Sitting of 28 February 1989

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

    Trafford (Secondary Education)
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning secondary education in the borough of Trafford.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): My right hon. Friend has received 19 letters in support of the Trafford local education authority's proposals to reorganise secondary education, 270 statutory objections and 96 non-statutory objections. He has also had requests from two hon. Members for meetings to discuss the proposals, and a similar request from Trafford LEA.
    Mr. Lloyd: The Minister may be aware that the borough of Trafford intends to maintain selective education. Is he aware that in Trafford's primary schools, while some 20 per cent. of those schools have a pass rate of more than half the pupils, about 40 per cent. get under a fifth of their pupils into the grammar schools, including 11 of the 13 schools in my constituency, which is the poorest part of the borough? Can he tell me whether he really believes that selection in Trafford is a measure of educational ability or possibility, or whether it is simply a very good measure of social class and address?
    Mr. Butcher: No, Sir, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's contention. If he looks at various reports he will find quite spectacular differences in academic performance between schools in the same socio-economic grouping. I happen to believe very strongly that selective schools have a major benefit in that in the main they produce a good social mix which is based on the grounds of ability alone.
    If the hon. Gentleman would like to discuss what I agree is an interesting if somewhat disconcerting phenomenon, I shall be pleased to do so either in conjunction with a delegation from Trafford or in a conversation with the hon. Gentleman.

    Further Education Colleges
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider introducing legislation to allow colleges of further education to opt out of local authority control.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): My right hon. Friend has no current plans to do so.
    Mr. Franks: Does my hon. Friend agree that many colleges of further education, particularly in large rural areas such as Cumbria, would be far better off if they could to opt out of local authority control? In view of the Government's commitment to devolve responsibility from local authorities to schools, parents and teachers, will he consider a review of policy for the future to give far greater independence to colleges of further education?
    Mr. Jackson: I direct my hon. Friend's attention to a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the other day to the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education, outlining a very wide-ranging set of proposals for the improvement of the supply of further education. Under the Education Reform Act colleges will shortly be gaining new powers and a great deal of autonomy from the LEAs. They will also have the opportunity to obtain corporate status, and we hope that they will take that opportunity, but the LEAs will continue to have an important planning and funding role. We believe that it is best to wait and see how they perform that role before considering any further changes in the structure and organisation of further education.
    Mr. Rowe: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, but I hope that he is aware that in colleges of further education such as mid-Kent college, of which I am a governor, the range of courses undertaken is of such diversity that they face very serious problems in knowing which direction to take, whether to move closer to higher education or to concentrate more on providing technical education. I believe that a degree of autonomy such as my hon. Friend has suggested would assist in that direction.
    Mr. Jackson: As my hon. Friend says, mid-Kent college has a great deal of autonomy under the Education Reform Act, which offers a great opportunity to colleges of further education for the exercise of autonomy in determining their future. It is also a great challenge for business, because business will have a key role to play in supplying the governing bodies for the new colleges.

    New Teachers
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many new teachers were recruited in 1988 with experience in non-teaching professions; and what plans he has to encourage recruitment of other skilled mature entrants to the teaching profession.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Thirty per cent. of new student teachers training in 1988 were aged 26 or over. We have a campaign to boost the number of older people from industry and business who want to switch to teaching. The licensed teacher route will directly help such people.
    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Welwyn Hatfield in Hertfordshire on its lead in that matter, and make sure that such a policy is followed elsewhere so that specialist teacher posts can be filled in part by students?
    Mr. Baker: I have no hesitation in endorsing my hon. Friends comments. The Hertfordshire scheme for recruiting mature entrants has been successful. In the past two years there have been 53 appointments of mature people with a variety of experience and I hope that the scheme will pave the way for other local education authorities to follow suit. The introduction of our licensed teacher scheme later this year will greatly help that process.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that, considerable progress has been made in increasing the number of graduates with teacher training entering the teaching profession, which should not be diluted? Does he further agree that mature students with experience in commerce and industry have skills which will complement the expertise already in schools? What arrangements will he make for those entering teacher training without any direct class contact?
    Mr. Baker: There are two schemes. One is for mature entrants in their twenties and thirties who have not had teacher training but who wish to change their career. From September this year, they can be taken on as teachers in schools. The head teacher and the local education authority will be responsible for their training for two years, principally on the job, with some day release to colleges. That will be widely welcomed in the education service.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: When dealing with mature entrants, will my right hon. Friend consider the continuing shortage, often expressed by head teachers and others, of teachers of physics, chemistry and other specialist subjects, and do what he can to deal with that problem at the same time?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. I recognise that that is a problem. There are various schemes to meet those teacher shortages. For example, the bursary scheme makes available a grant of £1,300 for the one-year training course. I have extended that scheme in financial terms and to include people who want to train as chemistry teachers from September this year.
    Mr. Vaz: The Secretary of State may like to know that last week I conducted a survey of schools in my constituency which revealed an appalling recruitment record. One headmaster stated that he had left to become a double glazing salesperson, and one class had had 12 different teachers in the past year. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the crisis of confidence in our education system is directly related to the Government's policies? When does he intend to allocate more cash to improve prospects for teachers?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should know that last Friday I visited one large successful comprehensive school and one small primary school in Leicestershire. I specifically asked the head teachers of both schools whether they had any vacancies or recruitment problems and their answer to both questions was no.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one question that should be asked of entrants is whether they are prepared to help with team sports? Did he hear Roger Uttley on the "Today" programme this morning saying that there was an enormous shortage of pupils leaving
    144
    school prepared to play rugby football? Does he agree that team sports are an essential part of education for everyone, but that there has been a decline in the past 10 or 20 years?
    Mr. Baker: I understand that rugby football is enjoying a boom at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not in Wales."] Wales will have to do better next term.
    Education is not simply a matter of training either children's minds or their bodies, and time will be devoted to physical education as part of the national curriculum.
    Mr. Straw: When does the Secretary of State expect the teacher shortage crisis to be solved?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have a range of proposals in place. Last year there was an increase of 1,000 in those wishing to enter teacher training, making an increase of some 3,000 over 1986. The hon. Gentleman is always accusing me of increasing my Department's publicity budget, but the largest increase has been on programmes to recruit teachers.

