemen who have been disabled as a result of gallant service. Are the Government able to make any concession in the provisions of this Bill by way of application for licences for firearms, or whatever? Although we realise the general purpose of the Bill, all of us who are in sympathy with the specific case of ex-servicemen may feel that it has been carefully considered and the Government have made some concessions. Is there anything that the Government have to offer them in the course of the Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite rightly asked me that question at the beginning. I did not refer to it because I thought that ray speech had answered the question. We have looked at this with the concerns of the disabled acutely in our minds. As regards matters of such substance as this, I do not believe that it is right to make a difference or to make a separate arrangement for those who are disabled to use weapons of great lethality.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, we have heard the arguments. In view of the reply of my noble friend Lord Ferrers to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I have no alternative but to divide the House.
3.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 197.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Borthwick, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Moyne, L.

Burton, L.

Mulley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Northesk, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Peel, E. [Teller.]

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Portsmouth, E. [Teller.]

Ferrier, L.

Rootes, L.

Goschen, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Savile, L.

Ironside, L.

Seafield, E.

Liverpool, E.

Strange, B.

Lovat, L.

Swansea, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Torphichen, L.

Monson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Airedale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Allerton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Amherst, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ennals, L.

Arran, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Ezra, L.

Attlee, E.

Ferrers, E.

Balfour, E.

Foot, L.

Banks, L.

Forbes, L.

Barber, L.

Fortescue, E.

Barnett, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gainford, L.

Beloff, L.

Gallacher, L.

Belstead, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bessborough, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Birk, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Blackstone, B.

Goold, L.

Blyth, L.

Grantchester, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Grey, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Gridley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Butterworth, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Caccia, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Caithness, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hanworth, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carnock, L.

Harvington, L.

Carter, L.

Havers, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hesketh, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Hives, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hooper, B.

Craigavon, V.

Hughes, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

David, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

De Freyne, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kagan, L.

Denman, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Killearn, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Dundee, E.

Kirnberley, E.

Eccles, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Effingham, E.

Lauderdale, E.

1139

Leatherland, L.

Reay, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Renton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Long, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Longford, E.

Romney, E.

Lothian, M.

Rugby, L.

Lyell, L.

Russell, E.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Davids, V.

McNair, L.

St. Germans, E.

Mais, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Mar, C.

Seear, B.

Margadale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Marley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Marsh, L.

Sharples, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shepherd, L.

Merrivale, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Meston, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Middleton, L.

Slim, V.

Mishcon, L.

Somers, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Stedman, B.

Moran, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Morris, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mostyn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Suffield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Munster, E.

Terrington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Nicol, B.

Thurlow, L.

Ogmore, L.

Tordoff, L.

Oram, L.

Trafford, L.

Orkney, E.

Tranmire, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Pennock, L.

Ullswater, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Peston, L.

Whaddon, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Phillips, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wise, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Young, B.

Radnor, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Broadcasting and Terrorism
4.5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on broadcasting and terrorism which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"For some time broadcast coverage of events in Northern Ireland has included the occasional appearance of representatives of paramilitary organisations and their political wings, who have used these opportunities as an attempt to justify their criminal activities. Such appearances have caused widespread offence to viewers and listeners throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in the aftermath of a terrorist outrage.
"The terrorists themselves draw support and sustenance from having access to radio and television, and from addressing their views more directly to the population at large than is possible through the press. The Government have decided that the time has now come to deny this easy
1140
platform to those who use it to propagate terrorism. Accordingly, I have today issued to the chairmen of the BBC and the IBA a notice, under the Licence and Agreement and under the Broadcasting Act respectively, requiring them to refrain from broadcasting direct statements by representatives of organisations proscribed in Northern Ireland and Great Britain and by representatives of Sinn Fein, Republican Sinn Fein and the Ulster Defence Association.
"The notices will also prohibit the broadcasting of statements by any person which support or invite support for these organisations. The restrictions will not apply to the broadcast of proceedings in Parliament, and in order not to impair the obligation on the broadcasters to provide an impartial coverage of elections the notices will have a more limited effect during election periods. Copies of the notices have today been deposited in the Library, and further copies are available from the Vote Office so that honourable Members will be able to study their detailed effect.
"These restrictions follow closely the lines of similar provisions which have been operating in the Republic of Ireland for some years past. Representatives of these organisations are prevented from appearing on Irish television, but because we have had no equivalent restrictions in the United Kingdom they can nevertheless be seen on BBC and ITV services in Northern Ireland, where their appearances cause the gravest offence, and in Great Britain. The Government's decision today means that both in the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic such appearances will be prevented.
"Broadcasters have a dangerous and unenviable task in reporting events in Northern Ireland. This step is no criticism of them. What concerns us is the use made of broadcasting facilities by supporters of terrorism. This is not a restriction on reporting. It is a restriction on direct appearances by those who use or support violence.
I believe that this step will be understood and welcomed by most people throughout the United Kingdom. It is a serious and important matter on which the House will wish to express its view. For that reason, we shall be putting in hand discussions through the usual channels so that a full debate on the matter can take place at an early date".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating this important Statement which has been made in another place, let us start from one common platform—that is, a complete hatred and detestation of everything that has been done and is being planned by the terrorist organisations to which the noble Earl referred. However, I wish to point out to the House the rather considerable inconsistency and possible lack of wisdom in the step that has been taken.
As regards the inconsistency, the noble Earl repeated in the last part of the Statement these words

1141
that were used by the Home Secretary in another place:
"It is a serious and important matter on which the House will wish to express its view. For that reason, we shall be putting in hand discussions through the usual channels so that a full debate on the matter can take place at an early date".
Earlier in the Statement the noble Earl repeated that a decision had already been taken and that a notice had today been issued. As from today the broadcasting authorities will be prevented from doing what is set out in this Statement; namely, reporting directly any member of a terrorist organisation, or indeed of Sinn Fein which is a permitted and legal organisation at the moment.
The inconsistency is plain. It is a serious matter, a very grave matter, which should be debated by Parliament. I ask the noble Earl to say on behalf of the Government what is the point of initiating a debate on this serious matter in order to obtain the decision of Parliament when the decision has already been taken?
I query—and maybe the noble Earl will be able to answer that query—whether the Government are saying that, if there is sufficient expression in Parliament that this was not a wise step to have taken, the notice will be withdrawn? This Government are not well known for reversing decisions. Once a decision is taken at the top of this Government one finds that it is not varied even if wiser counsels should prevail. That leads me to a great amount of apprehension that the debate—which I assume will take place in both Houses, and obviously the noble Earl will clarify that point —will be a rather useless exercise.
I questioned the wisdom of this step. Everyone on all sides of this House wishes to wage war on the evil of terrorism. However, will not this step be mistaken abroad, especially in places such as the United States which have been favourable to the IRA, for a fear on the part of our Government that any views should be expressed? Have we such a poor view of the members of the public who watch television and listen to broadcasts that we believe that they would accept propaganda in favour of killing innocent women, children and soldiers? I should have thought that the appearance of members of such organizations—especially with a responsible interviewer—would deflect many from upholding their cause. Some viewers may be uncertain in their own minds before they see the face of terrorism and hear the kind of questions which will undoubtedly be put about what the organisations have done and what they intend to do.
I cannot help feeling that there is an odd differentiation between the media of broadcasting by radio and television and the media of the press. The press will be allowed to print a photograph of Adams on the front page of a newspaper above a statement that he makes. That self-same statement and the appearance of the person making the statement will not be permitted on television. I repeat—inconsistent and possibly unwise. Naturally, my friends and I would wish to hear the noble Earl justify the inconsistency, prove the wisdom and satisfy your Lordships that you have not been taken by surprise with a decision which is now unalterable.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I am sure that the noble Earl will recall that those of us on this Bench, and the House generally, have given the Government and previous governments consistent support in their fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is aware that many of us have the gravest doubts about the wisdom of this step. The Government have decided to prohibit the broadcasting organisations from transmitting interviews. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just pointed out, presumably no similar step has been taken in relation to the press. Why? If the object is to deny Provisional Sinn Fein and the Ulster Protestant extremists the oxygen of publicity why is the distinction made between television and the press? There is no explanation in the Statement made by the Home Secretary. No doubt the noble Earl will be eager to answer that particular question.
I now turn to an even more perplexing part of the Statement. The noble Earl said that the ban will:
"have a more limited effect during election periods".
What does that mean? Is the Representation of the People Act to be amended or is it not? Because unless the Representation of the People Act is amended Sinn Fein candidates and any other candidates in Northern Ireland have to receive equality of treatment by the broadcasting organisations. Let us have a clear answer today. Will they receive equality of treatment or will there be amending legislation so far as concerns the Representation of the People Act?
I remind the noble Earl that local elections will be held in Northern Ireland next April and European Assembly elections are also to be held in Northern Ireland. I therefore believe that unless the noble Earl can give a clear and unequivocal statement as to what precisely those words "more limited effect" mean we shall be even more perplexed about the general purpose of the Statement.
Many of us recognise the indignation caused to many people in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland by seeing people defending acts of murder against the security forces and many innocent men, women and children. But because there is such justifiable anxiety it does not mean that it is right to use these sledgehammer tactics against the broadcasting organisations. Can the noble Earl tell me when there was last a directive of such a character under the BBC licence or the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act? I believe that the number of precedents for such action are remarkably few.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lords who have spoken. The Statement is an important one. I should have hoped that the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris of Greenwich. might have given it a greater welcome. However, I think that they have reflected the natural concern which people feel when any form of restriction is placed on the media.

1143
Both noble Lords have referred to inconsistency and lack of wisdom. I hope that there is no inconsistency, and I shall try to explain why. I hope that they will see, on reflection, that there is no lack of wisdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked why a decision has been taken like this and Parliamant then asked to approve it? My right honourable friend has taken this decision, quite correctly, with powers given to him by Parliament under the Broadcasting Act of 1981. That is a decision which he was quite right to take. That decision having been taken, it is up to Parliament to consider it and if it wishes to approve it and give its views. I think that when we have an opportunity to debate the matter that will be the time for noble Lords to express their views more fully. That is the reason why my right honourable friend has said that there will be a debate in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether a debate will take place in this House. That is a matter for the usual channels and I am quite sure that if there is such concern a debate will be likely to be forthcoming. However it is essentially a matter for the usual channels.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether that action will lose us friends abroad. Many friendly governments in other parts of the world have first-hand experience of the fight against terrorism. I believe that they will understand the reasons for the steps we are taking today.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked why do we not ban reporting of such statements in the press. There are two reasons why this was done for radio and TV. First, it is the immediacy of radio and especially of television that does the harm in these cases. They broadcast directly into people's homes the images and words of those who support violence Second-hand reports in the press do not have the same impact. The second reason is that those who apologise for terrorism gain a spurious respectability when treated in broadcasts as though they were constitutional politicians. There is a distinct difference between the media of television and radio and the media of the press.
I emphasise again that it is perfectly acceptable for television and radio to portray something that has happened; it is merely the direct appearances of the individuals who support terrorism that has to be avoided.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to election periods. It is necessary to have an exemption for election periods because of our broadcasting and electoral laws which require that candidates for election should be treated in an even-handed way. Under our broadcasting arrangements broadcasters have a duty to maintain impartiality in matters of political controversy. We believe that it would be difficult for them to carry out that duty if the exemption is not made.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked whether these powers had ever been used before. I understand that they have been used five times since broadcasting began in the 1920s.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I believe that in a democratic society it is defensible to stifle all outlets of those terrorist groups who are bent on undermining the authority of the state and intent upon smashing our democratic institutions. If we are to cut off the oxygen supply of propaganda—and I welcome this move as regards television and radio—we should cover also the written medium.
Perhaps the Minister is not aware that in Northern Ireland the use of radio and television gives a degree of respectability to terrorist groups, particularly the Provisional IRA. It boosts their morale, aids their recruiting drives and helps to keep them in business. This measure is one step forward on the road to defeating terrorism and its propaganda. I believe however that one could go further. Will the Minister consult the Home Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary with a view to proposing that, within the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the governments of the Republic of Eire and the United Kingdom should be prepared to operate a D-notice system which also covers newspapers?
The present measure is in fact only a half-measure. It will bring a lot of adverse publicity for Her Majesty's Government and a lot of good publicity for the Provisional IRA. Now that we are going down this road, we should go the whole hog and stop all propaganda on television, radio and the newspapers. We should not just squeeze the tube of the oxygen supply; we should sever it completely.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, in matters of Northern Ireland is very profound. I am grateful to him for his support. I appreciate his experience and I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. However, I should like to offer one caution. The road he suggests is one of considerable curtailment of speech and discourse. By this measure we do not intend any form of censorship; it does not restrict reporting but only the direct appearance of individuals. The noble Lord wants to go much further, and I think that that would need a considerable amount of thought.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in the emotional aftermath of every terrible attrocity that takes place in Northern Ireland—and I need only remind the House of a few of them which took place less than a year ago: Enniskillen, the brutal murder of two corporals in Belfast in my former constituency, the killing of eight soldiers in the bus explosion and numerous other murders which have been committed—there is a great upsurge of feeling in this country. The vast majority of people in general as well as Members of both Houses of Parliament call on the Government to take some action to prevent such outrages. Yet when the Government proposed to take some action all sorts of voices are raised in protest. They say, "Don't do this because it may dilute our law; it will give the terrorists a propaganda victory; it will make them martyrs". In other words, if they listened to those voices, the Government would do nothing.
I am in support of this legislation. I have not lived all my life in some very secure part of the United Kingdom—in England, Scotland or Wales. I have

1145
lived in the heart of Belfast and on many occasions I have been subjected to the terrorism of the IRA and other organisations. I ask the Government to be quite clear as to whom this legislation may be directed. It must be directed against the UVF, the INLA and the UDA (about which we have read so much during this terrible week-end). Indeed, one of those killed in that incident, a member of the UDA who was buried today, was responsible, if we are to believe press reports, for the murder of one of my closest friends, Senator Paddy Wilson.
The Minister has said that this measure will not prevent election broadcasts from this House. Might that also apply to election broadcasts from the Belfast city council? At the moment broadcasts take place from local authority assemblies in Northern Ireland. They can be as well equipped as any other broadcasts to dispense propaganda.
It is all very well for people to talk about a diminution or dilution of British standards. British standards do not apply in Northern Ireland. The IRA, the UDA and all the other paramilitary organisations make damn sure that they do not apply. As for worry about Irish America and the effect that this measure may have there, Irish America is very violently anti-British. Its opinions will not he changed by this legislation. For what it is worth I think that the Government are quite right to introduce this legislation at this time.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, governments must govern. Parliament can debate their decisions. We have been promised a debate. What more is there to say this evening?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, makes a very helpful point. This is a Statement not of what the Government intend to do; but of what they are doing under their present powers. It is then the objective for this measure to be considered if the House thinks fit. With the greatest respect, I suggest that we must be careful not to turn this discussion into too much of a debate.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for his remarks and for his support. He has lived in the thick of the troubles and I suppose knows the problems of Northern Ireland as well as anyone. He asked: what are the organisations to which this measure will apply? It refers to the IRA, the women's section of the IRA, the youth wing of the IRA, the Red Hand Commando, Saor Eire, the Ulster Freedom Fighters, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Irish National Liberation Army, Sinn Fein, the Republican Sinn Fein, and the Ulster Defence Association.
With regard to the noble Lord's point about Belfast City Council, I shall have to find out about that matter and if I may I shall write to him.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House what are the regulations and laws on this matter in the Republic of Eire?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can tell you that the same principle has been applied in Eire as is being applied here: they have done this for the past 10 years. I think
1146
their restrictions over elections are different from what we propose.
Lord Burton: My Lords, in view of the close connections between the IRA and the ANC, ought not the ANC to be added to the fist of organisations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it has not been so far and I shall try to find out whether it should be.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, while we on the SDP Benches are not prepared to give a fulsome welcome to the Statement made by the Minister we give it a rather low-key approval. It seems to us that the measures proposed are the same as are being produced in Ireland itself. Therefore I do not think that we shall commit any damage to ourselves internationally and it may just bring some comfort to the victims of terrorism if they do not have to see and hear the IRA's statements on TV and radio.
Therefore we give our general support to the Government for the measures they have proposed, though I must say we have doubts as to whether they are going to make a great impact on the degree of IRA violence. We feel that consideration must be given to much stronger measures against the IRA organisation and all the other subordinate ones that have been mentioned in the House this afternoon.
We would welcome the arrangement of a debate on the subject through the usual channels in your Lordships' House. Perhaps as a result of that debate there might be other ideas that could be taken up for strengthening the fight against terrorism, which is the prime object of this Statement.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for that welcome, which, as she herself said, was only a lukewarm welcome. If we have a debate, when the time comes she will be able to expand upon her views. I can understand the reasons, even if I would have preferred a less lukewarm welcome.
The Government have not taken this decision lightly. It was taken after very serious consideration; and the basic reason is that we considered it to be offensive to people to find those who prosecute terrorism appearing on television and radio, forwarding their cause, which has been a source of the greatest distress to all those in this country.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
4.33 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert ("or that those provisions should no longer apply to any firearm or ammunition specified in subsection (1) of section 5").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This refers to the reserve powers of the Home Secretary in adding at some future date

1147
firearms or ammunition in the prohibited section which might appear to him then to be especially dangerous: this refers to Clause 1(4).
At present that power is irrevocable; it cannot be reversed. It is conceivable that circumstances may arise in which the Government may decide in the end that a certain article need no longer remain on the prohibited list and that it might be advisable to remove it therefrom; but there is no such power to do so at present. No government are infallible. Mistakes can be made. For example, one amendment which was debated in connection with the clause in Committee referred to subsection (4)(a)(ii) dealing with firearms made of material not readily detectable by apparatus used for detecting metal objects.
I said in Committee that there is at present no such firearm which cannot be detected by a metal detector. There is such a firearm which has been produced on the Continent. It is partly made of plastic material but in the present state of the art it is bound to contain certain metallic components which would easily be seen and detected by X-ray or other apparatus.
It is conceivable that in the future apparatus may be developed which would be capable of detecting a firearm or other object which contained no metallic parts. In those circumstances it would be unnecessary to retain a firearm of that description in the prohibited list as contained in the Bill. I think this should be two-way traffic and there should be power to take an article out of the list as well as to put it in. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the case for giving future Home Secretaries, and indeed the present Home Secretary, the maximum degree of flexibility so as to enable them to rectify any possible errors of judgment which might occur as a result of this Bill, and to enable them to accommodate the inevitable technological changes we are going to see over the next few years, has been well made by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea.
However, there is another very powerful reason for this amendment. We are always being reminded by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, among others, that legislation should never emerge from this House or another place in excessively rigid or precise form in such a manner as to tie the hands of the courts or of future governments, thereby preventing them from exercising common sense and a reasonable degree of flexibility.
That being the case, it is surely up to the Government to make out a convincing case for resisting this amendment, if indeed they intend to do so—and I hope they will not—rather than for the House to spend much time arguing in its favour. That is because there is only one serious argument I can visualise for resisting this amendment, which is that some future Home Secretary might turn out to be a mad Dr. Strangelove-type character, intent on flooding this country with dangerous weapons of every sort. Frankly, I do not think this is a credible scenario; nor do I imagine your Lordships think that either. I therefore very much hope that the House will accept this sensible amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it seems to me that these amendments would create uncertainty in circumstances in which Parliament, after much discussion, has decided which lethal weapon shall be prohibited, and reasons have been given for that in endless debate. The amendments would enable the Home Secretary to change the law even after all that discussion in Parliament.
If I may say so with deep respect to my noble friend Lord Swansea and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I do not think that there is a case for introducing that sort of uncertainty, even though it is covered by the more euphemistic word "flexibility" which could be used. For those reasons, quite frankly I would not expect my noble friend Lord Ferrers to accept these amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not realise that the power is already in the Bill to add to the list of weapons to be proscribed? If it can be added to, why cannot it be subtracted from?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I appreciate that, but I still say that the amendments would create uncertainty, for the reasons I have given.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if a gun is dangerous now, I cannot see it getting any less dangerous. If we think it is too dangerous to be allowed now, I can see no reason, even if it gets any less dangerous, for it ever to be taken off the list and out of the Bill. I think therefore that the Home Secretary should continue to keep it there.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise to the House and in particular to my noble friend Lord Swansea for not having been in my place when he opened the debate on this amendment.
Although it is not the intention, the amendments could well throw open the whole debate on the self-loading rifle. It is not necessary to weary your Lordships on how and why this would arise—one has only to sit back and think and study the amendment. I am not trying to make a technical lawyer's point, but inspection offers no guidance as to what criteria should be used by the Secretary of State in exercising the proposed power. This is in effect a double hostage to fortune. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, it opens up a considerable area of uncertainty. It is not desirable in any form of legislation, quite apart from the nature of the subject matter involved.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for what has been said. If I may say so, my noble friend Lord Onslow has almost made my speech for me. If these weapons are so dangerous as to be put in the Clause 5 category, he asked whether it was likely that they would ever suddenly become less dangerous. As Parliament and the Home Secretary do not and will not put weapons into such a category without serious consideration, the idea that 10 years hence these dangerous weapons will become less dangerous and hooked out of the category, I think is unreasonable. I therefore hope that the House will not agree to the amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, my noble friend's reply brings back the whole principle of Clause 1 of the Bill. He tried to make out—indeed, successive government spokesmen have tried to make out—that certain weapons are more dangerous or lethal than others. I have tried to point out that there is no such thing as different grades of lethality. I still believe that a circumstance could arise in which something put on the prohibited list later turns out to have been put there inadvertently, unnecessarily or on false premises.
We have run this one before in Committee. My noble friend continues to stick to his opinions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("(4A) Nothing in paragraphs (ab) or (ac) of section 1(2) above shall prevent the possessing, purchasing or acquiring of a firearm in respect of which either of the two companies mentioned in section 58(l) of the principal Act issues a certificate that Ammunition for it is no longer commercially available.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not entirely happy that the amendment goes far enough. In my view we shall lose quite a lot of our heritage with the Bill. However, the amendment goes a little way to improve the position and I hope that my noble friend will find it not unreasonable.
If no ammunition is available for a weapon and the proof houses verify that, there seems no reason why the weapon should be considered dangerous. It may be that a few old rounds have been left lying about somewhere. I think that the arguments put forward earlier today about theft would not apply. In order to protect some of our heritage, I hope that my noble friend is able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I support my noble friend. There is a limited number of vintage arms of the class that would be included under Clause 1 of the Bill for which ammunition is no longer made or commercially available. It is only a small number.
For historical reasons I think that the amendment has merit. There is no definition of an antique. It is defined in some countries. It has never been properly defined in this country. At one time it conveniently covered the period of transition from muzzle-loaders to breech-loaders. That criterion no longer applies today.
The amendment provides for the limited number of self-loading and pump-loading rifles for which ammunition is no longer available and which can still be held under Clause 1. It cannot be brought into the existing system operated by the proof houses, which issue what is known as a proof exemption certificate. Such certificates are issued by the proof houses in London and Birmingham when no ammunition is available with which to test the firearm in question. It is therefore taken that the firearm concerned is unprovable. That could be an indemnity against prosecution for possession of such a firearm. I could give my noble friend examples after the debate if he wishes to be more fully informed on the matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to draw on a personal experience. I inherited from my father a German Mauser rifle captured from the Boers in the South African war. This happened for an almost sentimental reason because his name had been carved on the wooden stock. I lived with that rifle all my life.
A few years ago the firearms legislation was tightened up so that chief constables were very thorough about possession of all kinds of weapons. I disclosed to the chief constable that I had the rifle, which was self-loading. I told him that I had no ammunition for it and did not know where to obtain it. He said he feared that that was no answer, and he did not like my having the weapon. He observed that a person entering the house could steal it and that it was not locked up. He suggested that I hand it over to a museum. That I did. I think that that is the best thing to do.
My noble friends suggest that in such circumstances one would be able to keep the rifle under the law as amended or indeed under the present law. Despite my sentimental feeling about the lethal weapon, looking back on the matter I confess that there was no real need for me to have kept it. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the amendment is based on the assumption that the owner of the weapon will be able to fire it. That is crucial to the concept of the amendment. It is a total misconception, and is quite incorrect.
We all know that obsolete ammunition—old cartridges—can still be purchased at auction sales or elsewhere. There are a number of firms today which offer made-to-measure cartridge services for guns of non-standard calibre and there are now wonderful devices for home-loaded ammunition, some of them made in America, which I have seen used. if the basic assumption which supports the whole of the amendment is ill-founded, surely the amendment should not be accepted.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made a point which I have discussed with my noble friend. If one reads the reports from police stations at the moment, bucketfuls of old ammunition are being handed in that could fit some of the guns. Although I have every sympathy with somebody like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who has a weapon of that description that is of sentimental value, I am not sure that the amendment, which applies to Section 58 of the original Act, would solve the problem simply because not only can ammunition be manufactured, but there is so much of it lying about, as we have seen from the handing over of so much over the past year.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I know my noble friends Lord Burton and Lord Swansea have a great attachment to the self-loading rifle and the pump-action shotgun. I admire their ingenuity in putting down this amendment and finding yet another way of keeping these weapons in use. They will not be surprised if I tell them that the Government do not feel constrained to advise your Lordships to accept the amendment. The whole premise is that self-