    Schools (Opting Out)
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to whether the resources of any local education authority have been used to support campaigns (a) for or (b) against opting-out proposals for secondary schools in the maintained sector.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Any local authority is free to make its views known about a proposal that a school in its area should become grant-maintained. I expect all authorities to ensure that they act fairly and responsibly and that any costs represent a proper use of public funds.
    Mr. French: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that any decision either for or against opting out is based on the result of a free and fair ballot? Will he, in particular, make it clear to parents that they have the right to demand a ballot, irrespective of the views of LEA officials or recalcitrant governors?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. There has been a great deal of misrepresentation in some of the ballots that have taken place so far, which I deplore.
    Ms. Armstrong: What about your propaganda?
    Mr. Baker: The stuff that we put out is absolutely correct and absolutely fair. We put forward the advantages of the opportunity. What the Opposition do not like is the extension of parental choice which grant-maintained status provides. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall make it clear to parents that they have that right as well as governing bodies. The right is being exercised on a growing scale. I noticed yesterday that three schools voted to opt out.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I am not sure what the Minister's photograph has to do with objectivity, but that is one of the things that is sent round. Why has the Department's propaganda expenditure risen by 3,000 per cent. since he became Secretary of State?
    Mr. Baker: I have already mentioned one of the large increases. The other large increase in my publicity spending is on informing parents, governors and teachers about the effect of the Education Reform Act 1988. The hon. Gentleman talks about advertising. I have here a

    145
    minute from Derbyshire county council—his own county—saying that it is agreeing to a contribution of £350 to enable teachers in the Chesterfield school wishing to oppose GMS to produce leaflets and letters to parents. That is money being used by a particular education authority on just one side of the argument.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the circular letter that he recently sent to local education authorities stressing the right of parents and governors to opt out will be observed by local education authorities and that it will stop some of the unacceptable practices now going on? Does he also agree that it might reduce the amount of black propaganda circulating recently in some of our schools about the situation?
    Mr. Baker: I hope that it will. I am sure that the great bulk of local education authorities will observe the advice that I have given in that letter. One of the most offensive devices was for LEAs to threaten to take governors to court, with the threat of huge legal bills. I have made it clear that if governors act in good faith and are taken to court the LEAs will have to pay the legal fees incurred.
    Mr. Straw: What has the Secretary of State to say to those who regard the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust, with a Conservative Member of Parliament as chairman and a Conservative councillor as director, as a Conservative front organisation?
    Mr. Baker: The Grant-Maintained Schools Trust and its promotional activities are funded entirely by private money, and that is how it should be. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been attacking grant-maintained schools for a very long time and will continue to do so. What I find extraordinary is that he should write articles in The Times, the very crown of Mr. Murdoch's empire, extolling consumerism and how Socialism must relate to consumerism, but when it comes to listening to parents as consumers he is against it.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that 16 out of the 27 schools which have balloted to opt out are schools facing either closure or merger, and that the reason why local education authorities campaign is sometimes that they are afraid that the Secretary of State does not take into account the strategic planning of education in their area, how much weight does he give to the effect of other educational provisions on decisions to opt out when he makes his decision whether to approve a ballot?
    Mr. Baker: I have to take many factors into consideration. I have to discuss the viability of the school and consider whether it is strong enough to survive. I take into account the degree of support that is expressed in a ballot. After the events in Yorkshire last week, I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has gone off balloting. However, his figures are wrong, because 30 schools have voted to opt out, 11 have said no, another decision is pending, and about another 20 schools are going through the process.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that knowledge is power, and that if parents are to have sufficient information about either the virtues or the disadvantages of opting out, increased publicity is necessary? Does my right hon. Friend not find it strange that the Labour party believes in parent power except when parents are able to express it through the ballot box?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that the ballots and the campaigns surrounding them are conducted on a level playing field, and in a way which ensures that the arguments on both sides are put fairly. Obviously one is concerned when, in particular cases, public money is used.

    Science (Women Teachers)
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to encourage more women to go into science teaching.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): We are very keen to encourage more men and women into science teaching. 'We have made available £6·5 million to higher education for specially designed courses to increase the supply of teachers in shortage subjects, including physics and design and technology. Some of those courses are specially designed to include part-time study and distance learning, with women graduates returning to teaching after starting a family in mind.
    Ms. Quin: In view of the shortages and predicted shortages in science teaching, will the Department regard it as a matter of urgency to encourage more women to enter the profession? Can the Minister give details of how many new access courses will be created and when they will come into effect?
    Mrs. Rumbold: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we are encouraging mature students from other careers who are seeking a career change to teaching. We are also attacking the hidden shortages with in-service training for the conversion and updating of under-qualified teachers. Open learning materials commissioned from the BBC and the Open University will also be used to mitigate the problems of supply cover. We are collaborating with a group of independent television companies to produce science videos for updating and improving the teaching skills of science teachers. All those efforts can be targeted at helping returners to teaching—including women wishing to return to the profession after having families—to update their skills. According to information to be published later this week by the National Foundation for Educational Research, girls are doing better than boys in science learning in United Kingdom schools. That is very encouraging.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of attracting more women and men into science teaching is to encourage more part-time teachers, so that scientists working in industry and elsewhere can give the benefit of their knowledge to our schoolchildren? Incidentally, the science that they teach may be even more up-to-date.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The new licensed teacher route is geared directly to such entrants, and we look forward to enjoying the results of that scheme when it is introduced.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase support for nursery education; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The number and proportion of three and four-year-olds in schools have grown steadily over the period of the present Government. Our plans for expenditure on under-fives education in 1989–90 are, at £536 million, 10 per cent. higher in real terms than those for 1988–89, thus allowing that healthy trend to continue.
    Mr. Griffiths: The Secretary of State may recall that one of his predecessors, who has since moved to higher things—to a position that the right hon. Gentleman himself perhaps coverts—predicted in 1971 that by 1981 there would be 700,000 places in nursery education. The Government have been in power for a decade now, but they are still 200,000 places short of that target. Why have they failed to achieve it, and why do Labour local authorities provide most places and Conservative local authorities least?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present when the House recently debated the subject, when he would have learned that about 85 per cent. of three and four-year-olds have some form of pre-school education. That record is considerably better than 10 years ago.
    Sir John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend take great care that in increasing support for nursery education she does not tempt mothers to dump their children? A mother working at home is doing just as important a job as one working in an office or factory. I did not leave home and go to school until I was nine, and it has not done me any harm.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is a clear model of parental care, showing that parents are the first and the best educators of young children.
    Ms. Armstrong: When will the Minister ensure that the opportunity for choice in nursery education in Tory areas matches that in Labour areas?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady is well aware that the amount of money put into rate support grant is targeted particularly towards the inner cities and to areas where there is perceived to be a special need. That is why, in the case of the inner cities, there is more provision from the local education authorities and the local authorities, while in the county areas there is greater provision from the voluntary sector.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. John Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made on his plans for city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The CTC programme is making excellent progress. Kingshurst opened last year, Nottingham and Teesside will open in September, with Bradford, Gateshead and the London school for performing arts and technology due to open in 1990. Further announcements will be made soon.
    Mr. Hughes: As the CTCs have failed to attract public support, and as the Secretary of State has been finding it increasingly difficult to raise private donations, what percentage of the capital cost of future CTCs will be met by the taxpayer and what proportion does he expect to get from private donations?
    Mr. Baker: I reject entirely the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Sir John Egan, chairman of Jaguar, proposed a CTC for Coventry—the hon. Gentleman's city—at a meeting with the chief education officer and the vice-chairman of the education group. The Labour majority on the education committee decided not to go ahead with the proposal and, unhappily for Coventry, that would appear to be the end of the matter. It is particularly regrettable when one bears in mind the fact that Coventry is the 16th highest spender in the country but only 61st in terms of the examination results of its school leavers.
    Mr. Tredinnick: On behalf of my constituents, I thank my right hon. Friend for his decision to visit John Cleveland college and Barwell primary school in my constituency on Friday. Given his plans to look at CTCs, and bearing in mind the 25 per cent. increase in land prices in Leicestershire last year, will he also consider the county council's capital allocation? If that were increased, it would allow for the refurbishment of Barwell primary school.
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend's question goes a little wider than the original question. However, I can say that Leicestershire's allocation of £6·8 million for 1989–90 represents 53 per cent. of its planned expenditure, compared with an average of 34 per cent. for all authorities. Leicestershire has therefore done considerably better than the average. It is up to the authorities there to decide how to spend their allocation—whether on land purchase or on other capital work.
    Mr. Madden: Why is the Secretary of State so enthusiastic about parents having ballots to enable schools to opt out of the state education system, but so implacably opposed to the parents of children who may go to a CTC having ballots to decide whether or not they want, as in Bradford, £7 million or £8 million of taxpayers' money to be spent on the establishment of a school when the city's existing schools are crying out for expenditure on renovation and repairs?
    Mr. Baker: I will make a forecast to the hon. Gentleman, who represents part of the city of Bradford, that when that school opens next year it will probably prove to be one of the most popular in Bradford and that many of his constituents will want to send their children to it.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend remind industry that its support is very welcome, not only for city technology colleges but also for schools which opt out? Is he aware of the great jubilation in Bolton this morning at his decision about St. James' school despite the pernicious obstruction by the local council?
    Mr. Baker: Again that goes rather wide of the question. Let me remind the House, however, that I decided this morning that St James's Church of England school should become grant maintained, and I consider that it will be a successful and viable school.
    Mr. Fatchett: When the Secretary of State told the Conservative party conference in October 1986 that he would establish 20 CTCs by the end of the decade was that a serious target, and can he now explain why he has failed?
    Mr. Baker: I assure the hon. Gentleman—because I know that he wants to see the programme succeed—that we shall have more than 20 CTCs. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] As soon as authorities, especially Labour authorities, co-operate in the provision of sites. Only when the Conservatives gained control of Bradford city council was it possible to start a CTC in Bradford.