1151
loading rifles and short-barrel self-loading or pump-action shotguns, chambered for ammunition of a type which is no longer commercially available, could be back in a Clause 1 category. The assumption is that the owner of that kind of gun would be unable to fire it, but that is not so. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway quite rightly said that obsolete ammunition can still be purchased, as can old cartridge cases. Other people make cartridges and ammunition especially for various guns.
I was interested to read in the August edition of Guns Review—which is no doubt a paper not unfamiliar to my noble friends Lord Swansea and Lord Burton—something that was written with great pride:
"We are delighted to be able to report over a period of time the considerable increase in availability of cases for obsolete rifles. Little could give a shooting man more pleasure than to bring some old treasure back to life by recreating ammunition which has not been commercially available for many years".
That is exactly what my noble friends want to do. They want to recreate that pleasure and bring back those old friends. I really cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps I can cap my noble friend's story about his old German Mauser rifle. I have in my possession a German Mauser antitank rifle which my grandfather captured in the services. I am much relieved to find that it is not automatic or even semi-automatic. Furthermore, I understand that, though I have no ammunition for it and have never tried it, if it were to be fired once you would not do it again because it would probably break your shoulder. It has been in the house for a very long time. I believe it arrived in 1917 or 1918 along with my grandfather's uniforms and the like, and it is really in a museum. It would be a great pity if those sort of weapons had to leave the house.
In view of what has been said and the last vote, there is no object in pursuing the matter further and I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
After Clause 1:
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Grant and renewal of shot gun certificates]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert ("or, in the case of sport and competition, because at the time of application, the applicant does not know where the gun will be used.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment to this at Committee stage. I explained that I was afraid that the police in some areas might start demanding to know where an applicant for a shotgun certificate would be using the gun and would refuse a certificate to those who could not say because they did not know. Many young men living in cities depend on invitations from their friends for weekend sport. Many enthusiastic clay pigeon shooters live in towns or cities and go for their sport wherever clay
1152
pigeon shooting is available on any particular weekend. Neither will know months, let alone years in advance, where that will be.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that the police must be able to refuse a certificate to someone living in a block of flats in a city centre whom they do not consider suitable to have one. But, as I understand it, they can already do so under subsection (1A)(b), so that they have no need to demand where the gun will be used.
The noble Earl has perhaps a more starry-eyed view of chief police officers than I have. I know of more than one instance where a police force in Scotland has harassed owners of rifles and holders of firearms certificates, nagging at them to hand in, not sell, the rifle and give up the firearms certificate. I heard of an example in England where someone was breathalysed and found to be over the limit, so the police said that he had a criminal record and initially refused to renew his shotgun certificate, although eventually it was renewed.
On 13th September I read in the Daily Express that the chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mr. James Anderton, had called for a ban on all guns and said that the only people in Britain to hold weapons should be the police and Her Majesty's Forces. I wonder how, without some such safeguard as I propose, legitimate shooters in the Greater Manchester area, for example, will fare when they apply for a shotgun certificate. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, following strong pressure from Government Back-Benchers in another place, as I understand it, the Government effectively conceded, albeit somewhat reluctantly, that chief constables would not be allowed to deprive people of their shotguns without very good cause. It is therefore surely essential that the amendment is agreed to if the Government are not to break faith with their own Back-Benchers in another place.
We should constantly be reminding ourselves of two things in our discussion on this matter. Most West European countries have minimal restrictions on shotguns. Secondly, crime which involves guns has risen no faster than crime generally over the past 20 to 25 years. In particular the overwhelming majority of police casualties are caused by knives, boots or broken bottles and not by firearms or shotguns.
A case was reported the other day of a man who had committed no offence whatever. He had applied for a shotgun certificate, but neighbours reported that he had a bad temper. If a bad temper is an excuse for depriving someone of his shotgun certificate, how much more is it a legitimate excuse for depriving him of his driving licence? After all, the average citizen is a thousand times more likely to be knocked down and killed by a sober motorist than he is to be shot by a criminal or an individual who has lost his temper.
Once we start punishing people for things that they might conceivably do rather than for crimes that they have actually committed, we are starting down a very slippery slope. Even if the Government disagree with me on the latter point, we must remember that the new phrase to be inserted is qualified by the word

1153
"merely" which is in the clause at present. In other words, if the amendment is agreed to the chief constable will still be able to refuse a licence on other grounds. Therefore, I believe that the case for resisting the amendment is weak.
5 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I believe that the amendment is somewhat surplus to requirements. While understanding entirely the intentions behind the noble Lady's amendment I have to say that it cannot be regarded as necessary and in some cases it could be misleading. The amendment clearly states:
"in the case of sport and competition",
identifying those two activities. However, the Bill states:
"if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin".
Are we to believe that if the matter comes to a court of law the applicant might not know what sport or competition, or when or where he might enter them, yet he must state specifically when and where he is to shoot vermin? I believe that the embracing words at the end of the Bill as it stands, which are there for all to see, cover the point satisfactorily without entering into further detail. I believe that the amendment is somewhat surplus to requirements.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Mountgarret on his totally correct grasp of a matter of somewhat intricate construction, with which I respectfully agree.
Viscount Mountgarret: Good Lord! My Lords, what has happened now?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend has said that the amendment is surplus to requirements. Assuredly, as a matter of construction, it is, because it can add nothing to the governing words of Clause 3(1B) as it stands. That is the first point on which one would oppose the amendment.
It is not the only point; there are two others. It could further dilute the proposed new controls and their ambit, but I shall not detain your Lordships by saying why. Thirdly, it seems to be inspired by a fear of police maladministration. With respect to the noble Lady—she speaks from experience and is entitled to her views—even assuming that she is correct, is this the way in which one should seek to deal with a fear of police maladministration? Even if it were established, I hope your Lordships will agree that it would be wrong to seek to introduce in this type of Bill a clause such as this to achieve that purpose.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I did not have the privilege of being present at Second Reading. Perhaps in his reply the Minister can say what constitutes vermin. My limited scientific knowledge suggests that it is confined to rabbits and rodents. Surely it does not include pheasants, and so forth, which some of your Lordships enjoy shooting. If that is so I believe that it should be spelt out a little more clearly because there appears to be quite a latitude.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, vermin is defined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. A section of the Act contains a list.
Earl Peel: My Lords, my noble friend is incorrect; it is "predator".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, let us leave the definition of vermin for a little while, though I accept the noble Baroness's concern, and return to the noble Lady's amendment. She tabled a similar amendment in Committee. I agree with both my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Mountgarret. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway congratulated him on getting the right answer. which seemed to surprise my noble friend Lord Mountgarret. However, I congratulate him on getting the right answer, and not for the first time.
My noble friend is right; the amendment is surplus to requirements. I should like to make the position clear. Under Clause 3 an application for the grant or renewal of a shotgun certificate can be refused if the police are satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for possessing a shotgun. Recognising that there could be differences of opinion as to what constitutes a good reason, we have included a non-exhaustive list of such reasons in the new subsection (1B). It states:
"For the purpose of paragraph (b) of subsection (1A) above an applicant shall, in particular, be regarded as having a good reason if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin; and an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use".
It will be a matter for police discretion but it must be right that an applicant should be able to show the purpose to which he wants to put the shotguns. That of course is not to say that the police would require to know details of each and every occasion or place where the gun is intended to be used.
It is not the Government's policy to reduce the number of shotguns in private hands, but we believe the public has a right to expect that only those people who have a genuine and legitimate reason for possessing a shotgun should be granted certificates. We do not wish to reduce arbitrarily the number of guns in circulation. We do not believe that the controls will affect the majority of shotgun owners who continue to enjoy their particular sport or activity much as they do now.
That is the position, but the noble Lady's revised amendment singles out sport and competition. The situation would be that an applicant, whether a city or country dweller, could simply state, if asked by the police, that he wanted to keep a shotgun in case at some time in the future he was invited to shoot on somebody else's land or to take part in a clay pigeon shoot. Putting that another way, the individual could say that he wanted it for sport and competition but that he had not quite decided where. There may be special cases where that could be perfectly acceptable, and the Government's proposals allow for that.
However, I return to a point I raised in Committee. If a gentleman of doubtful repute, say, living on the seventh floor of a high-rise block of flats in the East End said that he wanted a shotgun in case he received

1155
an invitation to shoot with the noble Lady or one of her friends within the next three years, I believe that the chief officer might think that that was not necessarily a good reason to have a certificate. In the general run of cases we are entitled to expect something more specific in order to hold what is, after all, a lethal weapon.
The noble Lady referred to a person who was breathalysed and who had then had renewal of his shotgun certificate refused. If that was the action of the chief constable, the applicant can always appeal to the Crown Court against the decision of the chief constable, as he is entitled to do.
The noble Lady referred to what was said by Chief Constable Anderton. He was merely expressing a personal view but as chief constable he must operate within the law. Any person has a right to object if he is refused a certificate.
If the noble Lady was concerned that a person may be left a gun but has no immediate use for it, Clause 3(1B) permits a certificate to be issued because a chief officer cannot refuse to issue one solely because, as the clause states:
"the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use".
That provision was introduced primarily to safeguard the position of those who have inherited guns but who do not necessarily wish to use them.
I apologise for giving that lengthy reply and I hope the noble Lady will agree that the amendment is not necessary.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who have spoken and who have been at such pains to reassure me that my amendment is unnecessary. I hope that they are right but I hope too that a later amendment standing in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and myself and intended to produce a code of practice enforceable in the courts may find greater favour. In that code of practice there might be guidelines as to the administration of applications for shotgun certificates. That would possibly produce a greater safeguard. Under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 30, after ("specify") insert ("but not limit").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have just heard the noble Earl on the Front Bench say that there is no wish to limit the number of shotguns which anyone may own. Nevertheless, I feel that it is right to move this amendment despite the fact that my noble friend on the Front Bench has an amendment in his own name which is very similar. The reason is that this amendment is rather more specific. It would provide that:
"A shot gun certificate shall specify but not limit the number and description of the shot guns to which it relates",
whereas my noble friend's amendment will say:
"A shot gun certificate shall specify the description of the shot guns to which it relates".
Our amendment gives instructions not to limit whereas the other amendment leaves the number of guns allowed to the discretion of the issuing authority. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support this amendment and ask the Government to look at the practicalities of the matter because unless the amendment is agreed to there is a danger that when an individual wants to acquire another gun during the currency of his existing certificate, he will find it very difficult to do so. People do not buy shotguns only upon the expiration of their existing shotgun licence. That will make life very difficult in the normal course of events.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I should have thought that my noble friend's Amendment No. 11 covered the principle of the noble Lady's amendment and does it rather better than the amendment now being discussed. There is a boring old legal maxim which is in dog Latin which says, broadly speaking, that if you include specifically one item in one place in a Bill it means that you exlcude it in another.
In fact, the Bill as drawn, or rather as it will be drawn if one leaves out the word "number" as in Amendment No. 11, means that there will not be a limitation as to number on a shotgun document. However, that would have this curious effect: namely, that there is a similar absence of the word "number" in the firearms certificate. If the amendment were passed in the form which is suggested, that would give rise to that very desirable thing, litigation, out of which some of us have made our lives more profitable. The suggestion would be made that the similar omission in the firearms certificate had been definitely excluded. I believe that the drafting of my noble friend's amendment is better.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Earl comes to reply, perhaps I may ask him a question. Line 30 of the Bill states:
"A shot gun certificate shall specify the number and description of the shot guns".
To me that reads slightly ambiguously because it could mean the number, i.e. six shotguns, or the serial number of the gun.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may very briefly take the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. Surely there is no doubt that if the legislation were specifically to say, as proposed by the amendment, that there should be no limit in respect of shotguns and did not do so in respect of firearms, one would have the position where the courts could well take the view that the chief officer did not have the power to impose arbitrary limits in respect of firearms. Of course that is not the intention of the amendment but it could have that legal result, which would be most undesirable.
On the problem of number and description, I would most respectfully suggest that "number" must mean numerical number and "description" must

1157
mean something else. The description of a shotgun would be with reference to the number which was embossed upon the gun.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment because the wording of the Bill at present is ambiguous and is open to misinterpretation by a chief constable who might not be so kindly disposed as are some others. I believe it is very desirable that when the Bill emerges in its final form, it should be quite clear on this point.
My noble friend on the Front Bench has made it clear on previous occasions that the intention of the Bill is not to limit the number of shotguns which an individual may hold. If that is so, why is that not made clear? This amendment would do just that. My noble friend has also said before that there is no intention that such matters as a variation of a shotgun certificate should be at all necessary in the same way as it is with a firearms certificate and that an individual should be free to hold any reasonable number of shotguns. This amendment would remove that earlier doubt, and I strongly support it.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I was a supporter of this amendment when we discussed it among ourselves prior to today but, having listened to what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway have said, it seems to me that those of us who wish to try to make life easier for those who wish to hold shotguns are in fact making life more difficult. I believe that my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the Government have gone a very long way towards helping matters because, if one takes out any reference to "number". of guns held and then goes on to say that the certificate shall specify the description of shotguns, in the plural, and, if known, the identification numbers of guns, again in the plural, ipso facto it seems to me that that is an unlimited number of weapons. That is plural and plural is anything exceeding one.
I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, having listened to the debate, although I understand what my noble friend Lord Swansea said. I do not believe that this amendment is as good as appeared at first light. I believe that my noble friend on the Front Bench has it right and that his proposal will achieve the very thing that we wish to achieve.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with my noble friends in this corner. Certain chief constables are already considerably reducing the number of firearms on a certificate and, if they can reduce the number of firearms on a certificate, there is no reason why they should not say that one cannot own more than v number of shotguns. Therefore, we are seeking to put into the Bill that they may not do that.
We have heard what Mr. Anderton has tried to do in the past and we have heard his statements. It is no use leaving this to a statement from the Minister. On many occasions in the past the Minister has made a statement expressing the intention of this House, backing what the Minister has said. But we cannot rely on that; we must write the intention into the Bill.
1158
My legal friend should know that if something is not written into an Act of Parliament it will not be complied with. Therefore, I believe that we must write into the Bill that there should be no limit.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am slightly confused because I thought we were speaking to Amendment No. 10, but much reference has been made to Amendment No. 11, tabled in the name of my noble friend. Am I out of order in speaking to Amendment No. 11?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I suggest that any observations which noble Lords wish to make about Amendment No. 11 should be made now because it covers the same point.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I merely wish to say that I support Amendment No. 11. In fact, it was my noble friend Lord Swinton who moved the amendment in Committee. Incidentally, he sends his apologies for not being here today but he has to attend a meeting in the north of England.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for having tabled this amendment which I hope removes the ambiguity that might have existed in the Bill. However, as has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Burton, there is strong evidence to prove that the police are attempting to limit the number of shotguns that an individual wishes to hold.
The Government have mentioned on several occasions that it is not their intention that that should happen and that the only constraining factor should be that of security. I ask my noble friendfor a further commitment and perhaps he would be good enough to inform me of the mechanism that will be used to prevent that happening in the future. I suggest that as a belt and braces operation it might be advisable if the Minister gave his assurance that such an indication will be given to chief officers of police through the memorandum guidance.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peel for his support. Indeed, I have a galaxy of support from behind me from whence I did not necessarily expect it. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret is, if I may say so, right again. Both the amendment of the noble Lady and my Amendment No. 11 are designed to ensure that the chief officer has no power to impose an arbitrary limit on the number of shotguns which may be held on a certificate.
There has been much confusion in this respect and I should like to seek to clarify the position. The Government have no intention of providing, or inferring, a limit on the number of shotguns to be held on a certificate. There is no provision in either the 1968 Act or this Bill to do so. New subsection (2A) in Clause 3(2) is concerned with what will appear on the face of the shotgun certificate. When a certificate is issued it will authorise the holder to possess not a shotgun, not a specific number of shotguns, but simply shotguns. If your Lordships consult Section 2(1) of the 1968 Act, which covers the possession of shotguns, you will see that it refers to an individual,

1159
"holding a certificate under this Act authorising him to possess shotguns".
That is a reference to "shotguns"—no limit, no restriction, no quota, just shotguns.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked what the word "number" in subsection (2A) means. I should first say that it is not a reference to a limit. It merely directs that the number of guns held by the applicant at the time the certificate is issued should be recorded on the certificate. There is nothing whatever to prevent the certificate holder obtaining more shotguns provided he complies with the requirements about the notification of transfers of shotguns set out in Clause 4.
I hope that that makes the position clear and explains why up to now we have resisted any change to subsection (2A). However, I recognise that some of your Lordships were uneasy about this matter in Committee and therefore I wanted to be helpful. Consequently, I tabled Amendment No. 11 which simply leaves out the words "number and". That then permits the shotgun certificate merely to specify the description of the shotguns in order to make the position quite clear. I hope that your Lordships will be able to accept that.
Now, along comes the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Northesk to say, "Let us make this clear beyond peradventure and put in the words 'without limit'";. I am bound to tell the noble Lady and my noble friend that I have some sympathy with their wish to be totally clear. As I want to be of assistance, I tried to see whether I could accept the amendment but I have to say that I cannot. We are all concerned about the imposition by a chief officer of an arbitrary limit of his own choosing. What we are not concerned with—and I am certain your Lordships will agree—are limits as a whole. Limits can be imposed for good reasons, such as inadequate security.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, were right. They said that there is the possibility of an amendment casting doubt on another part of the Bill. The amendment in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Northesk, refers to shotguns. That amendment casts doubt, by implication, on the position of firearms certificates. There is no limit to the number of firearms which may be held on a firearms certificate—provided, of course, the holder has a good reason for possessing each and every one of them. Nor is there any arbitary limit on the number of shotguns which may be held on a shotgun certificate.
However, if the legislation specifically said that there should be no limit in respect of shotguns, but did not say so in respect of firearms, the courts could well take the view, as my noble friend Lord Campbell and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, that the chief officer has the power to impose an arbitrary limit in respect of firearms.
The other reason why I cannot accept the amendment is simply that the words of the amendment suggest that there are no circumstances (if we put in those words relating to firearms as well)
1160
which a chief officer may have regard to when considering the number of shotguns to be held on a certificate. Clearly that is not so. When looking into security the chief officer is obviously bound to take into consideration the number of shotguns which are held by an applicant. If an applicant has 10 guns but has secure storage facilities for only five, then there is clearly a problem which needs to be resolved. A chief officer cannot say, "You may have a certificate for 10 shotguns when I know you have a secure place for only five of them". I hope your Lordships will agree that it is perfectly legitimate for the chief officer to take into acount the number of shotguns held in such circumstances. That is an entirely different matter from imposing an arbitrary limit on the number of shotguns which may be held, and that is the point with which your Lordships are concerned.
There is no difference in what Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 seek to do. I merely suggest, with respect, that the amendment in my name will do it better and that it will be far less confusing and far more precise.
My noble friend Lord Peel asked how we could make this intention pefectly clear. In order to make it clear we are saying that the chief constable cannot impose arbitrary limits and we shall say so in the memorandum of guidance. I have made that rather lengthy explanation because I know of your Lordships' concern. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendment in my name is actually the better. I say that with no personal accord to myself neither in any derogatory terms towards the noble Lady, but because others have advised me.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, the fact that I spoke to Amendment No. 10 in the first place has at least aired the views that everyone has wanted to put forward on this particular problem. I say thank you to my noble friend on the Front Bench for his very concise and excellent explanation. I do not believe there is any need to say anything further and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendent, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("number and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Shortening of barrels]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("a self-loading, pump-action or revolver smooth-bore gun") and insert ("any smooth-bore gun to which section 1 of the principal Act applies other than one which has a barrel with a bore exceeding 2 inches in diameter").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. In Clause 6(1) there is an inappropriate description of the smooth-bore guns in respect of which it is an offence to shorten the barrel. In another place when we altered the description of a shotgun in Clause 2(2), and removed the references there to self-loading and pump-action guns, we should have revised Clause 6(1) to bring it into line with the new formula and to avoid overlap with Section 4(1) of the

1161
1968 Act. The amendment puts this right without in any way changing the substance of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Conversion not to affect classification]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 43, after ("which") insert ("(a)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, and at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. The gun trade and sporting interests have brought to our attention two unwanted side-effects of Clause 7 as it stands at present. These three amendments seek to eliminate these side-effects. Subsection (1) provides that any weapon that has at any time come within the new definition of a prohibited weapon shall remain in that category no matter what is done to convert it. Some pump-action and self-loading shotguns manufactured abroad can accommodate interchangeable barrels of different lengths, some of which may be under 24 inches and would make the gun a prohibited weapon. We would not wish to criminalise the owner of a long-barrelled version of such a gun which, unknown to him, had once had short barrels attached and therefore remained in the prohibited category. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 will therefore exempt from the provisions of Clause 7(1) pump-action and self-loading shotguns which come within the prohibited category merely by reason of having had barrels of less than 24 inches.
Under subsection (2) as it stands, any Section 1 firearm which has at any time had a barrel of less than 24 inches would remain under Section 1 control even if converted to a shotgun or air weapon. But the barrels of a shotgun may occasionally have to be shortened during the course of repair or re-sleeving, and indeed subsection (3) already protects a registered firearms dealer who undertakes that kind of work. We also need to ensure that certificate holders will not fall foul of the law because their shotgun has changed irrevocably to a higher category while being repaired. Amendment No. 15 will therefore limit subsection (2) to guns with rifled barrels. The provision loses nothing in terms of firearms control, since the main aim is to deter the conversion of pistols to shotguns. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 4, line 45, after ("above") insert ("; and
(b) is not a self-loading or pump-action smooth-bore gun which has at any such time been such a weapon by reason only of having had a barrel less than 24 inches in length,").
Page 5, line 7, after ("a") insert ("rifled").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 [Photographs on certificates]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 31, leave out ("two") and insert ("up to four").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 9 amends Section 26(2)(a) of the 1968 Act to increase from one
1162
to two the number of photographs of the applicant which may be required by rules made under the 1968 Act to accompany an application for a firearm or a shotgun certificate. During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Blease, suggested that it would be useful to require applications to be accompanied by three photographs. This would mean that there would be one photograph on the applicant's certificate, one at the police force headquarters, and one readily available at the local police station.
Since the Committee stage, we have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the police and also the possibility of keeping photographs of certificate holders at local police stations. The police feel that as regards Great Britain such a system would have few benefits and would add considerably to the administrative work involved. We understand that this view is, in fact, shared by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. With the increasing use of computers in police firearms departments, I gather that it is now common for firearms certificates to be reprinted rather than amended manually when a variation is granted, and, in some cases, an extra photograph held by the police firearms department would be useful.
We have therefore decided that the requirement should be for up to four photographs to be submitted with a certificate application. This will enable a computerised certificate to be varied twice without the need for extra photographs to be produced by the holder. The requirement for four would impose no additional burden for applicants, since most photographic equipment commonly used for passport and other official photographs generally provides four pictures.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for drawing this to my attention. I beg to move.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for accepting the suggested changes to this clause made at the Committee stage. I feel sure that the proposed amendment will not add untoward difficulties nor additional expense to applicants for firearms and shotgun certificates. However, the proposed amendment should provide for the more helpful control and administration of firearms. The manner in which it is now contained in the Bill should allow that procedure to be implemented where necessary and in a particular way. I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Statements in support of applications for certificates]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert ("whether by reason of character, mental instability or otherwise").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the shadow of Hungerford still lies over this House while we are discussing this Bill. It is in that context and also of one other unfortunate incident which has occurred since Hungerford, that I ask noble Lords to address themselves to this amendment. Perhaps I may return to the principal Act which is the Firearms Act 1968. Section 26 deals with the rules in regard to the

1163
application and grant of certificates. Subsection 2(b) states that someone must verify,
"in the prescribed manner of any prescribed particulars and of the likeness of any such photograph to the applicant."
I am sure that with Hungerford and like incidents in mind that the Government introduced into this Bill a requirement that any application for a certificate should be accompanied by a statement by the person verifying the matters to which I have just referred to the effect that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm.
When we were debating this Bill and its whole purpose at Second Reading, and also at the Committee stage, many of your Lordships wondered at Second Reading, (and I was unable to be present at the Committee stage) whether there should be some medical certificate in regard to mental stability. That was looked into. The BMA, although in sympathy with the requirement, thought that it would create difficulties. First, it felt that it would be difficult for a doctor who might not have seen his patient for several years to say whether in his view there was mental stability or instability. There was also the practical question. The BMA thought that if this were a requirement upon doctors a fee would have to be paid and that this was an additional expense on members of the public who were applying for a certificate.
I do not think that we should leave just the bare wording to try to cover such dreadful incidents as Hungerford. It will be remembered that some people said that anyone knowing this man would have known that there was mental instability there. One should not leave it that the referee who verifies the bare technical particulars contained in the Act should have to say only that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be granted a certificate. He is given no hint as to the matters to which he should be addressing his mind. Therefore, without in any way upsetting the generality of "no reason" and purely as a reminder that this is what the referee should have in mind, my amendment gives the hint,
"no reason (whether by reason of character, mental instability or otherwise)".
There may still he cases where those who suffer from mental instability on occasions are not known to have so suffered by the referee. I cannot help it if such exceptions persist. However, my amendment calls to the attention of the referee the fact that he has responsibility in this matter. He is asked whether there is anything by way of character that he knows of. He is the one who has been chosen by the applicant. He is the friend and the person who knows him and he must not sign it if he knows of some defect of character, some instability or anything of that kind. I should have thought that by accepting the amendment, Parliament would be accepting some responsibility for dealing with what happened at Hungerford and would be trying to ensure that there is no unfortunate sequel to it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the great shadow of Hungerford to which the noble Lord referred is of the greatest possible importance. However, I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me
1164
that this cannot in any sense alter the ordinary accepted principles of legal construction. "No reason" is no reason. "No reason" includes "reason of character, mental instability or otherwise". I understand that the proposed amendment is well intentioned, but as a matter of legal application in the courts it could only have a more restricted incidence than the bare words "no reason". With respect to the noble Lord, this amendment, as a matter of construction, could—not necessarily would—upset the generality. Reminders of this nature would not usually be found in the statute where there is the widest definition of "no reason"; for there would be no necessity for any reminder.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, while the shadow of Hungerford is upon us, for anyone of my age the shadow of a police state is also upon us. Although the point about mental instability is perfectly acceptable, to put in the hands of a police officer, however high his rank, the responsibility of judging our characters seems quite unacceptable.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to put forward one further point. I feel that putting these words into the Bill, particularly in relation to an application form, might have an undesired effect. I am assuming that in my own area of Scotland someone comes to me and asks me to sign the form. I am a justice of the peace. As the Bill is now worded, I can turn around and say, "No. I am not prepared to do that". I do not have to give any reasons. If the words on the Marshalled List were inserted, I feel that the person could then turn round to me and say, "Is it because of my character? Do you consider me to be mentally unstable or otherwise?" I feel that this might not have the desired effect. I fully sympathise with the idea behind the amendment but I do not think it will work.
Lord Renton: My Lords, whenever the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, puts before us in a constructive way an idea to do with the law we listen to it with great respect. However, I wonder whether he is right when he says that the amendment would not upset the generality of the expression "no reason". I am afraid that it would. He has specifically used the words,
"whether by reason of character, mental instability or otherwise".
We know from cases in which the courts have applied the rule of construction, if I may be allowed to use a well known Latin tag, expressio unius est exclusio alterius—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Renton: I am glad to have such high learned approval. We know from such cases that very often those words are regarded by the courts as words of limitation. I am afraid that they might be so regarded on this occasion. By specifying those two characteristics, it may give them a preponderance in the minds of chief officers and of people who are expressing opinions to them that those are the things that really matter and that other characteristics, unhelpful though they may be, may not matter so much. I think

1165
of a man with an uncontrollable temper or a man who becomes nervous and jittery even when he has a gun in his hand—I have not seen many like that. There are other characteristics. Excessive drinking is a matter that the chief officer should take on board. I think that we would do better to stick to the true generality of the words now in the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have much sympathy with everything the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said; but I have a nasty feeling that, as regards the law, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton, are correct. The effect of passing an amendment of this kind would be counterproductive. I say that with some caution as I am not a lawyer myself.
I had much sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said at the beginning of his speech. I am sorry that there is not to be a medical certificate. I think that that makes the Bill far weaker. I know about the problems for the Government especially the insistence by the BMA—for entirely understandable reasons—that it would want to impose a charge. I recognise the geniune difficulty that the Government has as a result of that decision. However, we should not blind ourselves to the real difficulty of young men, who are often deeply unstable, being able to obtain shotgun certificates.
We can recall the tragic episode which took place only a few weeks ago in Walsall when a young man aged 18, lawfully in possession of a shotgun certificate, went out and shot three people. Fortunately those people did not die. It was possible—one cannot be sure—that it was a racially motivated attack because two of the victims were black. It seems to me obvious that one has to be extremely cautious when allowing such young men to have access to firearms of any sort. When the police searched his parents' home after the attack—I should say that the young man subsequently committed suicide—they found a crossbow, a starting pistol, an air pistol, two knives (one of which was a sharp machete type) camouflage clothing, including balaclavas, and camouflage cream, and so on.
There are unfortunately many disturbed young men who like to do this sort of thing. Recently in South Carolina in the United States there was an appalling episode where another young man of exactly this type—that is, a quiet, isolated young man—went out and shot three small black children in a local school. It seems to me that that demonstrates the need to be as cautious as one can be in terms of people of such a character getting access to shotgun certificates.
Having said all that, I am bound to add that I do not believe that the amendment proposed deals with the problem. In my view the only way to deal with it satisfactorily is to have a medical certificate. But, as your Lordships know, the Government have set their face against that. For the reasons I have stated I cannot support the amendment, but I hope at some later stage that we shall be able to look again at the issue of some form of medical certification.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I not only thought that the words would have a
1166
restricted meaning but, until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, speak, I should have thought that they were actually intended to have a restricted meaning. So indeed did my noble friend Lord Moyne who supported the amendment precisely on the grounds that they did have a restricted meaning.
Therefore the argument put forward by my two noble friends, who possess great learning must not refer to them as "learned" in this House) has a good deal of support. I am glad that one of them ventured upon the Latin tag which I referred to obliquely in an earlier discussion. I shall now cite another Latin tag which means—I give it in translation only—that a phrase is known by its companion phrases in the Bill. I mention that specifically so that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will not take refuge—if he will forgive me for using the phrase—behind "or otherwise". If the words are restrictive to begin with—that is, "mental instability" and "character"—then when it comes to "or otherwise" it will be said: noscitur a socciis.
Lord Burton: My Lords, this is one of the occasions when I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, although I am afraid it is not often that I am able to do so in connection with the Bill. There is a need for some tightening up in this regard. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will look again at the matter before Third Reading.
I believe that there was a case where a man's wife and a firearms dealer both went to the police about him. The man subsequently committed a murder with a firearm. I am not sure how the law stands on the matter, whether the police were in default or whether they could at some time have gone back and removed the firearms certificate on the strength of the information they received. If that is not the case, I should have thought that we ought to tighten up to the extent that if the police are given such information in all good faith—for example, if the information comes from the man's wife and a firearms dealer—it would seem reasonable to withdraw the firearms certificate.
It is possible that some of the other cases which we have heard about, such as the one which took place in Walsall, could have been stopped if someone had been able to go to the police and say, "This man is not safe to have a weapon". I am not sure about the law in this connection. I do not know whether the police can act on such information. If they cannot, perhaps we should look at the situation to see whether they will be able to do so.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, despite the remarks made by the noble and learned advocates here—I apologise to my noble and learned friend for not having described him as such earlier—the words "no reason" mean no reason. Surely that is the top and bottom of the issue, whether a person is of an exaggerated type of character, cuckoo or otherwise. No reason is no reason. Therefore the clause as drafted must be right.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is right in the matter. He said that he would like to accept

1167
something like that which is proposed. He feels that it ought to be in the Bill; but he does not think that it will be acceptable to include it. We all have the greatest of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is trying to do. There are many people who feel that if a person is not of the right character or is mentally deranged he should not be able to be in possession of a firearms certificate. Indeed, we all agree with that contention.
However, it is quite different for someone to sign a certificate certifying that he believes that the man is mentally deranged. You cannot expect your doctor to do that. That is one of the problems we had about obtaining a doctor's certificate. All we can reasonably do is to ask a person who is a counter-signatory to state that, "I know of no reason why this person should not have a certificate".
As regards the amendment itself, it specifies, "character" and "mental instability" as areas where the counter-signatory's judgment should be exercised. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that I do not think that the amendment he proposes adds anything to what is already in the Bill, other than drawing it out and spelling it out further.
If the applicant is not of good character, then clearly under the existing clause the person who is approached to verify the application will be unwilling to do so. The same can be said about mental stability. No one will sign the appliation of a person whom they believe to be mentally unstable. Therefore the application will not be signed. It is quite a different matter to say that someone ought to sign something certifying that a person is mentally unstable. That is how the Bill is drafted and I believe that it is correct: no one will verify the application of a person whom they believe to be mentally unstable.
As regards the words "or otherwise", they could be covered indeed, I think they are—in the government's proposed words. The statement by a person that:
"he knows of no reason".
means that he knows of no reason at all, or of any kind. That is a pretty comprehensive term. We then return to the problem which we faced in respect of Amendment No. 10—referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—that if we list some considerations, then others which are not specified and which ought to be taken into account might be disregarded. We do not want to imply unintentionally that the counter-signatory does not need to take into account, for example, violent outbursts or heavy drinking sessions.
We do not seek a positive evaluation of a person's character. That is the important point. It would be too difficult to obtain such a positive evaluation of his character, his mental stability, or of anything else. I think it would be too much of a burden to place on anyone who must counter-sign the application. In all probability that person would be a lay person; he will not be a doctor or a psychiatrist.
The most we can reasonably require is a simple statement to the effect that no reason is known why
1168
the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will realise that the amendment, while specifying the issues, is in fact already covered by the provisions in the Bill.
6 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I once before quoted to your Lordships a portion of a speech made by the first Lord Samuel, who graced this House, when he was making an address in honour of the centenary of the modern Civil Service. After paying a gracious tribute to the Civil Service, which had helped him so much in his career, he added the words:
"but they have a problem for every solution".
I am tempted to quote that remark on this occasion. When I heard your Lordships who have ventured not to support me on this occasion I was reminded of that quotation, because we have a problem; but all that your Lordships, including the Minister so far, have said is, "Yes, there may be a problem, but we have no solution".
The whole of this legislation was prompted by a dreadful and tragic occurrence. The public will be expecting of Parliament that it does everything it possibly can to protect the public against another incident like Hungerford and what, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, reminded us, was a subsequent dreadful incident. We have all heard from various organisations, grumbling at the fact that that incident is leading to an awful lot of restriction which they do not think will be of great use. One of those organisations is the Shooters Rights Association. I have a tender spot for that association, caused only by a letter that I have just received from it dated 15th October which commences with the following words:
"Your keeness of intellect and breadth of vision were sorely missed in the House during the Committee Stage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill".
That is obviously a very worthy association, led most capably by the person who wrote that letter to me.
Being serious for a moment, we have tried to find a way to deal with the matter of mental instability. That was what happened at Hungerford. It was not a criminal running loose. It was a lunatic running loose. What we are doing is this: in this House we have said, "medical certificate—no good". That has been finished with. Unless an amendment is brought forward on Third Reading, and so far as I know it would not be acceptable because the matter has been dealt with at the previous stages of the Bill—anyway, we know that it is not practical—we have cut out the idea of a medical certificate.
What are we left with? We are left with a bare statement not to guide the police, as was thought, I believe, by some of your Lordships, but to guide the applicant. He is supposed to know a person who is well acquainted with him. He goes along to that person for him to sign a certificate which says that the prescribed particulars are correct, and, as we leave it at the moment, "I know of no reason why the licence should not be granted".
There is no reminder such as, "Goodness gracious me, I know he did have a nervous breakdown, didn't

1169
he?" There is no reminder— this in my view applies to character—"This man really drinks terribly heavily. I know of no reason. These particulars are correct". There is a signature. I would not mind if the words were omitted from the Bill, but if the Minister were to say, "No" for good reason, as expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for both of whom, as they know, I have the most profound respect, "This would be a limitation in law", I could argue that point.
In parenthesis I say to both, "Please try to give me an example of where the limitation would in practice apply". If it is not character, if it is not mental instability, or matters related to those two matters by the words "or otherwise", can someone give me an example of what would be excluded? If they give me an example, is it not better to try to grapple with the problem and have a rare example which does not apply rather than not deal with it at all?
That would be a reminder to the person giving the reference. If the Minister says, "No, not in the statute" for the reasons given by those two learned Lords, "but what I will do is to see that on the application form where there is to be the verification 'I know of no reason' there will be an explanatory note which says 'the sort of things that you should have in mind as to reasons are mental instability, character and matters of that kind'", willingly would I sit down and say, "Right, not in the statute but, from a practical point of view, give a reminder to the referee".
When the noble Lord who hails from Scotland tells me of the embarrassment that he would have if such a matter were, presumably, on a form even, because the applicant might say, "Why are you not signing this? Is it because of mental instability? How dare you! Is it because of character?" does he really think—I say this with great respect—that if he says, "I am not going to sign this because I cannot sign 'no reason'" the person is not going to ask him why he cannot sign it?
As I said, this is the last opportunity we have to grapple with the fact that Parliament is dealing with the aftermath of Hungerford. That is the origin of the legislation. I invite the Minister, who I know will rise for a second time with the leave of the House, to say that if he cannot accept the amendment—I do not want to go on arguing on the legal technicalities—he is prepared seriously to consider a guidance note on the application form in regard to what should be considered by the person concerned before he says that there is no reason why the application should be granted.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether I would have the leave of the House to speak again, but if I were to, I should preface my remarks by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is true to his normal way of conducting a Committee or Report stage when he asks me detailed questions and says he will willingly sit down if I would like to get up and answer. I shall do my best to answer.
The noble Lord is enormously persuasive. He has a genuine point. I have told him that I do not believe it is right, for the reasons which I gave, to write those
1170
words into the Bill. The noble Lord then says, "Will you then write them on the form that the counter-signatory is going to sign"? The noble Lord will understand if I say that that was a fast ball to give an immediate acceptance to. What I will do is say—I mean this seriously—that I shall look into the point to see whether it is possible for that to be done.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it may have been a fast ball, but it was a straight ball. It was not a googly. In those circumstances, as the noble Earl has been kind enough to say that before Third Reading, he will look into the suggestion that has just been made, naturally I would want to withdraw the amendment. I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister for his promise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Revocation of certificates.
.—(1) Where a certificate is revoked by the chief officer of police under section 30(1)(a) or (2) of the principal Act he may by notice in writing require the holder of the certificate to surrender forthwith the certificate and any firearms and ammunition which are in the holder's possession by virtue of the certificate.
(2) It is an offence to fail to comply with a notice under subsection (1) above; and that offence shall be punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both.
(3) Where a firearm or ammunition is surrendered in pursuance of a notice under subsection (1) above, then—

(a) if an appeal against the revocation of the certificate succeeds, the firearm or ammunition shall he returned;

(b) if such an appeal is dismissed, the court may make such order for the disposal of the firearm or ammunition as it thinks fit;

(c) if no such appeal is brought or such an appeal is abandoned, the firearm or ammunition shall be disposed of—

(i) in such manner as the chief officer of police and the owner may agree; or

(ii) in default of agreement, in such manner as the chief officer may decide;

but subject, in a case within sub-paragraph (ii), to the provisions of subsection (4) below.

(4) The chief officer of police shall give the owner notice in writing of any decision under subsection (3)(c)(ii) above, the owner may appeal against that decision in accordance with section 44 of the principal Act and on such an appeal the court may either dismiss the appeal or make such order as to the disposal of the firearm or ammunition as it thinks fit.
(5) Subsection (4) of section 30 of the principal Act (surrender of revoked certificate within twenty-one days with extension in cases of appeal) shall not apply where the revocation is under subsection (1)(a) or (2) of that section and a notice is served under subsection (1) above; and paragraph I of Part I and paragraphs I to 5 of Part II of Schedule 5 to that Act (appeal jurisdiction and procedure) shall apply to an appeal under subsection (4) above as they apply to an appeal against the revocation of a certificate.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Balfour tabled an amendment which provided that where a person's certificate has been revoked he should arrange for his guns and ammunition to be handed over to the police. In doing so, my noble friend touched upon an important issue, and I undertook to look at it further and if possible to come back with a suitable amendment on Report.
That is what I have done. It is a complicated issue and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I explain the purpose of the amendment. The present

1171
position is that a firearm or a shotgun certificate may be revoked in the interests of public safety, or if the holder of a firearms certificate fails to deliver it up for the purpose of variation of a condition. On revoking a certificate, the police are required to notify the holder in writing and he then has 21 days from the date of the notice in which to surrender his certificate—and, by implication, to dispose of his guns—or alternatively to lodge an appeal to the Crown Court against the revocation. If an appeal is brought, the certificate holder is not required to surrender his certificate unless the appeal is abandoned or dismissed and, if it is, he has 21 days from that date to surrender the certificate.
The police have the power of search with a warrant under Section 46 of the 1968 Act, and they may seize and detain any firearm or ammunition in respect of which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been, is being, or is about to be committed. This would cover many occasions on which a certificate is revoked. Where a person is convicted of an offence under the 1968 Act, or of any other serious offence, the courts may order the cancellation of his certificate and the forfeiture of his guns and ammunition. In those cases a constable may immediately seize and retain the guns and ammunition, although 21 days are allowed for the surrender of the certificate.
However, there are occasions when the police may have cause to revoke a certificate because a holder can no longer safely be allowed to possess a firearm, and yet no offence has been involved and so the firearms concerned cannot he seized. This could be where, for example, the holder has become mentally unstable, or is habitually drunk. It seems to us, therefore, that there is a strong case for saying that where the chief officer has grounds for revoking a firearm or shotgun certificate because the continued possession of firearms or shotguns would pose a threat to public safety, any weapons and ammunition held should be surrendered to the police immediately pending the result of an appeal. I emphasise that we are talking about a very small number of cases. There is no question of allowing the police to require the surrender of guns in all cases where a certificate has been revoked for that would be unreasonably to deprive the legitimate owner. It is only in cases where there is clearly a threat to public safety that such an action can be justified.
The new clause provides that where a chief officer revokes a firearms certificate under Section 30(1)(a) of the 1968 Act, or a shotgun certificate under Section 30(2)—that is to say on grounds of public safety—he should be able, by notice in writing, to require the immediate surrender of the firearms and ammunition or, as the case may be, the shotgun to which the certificate relates. It will be an offence to fail to comply with such a notice.
Where no appeal is brought against revocation or an appeal is brought but is abandoned, the chief officer is required to dispose of the weapon and ammunition by agreement with the person whose certificate has been revoked or, where he is not the owner of the weapon or ammunition, with the owner.
1172
Where there is no agreement between them, the chief officer must notify the other person, by notice in writing, of the way in which he proposes to dispose of the weapon and ammunition. In that case the chief officer will dispose of the weapon and ammunition in accordance with his decision but subject to the right of a person who may be aggrieved by the decision to appeal to the Crown Court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff. Of course, if an appeal against revocation is brought and is successful, the firearms and ammunition will be returned to the owner. If it fails, the court may make an order for the disposal of the firearms and ammunition as it sees fit.
This is what we are proposing. I remind the House that this sort of procedure is likely to be necessary in very few cases indeed. It can only be pursued in cases where the revocation of the certificate is on the grounds of public safety. Where revocation is being effected on the grounds of failure to comply with a notice requiring the surrender of a certificate for the purpose of variation of a condition under Section 30(1) (b) of the 1968 Act, there are no compelling reasons for requiring the guns to be given up immediately, and so this procedure will not be followed. We have been careful in drafting this clause in order to provide the maximum opportunity for the certificate holder to have a say in the way in which his guns and ammunition are disposed of.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for drawing this matter to the attention of noble Lords at Committee stage. I hope that your Lordships agree that the amendment will improve the Bill and improve safety. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, unfortunately I have given fairly short notice to the Minister of a point that I wanted helpfully to make. Obviously, I am in agreement with the whole principle of the amendment. It is with a smile, having regard to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, together with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is in his seat, said on my previous amendment, that I quote to your Lordships the section with which we are dealing in the principal Act. Section 30(1) (a) says:
"If the chief officer is satisfied that the holder is prohibited by this Act from possessing a firearm to which Section 1 of this Act applies or is of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or is otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm".
I did not argue the technicalities when dealing with my amendment; I was much too keen on getting the principle home to your Lordships. However, if the reasoning is right then the words "otherwise unfitted" are limited obviously to intemperate habits or unsound mind and nothing else. Furthermore, if the logic is right, the wording ought to have been merely that the person concerned is unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm. We would then have attained the generality.
I note the very courteous re-entrance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to the Chamber. I shall quote to him the section with which we are dealing and on which he had a very learned submission to make earlier in regard to interpretation. I was reminding the House that we are

1173
dealing with Section 30 of the 1968 Firearms Act which talks of the chief officer being satisfied,
"that the holder is prohibited by this Act from possessing a firearm to which Section I of this Act applies or is of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or is otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm",
I was saying in answer to the argument of the noble and learned Lord on the last amendment—and I did not see fit to enter into a contest on it—that it is remarkable that, if his submission is right, the words "otherwise unfitted" are not limited to intemperate habits or of unsound mind or that the legislation did not merely say,
"otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm",
in order to keep the generality of the provision.
Having said this—it is completely irrelevant to the amendment—I shall go on to make my point. The amendment deals perfectly properly with the right of appeal for someone who has had his licence revoked and his firearms and/or ammunition confiscated. He goes to court and appeals. Subsection 3(a) of the amendment says,
"if an appeal against the revocation of the certificate succeeds, the firearm or ammunition shall be returned".
That is mandatory. The point I respectfully put before the Minister is that it does not allow for a situation where the appeal about revocation succeeds but the court thinks that a certain firearm or some of the ammunition should nevertheless be confiscated. I can think of various examples of that, especially if an applicant has intemperate habits, for example, and he then comes before a court and says that he has now signed the pledge. Consequently the licence is not revoked; but nevertheless some of the ammunition, the learned court may feel, should be confiscated or one example of the firearms should be confiscated, but the firearms certificate should not be revoked.
Therefore, I suggested to the Minister that after the word "succeeds" there should be inserted the words:
"then, subject to any order of the court, the firearms or ammunition shall he returned".
Otherwise, one gets the situation where a court's hands are completely tied and the court is told that if it allows an appeal it cannot, under this legislation, stop any part of the firearms or ammunition that have been confiscated being returned forthwith to the appellant. I respectfully suggest that we should cover that situation by the insertion of those words into the amendment. Naturally, I am not moving that by means of a manuscript amendment now. I draw that to the attention of the House and the Minister so that he can consider the matter between now and Third Reading. If he sees fit, he can amend the Bill accordingly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I do not suppose that there will be any reason why your Lordships should not accept the amendment as it appears on the Marshalled List. But it runs alongside the previous amendment and the arguments that that amendment contained. Looking at this situation from a practical point of view, the chances are that anyone who reaches the point of having his licence revoked should not have had it granted in the first place.
1174
The chief officer responsible for having issued a licence would not discover overnight that the holder of a licence was intemperate or not the right kind of person to hold a licence. That would have been evident before. In approving this amendment, it will not be out of order to let it run alongside other suggestions as regards how we can avoid revocation by not granting a licence in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put forward on a previous occasion a very strong argument on purely practical grounds. On that occasion this House had to rule out the acceptance of a doctor's certificate and other suggestions put forward. The noble Lord said he would be satisfied if the words of his amendment were put before the person who had to sign a statement claiming that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
I think that perhaps a more practical way of avoiding revocation by not granting a licence to the wrong people in the first place would be to follow the procedures that we adopt as regards planning permission. As an application for planning permission may interfere with the possessions of the applicant's neighbours, that application has to be publicly displayed. It must be publicly displayed that such and such an application for planning permission has been made. Neighbours and people who think they may be affected by the planning application are given a chance in the early stages to object to whatever planning application has been put forward.
If the situation as regards a certificate remains as it is at the minute, and we leave it to someone chosen by the applicant to say he is a fit and proper person, the applicant will naturally only ask someone to give that certification whom he knows will give that kind of approval. But the chances are that if such a person's next-door neighbours or relatives who knew him well were aware that he was applying for a firearms certificate, they might well, at the stage that such an application were made publicly known, let the chief officer who had to grant the certificate know of the doubts that they had as regards the applicant. If such doubts were expressed, the chief officer would have a chance of investigating the premises where the firearms would be kept before granting a certificate. If that procedure had been followed in the case of Hungerford or Walsall—which is my home town—things might have turned out differently.
In the case of the young man in Walsall who was involved in a shooting incident, the neighbours had always said that they thought he was intemperate. I have no doubt that the same case would apply to the neighbours in Hungerford as regards the young man involved in the shooting incident there. If the neighbours in both towns had known that the young men involved—whom to their daily knowledge were intemperate enough not to be allowed to hold a firearm—had been applying for a firearms certificate, they could have given evidence and prevented the certificates being granted in the first place.
When my noble friend considers the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, as regards inserting extra words in the legislation, I hope that, before we reach Third Reading, he will also look at the practicalities of advertising an application for a

1175
firearms certificate in a local paper or, as in the case of planning permission, ensuring that a notice is displayed in the area concerned. If that were the case, it may well be that instead of having to rely upon the point of view of a friend of the applicant, one could then obtain the views of people who really knew him. That is a practical idea which could be looked at alongside the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, in the meantime, it is perfectly obvious that we must accept the amendment as it now stands on the Marshalled List.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I wish to raise the matter of compensation. That worries me somewhat. It appears that the individual who has had his licence revoked must to all intents and purposes negotiate with the police about the fate of his weapon. If no agreement can be reached, it is up to the chief officer what happens to the weapon.
What guarantee can the Minister give that a person will receive proper compensation should this situation arise? To overturn a police decision, a firearms owner would have to go to court. Obviously that could be a very expensive operation. I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's reply to those points.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to make a brief comment without coming to the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We are all in debt to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for having raised this matter in Committee. This amendment is highly desirable and will increase that essential degree of confidence on the part of the public that we are doing our job properly and ensuring, to a greater degree than was previously the position, their safety. I welcome the amendment without any reservation at all.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wish to add a few further words at this stage. In reading the Firearms Act 1968 and the Firearms Bill, I noticed particularly that Section 30(4) of the Act stated that:
"Where a certificate is revoked by the chief officer of police under this section, he shall by notice in writing require the holder to surrender the certificate; and it is an offence for the holder to fail to do so within twenty-one days from the date of the notice".
But I could find nothing in the legislation that said what happened to the guns. My whole idea in putting this forward was that at least if the guns were in the hands of the police they were in safe keeping. In that respect I must thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers very much for coming forward with what has turned out to be a rather complicated addition to the Bill.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I wish to intervene at this stage on the point that my noble friend Lord Peel made about compensation. The basic facts are that although a court or the chief constable of police may order a weapon to be confiscated or removed from the person who owns it, the right to continue to own that weapon is not removed from that person. There is a world of difference there. One may have, after such an order, the right to have a firearm in one's possession, but one will have to surrender the firearm itself.
1176
As I know only too well, the police are more than happy to have a weapon handed in to a recognised firearms dealer or, alternatively, for the owner to make whatever arrangements he wishes to sell it. But, in the meantime, the owner is not in possession of the weapon although that weapon is still his property. A court is not confiscating a weapon which belongs to that person; it is merely removing the right for that person to have his property in his possession.
Therefore, I am not sure that the question of compensation arises. It is still up to the owner to decide what to do with his property: whether to leave it in the hands of a registered firearms dealer for however long it may be before he gets his licence and certificate back or to make arrangements to sell it if he no longer requires it. There is no question of the confiscation of private property.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, several points have been raised in connection with this amendment. I hope that my noble friend will feel inclined to take note of them and not press the amendment at this stage but bring it back at Third Reading.
One aspect of the amendment to which I should like to draw his attention is the position which arises where no appeal is made or an appeal is abandoned and the applicant accepts the decision of the court. The owner and the police may agree on the disposal of the firearm. However, if they do not agree the decision is left to the police. In order to overturn the police decision the owner would have to go to court. He may not be able to do so for financial reasons, particularly if he had abandoned his original appeal on those grounds. It is unlikely that he would want to go to court again to appeal against the decision regarding the disposal of the firearm.
The whole procedure looks to me to be very cumbersome. I wonder whether there is any need for the police to be involved at all. The owner should be entitled to dispose of the firearm concerned through a registered dealer for the best price which he can obtain for it. I hope that my noble friend will take on board the points which have been made and perhaps not ask the House to accept the amendment at this stage.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Swansea thinks that the procedure is cumbersome I can only tell him that it is in order to protect the interests of the individual at every stage that the amendment is longer than he would wish. He will know as well as I do that if the amendment had been shorter we should have been accused by him of steamrollering over the interests of the gun owner. I do not think that the procedure is unduly cumbersome. All we have tried to do is to ensure that if the owner of the firearm is found to be in such a state that his ownership is against the interests of public safety the firearm should be removed. Thereafter there is the whole gamut of appeals, disposal and so forth.
My noble friend Lord Balfour said that he could only see that the certificate had to be surrendered.