    Cleveland (Education)
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent correspondence he has received on the state of education in Cleveland.
    Mr. Butcher: During November last year my right hon. Friend received three very helpful letters from my hon. Friend about a range of issues arising during his visits to schools in his constituency.
    Mr. Devlin: Does not the lack of other correspondence from the people of Cleveland show that the overwhelming majority are very happy with the new arrangements for higher standards in the national curriculum? Testing arrangements, the new city technology colleges and the changing status of our polytechnic will all receive a general welcome throughout the county, contrary to the allegations of the local Labour party.
    Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend has made a gracious commendation of the delivery of excellence in education by the schools in Cleveland. Cleveland is No. 8 in terms of academic results from school leavers, and is the 34th highest spender. That goes against the usual pattern of Labour-controlled LEAs, which combine high spending with low academic achievement. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for his comprehensive reports from a large school visits programme, and I assure him that we respond as positively as we can to the information that he sends in.
    Mr. Bell: The people of Cleveland will welcome the Minister's statement on the high standards that we have obtained in the county. He ought to add his congratulations to the local Labour-controlled authority which has brought that about.
    Can the Minister tell us why more was spent on the CTC than on the 200 schools in the county of Cleveland? Would it not have been more appropriate to put the same amount into those schools as into the CTC?
    Mr. Butcher: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If I have interpreted the hon. Gentleman's past comments correctly, I think that he and I share an interest in maximising inner city children's chances of improved opportunities in the labour market, and indeed elsewhere. If that is the case, I hope that he will accept that the new initiative will be of immense benefit to Cleveland.
    This is new money, and I suspect that the Labour party will find itself in a major dilemma. In the early days its members opposed council house sales, and that rebounded on them. They will find that, for social reasons, their opposition to CTCs will do the same.

    Engineering Degrees
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students started first degree courses in engineering during the last three years.
    Mr. Jackson: In 1987 there were 19,300 first year full-time first degree students studying engineering at higher education institutions in Great Britain. In 1986 and 1985 there were 19,000 and 18,200 students respectively.
    Mr. Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that although, thanks to the Government's successful policies, engineering output is growing strongly, the number of applications for engineering places has declined? Does he agree that that is not a healthy situation, and can he spell out what steps he and his colleagues are taking to improve it?
    Mr. Jackson: We accept the advice that we receive from employers and from the Engineering Council that there is a need to sustain and increase the number of engineering graduates to maintain our competitiveness. We have taken a number of initiatives—the engineering and technology programme, the manufacturing systems engineering programme and the hi-tech programme—but we are not satisfied with the progress being made. That is why we have announced a series of studies—and we are grateful to the Engineering Employers Federation and the Engineering Council for supporting them—to try to find out more about the reasons for the unacceptable high wastage rate in engineering courses, and also to find out more about the attitudes of suitably qualified school leavers to the study of engineering.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that, in the past, many youngsters left school at 16, obtained good engineering apprenticeships and got into higher education as a result of day release and night school? As that avenue has now been stepped, because of the decline in the number of apprenticeships, is it not high time to reform education for 16 to 18-year-olds to make it more appropriate for people going into engineering? Does the Minister also accept that the present A-level syllabus does nothing to encourage people to go into engineering?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed the programme for an integrated engineering degree sponsored by the Engineering Council, which the Government have broadly welcomed. On the broad issue of 16 to 18-year-olds, the hon. Gentleman should refer 10 the speech, which I mentioned earlier, made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education. It showed the way in which the Government are addressing the subject. I notice, meanwhile, that the policy attitude of the hon. Gentleman's party seems to be shifting.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend care to make a statement about the impact of the thoroughly unprofessional activities of the Association of University Teachers on the individuals who have entered engineering studies? Will he give an assurance that the Government will not give in to the unprofessional blackmail being practised by the AUT?
    Mr. Jackson: The Government deplore the line being taken by the AUT. We consider it to be irresponsible and damaging to the aims that the AUT and its members claim to hold dear, and we condemn it utterly.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Are the Minister and Government not concerned that, notwithstanding the initiative to which he referred, Britain still produces barely two thirds the number of engineering graduates as does, for example,

    151
    West Germany? Moreover, is the Minister aware that serious concern is now being expressed about the standards and quantity of first degree courses in this country? Has the Minister read the article in the National Institute Economic Review on the subject and what does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. Jackson: I have already expressed the Government's concern about the number of engineering graduates. There is a controversy about the international comparisons to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He will have studied the reports in the Department of Employment Gazette on that point. The Government are taking various steps, such as the survey that we are undertaking to find out more about the attitudes and motivation of engineering students. I must emphasise the importance and relevance to all this of the changes we are making in schools, such as the broadening of the school curriculum through the national curriculum, which will have a major impact.

    Abortion
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teaching to pupils over the age of 13 years of subjects covering the issue of abortion.
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is for schools to decide whether and how to deal with the issue of abortion. The Government look to schools to show sensitivity in dealing with issues such as abortion, taking into account the views and concerns of parents.
    Mr. Amos: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1987, there were more than 4,000 abortions on girls aged 15 and under, compared to only 553 in 1968? Virtually all those were under the statutory ground No. 2. Will she, therefore, ensure that sex education involves far more teaching about the moral issues involved, instead of just the mechanics?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The responsibility for determining what is dealt with in sex education, and how, lies with the governing bodies of schools, as I believe my hon. Friend knows.
    Ms. Mowlam: The Minister suggested that the responsibility lies with the schools, but she also said that she expected a certain degree of sensitivity from teachers. Can she expand on what she means by that and try to explain to the House the necessity, which I am sure that all hon. Members feel, to have sensible and rational discussion on such issues.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady will know that a number of different syllabuses are available in science teaching in schools and that the responsibility rests with the teachers. One hopes that the teachers will choose sensibly from the available syllabuses and ensure that all the circumstances that relate to matters of biology are taught sensibly and sensitively in schools.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that abortion should be dealt with in religious education and that the Christian position on abortion should be explained? Does she also agree that it is shocking and bad that some head teachers have said that they may not observe the law on Christian-based assemblies and religious education?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I think that my hon. Friend will know that the whole matter of religious education has been dealt with in the Education Reform Act 1988. We hope, therefore, that schools will obey the law, as it has been strengthened, on religious education. Of course, my right hon. Friend and the standing advisory councils on religious education that are to be set up for each local education authority will monitor the position and will expect children to have a sound Christian-based religious education where that is applicable and right.

    Capital Spending (Nottingham)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will meet parents and pupils in Nottingham, North to explain the consequences for education of his recent decision on limiting capital spending by the Nottinghamshire county council local education authority.
    Mr. Butcher: My right hon. Friend has received a letter from the chairman of the education committee of Nottinghamshire county council setting out the committee's views on the capital allocation for 1989–90 and seeking to bring a deputation. I have agreed to meet a deputation of interested parties from Nottinghamshire.
    Mr. Allen: I am glad that the Minister is to meet a deputation, but the question asks whether he will meet parents and children in Nottingham, North. The Minister will find it difficult to explain to them why his Government are spending twice as much on one school—the city technology college—as they are spending on all the other schools in Nottingham put together. Will he come and try to explain that to the parents and teachers who are suffering?
    Mr. Butcher: I was in Nottingham last week. Had I had the chance, I would have explained to the people. The capital allocation this year is £3,215,000. That is 43 per cent of the bid, compared to the national average of 34 per cent. I shall look forward to receiving further observations when the deputation arrives.

    Special Educational Needs (St. Helens)
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children in St. Helens have received statements for special educational needs.
    Mr. Butcher: A total of 479 children in St. Helens have statements of special educational needs.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that, using the Warnock definition of children with special needs, there are some 5,000 children in schools in St. Helens who have special educational needs but who are not statemented? How does the Minister intend to ensure that the interests of those children are protected when individual schools shortly receive their budgets under the terms of the Educational Reform Act 1988?
    Mr. Butcher: I think that the hon. Gentleman may not have underst000d that circular 7/88 on local management of schools makes it clear that variations in special needs between schools should be taken into account in the local education authority's resource allocation formula. Local education authorities will have discretion to except from delegation specialised support services such as education

    153
    psychologists, peripatetic teachers and educational welfare officers. On the broader question, I shall be happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman and to his friends from the LEA if he wishes me to do so, but for the time being the LEA says that there are 479 pupils in this category. That did not come up as a subject when our officials visited the authority recently. [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to desist from private conversations during Question Time.