1177
However, if he looks at subsection (1) of the amendment he will see that it says:
"he may by notice in writing require the holder of the certificate to surrender forthwith the certificate and any firearms and ammunition which are in the holder's possession by virtue of the certificate".
If it were the case that a person was considered to be holding ammunition and weapons that he should not hold because he had become unstable, a police constable would go to his house, no doubt with a letter requesting him to hand over the ammunition and the weapons.
The owner then has the right to appeal to the court. The items are not destroyed. As my noble friend Lord Mountgarret quite rightly said, they are still in his ownership. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret was again entirely right—any such weapons remain perpetually the property of the owner. My noble friend Lord Peel asked about compensation. I should tell him that there is no compensation because the gun is not forfeited. The owner can arrange with the chief officer of police to sell it and he will receive the selling price.
Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to give way. What guarantee can my noble friend give that the owner will receive the proper selling price? Unless the sale is conducted through a registered dealer, I do not see how that is possible.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend must remove from his mind the word "compensation". What happens is that weapons are confiscated. The case goes to court and if it is considered that the owner should no longer own the weapons, it is then up to him to decide how best to get rid of them. It may be that he will say, "I shall give them to my brother or my nephew". Or he may say, "I do not want these things, I shall sell them". It is up to the chief officer and the owner to decide how best to get rid of the weapons which the court has decided he should no longer have. Halfway through his speech the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon indicated that what he had said was an irrelevance because he was referring to another amendment. I am glad that he said that because I was busily reading through the amendment to see what it was to which the noble Lord was referring. The noble Lord was kind enough to give me advance notice of the points which he wished to make.
Where an appeal against a revocation succeeds, the certificate continues in force because the court considers that it should not be revoked. The firearm must be returned to the successful appellant. There is no question of the court having any power to order otherwise. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has in mind may be that, say, six items are covered by a firearms certificate and the court may consider that one item should be removed. It is important to remember that what is being considered here is the revocation of the certificate, which covers all six items. If the certificate is revoked, the ownership of all six will go.
It would be a curious situation if it was considered that public safety was at risk if the owner had one
1178
particular weapon but the public was not at risk if he had the other five. If that peculiar hypothetical situation were to come about so far as I know there is no reason why the owner of the certificate which had been revoked could not then reapply to the chief constable for another certificate for the five items which apparently under the court's decision would be acceptable.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl is very kind. I did not have that example in mind at all and I apologise if I did not make myself clear. I had in mind that the court's discretion ought not to be interfered with by this Bill when it becomes an Act. As we noted when we looked at the principal Act, there are many reasons why a certificate may have been revoked—intemperate habit, the wrong weapons in the owner's possession, "or otherwise", if I may again, with great bitterness, quote those words.
There may well be a case in which ammunition has been confiscated which is not improperly in the possession of the person whose licence has been revoked. The court may say, "We have listened to the explanation, it is a perfectly reasonable one. We shall not revoke the certificate but we shall see that the ammunition or this one weapon which is being confiscated remains in the possession of the police". All I have suggested is that Section (3)(a) should leave the court with discretion instead of making it mandatory for the ammunition or firearms which are being confiscated to be returned. I said that if an appeal against the revocation of the certificate succeeds, then (subject to any order of the court) the firearm or ammunition shall be returned. So the court's discretion in such a case, and it may be an unusual one, is retained.
I do not ask for a yes or no answer now because I gave extremely short notice to the noble Earl. I do not in any way oppose the general principle of this amendment but simply ask him between now and Third Reading to consider what I have said. If he feels that it is worthwhile he can insert the words into the Bill before Third Reading; if he does not consider it worthwhile, I shall understand that my suggestion has been thrown into the wastepaper basket.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whatever happens to the noble Lord's suggestion, it will not go into the wastepaper basket. He is too much of a respected figure to have such treatment given to his suggestions. I shall certainly give consideration to what he has said.
It is a dangerous thing to give an off-the-cuff answer to a lawyer, but perhaps I might say that it is the certificate which is called up for revocation because the chief constable thinks that it ought to be revoked. if the court were to say, "No, the certificate ought not to be revoked and the man has the right to hold it", then the owner has the right to hold the certificate with all the weapons and under all the conditions mentioned therein. I shall certainly look into the noble Lord's suggestion.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls suggested that everyone who wanted a firearms certificate should have that fact advertised in the local paper. I rather fancy that that would add considerably to the

1179
bureaucratic processes, although it might also well add to the revenue of the local newspaper. In the days when my noble friend was a Member of Parliament, had he advertised the fact that he intended to request a certificate for a firearm, it might well be that one or other of his less agreeable opponents might have written in and complained vigorously about such an action. It is a matter for speculation whether those opponents would have been sufficiently knowledgeable to understand my noble friend's character and abilities for drink and otherwise—characteristics which seem to have been referred to so much this evening. However, I do not believe that the answers to a local newspaper advertisement would really offer a very good description of anyone's character still less that of my noble friend. I shall certainly look into the point that he has made also. I hope that your Lordships will be able to approve this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 12 [Firearms dealers]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 24, leave out ("to a substantial extent") and insert ("from premises rated for business purposes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the definition of a dealer. We have kicked this point around a number of times in the course of discussing this Bill and it has been difficult to confirm whether or not a dealer deals in firearms and ammunition to a substantial extent and how that "substantial extent" should be defined.
The Gun Trade Association has offered the wording set out in this amendment which I think is reasonable. I commend it to your Lordships. The example I have in mind is a village ironmonger in a rural area who might deal in firearms and ammunition as a sideline so far as his business is concerned; it might or might not form a substantial part of that business. Presumably his premises would be rated as business premises and come within the ambit of this amendment.
I believe that this is a reasonable definition in place of the present wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am somewhat puzzled by this amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, would be able to give me an immediate answer without breaking the rules of the House. I should have thought that every firearms dealer necessarily occupied premises that were rated for business purposes. I may be wrong about that; but if not, it is something that puzzles me.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, at present there are a number of people who have firearms dealers' licences—for example, because they collect firearms or carry out repairs to firearms for other people, perhaps for their friends—without being a professional dealer or professional gunsmith. Those are the kinds of people whom I have in mind. I hope that answers my noble friend's question.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I think that this amendment is an improvement on the Bill as it stands. A number of noble Lords are not at all happy with the present wording of this Firearms Bill. There are a number of small firearms dealers who do very useful work, especially in the remoter areas of Northern Scotland, for example, where I can think of some very useful ones.
It occurs to me that there could be a difficulty in that the premises would have to be transformed into a shop in view of the fact that dealers would only be rated for a community charge. They may be all right at the moment as rated premises, but I am not sure of the effect once the community charge comes into operation.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Renton, perhaps I may say that one could be a firearms dealer and deal from one's home premises whereas one's stock, if it can be called that, is in a much safer place. The stock and actual exchange may well take place in a protected building well away from the registered office. That is a good thing because it means that the firearms are under safer control in such premises than if they are left in normal business premises.
I should have thought that the wording as it is now which refers to firearms dealing "to a substantial extent" recognises that that is what the person is really doing—he is a firearms dealer, and that ought to be officially recognised. It is a better way of getting the right man than saying that he has to be somebody who operates from a shop. I prefer the words of the Bill to those suggested by my noble friend.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, when the community charge is introduced in April 1989, it will only be a substitute for domestic rates. Business premises will continue to be rated.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend suggests that the words "to a substantial extent" should be replaced by the words:
"from premises rated for business purposes".
We introduced the criterion of "a substantial extent" because of anxieties that at present some people register as dealers or might register as dealers in the hope of raising a little cash by casual part-time dealing. We do not suggest that such people are untrustworthy, but we believe that registration as a firearms dealer, with all the responsibilities which that entails, should in general be limited to those who are substantially involved in the business of the sale, manufacture, testing or repair of firearms. I might add that the Gun Trade Association has indicated that it has no objection to that.
With regard to the reference of rating for business purposes which this amendment wishes to substitute for the substantial extent test, it would virtually allow any business from a scrap dealer to a betting shop to qualify where the premises are rated for business purposes. That clearly cannot be right. In tightening up the existing provisions on dealers we are not concerned only with the part-time or occasional dealer who operates from domestic premises.

1181
Wherever the business is situated, the dealer must be engaged in it to a substantial extent if he is to be regarded as somebody who can properly be registered for the purposes of the Bill. I think that that must be right and I hope that your Lordships will agree with it.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with my noble friend's reply. He must be aware, as my noble friend Lord Burton mentioned, that, for example, in the north of Scotland a number of small shops in country areas, such as the village ironmonger, do a very useful trade with the local residents in firearms and ammunition as a sideline to their normal business.
It all depends on what one means by "dealing to a substantial extent". It might or might not represent a large proportion of a person's normal trade, and we have not yet come up with any really satisfactory definition of what constitutes "dealing to a substantial extent". I wonder whether my noble friend can help me on this point.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the words "substantial extent" are deliberately imprecise. I think I said at Committee stage that if you were to go to Harrods and buy a firearm, it would be wrong to say that they were not trading to a substantial extent just because it did not happen to form a very large proportion of their total turnover—not that I know what that is, but I would suspect that firearms do not form a very substantial part of it. Nevertheless they deal in that trade to a substantial extent.
This amendment catches those persons who carry on their lives and businesses in such a way that dealing with firearms forms a substantial part of their business. We are trying to remove those people who, if one might so put it, "tinker around a hit" with guns in a very acceptable and perhaps suitable way in order to earn a small amount of revenue on the side and who by so doing claim to be dealers. They are not dealers. They come under a separate part of the Bill and I think it is right that the words "substantial extent", which are deliberately imprecise, should be kept in the Bill.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, there is so much in legislation which is left to the discretion of the courts that it is quite appalling that Parliament is so deliberately vague from time to time. We always pass the buck to the courts to decide in the long run. However, after what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Offence of selling firearms etc, by mail order.
. (1) It is an offence to sell or let on hire any firearm or ammunition by mail order.
(2) A sale or letting on hire is by mail order when the offer is communicated by the postal service or by telephone, telegraph, facsimile transmission or similar means or by advertisement in any newspaper, journal, magazine, periodical or circular and the acceptance is communicated by such means or by delivery of the goods.
(3) A sale or letting by hire is not prohibited by this section if after any time after the offer and before delivery the purchaser (or his agent duly authorised in writing) attends at the premises of the vendor and then produces his certificate for inspection by the vendor.
(4) An offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding levels on the standard scale or both.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to address your Lordships at any length at all on this amendment, which seeks to make it a criminal offence for arms to be sold by mail order. Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs dealt with this amendment, most effectively at the Committee stage. and it was then withdrawn.
I should like to remind your Lordships of what we are trying to do in this legislation. We want to ensure that weapons which we regard as dangerous weapons do not get into improper hands. We concentrated, very rightly, on such safeguards as photographs. During this Report stage we have altered the number of photographs from two to four in order to have further safeguards by way of record. The whole object of the exercise has been to ensure that people who should not be in possession of these dangerous weapons are not in possession of them.
The avenue that we have not explored—this was dealt with at Second Reading in quite a few of the speeches and I ventured to mention this myself in the speech I made at Second Reading—was the escape route, which can easily be by way of mail order. The question was asked at the Committee stage, and remained unanswered, as to what is to stop somebody who wrongly gets hold of a licence upon which a photograph exists sending that through mail order and then, quite improperly, getting weapons as a result to which he would not otherwise be entitled.
The sole reply of the noble Earl was to the effect that one would not expect people to cheat in this way and that if they were using wrong names, that really was not playing the game, if I may say so without offence. With respect, that is not the way this matter ought to be dealt with. There is nothing to stop somebody from sending a photograph through on a stolen or lost licence. The mail order people will have no knowledge at all as to whether this is a false photograph of the person asking to be supplied. This is a very dangerous way of multiplying the supply of weapons.
The other objection put forward by the noble Earl the Minister at col. 1371 of Hansard on 20th July, was that this:
"would probably harm a sizeable sector of the gun trade. I am not sure that we would wish to do that, if there were no great benefit to be obtained by it. No evidence whatever has been brought to our notice to suggest that there is a problem over mail order sales of firearms and shotguns. I think the situation should he tighter as a result of the Bill. We should be careful not to impose unreasonable burdens on legitimate shooters who wish to make their purchases by way of mail order".
Perhaps I may comment on that. Nobody wishes to harm people who are legitimately engaged in business, but advertisements appear and the encouragement to purchase firearms by mail order firms is well known and is not deemed to be socially desirable. Indeed when we were discussing this matter

1183
at Committee stage nobody took a party line on this and I hope that nobody is taking a party line on this legislation now. Various Members of your Lordships' Committee raised their voices, from whatever section of the Chamber they came, in support of the fact that something ought to be done about the mail order business, because this was a way by which Parliament could stop somebody dealing and saying, "You have done lots of things but you have not stopped us".
I would emphasise the point that it is all very well to talk about there being no evidence. There have been lots of complaints from various organisations. Indeed I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, who has fought a gallant fight for what he thinks is right in regard to this Bill, has complained, with others, that little or no evidence has been brought before us. The Home Office has not conducted any real research into the matters that have led to this Bill. The Bill has been a reaction—a correct reaction, in my respectful view—to a dreadful episode where Parliament thought that there was public concern about the acquisition of firearms, and that something had to be done about controlling them. It was thought that persons who had firearms should be looked at very carefully, together with how they obtained them. We left this mail order channel completely unchalleged. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I support the amendment. In the early stages of consideration of the Bill I received in the post—as other noble Lords may have done—certain magazines that I shall not name. In them was depicted the most appalling collection of weaponry, guns and every conceivable dreadful thing that one can imagine, including crossbows. I note that crossbows are not covered in the Bill.
These magazines are readily available. I do not blame the young who buy them—I am not getting at them—or, indeed, the old. It is easy to come by the magazines. One can be very tempted by them. One sees the beautiful knives and wonderful guns that can do this, that and the other. It is easy to obtain them by mail order. I think that it is unfair to make it so easy to obtain such weapons.
The amendment satisfies many requirements. By all means let such goods be advertised. Many people who live in far away places wish to know about them. However, one must go to the premises and produce one's certificate, and so on. I think that the amendment has much to commend it.
7 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I think that the amendment is not necessary. Under the 1968 Act sale or purchase by mail order or over the counter is subject to the same rules. The rules apply to all cases, including mail order. Many people are wrongly under the impression that one can write to a firm advertising in a magazine, order what one likes and get it. One cannot. It is subject to the same procedure whether for firearms or for shotguns. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret mentioned crossbows. They are not firearms.
1184
Advertising by firms in certain specialist magazines forms an important part of revenue for the magazine publishers. Many people buy the magazines, which are very popular. Many people are keen on shooting with one firearm or another. They buy the magazines because they are interested in shooting of various kinds. The magazines depend on revenue from advertisements. To stop mail order sales would create a serious situation for the magazine publishers. The amendment is not necessary.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I declared an interest at an early stage of consideration of the Bill. I repeat it: I am director of a firm of London gunmakers.
I have a reservation about the amendment. I think that it goes wider than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes in regard to mail order selling of guns. In the experience of the gun trade and certainly of the company with which I am concerned quite a lot of guns—indeed, a great deal of ammunition too; but I understand that the amendment does not refer to ammunition—are bought by customers of many years' standing of the firm in question. They write in, particularly from places like Scotland and say, for example, "Make me a gun like the one you made me five years ago". This kind of trade, which I think no noble Lord would wish to stop, will be badly affected if the amendment is carried.
In the case of rifles it is customary for people to leave their firearms certificates with their normal gun dealer. He enters on the certificates guns that come in and out and, indeed, ammunition that goes in and out as it is ordered by telephone and letter. The amendment would cause great difficulty to this perfectly legitimate trade.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords it may assist in the debate if I intervene briefly. The example that the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, gave would be excluded. The amendment deals only with the situation where the offer to sell is communicated by post or advertisement. There would be no objection to a person who wished to order himself coming under the provision.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I have a query. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause requires that,
"the purchaser (or his agent duly authorised in writing) attends at the premises of the vendor".
In country districts, particularly in Scotland, the gunsmith may well be many miles from the residence of the certificate holder. As the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, said, it is common practice for the certificate holder to leave the certificate with the gunsmith. When ammunition is required he telephones his order and has it sent. A stalker in the season cannot take time off just to go shopping.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was not present in Committee. When I first read the amendment, it seemed rather attractive, but on further thought I came to a different conclusion.

1185
We must accept that an increasing amount of the retail trade of the country is being done by mail order, much of which is perfectly respectable. Noble Lords in their different ways will know several remote areas of the country. I think of my old constituency of Huntingdonshire, a large rural area of 370 square miles. There was only one firearms dealer from whom it was possible to buy a shotgun or a rook rifle although several ironmongers in half a dozen different parts of the constituency sold ammunition. In the case of more remote areas like parts of Scotland one would have to go a long way to find a firearms dealer. It might be much more convenient to try to obtain a legitimate firearm through a mail order business or an advertisement in the Shooting Times.
As I said, I then had doubts about the wisdom of the amendment. If there is any fear as to breach of security through mail order business and the transport of arms, I hope that that is covered by Clause 13, which is fairly comprehensive.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Throughout the Bill we have not pursued party lines. This has cut across party. I hope that that is true on both sides of the House. The noble Lord mentioned that in Committee the Minister said that there is no problem and, if there were a problem, the Home Office would know about it. If the Minister, with the knowledge of the Home Office behind him, can assure the House that there is no problem, we have to accept it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in my view the wording of the amendment is too categoric although one sees the point of it. The opening words are:
"It is an offence to sell or let on hire any firearm or ammunition by mail order".
The only inference one can take from that is that there is something wrong with mail order business. While we wish to avoid the possibility of firearms getting into the wrong hands, we ought to find some way of doing that without suggesting that it is automatically wrong if this is done through the mail order system. As my noble friend Lord Swansea said, the same probing is undertaken that occurs when the transaction is done over the counter.
I do not think that it would be wise to accept this categoric new clause, which implies that a legitimate part of the nation's business, mail order, is intrinsically wrong because it is mail order.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, for once I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It was explained to me in February this year that from two big mail order catalogues it was possible to buy various bits of a gun, then put them together without having to produce a certificate. I know that quite a few friends who are firearms dealers feel that through mail order firms people are able to do things which they themselves would not do. That is why I support the amendment. There may be drafting problems, but that is another matter.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the recent answer of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was not adequate. What he has described in the amendment as "mail order" is not mail order. He said that the answer to the objection made was that the man wrote in first. Let us suppose that my perfectly normal gun dealer sends me this year's price list—an offer communicated by the postal services. I am about to order a gun. I see that the dealer is quoting a favourable price, and that is what I want: but he tells me that there would be an offence. It all depends on whether I wrote in first or whether the price list arrived at my house the day before. I cannot believe that the noble Lord means to apply a prohibition whenever one receives from one's normal gun merchant his standard price list for ammunition included along with firearms.
Lord Burton: My Lords, if my noble friend says that the law is being evaded then clearly one needs to do something to stop that evasion. On the other hand, the White Paper which initiated the legislation stated categorically that this was not the case and that the evidence was that mail order sales were not being used to evade the law. I do not know which is right; but clearly it is something that should be looked at. If there is evasion of the law then something should be done about it. If the law is not being evaded I can see no good reason why mail order should not continue.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I begin with an apology because by misfortune I was not here to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Therefore, I did not have the advantage of hearing the arguments he deployed in favour of the amendment. I have some sympathy for the general thrust of what the noble Lord has suggested. I was captivated by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the Home Office is such a remarkable department—he and I have both had the privilege of serving in it—that it knows basically the answer to every single problem facing mankind. That is possibly a marginal overstatement of the wisdom of the Home Office.
What we have to recognise is that the Bill lays down a far more restrictive regime for shotguns. There is no point in discussing the position of mail order sales under the old regime. We are now concerned with the new and more restrictive regime. The question before us is: can the general objectives of this new regime be consistent with the retention of mail order sales, which have undoubtedly caused a substantial degree of public disquiet? I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will say; but I do not think that we should underestimate the public concern on this question. It has to be met.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, on the face of it most people will sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for trying to tighten up the law. It would seem that if these weapons and ammunition are sent around by mail order there appears to be a loophole. I must tell the noble Lord—in this I am grateful for the help of my noble friend Lord Renton—that we have not had any evidence to suggest that there is a problem with mail order sales. Therefore if we cut

1187
down on them we must be quite certain that we are cutting down for good reason. We have not found that there is a good reason.
Moreover, we also have to be careful not to impose unreasonable burdens on the legitimate shooters who wish to make their purchases by way of mail order, such as those to whom the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred. Those who live in far away parts of the country cannot always avail themselves of the time to purchase their ammunition or rifles.
The person who purchases a Section 1 firearm, ammunition or shotgun by mail order has to send in his certificate. My noble friend Lord Swansea is entirely right. Exactly the same rules apply when people purchase by mail order as they do when they purchase over the counter. A person has to send in a certificate. In future a shotgun certificate will also have to be produced for the mail order purchase of shotgun ammunition. That will bear the holder's home address so it will not be easy for anyone else to use the certificate for mail order purchases.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked: what happens if a thief steals a firearms certificate and then goes to buy some ammunition with it? One could venture into the realms of fantasy for a moment. Perhaps, I may assume that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, turned his colours, became a criminal and stole my firearms certificate. Having done so, he wrote off to a mail order firm and asked for 1,000 rounds of ammunition. He would send my certificate with his application. Much to his surprise, the 1,000 rounds of ammunition would come not to him but to me because it is up to the mail order firm to assure itself that it is sending the ammunition or the weapon to the person whose name is on the certificate. The goods would not go to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Having said that, one cannot ever be certain that nothing will be stolen. If that happens that of course is up to the owner of the certificate. Firearms and shotgun certificates will in future carry a footnote requiring the certificate-holder to notify the police if his certificate is lost or stolen. The police will then be able to circulate the details of the stolen or lost certificate to the appropriate dealers. If a mail order company fails to ensure that it is sending firearms to a properly authorised person, it stands the risk of losing its licence to deal in firearms.
For those reasons it would be inappropriate to accept the noble Lord's amendment. The mail order business is quite substantial and so far as we know it is conducted perfectly reputably.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, naturally I am grateful to the noble Earl for replying to the amendment. I wish I could express the same gratitude for the content of the reply in the sense that if he has to take examples of somebody who is a criminal and somebody who is an innocent sender, I ask him occasionally to reverse the situation and make himself the criminal and me the innocent sender. On quite a number of occasions the noble Earl has given ingenious examples and I have always appeared as the rather wicked person in the examples.
1188
However, to take that example and to treat the matter seriously the noble Earl has to take it for granted that I am possessed of some subtlety in my criminal life. All I therefore have to do is to say that I am Earl Ferrers with an address at the House of Lords. It would be much more convenient if the dealer were to send the goods to my new address or to a much more convenient address for the housing of ammunition and rifles. I could then give my address and the postman could pop it through my letterbox or bang on the door to deliver the goods. That would be that. The example, apart from seizing on an innocent person and calling him a criminal, is not a good one.
In my view the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made a valid point that I tried to make in my opening speech but which he did not hear. It was this: we are dealing not with a regime where, presumably, there were no problems because the legislation was not before Parliament, had not been enacted; and there was no question of checking by having photographs on certificates, licences and so on. We have said that we must have such protection. Then one leaves the door wide open by saying, "Although in normal circumstances you would have to present your certificate at the counter, and the assistant could check that you were the person concerned by looking at the photograph, you will not have to do that in mail order. We are going to allow mail order to continue". That must be wrong under the new regime. That was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was making.
I ask the Minister not to rise now and say that he accepts the amendment. It is a fairly late hour, the House is not very full and I should not wish to divide it. However, perhaps the Minister will at least say that the matter will still have the consideration of the Government. Therefore if they decide against the amendment we can deal with the matter at Third Reading. If, on the other hand, he says in all frankness that the Government will never agree to this, I am afraid that I must divide the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I rise on this occasion, oddly enough, not at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon (it is usually his peroration to invite me to rise again) but first to apologise to him for the grief which I have evidently caused by hypothesising him as being a criminal. It merely helps to exemplify the position, to sharpen one's mental aptitudes and to extend one's imagination even further.
He put forward an argument that one could forward a certificate and state that one had changed addresses. That will not wash because it is up to the mail order firm to know to whom it is selling its equipment, ammunition or rifles. That is its responsibility. If it accepts someone else's instructions to send the equipment to a different place, the responsibility is specifically on the mail order firm to ensure that it sends that equipment to the right place.
I believe that it would be procedurally inappropriate to bring back at Third Reading a

1189
matter which has been considered at Report stage and which is not new. For that reason it would be inappropriate to bring the matter back again.
I am hound to tell the noble Lord that I am unable to accept the amendment because I believe that the mail order business conducts itself correctly and properly. At the moment we have no evidence to believe that it conducts itself in such a way as to be a danger.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to make clear the fact that I am not insulting the mail order business in any way. I am merely trying to prevent something being ridden right the way through the protective legislation as a result of the criminal acts of others. In those circumstances I must divide the House.
7.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 79.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mar, C.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B. [Teller.]

Mountgarret, V.

Grey, E.

Munster, E.

Hampton, L.

Nelson, E.

Hanworth, V.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kagan, L.

Seear, B.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Arran, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Grantchester, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marylebone, L.

Burton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Caithness, E.

Hives, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hooper, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carnock, L.

Liverpool, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Colwyn, V.

Margadale, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Marley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Denman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Onslow, E.

1190

Orkney, E.

Strange, B.

Peel, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Suffield, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Swansea, L.

Radnor, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Renton, L.

Torphichen, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trafford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Tranmire, L.

Savile, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Selborne, E.

Trumpington, B.

Sharples, B.

Tryon, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.33 to 8.30 p.m.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Borrowed rifles on private premises.
.—(1) A person of or over the age of seventeen may, without holding a firearm certificate, borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the presence either of the occupier or of a servant of the occupier if—

(a) the occupier or servant in whose presence it is used holds a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle; and

(b) the borrower's possession and use of it complies with any conditions as to those matters specified in the certificate.

(2) A person who by virtue of subsection (1) above is entitled without holding a firearm certificate to borrow and use a rifle in another person's presence may also, without holding such a certificate, purchase or acquire ammunition for use in the rifle and have it in his possession during the period for which the rifle is borrowed if—

(a) the firearm certificate held by that other person authorises the holder to have in his possession at that time ammunition for the rifle of a quantity not less than that purchased or acquired by, and in the possession of, the borrower; and

(b) the borrower's possession and use of the ammunition complies with any conditions as to those matters specified in the certificate.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friends Lord Dilhorne and Lord Kimball tabled amendments which were aimed at regularising the practice of lending estate rifles to visiting shooters. I indicated that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kimball was unacceptable because it was too wide. However, the lending of estate rifles is a widespread practice which poses no threat to public safety if properly supervised. Therefore, I said that I would carefully consider the matter to see whether we could come forward with a proposal.
The new clause proposed in Amendment No. 21 provides a system which I hope will meet with my noble friends' approval and that of your Lordships. It will enable a person of not less than 17 years of age to borrow, without holding a firearms certificate, a rifle—but not any other Section 1 firearm—from the occupier of private premises, and to use it on those premises in the presence either of the occupier or of any servant of the occupier who himself holds a firearms certificate in respect of that rifle. I understand that it is fairly common for a rifle which

1191
is held on a landowner's firearms certificate to be held also by his gamekeeper or gillie on a firearms certificate.
The exemption is, however, subject to the proviso that the borrower of the rifle has it in his possession and uses it in accordance with any conditions relating to the possession or use of the rifle which are specified on the firearms certificate held by the person in whose presence he is entitled to use the rifle; that is, the conditions in the lender's certificate or the servant's certificate, depending on which of them is accompanying the borrower during the shoot.
One of the conditions normally attached to a firearms certificate under Section 27(3) of the 1968 Act is a condition restricting the use of a firearm to a particular area. The main effect of this proviso therefore in the case of the borrower will be to restrict his use of the borrowed rifle to the same area as that authorised for the certificate holder.
The new clause also makes provision for the borrower to purchase or to acquire ammunition for the rifle which is borrowed, without the need to hold a firearms certificate. He may possess any amount of ammunition to the limit of the quantity which is authorised by the certificate of the person in whose presence the rifle is used. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, Amendment No. 22:
Line 2, leave out ("of or over the age of seventeen").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am in some difficulty and I ask the House to bear with me for a moment. I should like to say, first (and I do not want to pre-empt my noble friend Lord Kimball), that we are extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for taking on board the point that my noble friend Lord Kimball raised in Committee. He has gone a long way towards meeting the anxiety expressed by many of us regarding the borrowing of rifles on estates. We need not go into that now; but we are extremely grateful.
However, there are certain anomalies. We now have four amendments to Amendment No. 21, but perhaps the House will allow me to refer also to Amendment No. 26. It will be seen that Amendment No. 26 could possibly pre-empt—I do not in any way wish to anticipate any other noble Lords or noble Baronesses who have their names down to other amendments—what we are attempting to do. Therefore, I am in some difficulty as to the procedure that we follow. I am happy to move Amendment No. 22 but Amendment No. 21 (with which to a great extent many of us agree) has the same objective as Amendment No. 26 but in a slightly different form. It would be an anomaly to agree to one new clause and then have another new clause included.
Therefore, before we proceed further may I ask the leave of the House to be given some guidance on whether agreement can be reached whereby we deal first—to put the matter backside-foremost—with Amendment No. 26 and, if that is not agreed, deal with the amendments to Amendment No. 21. Am I in order by requesting assistance in this respect?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Viscount had such an appealing look on his face that even an amateur colleague would like to seek to assist him if possible. As I understand the procedure of the House—and I say this with all humility—with the agreement of the House there would be nothing to stop Amendment Nos. 25 and 26 being spoken to at the same time as Amendments Nos. 21 to 24, which are grouped together. If the noble Viscount therefore wishes to speak to Amendment No. 26 on this debate, and the House comes to a conclusion as to which amendment it wishes to support, I should have thought that was the way to deal with his problem.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I always respect the advice of a professional, and I respect it even more when it comes as an amateur's advice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that if my noble friend Lord Mountgarret speaks to his amendment now it would facilitate the procedure and we can then take all the amendments together.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that assistance from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I speak to Amendment No. 26.
First, we are not very happy with the age limit in my noble friend's amendment. One can understand it from one point of view; but if the occupier of an estate, or the owner, has in his possession a shotgun firearms certificate he must be deemed to be a person of some degree of discretion. Therefore, surely it is reasonable to assume that he should be able to exercise his discretion in a sensible way.
If we set the age limit at 17 where then does the young boy obtain his experience—or young girl, because I have often had the privilege of female company when stalking on the hills and, if I may say so, they are infinitely better shots and their temperament is infinitely better? There are many young people who are perhaps in shooting teams at school. Why should they not be able to take advantage of what might be offered to them on the hills, stalking, on the rifle range, and so on?
Amendment No. 23 mentions the age of 14. Why have any age limit at all? On that basis, perhaps I may refer the House to Section 11(5) of the 1968 principal Act. There it says that "A person may". It does not say what age that person may be. Therefore I am not sure that it is quite right to include an age in this clause.
Leading on from that point, my noble friend who moved this amendment said that a person who is entitled to borrow and use a rifle may in fact purchase or acquire ammunition for that rifle. That is an anomaly on two grounds. The first is that under the Firearms Act 1968 no one is able to purchase or acquire ammunition without having a firearms certificate. Therefore, I cannot see how we can now write in words to the effect that a person without a firearms certificate can now purchase ammunition. I cannot accept the argument that one may have temporarily run out of ammunition and one is so busy that one cannot go out to buy it. There should

1193
be no reason why one should run out of ammunition; if one does it would be due to bad planning. I do not believe that to be a fair argument.
What is more important is that Clause 5 of this Bill restricts the purchase of ammunition for a shotgun to those who hold only a shotgun certificate. Logically speaking and particularly as a rifle is deemed to be a more dangerous weapon than a shotgun, it seems to me, and I hope to some of your Lordships as well, a slight contradiction in terms to permit the purchase of ammunition for a rifle by those who do not hold a certificate and yet not to allow people to buy cartridges for a shotgun without a certificate. I am 100 per cent. in favour of Clause 5 of the Bill as it stands, but the amendment which my noble friend has tabled in this respect creates, first, an anomaly and, secondly, an impracticality. I am not sure that it is right to include it.
Therefore in Amendment No. 26 we seek to go along 100 per cent. with the principle of being able to borrow a rifle on private premises, together with the conditions that my noble friend has outlined. That is absolutely right. The amendment omits any reference to age, which is in line with the Firearms Act 1968. In addition, it does not allow the purchase of ammunition, which again is in line with the Bill that we are discussing. I do not know whether I am begging to move Amendment No. 22 or Amendment No. 26. In the context of what I have said I beg to move Amendment No. 22 because it deletes the words,
"of or over the age of 17".
That is in line with the Firearms Act 1968. I leave it to the discretion of the House as to what I am moving and what we might decide upon. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on a procedural matter. We were discussing Amendment No. 21. If my noble friend wishes to move Amendment No. 22, that is in order as an amendment to Amendment No. 21. I believe that it is right that he can speak to all those matters when the time comes to move the amendments. That is something that will have to be taken later.
8.45 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, as I understand it, the grouping is for Amendments Nos. 21 to 26 to be taken together, so I do not believe there is any doubt as to the speeches that we have heard on this subject. We can speak to these five amendments and then the Deputy Speaker will call them in order and noble Lords can vote. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, has slipped up on this matter to be so confused as he appears to be.
I should like briefly to put the picture as I see it on the question of the age of 14 or 17 and the purchase of ammunition. The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, buttonholed me, if that is the right word, last night as I was rushing to catch a train. As a result of discussing this matter with him I missed my train, although it was not entirely his fault because
1194
there was also a mix up on the Tube. It is a very difficult problem because the moment one mentions a gun and someone aged 14 lay people will screw up their faces and say, "Good gracious rne!"
I was shooting at the age of 13 and certainly most boys start training to shoot from the age of 14, which in my opinion is the right age at which to learn to shoot. At the age of 17 one is becoming an adult and one will want to take a full part in a shoot. In my opinion to start to learn to shoot at the age of 17 is not on. The amendments which have been tabled on this subject relate to shooting taking place on private property and not on public ground or elsewhere.
It would be quite impossible to enforce a regulation that one cannot be taught to shoot until the age of 17. There are people who live on farms with sons who definitely begin to shoot at about the age of 14 or 15. We speak a great deal about training and education and, within reason, the earlier one starts the better. We have to consider the age at which shooting is permissible on private property and under supervision. I am very much in favour of the amendments dealing with that matter.
As regards the question of the purchase of ammunition and the amendment of Section 11 of the 1968 Act, which the noble Viscount mentioned, I agree with that proposal. I wish to emphasise the point about bringing in legislation which simply could not be enforced because young people will be taught to shoot at a much earlier age than 17. In my opinion that is a good thing, provided that it is supervised and it takes place on private land.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 21, I wish to thank the Government most sincerely for legalising what is in fact a well-established practice. During the course of this Bill there has been a certain amount of criticism that the Government have not paid too much attention to the demands of the genuine users of firearms. This is an example where the Government have listened and have gone out of their way to meet a well-established practice. From the point of view of the police and everyone else, by allowing the principle of the estate right for someone who comes to stalk or to use a rifle, the Government are ensuring that fewer firearms certificates are issued and fewer people have a need to buy a firearm. They can go stalking and use a rifle which is already there.
In saying that the Government have made a major move, we are getting it wrong as regards the age of 17. If someone under the age of 17 has the right, the invitation and the facilities to use a firearm, then there is no reason why that person cannot have a firearms certificate in his own right. There are very few examples in this case. I believe that we should keep this safeguard because the most dangerous thing in this world is when two boys go out together; that is when trouble always starts. It is perfectly possible that an underkeeper, an employee, of the age of 17 would have the estate rifle on his firearm certificate. It would be undesirable for two boys under the age of 17 to go out together. We should keep the government amendment as it is.

1195
I hope that noble Lords will support my noble friend the Minister and will appreciate that in the exceptional cases where people under the age of 17 have the right and the need to use a firearm it is perfectly possible to get over this problem of the age limit. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that many people want to start shooting at an early age. Those people have the facilities. They have the supervision and there is no danger. In fact, this Bill will be no problem to them.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to take up one point on the issue of age. I shall quote from paragraph 111 of the consultative document Cmnd. 5297 published in 1973. I shall not read all of it. I shall pick out the parts that really matter. It says:
"The existing law, contained in sections 22–24 of the Firearms Act 1968 incorporates a variety of restrictions on the possession and use of firearms by the young …They are now complicated, anomalous and out of date…A child under 14 may not use any firearm unless properly supervised …Children under 15 are prohibited (with certain exceptions) from having shotguns in their possession. This was partly because 15 was the school leaving age at the time this restriction was introduced. The school leaving age is now 16, and nobody under that age can now have a full time job (e.g. in gamekeeping) which might require him to use a shotgun unsupervised".
There is something to be said for the age of 17 in this case because it permits the person to buy ammunition. Section 24 of the 1968 Act says:
"It is an offence to sell, let or hire any firearm or ammunition to a person under the age of 17".
However, in respect of use of a firearm, it can be at a much younger age if under supervision. It is worth pointing out that there is this quite remarkable anomaly in regard to age and who can use what and when.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this may be an opportune moment for me to speak to Amendment No. 23, which is a slightly less radical alternative amendment (as regards the Government) to Amendment No. 22. The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, said that he was not very happy about the age limit. I must congratulate him on the mildness of his phraseology. Many of us are extremely worried about the implications of government Amendment No. 21 as it stands, which is why we have tabled Amendment No. 23.
For generations hundreds of thousands of young people have learnt to shoot responsibly with small-bore rifles at an early age, and a rather smaller number have learnt to shoot more powerful sporting rifles—also responsibly—at a generally greater age, by which I mean in their early teens. I had the privilege of attending a prep school whose pupils were the small-bore champions of the British Empire as it then was. We were the small-bore champions of our age group, it goes without saying. I learnt to shoot a 22 rifle at the age of 11 or 12. My brother learnt at the age of 10. I daresay that many noble Lords learned to shoot at an earlier age than that. All this tradition would seem to be put in jeopardy by the new clause as it stands, a development which incidentally was never foreshadowed by the Home Secretary in his speech last September to the Association of Police Superintendents.
1196
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, is quite wrong. It is not unusual for people to learn to shoot before the age of 17, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, pointed out. It is in fact the norm. We acknowledge that the clause as it stands would not prevent schools from practising small-bore shooting but it would make it virtually impossible for parents to encourage their sons or daughters to take a few experimental shots at a target on their own private land, let alone to go out after rabbits on that same private land. To teach young people below the age of 17 to stalk would also be virtually impossible although I understand that until now many people have learnt stalking at a much earlier age than that. I am no expert on stalking: other noble Lords will know more about it than I.
Amendment No. 23 is something of a compromise. We should have preferred a minimum age of 10 for conventional small-bore firearms—ordinary 22s—and a minimum age of 14 for the more powerful sporting weapons, but we did not want to complicate matters at this stage. We agree with the Government that the minimum age of 17—this answers the point of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour—for buying ammunition is fully justified—hence Amendment No. 25. I think I have said all I can on Amendment No. 23.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there must be an age limit and therefore I would not be in favour of Amendments Nos. 22 or 25. The important question is what the age limit should be. I think that 14 is more realistic. After all, many of us in the Chamber learnt in the OTC to shoot with Lee Enfield. 303 rifles. It is still possible in some schools to shoot with rifles of perhaps a slightly smaller calibre. There may be a few Lee Enfields left about the place—I do not know. For boys who learnt to shoot in the army cadet force at the age of 14 to come home in the Easter holidays and find that the law prevents them from shooting rooks with a.22 rifle seems to be quite absurd.
Therefore while welcoming his new clause, I suggest to my noble friend that he should either concede Amendment No. 23 or say that he will consider it for Third Reading. It is a serious and important point. Without having turned up the law as perhaps I should have done, I would guess that if the age were to remain 14 various consequentials might be necessary, as was hinted at by my noble friend Lord Balfour. This has been a valuable and important discussion, and I hope that my noble friend will perhaps agree with some of it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is to enable people to teach their children to shoot at a young age using the estate rifle without having to obtain a firearms certificate for those children—a firearms certificate which some chief constables might be unlikely to grant. While I very much prefer Amendment No. 26 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, to the ones to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I have our names, I think it is important that we should get some kind of concession on this matter.

1197
The amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, removes all age qualification: it is a most simple amendment. However, we are in a difficulty because the amendment comes after the one put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Therefore we must make a decision on the noble Earl's amendment before we can make a decision on the amendment put forward by the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount's amendment is not an amendment to the noble Earl's amendment; it is an alternative. Thus the situation puts the House in certain difficulty.
If none of the amendments is acceptable to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I wonder whether he would consider the possibility of the owner of an estate rifle being able to have some kind of note on his firearms certificate which would allow him to lend the rifle to minors—such as his children or his friends' children—for the purpose of teaching them to shoot in either his presence or the presence of his employee. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested such a provision when he spoke on an earlier amendment.
9 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has demonstrated the practical problems before us in connection with this series of amendments. I should like to join my noble friend Lord Kimball in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for having come forward with the amendment. It is a most useful one. However, I take issue with my noble friend Lord Kimball on his suggestion about under-17 year-olds—I think that is what he said—applying for permits. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that that is unlikely to be practical. I am sure we would see a resistance to it, especially from chief officers of police, if it were to happen. Further, I think it would be a waste of police time if children under the age of 17 were to apply for such permits.
It seems to me that if we could accept the change in years from 17 to 14 it would surmount the problem and allow a child of that age to borrow from the occupier. I am sure that that is the most practical way forward.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that this issue has in some ways become confused. The amendment I put down was a simple one. I shall do my best, therefore, to try to help your Lordships over the problem. The amendment tabled in my name was put forward specifically to meet the problem of the estate rifle. In other words, it was introduced in order to enable those people who were visitors to an estate to use an estate rifle which belonged to the estate owner—even though that person himself did not have a certificate—provided that he was in the presence of the owner or the owner's servant who had a certificate. The provision, and its inclusion of the age of 17, was intended as a concession so that visitors could use what are lethal weapons without
1198
themselves having a firearms certificate. In other words, they could use it because they were staying on an estate which belonged to people who had such a firearms certificate. That is a totally separate issue from the teaching of children.
It was, I believe, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who said that people were always taught fairly young to use rifles; that is absolutely true. I agree entirely with what she said in that respect. The amendment does not alter that position at all. It has always been the case that those who wish to teach their sons can do so provided that they are over the age of 14 and themselves have a firearms certificate. That point is perfectly clear. As I said, Amendment No. 21 does not alter the situation and I suggest that it should not be altered.
The position as regards shotgun certificates with which we have become involved has slightly muddied the situation. A shotgun certificate can be obtained by a person of any age and a young man can shoot with his father without a certificate provided that he is in the presence of his father, on his father's land, and that his father has a certificate. Therefore the teaching of young children is not altered by the amendment. It would be a pity if we were to try to alter the position.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that it would be a pity if the tradition of use by people under the age of 17 were to be put in jeopardy. It is not put in jeopardy; that situation will continue. The amendment solely refers to people who are visitors to an estate and who will be able to use the estate rifle provided that they are over the age of 17. The provision was considered appropriate because younger people, say, between the ages of 14 and 17, could not be considered appropriately as visitors and given this fairly substantial concession of using a rather powerful weapon without a certificate. For all those reasons I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendment I propose is the correct one in the circumstances.
The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, which concerns amendment of Section 11(5) of the principal Act, is not acceptable because it does not enable the borrower to possess ammunition for a borrowed firearm. If you are going to borrow the firearm in the first place you must use the ammunition. You must be permitted to use the ammunition in the firearm. The amendment would not permit that. Therefore, with that explanation, I hope your Lordships will agree that the amendment I have moved is appropriate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I wonder whether he would permit me to try to clarify the position in my own mind and for future readers of the legislation. I well understand the noble Earl when he says that the question of youngsters remains as it is now; namely, that if a licence is obtained at the age of 14 or over "user" is perfectly in order. The average layman reading the new clause would not know that that was the position.
The new clause does not talk about people visiting estates or use the words the Minister used to clarify

1199
the matter in his lucid explanation. If one looks at the new clause, it would appear that there is a new law and that the age is now 17 at which one can use a rifle without having a proper certificate, provided that the provisions of the clause are carried out. Will the Minister clarify the issue by having in front of the new clause words such as "without prejudice to the provisions of" whatever be the sections of the Act which enable young children to learn. If it were clearly stated that the new clause does not affect that right everyone would be happy. The layman reading the legislation would know what we are talking about.
At present it looks, and looked to certain of your Lordships—I can tell that from the debate—as though the new clause cut across the present legislation which deals with children over the age of 14. Will the noble Earl take that point on board, withdraw his amendment and say to the House that on Third Reading words will be added which make it clear that the existing law is not changed in regard to youngsters over the age of 14?
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to put to my noble friend a point which follows that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Let us take the case of two boys aged 15 who are in the Army Cadet Corps at the same school. One boy goes to his own home where he has a firearms certificate. His friend is invited to stay for part of the holidays. He does not have a firearms certificate. They have both learnt to use a rifle in the Army Cadet Corps at school. It seems extraordinary that the visitor cannot borrow a rifle to shoot, for example, rooks.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I have not intervened so far in the debate, but Section 11(1) of the principal Act provides:
"A person carrying a firearm or ammunition belonging to another person holding a certificate under this Act may, without himself holding such a certificate, have in his possession that firearm or ammunition under instructions from, and for the use of, that other person for sporting purposes only".
Section 24(1) makes it illegal to sell or give a weapon to someone under the age of 17. Permission is given to someone under 14 to use a weapon under instruction. I should have though that that provision was adequate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because he says that an average person reading the new clause would not know that it did not affect the position with regard to young people. However it says in the margin:
"Borrowed rifles on private premises".
That is a clear indication, even to the layman, that the clause refers to borrowed rifles and not to the position with regard to children. There is no need for a "without prejudice" provision because the new clause changes nothing in Section 22 of the 1968 Act.
My noble friend Lord Renton is concerned about the ages of 14 and 15 because he wished the age of 17
1200
to be changed to 14 in my amendment. I can only refer him to the existing position. A boy aged 14 or 15 may shoot such a rifle under supervision provided that he has his own certificate. In the situation he mentioned, the boy should have his own firearms certificate if he is going to use the weapon at premises under the supervision of another.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, we are discussing, although some of us may have forgotten, Amendment No. 22 as an amendment to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. We must go through that procedure regardless of what may happen over the page. I detect a feeling that an age limit may be desirable. I do not want in any way to pre-empt the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and what he may feel about this. If he wishes to intervene, I shall he very happy to give way.
However, I detect that the feeling in the House may be that an age limit is required. To that extent, Amendment No. 22 deleting completely the words "of or over the age of 17" may at this moment be inappropriate. We shall leave it to others moving Amendment No. 23 to consider their next move. On that basis, perhaps I should ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 22.
Amendment No. 22, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, Amendment No. 23:
Line 2, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("fourteen").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, to a large extent I have already spoken to this amendment. However, I find myself in a great dilemma. The noble Earl says that his Amendment No. 21 changes nothing. When I first shot, I did not have a firearms certificate. When my sons first shot and tried out a.22 rifle they did not have a firearms certificate. Were we acting illegally? I should like to know. I do not think we were unique in doing what we did; it is common practice in the country. I cannot believe that chief constables would willingly dish out firearms certificates to teenagers if they thought that the teenagers would shoot perhaps once a year or simply dabble in the practice and then give it up altogether. This is the point.
Surely it is far better for young people to see whether they are interested in shooting. We are talking about small-bore shooting mainly, because relatively few young people are interested in stalking, using more powerful rifles. I should have thought that it was far better from the Government's point of view to allow people to dip their toes in the water and see whether shooting suited them, rather than compelling them to get a licence which may float about, scarcely being used. This cannot be in the interests of law and order. I wish to hear what the noble Earl has to say on this.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggests that we ought to put in the age of 14 instead of 17. He thinks it desirable that a young