    Industrial Sponsorship
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is currently taking to promote industrial sponsorship in schools.
    Mr. Butcher: The Government welcome all types of activities which link schools and industry. We recognise that they can represent a valuable way of both enriching the school curriculum and developing the understanding of pupils and teachers. We use every opportunity to encourage industry to develop and strengthen its involvement with schools.
    Mr. Coombs: At a time when, as the Minister has said, industry's links with schools are seen as ever more crucial for effective education, does my hon. Friend agree that industrial sponsorship deepens and widens links between schools and industry? Does he also agree that even Labour-controlled authorities, such as Birmingham, have belatedly come to this view? Finally, does he agree that there is a case for further fiscal incentives, especially for small firms, to encourage further industrial sponsorship?
    Mr. Butcher: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take careful note of my hon. Friend's last point. I am delighted to say that this whole question of school—industry links is now no longer one of "Why should we do it?" but "How do we go about it?" The growing national consensus is that that can do nothing but good for the betterment of education in our country.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that it is one thing to provide schoolchildren with an understanding of industry, but it is quite another to sell schools to industrialists as the Government are doing under the CTC programme? Does he agree that it is an outrageous way to dispose of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money by providing a billboard for such companies as Dixons in Bradford on the side of a CTC for £1 million, when the ratepayers and taxpayers of Bradford have paid the bulk of the capital costs and the entire running costs?
    Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman is 100 per cent. wrong, because private industry money is coming in to pay for free places for children in inner cities. It is a cause for great commendation of those industrialists that their money is supporting the state system. It is new money for free places.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Ashton: Will the Prime Minister find time to tell her Ministers that unemployment is not falling in every region in this country? Is she aware that in my constituency, following the closure of Shireoaks colliery, male unemployment in the travel-to-work area will increase from 15 to 18·4 per cent.? Why do areas such as mine not receive assisted area status or even any rate support grant? Why do we have to go cap in hand to the Common Market begging for a handout when we get nothing from the Government? Is the Prime Minister not aware of what is happening in the coal mining areas of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire, which are facing rocketing unemployment because of her policies towards the coal mining industry?
    The Prime Minister: As the most recent figures showed, unemployment is falling in every region of the country, with one exception—Northern Ireland. Of course, in regions where there has been a colliery closure there will be particular pockets of unemployment. We shall do all we can to retrain and I hope that very good redundancy payments will be given. The hon. Gentleman surely cannot wish to keep collieries open when there is no market for the coal or a market only at a price that will put up the cost of electricity to other industries enormously.
    Mr. Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warm welcome that has greeted the announcement that she is planning a new offensive to curb the excessive powers arid abuse of power by the European Commission? In a week which has already seen attempts by the Commission to harmonise children's imitation toy food out of existence and to try to change Britain's drink-driving limits by edict from Brussels, does my right hon. Friend feel that it is time to tackle the unconstitutional use of article 100A by having a legal argument about the basis on which it is being used at present by the Commission?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend refers to a particular provision which was put in to enable us to get directives for the completion of the single market. We watch very carefully to ensure that that section is not abused. As my hon. Friend is very much aware, we do not want detailed regulation in the directives. We want the minimum regulation in the directives to enable goods to move more freely about the whole Community. That is our philosophy, and that will continue to be the aim of the action that we take.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us what words she would use to describe her Government's international trade record?
    The Prime Minister: Our Government's international trade record will continue to be non-protectionist, which is what it should be.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us when she next expects the monthly trade figures to show a surplus?
    The Prime Minister: For many years they showed a surplus—[Interruption.]—which would have put the Labour Government to shame. We now have a higher