1201
man aged 14 should be able to dip his toe in the water, as he puts it, before getting a firearms certificate. I say to the noble Lord that we are dealing with very powerful weapons. It is considered proper that those people who deal with such powerful weapons should have a firearms certificate. It is not necessary to go to a lot of trouble for one. If a person applies to the chief constable and the chief constable thinks it is a reasonable request for a young man to learn from his father how to use one of these weapons, the chances are that he will be granted a firearms certificate.
However, this amendment, which deals totally and solely with visitors from outside who come to an estate, perhaps from foreign countries, suggests that they should be allowed at the age of 14 to come on to an estate and borrow a rifle. The chief constable would have no knowledge of who these people were or of their background. It would be a considerable concession to extend that to somebody aged 14 and it would be undesirable. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there is a difficulty here. I assure him that this does not affect the position of the young person who is being taught properly to use a rifle. All he has to do is get a firearms certificate.
I think I may have misled my noble friend Lord Renton when I said in relation to his amendment that a person aged 14 could shoot with a firearms certificate under supervision. Of course a person aged 14 who has a firearms certificate can shoot without supervision. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the problem which he seeks t o address in his amendment is covered by the present position. It would be wholly wrong, in my modest view, to suggest in this amendment that the age limit should be reduced to 14.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for clarification from my noble friend. Am I to understand that persons may apply for and be granted a firearms certificate if they are under the age of 17? And what is the age at which a young person may apply?
Lord Burton: My Lords, before my noble friend replies perhaps I may ask for clarification on exactly the same point. First, Section 24(1) of the principal Act says that it is an offence to sell or let on hire any firearm or ammunition to any person under the age of 17. I do not see how they can have a firearms certificate when the Act says that they cannot have a weapon.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in answer to that point I should say that it may be wrong to sell, let or hire a weapon, but it is not wrong to possess a weapon if one has a firearms certificate. The answer to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret is that a person over the age of 14 may apply for a firearms certificate and may, with the approval of the chief constable, be granted such a certificate.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the new clause seeks to permit a person over the age of 17 to borrow an estate rifle without himself owning a firearms permit. If that is the case, it seems to me quite ridiculous that
1202
somebody under the age of 17 should have to have a firearms permit to do the same thing.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether I am permitted to speak again. I had rather hoped that the House would not give me leave to speak again. However, unless I hear to the contrary I shall do my best to answer my noble friend.
I sometimes find it very difficult to satisfy my noble friends behind me. They say that estate rifles must be permitted to be used. Now we have produced an amendment which allows my noble friends to permit estate rifles to be used by visitors to their estates who do not themselves have a firearms certificate. Then my noble friend comes along and says that that is a curious provision to put into the Bill. All I am saying is that that does not alter the basic provision allowed in the Act, which is that young people are permitted to learn the use of weapons at the age of 14 provided they have a firearms certificate.
My noble friends come along and tell me that they have a problem on their estates when visitors come along and wish to use their rifles. My noble friends want visitors to be allowed to use their rifles. Therefore we bring in an amendment allowing such visitors to do just that—to use weapons on estates as visitors, provided they are over the age of 17. We have tried to meet the difficulties which my noble friends have expressed. I wish they would realise that sometimes.
Lord Monson: My Lords—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is present. He is the custodian of the rules of this House. It appears to me quite clear that a number of the contributions which have been made in the past half-hour or so were wholly outside the recommendations of the Procedure Committee which have been accepted by the House. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would say something about that.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should make clear that on an amendment on Report the recommendation of our own Procedure Committee is that noble Lords should not speak after the Minister has spoken. There is a proviso to that, which is that the recommendation does not apply if noble Lords wish to put short questions for elucidation, or where the Minister has perhaps spoken early to assist the House and it is necessary for him to speak again.
I must confess that I have remained rather silent because I felt there was a certain amount of coming and going in that respect. But we are at the moment discussing Amendment No. 23, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 21. Amendment No. 23 stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and other noble Lords. I think that we have, having had a lot of coming and going, reached the moment when if the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wishes to make a final remark, which is the right of the mover of an amendment on Report, he has the right to do so. But I think that all other noble Lords have exhausted that right.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I appreciate the trouble that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has taken in trying to defend a rather difficult position. However, there were certain inconsistencies in his reply. He talked about powerful weapons. In fact, a ·22 is not a particularly powerful weapon at all: a 12-bore shotgun is far more powerful. Admittedly a ·22 has a long range, but in other respects it is far less lethal. But that perhaps is a minor point.
The main flaw in the noble Earl's argument was that he claimed that Amendment No. 21 was concerned solely with visitors to estates. I have read through the amendment several times and I cannot see the word "visitors" mentioned once. It may be inferred that that is the case, but the word "visitors" does not appear. It seems to me that the provision would extend to all persons over the age of 17 years, be they visitors or the children of the owner of the gun. A son or daughter after all is just as capable of borrowing a rifle as a visitor. If the rifle does not belong to them, that is all they can do.
Take the case of a man who suggests to his 14 year-old daughter. "Would you like to try my ·22 and see if shooting suits you? I have a feeling that it might but you may detest the whole idea". She says, ''Yes, I would like to have a couple of shots". Then she is told that she cannot fire even one shot because she has to have a firearms certificate first. It is quite ludicrous that a 14 year-old person cannot take one single shot with a ·22, even on her father or mother's land, without getting a firearms certificate. That is surely not something to be desired.
I understand the point made by the noble Earl that he does not want all and sundry between the ages of 14 and 17 to take advantage of the provisions of Amendment No. 21. It would be more acceptable if we could confine that to the children of the owner of the gun.
My inclination is to withdraw my amendment and to try to find a narrower definition so as to allow the children of the owner of the firearm between the ages of 14 and 17 to shoot, which I shall bring back at Third Reading. In the meantime Amendment No. 21 would go through as it stands. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 23, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, Amendment No. 24:
Line 10, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I referred briefly to this amendment earlier. There is an anomaly in that Clause 5 of the Bill specifically states that ammunition may not be sold to anyone who is not in possession of a shotgun certificate. I therefore cannot see the logic of permitting the sale of ammunition to those who are not in possession of a firearms certificate but who have borrowed a gun regardless of the argument of my noble friend Lord Monson that there is not much point in being able to borrow a rifle without having ammunition to put in it. Surely it is up to the owner, his friend, his father or whoever it may be, to make ammunition available.
Furthermore, under the terms of the 1968 Act one cannot buy ammunition without having a firearms certificate. Therefore, if you are only the borrower of a firearm there is no way in which you can paddle down to the local store and buy ammunition. If you borrow someone else's certificate it is tantamount to fraud. I believe that this is something of an anomaly. I wonder whether my noble friend might consider this amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I thought that the amendment had been spoken to in previous amendments. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, has moved Amendment No. 24 as an amendment to Amendment to No. 21.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I believe that we need clarification. In the Marshalled List, before Amendment No. 24 it reads "After Clause 14". Are all the Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 amending Amendment No. 21?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if the noble Lord needs clarification, the answer is that Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 are all amendments to Amendment No. 21. That does not apply to Amendment No. 26.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend has moved Amendment No. 24, which would leave out subsection (2). Subsection (2) is necessary because otherwise a person who borrows a rifle is not allowed to purchase any ammunition to go into the rifle. If my noble friend thinks that that is curious and says that it is up to the estate to provide the ammunition, I would tell him that without this provision it would be an offence for the visitor to pay the estate owner for the use of that ammunition.
Without this provision the estate owner would always have to provide ammunition for the weapon because the user of the weapon would not have the right to purchase any, whether that purchase were to be made from a shop or from the owner of the land. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will agree—and as he is a fairly businesslike man I am sure that he will agree —that that would be an unsatisfactory state of affairs for an estate owner and that this provision is necessary.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, if my noble friend is happy with the amendment exactly as it is drafted in regard to the observations that I have made, then I am equally happy with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 24, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 21 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Clause 15 [Visitors' permits]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 14, leave out ("as respects ammunition").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 28, which is consequential upon it. Clause 15 deals with visitors from overseas and as the Bill stands subsection (2)(a) provides that if a chief officer of police is satisfied that a visitor from overseas is properly sponsored by a resident in this country, such a visitor may purchase ammunition.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the visitor from overseas is able to purchase or acquire both firearms and ammunition. It seems curious and perhaps slightly illogical that a visitor from overseas who has been properly vouched for in every way by a responsible person resident in this country should not be allowed to purchase both firearms and ammunition. I think it desirable for the Bill to be amended in this way. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling these amendments. I shall try to explain the position. Under present legislation there is no facility for visitors to come to the United Kingdom and then buy and take possession of firearms. Frankly I do not see any reason why this position should be relaxed. After all, the intention of this Bill is to tighten rather than relax the law.
Certainly I am not aware of any particular difficulties that this provision has caused. A visitor who wishes to purchase a firearm in this country for export can do so perfectly legally under Clause 16. He can purchase it and it will be exported. However, the purchaser will not be able to take possession of it immediately. The dealer will make arrangements for it to be exported to him direct.
The second reason is an entirely pragmatic one. There would be considerable practical difficulty for the police in operating the kind of system proposed by my noble friend. On receiving the sponsor's application they would need to check that the visitor was entitled to possess the particular type of firearm that he was coming to purchase. If he were coming into the country with a visitor's permit, the type of firearm would have to be entered and his reason for having it would be checked. However, if he were already in this country the police would have to enter on the permit details of the gun or guns and check that those details matched the descriptions on the permit.
All that seems rather unnecessary. If a visitor wants to come to this country to shoot, he will bring his own gun; if he comes here to buy, he has no need to possess it. Let us not forget that rifles are subject to a greater level of control than are shotguns, and those who hold them are subject to a greater level of scrutiny and accountability with regard to their possession, use and disposal. I think that that is only right, in view of their greater lethality.
1206
A resident of this country who holds a firearms certificate is after all accountable at renewal for each and every firearm. When a visitor enters this country with a firearms permit there is a risk that he may seek to dispose of his firearms here, though of course that would be an offence. That is a risk we have seen fit to take in the interests of visitors and of shooting sports as a whole. But we would greatly increase that risk were we to allow the purchase and possession of firearms here by permit holders. That is the very kind of loophole which we are trying to close, because once a person purchases a firearm on a visitor's permit, which is what my noble friend wants, there would be no check on what happens to it.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of this clause. However, it seems a little illogical to me. If the visitor is properly vouched for by a responsible resident of this country and if he can bring with him a firearm and ammunition, if he is accepted as a responsible person, I really see no reason why he should not also be permitted to buy firearms as well as ammunition. However, I shall not pursue the point at this late hour and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31. Your Lordships will recall that subsection (3) of Clause 15 was added to the Bill as the result of a Division in Committee. Your Lordships were anxious to ensure that any visitor's permit would be available throughout Great Britain.
Unfortunately, subsection (3) does not have the effect which your Lordships intended. Chief officers would still have the power, under subsection (5), to specify the conditions which appear on a permit, and these might well be restrictive in territorial terms. I have, therefore, looked afresh at Clause 15 to see if we can amend the Bill in a way which would better incorporate the wishes and the intentions which your Lordships expressed in Committee.
We have concluded that the best way to do this is to remove the scope for the chief officer of police to impose territorial conditions on visitors' shotgun permits. This would put shotgun permits on the same footing as shotgun certificates. A visitor would, on the application of a sponsor, receive a permit which would allow him to use a shotgun anywhere in Great Britain. It would not, though, be right to remove altogether the chief officer's power to impose conditions because, for example, a permit must be conditional upon a safekeeping requirement.
With regard to visitors' firearms permits, we think that the chief officer should be given a power to vary the conditions which may be imposed on permits, without any charge, in order to cope with changes of visitors' plans. This should give the system much more flexibility.
I am sure your Lordships would agree that it would be wrong to give the holder of a firearms permit the right to use a rifle throughout the country without any territorial constraint, as this would place the visitor in a preferential position in relation to the resident, who is bound by the constraints on his firearms certificate. As with residents, it will be open to the chief officer, if he thinks fit, to allow the applicant to shoot on any land with the owner's permission.
Perhaps I should also point out that neither firearms nor shotgun permits will have to be issued by each chief officer for the areas in which the visitor wishes to shoot, any more than do firearms and shotguns certificates. The chief officer will still have power under Clause 15 to impose conditions on both visitors' shotgun and firearms permits in order to cover such matters as safety.
I hope that your Lordships will appreciate that, by proposing the removal of the clause which your Lordships approved in Committee—which is not generally a very satisfactory thing to do—and by the addition of the other amendments, I am doing so not to reverse your Lordships' decision but in order to make it work, which the amendment passed at the time did not do. I hope that your Lordships will accept that reason for our seeking to delete an amendment which was approved in Committee.
Amendment No. 31 is a drafting amendment ensuring consistency in the form of words used in Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert—
("() The chief officer of police by whom a permit under this section is granted may by notice in writing to the holder vary the conditions subject to which the permit is held but, in the case of a visitor's shot gun permit, no condition shall be imposed or varied so as to restrict the premises where the shot gun or guns to which the permit relates may be used.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 9, line 9, leave out ("specified in such a permit") and insert ("subject to which such a permit is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Firearms acquired for export]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 9, leave out lines 14 to 23 and insert—
("(1) A person may, without holding a firearm or shot gun certificate, purchase a firearm from a registered firearms dealer if—").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 32, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 to 35. These amendments are designed to remove the provision in Clause 16 whereby a visitor to this country may, without holding a shotgun certificate, purchase a shotgun from a registered firearms dealer and have that
1208
shotgun in his possession solely for the purpose of exporting it. As amended, Clause 16 will still provide the facility for visitors to purchase shotguns for export but, as with firearms, they will not be able take possession of them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, tabled an amendment to this effect in Committee and, as I recall, it had the support of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Harris of Greenwich. I therefore undertook to consider further whether it was right to allow a visitor who was purchasing a shotgun solely for export to take possession of it. We have of course consulted the police and the gun trade on this. We have concluded that it is neither prudent nor necessary to allow such possession.
We originally intended to permit possession because we were concerned about the possible effects of stronger measures on the gun trade, particularly shotguns at the top of the market. Having looked again at the matter we have concluded that allowing possession simply leaves too big a loophole in the controls. Put bluntly, under Clause 16 as it stands there is nothing to stop a terrorist or criminal purchasing unlimited numbers of shotguns here for export, and precious little to stop him passing these on to others.
The fact that the dealer will be required to note the purchaser's personal details and passport number and notify these to the police will hardly provide any real deterrent if someone is prepared to abuse the controls anyway. Nor, I think, is there likely to be any real adverse effect on the trade. If a visitor really wants to buy a British gun for export. will he not be prepared to accept that he cannot take immediate possession but that it will be sent to him abroad? That is precisely what happens when a visitor wishes to buy a firearm. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I express gratitude to the noble Earl. He received a deputation from my noble friend Lord Knights—unhappily he is unwell and cannot be present—and representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The deputation expressed the deepest concern about the clause as drafted. We pointed out to the Minister the real danger that foreign criminals could gain easy access to a substantial number of shotguns under the clause as then drafted.
The Government have now met our concern, for which I express gratitude to the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9, line 29, leave out ("shot gun or other").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 9, line 30, leave out ("or (2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Saving for occupier's servant.
. In section 11(5) of the principal Act (sports, athletics and other approved activities), for the words "occupier's presence" there shall be substituted "presence either of the occupier or of a servant of the occupier".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is stated in Section 11(5) of the Firearms Act 1968 that a person may, without holding a shotgun certificate, borrow a shotgun from the occupier of private premises and use it on the premises in the presence of the occupier. There appears to be no provision in the law as it stands for a person who visits me to go out with my keeper.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his excellent Amendment No. 21 dealing with borrowed rifles and covering the case of a visitor borrowing the estate rifle. The purpose of my amendment is to find out whether a person can borrow the estate shotgun and go out with the keeper, not with the owner. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, to be fair to my noble friend Lord Balfour he has seen that his proposed amendment does not match some of the controls which were built into our new clause on estate rifles. I do not disagree with him. His amendment would allow a servant of an occupier of any private premises to supervise shooting by non-certificate holders without requiring him to hold a shotgun certificate. Nor would there be any minimum age for the borrowing of a shotgun in such circumstances. I do not believe that your Lordships would wish to introduce legislation which, for example, would allow a person living on a housing estate and having a 50 feet long back garden to leave some employee such as an au pair, who was not even a certificate holder, in charge of a visitor blasting away with a shotgun. Yet that would be one of the effects of my noble friend's amendment. It might also encourage landowners to appoint agents and use the exemption for commercial purposes involving clay pigeon shooting. For these reasons I find it hard to support my noble friend's amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I was trying to find out whether there is any way in which under the law a facility which my noble friend has so kindly permitted in the case of rifles could be allowed in the case of shotguns. That was my real point. If so, could it be brought into the Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should tell my noble friend that I understand his dilemma. I shall have to look at it again before Third Reading, but I think that at the very least, the exemption will need to be framed in terms of both the lender and the servant being certificate holders and also restricted to sporting purposes. However, I will reconsider the matter if that would meet my noble friend's approval.
The Earl of Balfour: I thank my noble friend, my Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Payments in respect of prohibited weapons]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 10, line 26, after ("persons") insert ("including persons who have been registered as firearms dealers, and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Bill was originally drafted and laid before Parliament, there was no provision for any compensation to be payable to the owners of firearms prohibited under Clause 1. That was subject to considerable comment from all sides of another place during Second Reading. On the first day of Committee so much importance was again attached to it that the Government spokesman was obliged to give an undertaking that a clause providing compensation should be included. Eventually, it was.
In an announcement concerning the compensation the spokesman made clear that it applied only to persons holding firearms certificates and not to registered dealers. The object of the amendment is to extend the provision to licensed dealers, many of whom probably have considerable numbers of firearms of that category as their stock-in-trade and will no longer be entitled to hold them. In the interests of equity I can see no reason why those people also should not be compensated for the loss of their stock.
My noble friend may comment that they are free to sell their stock abroad. That is so, but it rather shrugs off the question. I believe that the law should apply equally to all sections of the community, whether to the user or the dealer. The dealer, who has a stock of such firearms which he will no longer be able to hold, should be able to receive compensation for losing them. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although the compensation provisions of Clause 19 appear on the face of the Bill to be universal and all-embracing, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary surprisingly announced in another place on 1st March that dealers would be excluded. That seems to he quite wrong and, furthermore, potentially subject to challenge in the European Court. The ability of dealers to export their weapons has been cited in justification of the proposal to exclude them from compensation. That may be possible in the case of large dealers, but small dealers are a different matter. I hope that the House will support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, a similar amendment was tabled at Committee and I then explained that the Government did not feel disposed to extend the scope of the buying scheme to include payments to firearms dealers. The position of dealers is quite different to that of private individuals. Trading in any commodity or goods inevitably entails a certain element of risk, and there is the rough and tumble of trading which must be taken into account.

1211
My noble friend Lord Swansea has correctly said what I was going to say. It is that dealers will be able to sell their stocks abroad, unlike certificate holders who cannot do so. They will have had over a year to find a buyer and most will have had the advantage of trading in bulk. There is no question of us offloading our problem overseas because possession of self-loading rifles is still permitted in a number of countries. Therefore the market exists for legitimate users. It will be open for dealers to de-activate to collectors any such guns which they hold for sale before the new legislation comes into force, or to apply to the Secretary of State for authority to deal in prohibited weapons.
I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the amendment. The position of dealers is not the same as that of certificate holders.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am rather disappointed with my noble friend's reply. It has always been an axiom of the law in this country that it should apply equally to all sections of the community. In this case I believe strongly that it should apply to the dealer as well as to the individual.
I realise that the trade is risky; there is an element of risk in every trade. However, if the individual is now to be deprived of the possession of certain firearms and is to receive compensation for them, I see no reason why the dealer should not be treated similarly.
My noble friend talks of the dealer being able to sell his stock overseas and he will be able to do so. However, he will be selling them at a knock-down price. The market will be depressed and he is bound to suffer thereby.
I am sorry, but I must pursue the amendment further.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 10, line 29, leave out ("22nd") and insert ("23rd").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although we are talking about a difference in date of a mere 24 hours, this is an extremely important amendment in principle and I hope that noble Lords in all quarters of the House will recognise that.
All Members of your Lordships' House and all governments, in particular Conservative governments, rightly deplore retrospective legislation. However, if this amendment is not agreed to, we shall have retrospective legislation.
The Home Secretary made a speech to the Police Superintendents' Conference on 22nd September 1987 in the course of which his intentions with regard to prohibiting certain weapons were announced. Details of his speech appeared on the front page of The Times on 23rd September 1987 and those details were doubtless in other morning newspapers as well. I have no idea whether details appeared in the later editions of the evening newspapers published on 22nd September, but in any case an extremely small percentage of the population read the later editions of newspapers and not many more people listen to early afternoon news bulletins.
It would be utterly inequitable if respectable individuals should be deprived of any right to compensation who had, in good faith, legally bought a gun on the morning of 22nd September or even in the afternoon on the assumption that nobody has any legal obligation, to listen religiously to radio news bulletins. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has explained that as the Government's proposals to prohibit certain types of weapon were announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 22nd September 1987, potential purchasers of such weapons could not have known of our intentions until the evening of that date. Anyone who bought such a gun on 22nd September obviously did so in good faith and should be eligible for payments under the buy-in scheme. The Government, on reflection, accept that the noble Lord's argument is sound. I am therefore pleased to be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl and to the Government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 10, line 35, after ("1(2)") insert ("or 7(1)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Brain (who unfortunately is not with us today) tabled an amendment extending the scope of the buy-in scheme to enable the Secretary of State to make payments under Clause 19 to people whose possession of firearms was rendered unlawful by virtue of the whole of Clause 7. I undertook to consider this.
It is clearly right that the buy-in scheme should cover weapons which have been converted from weapons which are prohibited by Section 5 but which, by virtue of Clause 7(1), will now revert to the prohibited category. I am happy to put the matter on a proper statutory footing and this amendment does that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 10, line 35, at end insert—
("(2) Payments made by the Secretary of State under the scheme referred to subsection (1) above shall be in accordance with the market value of such firearms and accessories pertaining thereto immediately before 22nd September 1987.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we tabled this amendment because we think that any compensation made when an Act of Parliament is passed, as this will be, should be fair. I do not really believe that, in spite of the acceptance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, it will be fair if the scheme is as it is in the Bill. After all, it would seem that most people expect the market value if something is taken over.
If—God forbid—my land experienced an outbreak of foot and mouth, the Government scheme would pay me the market value. The same applies to this dreadful disease that they have in the West Country at present. It applies to a whole range of

1213
circumstances. Why should not the market price be paid to people whose guns have been confiscated—because that is what it will be? The Government should look at this matter extremely carefully.
There is a case for saying that the market price at a particular date could be high. There was some argument as to what the words should be and finally we decided on the words "immediately before 22nd September"—which will now be 23rd September. That would be a fair date on which to decide the price for such weapons.
Everyone knows that the correspondence on this Bill has been extremely heavy, but most of my correspondence has been on this subject of compensation. One of my shooting tenants tells me that he has a rifle which he is certain is worth £1,000. He will receive a very mean figure for that rifle. All my correspondence is on those lines and, I repeat, has been the heaviest of all in this complicated but necessary Bill.
I ask the noble Earl to have another look at this issue of compensation. The noble Earl may not think that the Government need some popularity at the moment, but they would be a little more popular if he were to deal with this situation more generously than under the present proposals. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is a matter of what is going to be fair. My understanding is that the Government are proposing that the person surrendering his rifle should have a choice between a flat rate of £150, which will cover many cases, or, if it is preferred, be paid 50 per cent. of the average retail value that prevailed before 23rd September last year.
Not all of these guns will have been purchased recently, particuarly in view of the proceedings on this Bill. Most will have been purchased a long time ago. Even 50 per cent. of that retail value will sometimes represent a profit for the owner. At any rate, the owner will have an option and I should have thought that in the circumstances it is a fair option.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I strongly support this amendment because the level of compensation proposed is quite inadequate. I have spoken to a n umber of owners of the class of rifles which stand to be prohibited under the Bill and many have told me that their firearms cost considerable sums of money. They have had them improved in various ways by having new barrels fitted, and so on. Their present value bears no relation to the retail value of that make of firearm.
In my view it would be much fairer to provide for the owner to be compensated on the basis of the current market value as at 22nd or 23rd September last year. I repeat, I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has allowed his farming experience to mislead him. The substitution of market value for the existing
1214
compensation provisions raises two questions to which he should give his attention. The first is that the market value, if I am interpreting it correctly, should include VAT at 15 per cent. Should the owner of the firearm be entitled to claim as part of his compensation the VAT which a purchaser would have to pay? I should have said not. Secondly, I understand that it would also include what the purchaser had to pay to create the market value, which would be the dealer's mark up. Should the person receiving compensation be entitled to add that to his compensation? Again, as a matter of accountancy, I should have thought not. I should like to hear the answer.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the case for this amendment is surely self-evident. Whatever other less civilised countries may do, compensation payable by British Governments should always be fair, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, emphasised. We do not want a repetition of the scandal of the near-expropriation of the Vosper, Yarrow and the other naval shipbuilders under the terms of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act of 1977, about which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was rightly indigant, in common with other senior members of the Conservative Party. Equally, nor do we want repetition of the scandal of the virtual expropriation of terraced houses in so-called slum clearance areas in the 1950s and 1960s which it eventually took a Labour Government to put right, and not before time.
It has been announced in another place that owners will receive only half the market value and that this will represent a fair price. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the price obtainable at auction is a mere 50 per cent. of the price that one would pay for a gun in a reputable gunsmiths. Unless I can be convinced to the contrary I strongly support this amendment.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I too support this amendment. In order to get a better grasp of this issue I contacted four firms that deal in firearms. The first was unable to supply me with any figures but its overall impression was that the Government's terms were less than generous. The second firm said that they were most definitely unfair and that the owner of a new self-loading rifle could be as much as 15 to 20 per cent. out of pocket. A firm of auctioneers in Birmingham suggested that the percentage figure for the retail value should be 75 per cent. and not 50 per cent. The one remotely dissenting voice was in agreement with the Government in that the flat rate offer of £150 would favour someone who, for example, had bought a used self-loading rifle for £75. This firm went on to say that anyone who had bought a brand new self-loading rifle, say, a month before Hungerford for £1,200 and who had chosen the alternative offer would end with £600 but without having had £600 worth of use from his gun.
The conclusion that I certainly drew is that the Government have not yet got the compensation terms right. We should remember that we are here dealing with law-abiding people who for the most part do not understand why they are having to

1215
surrender their guns and they are extremely bitter and angry about it. Compensation and not punishment is the least that they deserve. They and indeed I would certainly feel that insult was being added to injury if the Government are niggardly in this matter. I believe that at least some of the ill feeling could be dispelled if the Government could improve their compensation terms.
After all, if a farmer loses some land for the building of a motorway, his compensation will be in part for disturbance and inconvenience. Surely the same must apply here. The market value as at 23rd September would seem to be the most logical approach. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say about it. However, if there are serious practical difficulties in implementing this, would my noble friend look again at the Government's basic formula with a view to raising certainly the percentage rate of retail value and possibly the flat rate as well?
Earl Peel: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. So many people have entered into this in good faith that I find it hard to believe that the Government are not ready to pay compensation to the full amount. There is a real danger that if proper compensation is not paid for such weapons, they will go, so to speak. underground, and the Government will fail to achieve one of their main purposes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, this is probably the only occasion in the debate when I have agreed with the noble Earls, Lord Peel and Lord Portsmouth. We are talking about law-abiding citizens. As both noble Earls will be aware, I am firmly in favour of the Bill. In so far as I have a criticism, it is that the Bill does not go far enough. I nevertheless believe that law-abiding citizens who have to get rid of their weapons should be adequately compensated. At the moment I do not believe they are being adequately compensated and I very much hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be able to meet us on this point. I suspect that the hidden hand of the Treasury is involved rather than that of the Home Office. I nevertheless hope that the noble Earl will be able to meet the anxieties of the House.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I believe that the buyers' and sellers' premium both come out at 10 per cent. which together would make 20 per cent. That is surely less than the 50 per cent. which the Government would be docking in this case.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand that your Lordships are concerned about compensation. Everyone is concerned about compensation when it crops up. However, I think there has been a misunderstanding over what is being offered and I hope that I shall be able to put the matter straight.
We expect that most claims will he for self-loading rifles. The owners of those rifles will have two options. They will be able to choose a flat rate payment of £150, which we believe will be acceptable to the majority of owners of guns at the bottom end of the market. I was interested to hear my noble
1216
friend Lord Portsmouth say that he thought that that might be too much. If they do not choose the first option they can go for 50 per cent. of the average retail value of the new gun—the value of the new gun immediately before 23rd September last year. Perhaps I may explain to the House how this system has been arrived at.
We took a survey of shop prices of new guns before that date. We also took a survey of auction prices before that date. Obviously it is fairest to pay the auction price for a weapon. There has to be a formula unless one is to give an individual assessment for each weapon, which would be hideously expensive. We found that the auction price of the secondhand weapon was about 50 per cent. of the purchase price of the new weapon. The purchase price of the new weapon, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham rightly said, includes VAT and the dealer's mark up. The simplest way was to consider the price of the new weapon on offer in the market and to say that the value of the secondhand weapon was about 50 per cent. of the value of the new one. That is a reasonably fair way of doing it.
We have concluded from our research that those figures are reasonable ones. Short of having an individual assessment for each weapon, I really think that that is about as far as we can go. I hope that I have clarified the position. I know many people think that they will get only 50 per cent. of the value of their weapon. That is not so. It is 50 per cent. of the value of their weapon had it been a new one. That is a very different matter.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, my noble friend is talking about 50 per cent. of the off-the-shelf price—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Swansea: My Lords, with the House's permission, I should like to ask a question for clarification. The noble Earl was basing his calculations on the off-the-shelf price. In cases such as the ones I mentioned a few minutes ago, where people have spent a considerable amount of money on improving their firearm so that the value of it bears no relation to the off-the-shelf price, what criteria would he apply?
Lord Torpichen: My Lord, perhaps it should be said just once again that the auction price is agreed between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
Noble Lords: Order!
10.15 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before I reply to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I should like to try to answer the noble and learned Lord who tried to trip me up earlier. If I may say so, VAT and the dealer's profit, or margin, is included in the price that the person paid for his rifle. I do not see what on earth that has to do with VAT on farming which the noble and learned Lord mentioned. He seemed to think that I was making some kind of comparison in that

1217
respect. I was merely saying that we should get full compensation for anything that the Government have taken away, killed or whatever. I thought that it was a reasonable point to make. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said—I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have listened to what he said—VAT and the dealer's margin were included in the calculations that they made.
As I said before, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is very good at putting his case forward. He puts it so well and kindly that it is sometimes difficult to argue with him. However, there are many very expensive rifles available. I should have thought that it would not be too difficult to get an individual valuation on claims for rifles which exceed a certain figure—that is if we want to be fair to people. There is no questioning the fact that such rifles have been paid for; some of them were very expensive and they are worth a great deal of money. I think that the noble Earl should give us some assurance that he will look again at the matter because apart from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, there is no one else who supports him in respect of this amendment. Therefore I think he needs to give some further consideration to the matter.
If there was a certain valuation figure that had to be looked at and used, and an individual assessment made, I think that that would satisfy many people. After all, an enormous amount of work is done in valuations all over the countryside. I do not think it would be too difficult to assess a particular rifle. I shall leave my argument at that and wait to hear what the noble Earl has to say in reply.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I really do not want to involve your Lordships in what would be a Committee stage because it is not the right thing to do. However, if I were to have the leave of the House on this one further occasion perhaps I may just add a little on the subject—as I have been invited to do by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It would be wrong for me to say that I shall look again at the matter. We have tried to conclude what is a fair method of compensation. I cannot possibly say to your Lordships that in each and every case that that will be a precise figure which will be an accurate one.
The noble Lord knows perfectly well, as do my noble friends sitting behind me, that in any method of compensation such as this one must have a formula. I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, says that my noble and learned friend was the only person who supported me in the matter. Of course, if there is compensation in issue it is not surprising that no one supports the Government, because they all want more. However, the fact is we must come to an arrangement.
My noble friend Lord Swansea asked about the position with regard to accessories. We have considered the business of accessories and looked sympathetically at the possibility. Our conclusion was that that sort of scheme would be impractical to administer; it is simply not possible. Some of the accessories for firearms which would be prohibited under the provisions of the Bill are transferable to other guns. Therefore a healthy market will remain
1218
for such accessories and clearly we could not contemplate handing out public money for them.
On the other hand, to provide for payments in respect of dedicated and non-transferable accessories would only necessitate again an elaborate screening system to check whether individual items qualified; whether they were transferable; and if they were not what their value was. That would be unacceptably expensive in terms of both finance and manpower. A number of accessories, especially magazines, are sought after in their own right by collectors. The market for them will therefore still exist.
I understand noble Lords' concerns about compensation value. We believe that we have it as near right as we can. I am the first to admit that there will not be 100 per cent. accuracy in 100 per cent. of cases. If one has to produce a formula, one can only produce a fair one. The one we have taken is the value of the second-hand weapon in relation to the value of the new weapon.
10.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 31.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Monson, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northesk, E.

Burton, L.

Peel, E.

David, B.

Portsmouth, E. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Savile, L.

Grey, E.

Seafield, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strange, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Liverpool, E.

Tordoff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Torphichen, L.

Mishcon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Arran, E.

Balfour, E.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Caithness, E.

Kimball, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Trafford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Tryon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.28 p.m.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Firearms consultative committee]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 10, line 38, after ("twelve") insert ("or more than fifteen").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple and self-explanatory amendment. Virtually all of us, whatever our differences over other aspects of the Bill, want the consultative committee to be a success. Your Lordships will need no reminding that large committees, generally speaking, do not work as well as small committees.
The clause already provides for a minimum of 13 members. This amendment would establish an upper limit of 16 which, I believe, most of us would regard as more than adequate. The amendment would provide a further safeguard. Although unlikely, it is not totally inconceivable that we may have one day in this country a government of a very different political persuasion to the present Administration, and utterly hostile to the interests of the shooting fraternity. The amendment would help to prevent the Home Secretary of the day packing the committee with his politically motivated nominees to the detriment of the shooting community. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I support the amendment strongly. I wish to remind your Lordships of the history of the clause which did not appear in the Bill as originally laid before Parliament but was inserted in Committee in another place against government opposition. On Report, the provisions of the clause were rather watered down by the Government. Some of us, I believe, would like to see it restored to something like its original form.
The upper limit of the number on the committee has been left open so far. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, puts forward a very acceptable solution that it should not consist of more than 15 persons; otherwise, it becomes quite top heavy, unmanageable and impossible to run. I support the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I hope that we leave this matter to the Home Secretary. I cannot see any advantage in passing an amendment of this character.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, because I agree with him. None of us wants the firearms consultative committee to grow so large that it becomes unwieldy and ineffective. On the other hand we must make sure that the benefit of the committee will lie in its ability to bring together the various interests of those who administer and enforce the legislation and those who participate in shooting for recreational and other purposes.
There should be a wide spectrum of people involved in the committee. I cannot tell your Lordships at the moment what the size of it will be. I think, however, we would be wrong to put an upper limit on it. I hope that your Lordships will agree to leave the Bill as it is.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am not wedded to an upper limit of 16 members specifically. Perhaps 17,
1220
18, 19 or 20 might be better. However, I think there should be an upper limit of some kind for the reasons I have already mentioned. It is late in the evening and I do not wish to pursue the matter now. However, I should like to take it away and consult all those in the House and outside who have expressed concern. For the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 10, line 44, at end insert—
("() The reference in subsection (1)(a) above to the use of firearms includes in particular a reference to their use for sport or competition.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is a compromise following an amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Swinton. Many of us feel that as the widest use of firearms occurs among those involved in sport and competition, it is logical to ensure that the consultative committee includes members specifically qualified to advise in these matters. After all, other interests are already mentioned in the Bill. I am certain that it was always the intention of the Government that the committee should include such members. I hope now that my noble friend can commit himself fully by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I explained in Committee that the Government have always intended to include sporting and competition interests on the committee, and that the wording in the Bill is specifically drawn to permit this. I therefore considered that the inclusion of such an amendment was not necessary.
I realise that a number of noble Lords felt very concerned about this subject and I have had the opportunity to consider the matter again. I am still of that opinion, but I wish to be as helpful and forthcoming to the House as possible. I am therefore happy to accept my noble friend's amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. I know how much thought and consideration he has put into this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 11, line 6, after ("above") insert ("and the regulation of the possession of and transactions relating to firearms and ammunition").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall also speak to the consequential amendments to Amendment No. 44, namely Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47. It appears that the later your Lordships' House sits the more willing the Minister appears to be to concede amendments. I therefore hope that I shall be fortunate with this one.
It may very well be that there is an inadvertent omission on the Government's part, rather than a conscious one. Perhaps your Lordships will look briefly at the object of the Bill as set out on page 1, which is:
"An Act to amend the Firearms Act 1968 and to make further provision"

1221
and would your Lordships kindly concentrate on these words:
"for regulating the possession of, and transactions relating to, firearms and ammunition".
That is the whole purpose of this Bill—to look at that matter at this moment.
The consultative committee has been set up. Its powers and constitution are contained in Clause 20 of the Bill. Perhaps noble Lords would be kind enough to turn to that clause, and especially to subsection (4). There one sees what the function of the committee is. One would expect that one of the things it is supposed to do is to review the matters which are the object of this Bill. In fact your Lordships will find that that is not so because subsection (4) says:
"(a) to keep under review the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above"
and to make recommendations on those matters.
If one looks at subsection (1)(c) one finds that those provisions are nothing to do with what I have just quoted, which is the object of the Bill; they are merely:
"the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act".
In other words, the committee's function relates only to looking at and making recommendations in regard to the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. It has nothing to do with the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to keep up-to-date with and deal with provisions for regulating the possession of and transactions relating to firearms and ammunition. Your Lordships will appreciate that I have borrowed the very words of the object of the Act. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, subsection (1) of Clause 20 sets out, among other things, three distinct areas of concern—to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred—one or more of which members of the firearms consultative committee must have knowledge and experience of. These are:
"(a) the possession. use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms; (b) weapon technology; and (c) the administration or enforcement of the provisions"
of the various firearms Acts.
Subsection (4) of Clause 20 sets out the functions of the committee. Subsection (4)(a) states that the committee shall:
"keep under review the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c)",
as the noble Lord said. But if we look at subsection (1)(c) it relates to the provisions of the various Firearms Acts—the 1968 Act, the 1982 Act and this Bill.
These are the very matters which I suggest the noble Lord's amendment seeks to incorporate. The amendment seeks to include the words used in subsection (1)(a) covering the possession of firearms and transactions in firearms. The reason why it is not spelt out in subsection (4)(a) is because we did not consider it necessary to do so. I find it difficult to know what else the phrase,
"the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c)"
1222
can mean if it does not refer to the possession of and transactions in firearms. That is what the three Acts concerned are all about. So in keeping under review the working of the provisions of those Acts the committee will be doing exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seeks to achieve with his amendment. It will be keeping under review the working of the regulatory enactments governing the possession of firearms and transactions in firearms.
I hope that I have managed to convince even the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that his amendment, good though it is, is not in fact necessary.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in following the words of the noble Earl, I wish I could find that they meet anything that I said when I moved this amendment. Words in a statute mean what they say. When one deals with the terms of reference of a committee, one is using words which bind the committee to those functions and do not allow it to expand upon them.
Administration and enforcement mean that what is in the Acts at the moment shall be administered and shall be enforced in certain ways. That is the job that has been given to this committee. If the committee wanted to say, "Ah, in 1988 Parliament passed certain laws relating to the control of firearms; in our view, in the light of experience, Parliament went too far"; or, "in the light of new firearms or modifications to them that have come into existence since 1988, Parliament did not go far enough" then on the wording of this clause—and I take full responsibility for saying so—that consultative committee would not be able to do so.
The committee can only comment on the administration and enforcement of the provisions of both Acts—the principal Act and this Bill—as they stand on the statute hook. It cannot make any recommendation for reform of those provisions, which is not administration and not enforcement. It can neither add to them nor subtract from them, and those are powers that it ought to possess.
Let us suppose that I have been talking absolute nonsense just now. Perhaps the House can take that for granted since it is usually a fairly safe assumption to make when I speak. Nevertheless (and I am now being serious) these are words that I have borrowed from the very purpose of the Act. If the noble Earl feels that they add nothing and are unnecessary, they certainly can do no harm in repeating the purpose of the Act and allowing the consultative committee to make an up-to-date review of what it thinks ought to be there by way of firearms control.
I hope that the Minister will at least tell me that the words I have uttered merit a little more consideration than they have been given so far. I do not ask for any promise beyond further consideration, but I should like to know my position before Third Reading. If he says that he will consider my remarks (which is all that I ask), I do not intend to divide the House at this time of night.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether I may have the permission of the House to speak again very briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the committee would only have to consider the working

1223
of the Act as it stands and that it could not make any suggestions with regard to its improvement. I hesitate to ask a distinguished lawyer to look at the Bill, but subsection (4) states:
"It shall be the function of the Committee—

(a) to keep under review the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c)…and to make to the Secretary of State such recommendations as the committee may from time to time think necessary for the improvement of the working of those provisions; [and]

(b) to make proposals for amending those provisions if it thinks fit"

I should have thought that those words covered the very points the noble Lord made. However, as I am not a lawyer and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is a distinguished lawyer, I will look again at what he said.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not think I would receive a warm reception from the House if I continued this argument in order to answer the Minister. I do not intend to do that. I assure him that I listened with respect to what he said. I shortly say that I do not agree with what he said as a proper interpretation. However, he has kindly promised to look again at this matter, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 48 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 11, line 13, at end insert—
("(4A) The Consultative Committee shall prepare. and shall revise from time to time as they think fit, a code of practice in connection with the possession and use of firearms, including—

(a) security and safekeeping of firearms;

(b) the proper use of firearms; and

(c) such other matters as the Secretary of State shall determine.

(4B) When the Committee propose to issue the code, or amendments thereto, it shall transmit a draft to the Secretary of State who shall if he approves it, lay it before both Houses of Parliament;
(4C) If the draft is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the Code and it shall come into effect.
(4D) In all criminal and civil proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, again, this amendment is similar to one that was moved at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Swinton. However, it differs from the original in several ways. The original amendment had the words:
"a code of practice for users of firearms".
This new amendment broadens the base to read:
"a code of practice in connection with the possession and use of firearms".
Furthermore, a rather more contentious requirement upon the Home Secretary to publish details of his reasons for withholding approval of the code has been withdrawn.
Under the existing firearms legislation, and in exactly the same way as proposed under this Bill, the Home Office will issue a memorandum of guidance to
1224
the police, advising them of the way they should administer the law. I believe there is much evidence to demonstrate that this had resulted in chief officers throughout the country putting widely different interpretations on how the law is implemented. I fully appreciate the need to maintain the basic principles of an independent force, but there seems to be an overriding need in this case to try to establish a far greater consistency in the way the public is dealt with by the police in all aspects relating to firearms. Failure to achieve that will only lead to more bad feeling, conflict and distrust, together with a waste of police time in dealing with appeals, and so on.
The attitude taken by certain chief officers has, I believe, been demonstrated only too clearly by recent remarks of Mr. Anderton, the chief officer of police of Greater Manchester. He made his opposition to anyone holding firearms quite clear. As my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, this is his personal view. But he has made that view very clear; it is there for all to witness.
He and similar-minded chief officers are almost bound to interpret the law to the extreme. There is the danger that instead of assessing the suitability of the individual applicant to possess a firearm, every technical excuse within the law may be used to prevent the legitimate applicant from getting the permit that he seeks.
Above all, throughout the country, it is the consistency of the law that I believe we must strive to achieve. The memorandum of guidance, to all intents and purposes, is an internal document drawn up between the police and Home Office civil servants. Although we have the Minister's assurance that this will be made public and that consultations with interested parties will take place, I do not believe that this method is anything like effective enough to achieve the high level of consistency of interpretation of the law that many of us feel is so desirable. The amendment would provide for the code of practice to be prepared by members of the consultative committee who are experts in their own fields: not civil servants, but a mixture of experts, including members of the police. They would be able to produce a code of practice that would be admissible in a court of law. I believe that that is the crux of the amendment. I am certain that the effect of the amendment would be to narrow the parameters within which the police would interpret the law, thus making their job easier and the public clearer on where they stand. That would surely be a fairer deal for all.
The Minister expressed his concern in Committee that, if the code were admissible in court, it could be construed as having the force of law, and the committee inadvertently might be usurping the proper functions of government in putting forward law for the approval of Parliament. However, this would not be the case because under the amendment the code—or, indeed, amendments to it—would be submitted to the Home Secretary for his approval. It would then be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
The simple effect would be to provide for a greater input by practical experts on the way in which

1225
firearms legislation would be implemented. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen said in Committee, such a code would not be setting a precedent. He quoted examples of similar codes in other legislation. I believe that many of the existing and future difficulties highlighted by your Lordships and others relating to firearms legislation could be largely overcome. I regard it as the most likely way of ensuring a consistency and fairness throughout the country, which I am sure everyone seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I can add little to the excellent presentation of the amendment by the noble Earl. As he said, there have been other examples of codes. The Highway Code in particular is of tremendous use to drivers. The code proposed, to be produced by experts, would be a tremendous help to the shooting fraternity, including shooting clubs, people who go in for sporting events and, indeed, all manner of shooting. We warmly support it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the amendment is less objectionable than that which was proposed in Committee. I think that what is proposed is still without precedent. If it is accepted, it would create an unwelcome precedent.
Codes of practice have increased in number considerably in recent years. Some have a limited legal effect. Others have none at all. Nearly all have been produced under statutory authority by governments departments so that the department in each case is the one with the relevant responsibility.
The amendment proposes that the consultative committee—admittedly composed of experts—should prepare and issue a code of practice for the custody and use of firearms, and that it should then be sent to the Secretary of State. I do not know whether meanwhile it is to be published. I think that that is likely to be the intention. If the Secretary of State approves it, as I understand it, he would lay it before Parliament for approval by affirmative resolution.
When it had been approved, after going through that procedure, it would be admissable in court. When the code appears to the court to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings,
"it shall be taken into account in determining that question".
This is a new way of arriving at codes of practice. I should have thought that, if we are to have codes of practice in this or any other context, it would be much better to stick to the usual way.
If we are to have consultative committees, quangos and so on taking it upon themselves to issue codes of practice and then the Secretary of State is required—whether the codes of practice are necessary or sound—to go into the matter in detail, perhaps causing a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing and adding to the use of time on the part of public servants, I very much doubt whether that is as good as the present system.
I do not claim that that system is as perfect as it might be. My noble friend Lord Kimball will remember that years ago there was a Private
1226
Member's Bill in another place. I, as Junior Minister in the Home Office, had to deal with it. The official advising me in the Home Office on a firearms Bill had never had a shotgun or a rifle in his hand in his life. He was candid enough to say so, but he knew what his responsibilities were. He knew to whom to go for information and advice. The proper channel for the exercise of the responsibility was used—that is to say, a Minister answerable to Parliament made representations to Parliament and Parliament was able to decide the matter directly.
I do not wish to labour this matter, but there is a further point. What my noble friend intends that the consultative committee shall do by means of this new code of practice procedure is mainly covered by what it is required to do under the Bill anyway, by making representations to the Secretary of State, as we discussed when the previous amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, were being considered. I should have thought that everything of value that can be achieved through the exercise by the committee of its functions as set out in Clause 20(4) is better achieved in the way presented by the Bill, instead of by means of this new form of code of practice.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree very largely with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. Indeed I go further than he does. I regard this as a wholly objectionable amendment and I oppose it as a matter of principle. The amendment seeks to take over, to some degree at least, operational decisions which in my view are the clear prerogative of the chief officer of police. The idea of a consultative committee—albeit a committee which makes proposals which may be approved and have to be approved by the Secretary of State— making decisions of the kind which are specified in subsection (4A) in my view is wholly wrong. Let us examine the expression in subsection (4A)(a):
"security and safekeeping of firearms".
I believe that a decision on a matter of that kind is exclusively for the chief officer of police.
Let us look at the position of an inner city area. Given the level of crime in such an area, the chief officer of police will require very rigorous arrangements for the safekeeping of firearms. I believe that it will be the overwhelming view of the House that that should be so. However, if the decision is not to be his but to be arrived at after discussion by a committee—no doubt experts in firearms but not, in the majority, in law enforcement—I believe that an amendment of this kind raises some very fundamental questions.
I should be astonished were the noble Earl to say that he accepts the amendment, or even that he will look at the matter again. I believe that it goes right to the heart of the relationship between the Government and the police service. If the Government weaken on this matter it will be extremely serious. I hope that they will oppose it wholeheartedly.
11 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I disagree most emphatically with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. To

1227
say that the proposed consultative committee will take over the responsibilities of the chief officer of police is totally erroneous. There are so many different areas in the country that it is important that guidelines should be issued to the police forces in order that they have a common denominator when exercising discretion as to whether to grant or revoke firearms certificates, and so forth.
Furthermore, it would be extremely helpful to the Government, be it this or any other, to have professional all-party committees advising on specific issues as they arise. These days it is impossible for any large organisation—which, after all, governments are—for ministers and civil servants to know all the answers. It must be most helpful to have bodies of people who are knowledgeable about specific issues who can advise and help. I believe that that is the important point behind the consultative committee and that it is helpful.
As the Bill now stands the consultative committee will consider only the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the principal Act and this Bill. That is as I read the Bill, although I am probably wrong because I usually am. That is a narrow brief.
I am not sure that there are provisions in the Bill for the safekeeping of firearms. I believe that to be a prerequisite. I dare say that the incident at Hungerford would never have happened if we had had proper security of firearms. People would not get at them if we looked after them properly. Who goes round to make sure that they are properly looked after? That is an important function of the proposed committee, in addition to the proper use of firearms and so forth.
The amendment should be considered most carefully. It may not be drafted in exactly the right form at this stage but I am sure that my noble friend Lord Peel will welcome an indication from the Minister that he will take the matter away and consider it, if not accept it as it stands. To throw it out would be most erroneous. I believe that it is possibly the most constructive provision which one can hope to see in the Bill.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I must say that I share the view expressed by both the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and my noble friend Lord Renton. Of course I do not have experience inside the Home Office but I do have—and I believe it is worthwhile referring to it—experience of codes of practice in other spheres.
I believe that this amendment is based on a false analogy and a false view of constitutional practice. It may be that I have some of the precedents wrong. I have not been able to look them all up because they are contained in a number of different Acts, but my experience is that the codes of practice normally put forward are on the initiative of a government department—that is, a Minister—after taking advice from various sources but are not initiated by a consultative committee.
I believe that that is a departure from practice which needs to be justified and has not been justified
1228
either by my noble friend behind me or by those who have spoken from the Opposition Front Benches. I believe that where they are adopted, they should be the responsibility of a Government Minister. In this case they are neither one thing or another but in fact they are both. It is a bad constitutional practice which is now being proposed. I believe that it is a departure from precedent, and not a good departure.
If the matter simply stopped there, I believe I would not think it worthwhile to complain too much. It may be that I am too much of a pedant. However, I do not believe that it stops there. I do not believe that the supporters of this amendment have thought through what codes of practice are about. Again, at this late hour I am not going to trouble the House, even if I were able to, with all the precedents.
However, the supreme code of practice which everyone knows, more or less—and I probably less than some and more than others—is the Highway Code. That is a typical example and it is worthwhile thinking about whether this is a good or bad analogy. My view is that it is bad and I shall tell the House why. The code of practice contained in the Highway Code provides, as does this amendment, that it can be given in civil and criminal proceedings in a court of law. It is itself and in itself without legal effect.
The sort of things that it tells you in the Highway Code—and I only wish that people observed it a little better—is that if you approach a roundabout you have to give way to the person who is coming in from your right and that it is bad for people to pass you on the left-hand side when you are driving in the middle lane of a motorway. That is the sort of matter set out in the code of practice. In a court of law, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, it is some evidence of no negligence that you have been keeping the code of practice and some evidence of negligence that you have been breaking it. A court of law is not bound by that but is entitled to take it into account in its total summation of the facts.
Of course nobody says in the Highway Code, "The maximum speed shall be 70 miles an hour on the motorway or 30 miles an hour in a built-up area". Essentially, that is a matter for statutory provision either by way of the statute itself or through statutory instruments under the statute. You are not given a chance of arguing before a court of law that it was only a little one, like the housemaid's baby. You are not given the chance of arguing one way or the other. There are certain matters for regulation, certain matters to be taken into account in a total summation of the situation and certain matters in which the individual user of the road is entitled to use his own discretion but still has certain authoritative advice.
As regards my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, I should have thought that anything he possibly wanted is already contained in Clause 20(4)(c):
"to advise the Secretary of State on any other matter relating to those provisions which he may refer to the committee".
It is good that these experts should advise the Secretary of State, but in the main this Bill is altogether different from the Road Traffic Act. In the main the purpose of this Bill is to lay down precise rules of law either by the terms of the statute or by regulation under it.