    155
    standard of living than we have ever known. We have a great budget surplus. The steps that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is taking will deal with both inflation and the adverse trade balance.
    Mr. Sayeed: As agriculture has now declined to 1·5 per cent. of gross domestic product and employment within it has fallen to 586,000, whereas the contribution from small businesses has increased to 21 per cent. of gross domestic product and the number of people employed therein has increased to 6·5 million, why do we have a Department and a Secretary of State for the former rather than for the latter?
    The Prime Minister: There are several answers to that question.[Interruption.] I will try to give them all.
    Most farms are small businesses, so the figure that my hon. Friend uses includes small farms. Secondly, in addition to the 1·5 to 2 per cent. of people employed in agriculture something like another 8 per cent. are employed in industries ancillary to agriculture—the equipment industry and the food processing industry. So it is not fair to take the particular set of figures that my hon. Friend gives. Both are vitally important to the future of Britain's economy, agriculture and other small businesses as well.
    Mr. Lord: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of the country's largest industries now take as a matter of routine 90 days to pay the accounts of smaller companies that supply them? Is she further aware that these smaller companies are absolutely vital to the nation's economy and jobs, and will she undertake to look into this matter with great urgency?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the reasoning behind my hon. Friend's question; it is quite wrong to take the maximum amount of time to pay bills, particularly those of small businesses which need the money as soon as possible for their cash flow. I hope that the companies concerned will take note of my hon. Friend's question and of my reply.
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Did the Prime Minister notice yesterday that, following the publication of the Southwood report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Tony Banks: It has already got half the Cabinet.
    Mr. Speaker: Have another go.
    Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State for Health announced a ban on the use of bovine offal in the production of baby food and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced another inquiry into the effect of BSE on human health. If, as appears likely to the Secretary of State for Health, BSE is a threat to humanity, why not ban the use of this offal for all human consumption? If, according to the Minister of Agriculture, it is not a danger, why was it banned for consumption by babies?
    The Prime Minister: We set up a committee of experts under Professor Southwood. We published the report in full. We referred it to the Chief Medical Officer of Health
    156
    and we accepted the recommendations on both, precisely. There is no point whatsoever in setting up a committee of experts, in having a Chief Medical Officer of Health, in receiving their advice and then not accepting it. We would rather accept their advice than that of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Morgan: We read in today's reports of the Prime Minister's meetings yesterday with President Mitterrand of the divergence of view between them on the urgency of the need for modernisation of NATO nuclear weapons. In view of the fact that short-range nuclear weapons have the unfortunate habit of dropping on Germany, would she not agree with President Mitterrand that this must remain a sovereign German decision?
    The Prime Minister: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Most certainly not, and I did not gather that that was precisely President Mitterrand's view. He made it perfectly clear that, so long as the Soviet Union is modernising short-range nuclear weapons, so should we, and he said that very clearly indeed. He also accepted, as he was at the last NATO meeting—I was there on both occasions and heard everything; and he knew that Chancellor Kohl and I were agreed—that political solidarity and military strength provide the basis for dialogue. We reaffirmed the declaration of the NATO summit of 3 March 1988 in Brussels, where we joined together in confirming that our strategy of deterrence depends on the appropriate mix of effective nuclear and conventional forces, kept up to date where necessary. We are all pledged to that view.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will the Prime Minister find time to persuade those who doubt that water is a suitable industry for privatization—including, it would appear, some Conservative voters—that if we are to enjoy an improvement in water quality, costs will have to rise, whether water remains in the public sector or is privatised? Will she also persuade them if their opposition to privatisation relates to the outdated nature of sewerage in this country, that it will be infinitely easier to raise finance to improve that if the industry is privatised and can raise money on the open market?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has largely done my task for me. Of course, we all require higher standards in the quality of water and that will mean increases in costs and, therefore, in prices, and the same would be true whether water remained in the public sector or was privatised. There is far more likely to be increased capital spend on the improvement of water quality if the industry goes into the private sector. I notice that France, a country which has nationalised many things, has specifically kept water in the private sector because it provides a better service than would a nationalised water service.
    Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister make it crystal clear that, under the law, the right of publishers to publish, booksellers to sell and readers to read is an absolute, and will not be changed under threat or deadline, whether of a week or a year?
    The Prime Minister: Freedom of speech and expression is subject only to the laws of the land, in particular libel and blasphemy, and will remain subject to the rule of law. It is absolutely fundamental to everything in which we believe and cannot be interfered with by any outside force.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the £1 million of extra funding that the Government give to London dial-a-rides will provide extra mobility for disabled people? Will she congratulate London dial-a-rides on their work, and say that we look forward to the extra work that they will be able to carry out with the extra money given by the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. This Government have done more for disabled people and have increased expenditure on them by 90 per cent. in real terms. That is more than under any previous Government and we are very proud of it.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Prime Minister recall that 10 years ago tomorrow, the Scots voted with a majority of 77,000 for a greater say in their own affairs? Does she accept that, since the feeling that there is a need for change is even stronger now, her stubborn refusal to accept the aspirations of the Scottish people is unacceptable? Does the treaty of Union matter?
    The Prime Minister: My views have not changed. I thought that the views of the Labour party had not changed either, but perhaps I was wrong. I believe that first steps towards devolution would finish up in separatism and I do not believe that the majority of Scottish people want that. I am very glad indeed that the Scottish people have responded to Tory policies so well that they have achieved a unique level of prosperity.
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amos: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the £850 million boost that the north of England will receive from the introduction of the unified business rate represents one of the biggest ever investments in the north of England?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, under the new business rate system, manufacturing business in the north will generally pay less in rates than it has been paying. I hope that that will be a great boost to industrialists to put more and more manufacturing services into these areas, where other costs will also be lower.
    Mr. Buchan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Buchan: Was today's report that the DSS is about to issue plastic cards to the elderly some kind of ironic joke? Would it not be much better if the Government restored to married couples the £18 that they have stolen from them?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the DSS is considering a system that will be more helpful to pensioners and less conducive to the stealing of pension books. That is the only purpose of what the hon. Gentleman has read in the papers this morning.
    With regard to our pensions record, may I point out that the pension has kept pace with inflation over the whole period, even though we have had to pay it to 1 million more pensioners? As for Labour's record, they fiddled the RPI figure when it no longer suited them. and although the Opposition said that they would keep the pension up with average earnings, they then put in an incomes policy to keep down average earnings, and did not even live up to that promise.