1229
What I say respectfully to those who support the amendment is that it is a false analogy. This is not the sort of animal which calls for codes of practice. It is also bad to have codes of practice which adopt a totally different constitutional rote from that which other codes of practice normally have. For those two reasons I suggest that the Government would be unwise to give a hasty approval to the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I cannot help wondering what all the fuss is about and why we should have to enter into constitutional arguments when, as I see it, we have a straightforward, practical proposition.
It is a great shame when the House has to listen to the debating skill, so renowned, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, at ten minutes past eleven, because one cannot appreciate it to the full as one would do if one were a little less tired. However, I take up immediately the matter that he raises about the Highway Code. For example, this Bill deals with items which can be dangerous to the public if used wrongly. Firearms are an obvious example of that. Motor cars are another example of that. If you use a motor car dangerously, you affect the public. If you use firearms and do not look after their security properly, you endanger the public. The public want a little guidance. What guidance should they have, apart from that enacted in the Road Traffic Act which rightly lays down offences about exceeding the speed limit, and so on?
The public need guidance on the very matters about which the noble and learned Lord spoke. You safeguard the people who are in the middle lane on the highway by not overtaking them on the left. That is a code of practice of behaviour. If you do not behave in that way and you endanger the public, that is prima facie evidence if charged with driving without due care and attention or if you appear in a civil court and are sued for negligence.
I repeat, what is all the fuss about? We are looking at matters that a group of experts, appointed by the Minister, could consider to see how dangerous they are; and what a wreck we are making of a constitution which we love! Exactly what are the experts asked to look at for the code of practice? The amendment refers to,
"security and the safekeeping of firearms [and] the proper use of firearms".
What an inroad into our constitution if a committee appointed by the Secretary of State were to look into such matters!
Are there any other such matters? Yes:
"such other matters as the Secretary of State shall determine."
So if the Secretary of State wants the committee of experts that he has set up to look at that, is that so terribly dangerous?
What are the safeguards for our constitution? If this amendment provided that as soon as the consultative committee prepared its code of practice that became an effective code of practice, then I can see a constitutional point. You would give to a consultative committee a power that it should not have. But two things must happen after that. First, the consultative committee submits the draft code of
1230
practice to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, without giving any reason whatever, without having to give any reason to anybody, can say "I do not agree with it." It dies a death upon that happening.
Let us say that the Secretary of State very foolishly agrees to a code of practice that he should never agree to. It has to go before Parliament. How often have I heard from the Front Bench opposite: "Do you so belittle the Houses of Parliament when you say that we can give ourselves powers to make statutory orders. Goodness gracious me!". I am told: "That has to be sanctioned by both Houses of Parliament and Parliament can object. It is the free voice of the people and it is a democratic vote, so what are you worried about giving us powers to make statutory instruments in that way?" The great and tender fabric of our constitution is not being interfered with in the slightest.
What are the advantages of all this? There is a group of experts. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I should be terrifically surprised if the people who are supposed to be experts in the administration or enforcement of the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act did not include the police. I should be amazed if the Secretary of State did not put at least one police representative on the consultative committee as someone who was expert in the administration and the enforcement of the Firearms Act. The police would be represented. There are the safeguards and there are the advantages of someone getting on with the code.
When one speaks to me about the Home Office I have the greatest sympathy, as someone who never had the privilege of serving as a Minister in the Home Office, for those Ministers who do and who have done. The multifarious activities of the Home Office mean that by the time the Minister has finished quite a long term of office he may be an expert in just one of the fields that the Home Office deals with. He cannot hope to be anything else.
It is hardly likely that this code of practice is to be something that emanates from the Home Office itself. The committee of experts appointed by the Secretary of State, preparing a draft code on necessary matters and where there can be consistency and unification throughout the country, has the sanction of the Secretary of State. He may say that he does not like one scrap of it or half of it and he is only going to put forward one half and take the other half back. Parliament has to have its say before it is to have any effect at all. When it does have any effect it is merely evidence of some kind of value to a court of justice whether civil or criminal.
I beg of this House not to take a continuing and negative attitude to matters that might be helpful as regards this Act. I am praying in aid constitutional arguments which are worthy of higher objects but not the plain, straightforward, sensible and practical object of this amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I also support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has dealt far more ably than I could with the safeguards that are built into it both from the point of view of the

1231
Secretary of State and the approval of such a code of conduct by both Houses of Parliament.
There is one matter which has been mentioned only slightly in the course of this debate. It has long been a bone of contention in the shooting community that individual chief constables in different parts of the country have very wide discretion in administering the Act. They are liable to interpret it in a great number of different ways, even to the extent sometimes of almost re-writing the Act or of exceeding their powers.
This code of practice would go a long way to achieving some uniformity of practice in the administration of the Act throughout the country. If one remembers the principle that while the citizen, wherever he may live in the country, has the same duties and responsibilities under the law, he should also have the same rights under the law. That is one matter that I hope this code of practice will achieve.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the amendment. Following the Committee stage and today's debate, it is quite clear that this is a highly technical and non-party political matter. To administer this code of practice and to keep it up to date needs expert advice. It is very important to achieve unanimity, which we certainly do not have at the moment. I have a large file of complaints of police persecution of legitimate certificate holders. I shall not go into details tonight but a considerable number of such certificate holders have been hard done by. The Home Office apparently issues directives to the chief officers of police. I do not know exactly how it works but these presumably come from senior civil servants. I feel that these directives should not come from civil servants. They should come from the consultative committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Home Office never gives a directive to a chief officer of police? There are 43 separate police forces in this country. The Home Secretary has no constitutional right to give any form of directive to a chief officer of police. That is a fact.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps I put it a little strongly. I think they are called guidelines or memoranda of guidance. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, this has to go through the Secretary of State and then to Parliament. I really cannot see what all the fuss and bother is about.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I took a great deal of comfort from one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. He said that when a Minister has finished his time in the Home Office he might be an expert in one of the areas covered by the department. I never thought that that would be a possibility. However, he says so, and I am at least encouraged.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret said that it is quite right to have a committee to advise. We have a committee that can advise. It can make proposals for amending provisions and can advise the Secretary of State on any other matter. We have what my noble friend wanted. But then along comes my noble friend
1232
Lord Peel with this amendment which says that the committee "shall prepare… a code of practice" and shall transmit a draft to the Secretary of State,
"who shall if he approves it, lay it before both Houses of Parliament".
If Parliament approves it, "it shall come into effect". The amendment goes on to say:
"In all criminal and civil proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence".
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is correct. A fundamental decision has to be taken. If I may say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, he is wrong to trivialise this exercise. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that the supporters of the amendment had not thought through what the codes of practice are about. I agree with him. I have thought through what the codes of practice are about. I said in Committee that I would look into the possibility of giving the consultative committee the power to draw up codes of practice on firearms matters and give statutory backing to such codes. My noble and learned friend is absolutely right. I should like to explain to the House why this is important.
Some noble Lords may recall that on 15th January 1986 a debate took place on the subject of codes of practice to which my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate responded. During that debate concern was expressed about the uncertainty which surrounded the need for codes of practice and their role. As a result, guidance on this subject was subsequently set out in a Cabinet Officer paper, a copy of which I have and a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House. It was entitled quite simply Guidance on Codes of Practice and Legislation. The Cabinet Office guidance states that the prescriptions of a code of practice:
"are not hard and fast rules but guidelines which may allow considerable latitude in their practical application and may be departed from in appropriate circumstances".
That applies whether a code is for the guidance of administrators or to advise the public on their legal responsibilities. It is important to bear that limitation in mind. Statutory codes of practice would not, as some noble Lords seem to believe, solve all the problems which at present arise over the interpretation and implementation of firearms controls.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham referred to the Highway Code and, if I may say so, he was rather chewed up by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for so doing, although it was done in a most delightful way.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it was done with courtesy.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes; it was done with total courtesy. However, some of the existing codes of practice—not only those contained in the Highway Code, but also those concerning the welfare of livestock—are very useful in amplifying a broadly drawn concept, such as my noble and learned friend expressed: for example, reckless driving or causing unnecessary suffering to animals.
However, the Firearms Act is different. It creates a range of narrowly drawn offences for which that kind

1233
of amplification is not necessary. As my noble friend Lord Mountgarret mentioned, there already exists the non-statutory guidance on the administration of firearms legislation in the form of the Home Office memorandum of guidance to chief police officers. That memorandum is at present under revision. It has been the subject of extensive consultation with shooting interests. We propose to publish it in good time for the implementation of the new legislation. It will serve as guidance both to the police and to the shooting public.
Statutory codes of practice on the administration of the firearms Act would at best overlap and could even conflict with the provisions of the Home Office memorandum of guidance. I believe that this would confuse rather than clarify the controls. The alternative suggestion that the memorandum of guidance be given statutory backing is superficially attractive. But we would be reluctant to take a step which might limit unreasonably the discretion of chief constables. The administration of firearms controls is a heavy responsibility and it must be accompanied by sufficient freedom to deal with each individual case on its merits.
I think that my noble friend Lord Peel hoped that such a statutory code of practice might at least ensure consistency of operation by chief officers. I will give your Lordships this example. Let us suppose that a firearms certificate was refused because in the chief constable's opinion the security of the firearms was not sufficient. The person applying for it then contested that decision and subsequently took the matter to the court. What would he say? He would say, "The code of practice says that the guns are to be kept in a tin box with a lock and I have kept my guns in such a tin box with a lock." The chief constable would say, "Yes, but the lock was not secure, it was loose and it was not effective." The defendant would say, "That does not matter. I have gone according to what the codes of practice said." There would be a severe risk that there would be a conflict between the codes of practice and the rights and duties of chief officers to ensure the security of the countryside for which they have responsibility.
The firearms consultative committee will be able to recommend that the Secretary of State issues guidance in the form of a code of practice; for example, on the safekeeping of firearms and sporting etiquette. The committee will also have the power to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for amendments to the memorandum of guidance to chief officers. We shall welcome such recommendations. It will also have the right to put in its annual report any such matters which it thinks should be drawn to the attention not only of the Home Secretary but, as a result of the fact that it has to be laid before Parliament, to Parliament itself.
For the reasons I have given, which are supported by the Cabinet Office guidance which I hope your Lordships will not undervalue, I do not believe that this measure is necessary or desirable. We believe that the chief officer's discretion to grant certificates, for which he is accountable to the courts, should not be fettered by statutory codes of practice which would conflict with his duty to ensure public safety.
11.30 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, we have had a long and interesting debate which, as I suspected, turned partially into a constitutional matter. When I saw my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham sitting in front of me I thought that it would. On this occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon came to my rescue. I echo his words, "What is all the fuss about?" We have been skirmishing around what is in principle a straightforward and easy matter.
My noble friend Lord Renton questioned whether the measure would set a precedent. My information is that it does not. As I said earlier, similar codes of practice have been established. My noble friend Lord Swinton gave examples in Committee. My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned subsection (4D) of the amendment, which provides:
"In all criminal and civil proceedings any such code should he admissible in evidence".
But it continues:
"and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to be relevant".
There is a power for the court to draw on when it thinks fit.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that the powers contained in the code of practice would take over from the police. The code of practice will merely narrow the way in which the police will interpret the law. That is all it seeks to do and I believe that is all it will do.
My noble friend the Minister referred to the rules of the code of practice. I did not follow him on that point. I had the impression that there were no hard and fast rules, according to the examples that he gave. If we are making slightly new ground with this proposal, does that matter if we achieve what we want to achieve? My noble friend said that the Firearms Act is different. I believe that is so, but that is why we need an effective code of practice.
It is late, but I happen to believe that in many respects this is the most important amendment in the Bill. I therefore feel, especially in view of what has been said on all sides of the House, that I have no option but to divide the House on this matter.
11.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 31.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Borthwick, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northesk, E.

Burton, L.

Peel, E. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Portsmouth, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Savile, L.

Liverpool, E.

Seafield, E.

Mancroft, L.

Swansea, L.

Mishcon, L.

Tryon, L.

Monson, L.

1235

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Balfour, E.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Davidson, V.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Grey, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Torphichen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trafford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.41 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to introduce Amendment No. 50. As I said when introducing Amendment No. 42, virtually all of us, whatever may be our views on other aspects of the Bill, are anxious that the consultative committee shall succeed. It follows that we are anxious that it should remain in being whatever Ministerial changes or changes of Government we may see in the future; hence this amendment.
In fact this is really the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. Some of us were contemplating a rather more complex amendment of our own on the same lines but concluded that this simpler one suggested by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was better. I am slightly thrown to find the name of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and that of his friends missing from this amendment. I trust that does not indicate that he is disowning his worthwhile brainchild, but that on the contrary he and his noble friends will support it vigorously. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment, because I think this subsection is somewhat unnecessary. After all, the Secretary of State can surely terminate a committee any time he so chooses, so why is it necessary to include this subsection? I should have thought it was unnecessary.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I too wish to support the amendment. The present form of subsection (7) is very unsatisfactory. It suggests that the committee in five years' time might be allowed to waste away and wither on the vine because the Secretary of State perhaps has not given it any work to do with that very object in mind. The committee could perform a very useful function and it is most important that it should be allowed to continue in being on some other terms than are mentioned in this subsection. I should be quite happy to go along with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in suggesting it should he left out altogether.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope this amendment will not be accepted. The work of the committee will be at its most intense during its first, second or third year. After that, if the work is done properly, it should become less onerous. It would be absurd to have the committee carry on indefinitely when its main purpose had been achieved and it had really very little left to do.
It is a matter of judgment, but I should have thought that to have the committee sitting for five years certainly at the behest of Parliament and to have that written into the Bill is right. If, by any strange chance, longer were needed there is no reason why the Secretary of State should not have the power to extend its life for up to three years at a time. I should not have thought that he would need to do so for longer. I think that this is a wise provision and I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Bill as drafted allows the committee to continue at the discretion of the Secretary of State, according to how useful it has proved itself during the five-year period. In another place those in favour of such a body argued strongly that it should be established for a limited period initially to enable it to prove its worth. I believe that it is right that its existence, and its cost-effectiveness to the taxpayer, should be kept under review. I believe that the clause as it stands should continue. It allows for the committee to remain in place for five years and thereafter to be reviewed every three years.
I believe that it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to judge the value of the committee which is, after all, an advisory committee. As drafted the amendment would permit the committee to go on forever unless primary legislation were introduced to stop it, irrespective of whether the committee was good, bad or indifferent. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Bill is best left as it is.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in view of the way things have turned out I rather regret adopting lock, stock and barrel the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It is true that he did not table the amendment himself, but it was a suggestion of his. I think that perhaps we should have stuck to our rather more complex but less ambitious amendment and simply have lengthened the period of time from three years to five.
However, I do not want to pursue the matter at this time of night. I do not feel terribly strongly about the issue myself although other noble Lords may take a different view. They may wish to come back with a compromise amendment at the next stage. For the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert—
("() In section 26(3) of that Act for the words "three years" wherever they occur there shall be substitued the words "five years".".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very straightforward amendment. To make firearms certificates renewable every three years rather than every five years is expensive and time-consuming, not only for the holder of the licence but very much more so for our over-burdened police. As I understand it, it is also out of line with the practice in most other industrialised countries.
It has been estimated that the Bill will increase the police workload by no less than 1.5 million man hours per annum. That estimate is based on the Home Office's own figures from a working party report of 1984. It may be of interest to your Lordships that in 1976 a Private Member's Bill was introduced in another place by the Member who later became the noble Viscount the Leader of this House. It used precisely the same words as are contained in this amendment.
I have heard it suggested that the reason for resistance to a five-year period is the possibility that someone's mental state might deteriorate in that period. If the question of the mental state of a holder of a licence is the prime issue, then, frankly, one would have to make the licence renewable every three months and not every three years. I do not believe that argument to be a very powerful one. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. This subject has been a point of discussion between shooting interests and the Home Office for a long time. The fees for firearm and shotgun certificates have now reached the pitch where they become quite a burden on the individual.
This amendment would spread the burden of that fee over a longer period so that it would be more bearable for the individual. With the present state of police records, computer records and communications, it would not be impossible for the police to be able to keep tabs on any individual they wished, whether through their own methods of communication, the bobby on the beat, or whatever. During a five-year period they should be able to collect enough information about that individual to enable them to remain assured that he was the kind of person who could be entrusted with a firearms or shotgun certificate.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I also should like to support this amendment. I think that the Home Office has grossly underestimated the amount of extra police time that this Bill will require, particularly in regard to the recording of shotguns. It will take policemen off the beat. We have all heard chief constables complain recently about the shortage of manpower. This measure will take policemen away from what they should be doing—namely, trying to control criminal activities—in order to oversee the activities of basically law-abiding people.
The Bill will add considerably to the cost of a certificate. The amendment is one way of reducing not only the amount of police time required but also the cost. It seems to me to be an admirable suggestion.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that at a time when we are trying to tighten controls it would be very prudent to extend the life of certificates to five years before renewal. Obviously, the longer the period of validity of a certificate the less likely it is that unsuitable people will come to notice.
The Government want to do the most that they can to make things more convenient for shooters and that is why they have provided a facility in Clause 11 for the expiry dates of firearms and shotgun certificates to be brought into line so that both can be issued simultaneously. The fee for a shotgun certificate will then be issued at a very reduced fee of £5. Obviously we must also have regard to savings of police time, which Clause 11 will reduce because all the inquiries which are necessary for the issue of both certificates can be made at the same time.
The renewal of a firearms or shotgun certificate provides an opportunity for the police to review the holder's circumstances with a view to ascertaining that he is a suitable and fit person to continue to possess firearms or shotguns. I believe that it would not be right to extend the validity of the shotgun or firearms certificate to five years.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I note what the noble Earl says but perhaps I may remind him that the right honourable gentleman of whom I spoke when I introduced this amendment, and who in 1982 was Home Secretary in the Conservative Administration, wrote to MPs in November of that year in the following terms:
"As you know, I support the suggestion that the period of validity of shotgun certificates should be extended from three years to six years"—
not five years—
"coupled with a requirement to notify changes of address, and I welcome this proposal which would relieve the police of an administrative burden without impairing the effectiveness of the controls".
That was five and three-quarters or six years ago.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I intervene only to say that that was before Hungerford.
Lord Monson: My Lords, one single incident at Hungerford has not changed anything. Shotguns were not really an issue. It was automatic weapons, although used in single-shot form, which did the damage at Hungerford and not shotguns. To produce panic legislation after one such incident will not wash. Crimes with shotguns have not increased substantially since November 1982. I should have thought that the wise words then of the right honourable gentleman are as valid today as they were then.
However, I have not received a great deal of support for this amendment. I do not know what noble Lords will wish to do at a later stage, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert—
("(4A) In section 26(3) of that Act after the words "the holder resides" there shall be inserted the words "or, if the holder is

1239
overseas on Crown service, in which the certificate was originally granted or renewed"; and in section 29(2) after the word "resides" there shall be inserted the words "or, where a person is entitled by section 26(3) of this Act to do so, by the chief officer for the area in which the certificate was originally granted or renewed" ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I am sure your Lordships will find it convenient to discuss also Amendment No. 53. Both deal with exactly the same principle concerning the firearm certificate holder who is posted overseas in the services, by the Foreign Office or on Crown service in some capacity or other—in other words, not from his own choice but through what are known as the exigencies of the service. Let us suppose that he lets his residence in this country during his period of service abroad so that he no longer has a residence in the United Kingdom and that during his absence his firearm certificate expires. As he has no residence in this country, he has no grounds for having his certificate renewed. That is manifestly unfair to a British subject normally resident in this country who is posted abroad in the service of the Crown.
I have no doubt my noble friend on the Front Bench will say that such a person could get a visitor's permit when he comes back to this country; but he is not a visitor. He is a citizen of this country, and were it not for the fact that he has let his house, or perhaps even sold it, he would normally be resident in this country. I think it is entirely reasonable that one of the two amendments—either this one or Amendment No. 52 proposed by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun—should be incorporated into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, in my humble opinion, my amendment is a rather simpler alternative to that of the noble Lord. Lord Swansea. A similar amendment not restricted to Crown servants was, I believe, moved at Committee stage in another place. I understand that the Minister, Mr. Douglas Hogg, gave an undertaking to consider the issue although I believe he was not helpful in respect of those Britons working abroad who were not Crown servants. That is the reason, I think, why this amendment is restricted to Crown servants only.
The point is that if your firearms certificate runs out while you are abroad and you cannot get another one until you have a new residence in this country, you may very well be in the position—apart from anything else—of coming back to this country with a firearm for which you do not have a valid certificate.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to support Amendment No. 53, if it is in order to do so at this moment, mainly on the grounds that a pledge was given in another place that something along these lines would be introduced. There was not time to do so. Now seems the right moment to accept such an amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, both these amendments refer to members of the forces or Crown servants who are residing temporarily abroad. Firearms control is based on the premise of a certificate holder who is living in this country. And in general a certificate
1240
authorises the possession of a firearm in Great Britain. The criteria for the grant and renewal of a firearm certificate, set out in Sections 27 and 28 of the 1968 Act, relate to possession here and to public safety here.
I do not think that such criteria can properly be applied to a person who is not living in this country. The same is true of the local conditions under which a firearms certificate is held. I find it difficult to see a reason to change this. A firearm or shotgun certificate can only be renewed by the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant resides. If a person is resident in this country but temporarily abroad his certificate can be renewed by his local chief officer of police. If a person is not resident in this country he then has no need of a firearms or shotgun certificate for use in this country. If he wishes to bring his guns here on a visit he can apply for a visitor's permit in the usual way.
The amendment suggests that firearms certificates should be issued to enable people who are abroad to shoot in other countries. I understand the feeling, but do not think that it constitutes a sound basis for granting a certificate to a person who is not residing here. I do not see any particular justification for treating Crown servants or members of the forces any differently from others who are required to work abroad, whether in international organisations or with private sector interests. What about those who work abroad in BP or ICI and merchant bankers and businessmen? They should all be treated in the same way. While I understand the reason behind the amendment, I cannot accept it.
12 Midnight
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am not surprised at my noble friend's reply. I am disappointed that he has not seen his way to accepting the amendment. As he says, this could apply just as well to someone who is sent abroad on business. The amendment was framed to keep things simple and to underline the fact that such a person would be going abroad in the service of his country as a member of Her Majesty's forces or in the foreign service. As my noble friend rightly says, the same principle could be applied to a person who goes abroad in the course of business. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 53, I wish to indicate the kind of person who I have in mind.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lady must either not move the amendment or speak to it and subsequently seek to withdraw it. She is not entitled to do both at the same time.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I thought that I was entitled to raise a query.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lady spoke to the amendment in discussion of an earlier amendment, which was not agreed to. If she wishes to speak to the amendment standing in her name she ought to move it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert—
("() The following subsection shall be inserted at the end of section 26 of that Act—
"() The holder of a firearms certificate who is a serving member of H.M. forces or other Crown servant posted overseas at the time of expiry of the certificate shall be entitled to renewal by the issuing authority on written request by him and in the absence of any reasonable ground of objection." ").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, I have in mind a member of Her Majesty's forces, for example, to whom a firearms certificate was granted in the area in which he resided at the time. He goes abroad on Her Majesty's service, say, to Germany, with the firearms certificate and his rifle. While he is there on Her Majesty's service the firearms certificate runs out. He cannot renew it because he no longer has a residence in this country. He comes back to this country when his posting ends. He no longer has a valid certificate, but he has a firearm that he wants to keep and he wishes to have a firearms certificate. He has come back to this country the owner of a firearm for which he has no firearms certificate. That is a rather tricky situation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lady's amendment would give an entitlement to a certificate and the presumption is that the serviceman would be issued with a certificate. That would put him in a more favoured position than a person who lives in this country.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am not at all happy with that answer. I do not propose to divide the House at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 12, line 8, at end insert—
("(6A) In section 43 of that Act in subsection (3) for the words "and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament" there shall be substituted the words "and no such order shall he made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here we come to the last fence. This subject has been mentioned before. I am concerned particularly about a further increase in the fees for shotgun and firearms certificates, which I believe there will undoubtedly be in the light of the increased workload to be put on the police as a result of the Bill. So far the statutory instruments setting new fees have been subject to negative resolution and it has been up to any noble Lord or Member of another place to lay a prayer, if he so wishes. Otherwise it goes through automatically.
The effect of the amendment would be to require affirmative resolution of both Houses before a statutory instrument could take effect. It is desirable in view of the level which fees have now reached. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think we should be chary of extending the affirmative resolution procedures.
1242
They should be used only for matters of real importance on which it is essential to get both Houses of Parliament debating and considering the matter before it is approved. Under the 1968 Act we have always had the negative procedure for matters concerning fees payable under the Act. It has worked perfectly well and I believe it would be overdoing it if we were now to move from the perfectly satisfactory negative procedure to the affirmative procedure. I do not believe that there would be any demand for it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, once again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I cannot see any case for an amendment of this kind. There is a clear Treasury rule which is operated by this Government. I know that because it was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, in answer to a Question I put on this precise matter. It is that all fees for shotguns and all other fees charged by government departments have to be operated on a self-financing basis.
That is entirely sensible. It is the view of the present Government and was the view of the previous Government. It seems to me that the negative resolution procedure is entirely appropriate and I hope that the Government will not accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in contrast, I strongly support the amendment. I hope that noble Lords on the main Opposition Benches, who quite rightly in my view are constantly calling for the replacement of the negative resolution procedure by the affirmative resolution procedure when other contentious Bills such as the poll tax Bill, the Housing Bill, and so on, are being debated, will remain true to their principles and support it in this case as well.
It is undeniable that for this House it makes very little practical difference because of the regrettable convention that we hardly ever oppose an order. But it makes a great deal of difference, according to my information, to the Back-Benchers in another place, as my friends and acquaintances there never cease to stress. Therefore I think the amendment is important.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I believe that the negative resolution procedure is right. It has been used for the past 20 years and it has the advantage of saving parliamentary time.
In practice, there has always been an opportunity to debate any orders made under this provision, and although I realise that in the past my noble friend Lord Swansea may not have been happy with some of the provisions made under Section 43, I do not think he would say that Parliament would have been less likely to approve these measures had the affirmative resolution procedure applied. Indeed, the negative resolution procedure was used effectively in 1979 to pray against the Firearms (Variation and Fees) Order 1979 and the order was duly annulled. As noble Lords will know, neither the negative resolution procedure nor the affirmative resolution procedure enables Parliament to amend the instrument.

1243
If we continue the negative resolution procedure it saves time, and I believe that it is the correct procedure to use for this purpose.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I shall not press the point but my noble friend's reply has not changed my views about the procedure used. I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
I should like to express my thanks to my noble friend for the patient way in which he has dealt with the many points that have been raised. He has stood his ground very well and I compliment him on that. I am sorry that he has not proved as flexible as one may have hoped. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past midnight.

  BARNES REVIEW
  BARNES REVIEW
  FOOD FROM BRITAIN: FUNDING
  FOOD FROM BRITAIN: FUNDING
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, LUXEMBOURG, 17TH–18TH OCTOBER
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, LUXEMBOURG, 17TH–18TH OCTOBER
  SPATIAL DATA
  SPATIAL DATA
  GAS SUPPLIES: MMC REPORT
  GAS SUPPLIES: MMC REPORT