  NEW MEMBER
  The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:William Jefferson Hague Esq., for Richmond, Yorks.
  BILL PRESENTED
    HARE COURSING
    Mr. Robin Corbett, supported by Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Eric S. Heller, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Jeremy Hanley and Mr. Robin Squire, presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the seven motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Installation of Smoke Detectors Bill
3.32 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the installation of smoke detectors in domestic premises.
If 1989 is a year like any other, by 31 December about 650 people will have died from accidental fires in dwellings and more than 8,000 will have been injured. Colleagues who have attended the scenes of fatal fires will have seen the gutted house, the upset firemen and distraught families and will need no reminding how awful these incidents can be.
On Christmas day 1984, nine people lost their lives in a house fire in my constituency, and the shock of that led me into the search for greater family safety from fire. It is in that spirit, and remembering those people, that I present my Bill to the House.
Following a campaign inside and outside the House, the Government have introduced legislation to control the sale of foam-filled furniture. Welcome though that is, it has its limitations and will take some time to have an effect. Families will not instantly discard their furniture, so the risk in many houses remains.
There are also many other sources of accidental fires in homes, and it is time to turn our attention to the earlier detection of fire. The greater use of smoke detectors in homes throughout the country could have a profound effect on protection from fire. These items retail from under £10 and the average price is between £12 and £15. Studies and surveys show why the introduction of smoke detectors is now strongly supported by fire brigades and consumer and safety organisations, insurance companies and house builders.
The crucial facts to remember in considering house fires today are the tremendous temperatures produced quickly from today's furniture, and the danger from fumes, which kills before individuals are affected by flames. The earlier the detection of fire, therefore, the better the opportunity of escaping and surviving.
The assistant chief fire officer for Greater Manchester fire brigade, Mr. Bob Graham, who was rightly honoured with the MBE in the new year's honours list for his services to fire safety, has examined the fire statistics dealing with fatal and injurious fires. He concluded in a 1986 report:
"For 83 per cent. of fires in dwellings the interval between ignition and discovery of the fire was estimated to be at least five minutes and for 48 per cent. of the deaths the interval was estimated to be over 30 minutes. On the face of it at least 48 per cent. would have received an early warning of the fire if detectors had been fitted, and probably this applies to most of the remainder. There is little doubt that detectors would have improved the situation."
In the United States and Canada, smoke detectors are in much more widespread use. I have seen in Los Angeles the efforts undertaken by chief fire officer Ed Beneda in his area. A survey in 1985 in the United States revealed that 75 per cent. of all households have detectors. By contrast, a survey commissioned in 1988 by the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, which kindly supports the Bill, revealed that only 13 per cent. of households in London were fitted with smoke detectors.
The experience of the United States is described in a study that investigated a decade of widespread use of detectors in the United States. It was published by John Hall, junior, the director of the United States National Fire Prevention Association. He concluded
160
"The USFA's national fire incident reporting system has been used to estimate the risk of dying in homes that have detectors as well as those that do not. Most such analyses estimate that detectors cut the risk of death in half. That is, a person who has a fire at home but does not have a detector is twice as likely to die in a fire as another person who is protected by detectors. This two-to-one ratio has stood up with little or no variation since it was first calculated from 1979…data."
He directly relates this ratio of success to the early discovery of the fire. The chance of death is increased by delay. That is exactly the same conclusion as Bob Graham reached
I have a quotation from last Friday's edition of the Bury Times, my local newspaper, which says that, on the Tuesday before, firemen in Bury went to deal with a kitchen blaze. A fire brigade spokesman said afterwards:
"We would like to stress that the lady only knew about the fire after an alarm in the kitchen was activated. We would not like to say how severe the fire could have been had the woman not been made aware of it sooner."
The Bill would divide domestic property into three types. First, I propose that, three months after Royal Assent, all newly built domestic property will be required to be fitted with smoke alarms. Secondly, in the rented sector, I propose, bearing in mind the cost to private and public landlords and the need to ensure a sufficient supply of detectors, that from a date to be agreed, all rented property must be protected by smoke detectors. I hope that that would occur as soon as it was feasible. Thirdly, in the owner-occupied sector, I propose that, from a set date three months after Royal Assent, smoke detectors must be fitted before sales of domestic property can proceed.
The provision ensures that there will not be a sudden effective date for all owner-occupied houses, which would produce an explosion of demand difficult to satisfy. It would also ensure that enforcement was achieved in the usual process of buying and selling houses.
At present, the Government prefer not to legislate. They are co-operating in a scheme in Greater Manchester to fit smoke detectors in local authority housing. I very much welcome their interest. The Government have said that they will examine the results of that scheme. They believe that the voluntary placing of detectors is better than legislation, bearing in mind the motivation needed to maintain alarms.
That is not enough. The statistics of effectiveness in reducing death and injury, potentially by 50 per cent., speak for themselves, and there are a number of reasons why we should legislate. One is that this House has a good record in passing safety legislation. We legislate to protect children from cruel, unsafe toys and flammable nightdresses. Why not legislate to save them from the fear of death while they sleep?
Experience tells us that the households most likely to suffer these tragedies are those least likely to fix detectors without being required to do so. The maintenance required is no more complicated than changing the cassette in a video recorder. Just because it is impossible to force such maintenance to be done is no reason to shy away from protective legislation.
I have been enormously encouraged by the widespread support for the Bill both inside and outside the House. A growing number of building and construction companies now fit smoke detectors in their newly built properties. I welcome the support of companies such as Lovell Homes, Barratt, Wimpey, Costain Homes and Bellway, which fit

161
detectors. The National House-building Council is considering changes to the building regulations, and a decision will be made this summer, after consultation with the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, on whether to require all newly built property to be equipped with smoke detectors. I hope that that happens.
An increasing number of insurance companies are offering smoke detectors at a discount to their customers. The Prudential, the Commercial Union and Norwich Union have told me of this, and they too support my Bill. I have received support from all manner of consumer and safety associations. The British Safety Council, the Consumers' Association, Age Concern, the British Standards Institution—which is seeking to ensure a common high standard for detectors—and many others all support the Bill.
The fire brigades support the measure. Greater Manchester fire brigade is a sterling champion of smoke detectors. The Surrey, Royal Berkshire, Hampshire and West Midlands brigades have done much. But perhaps the most moving letter of support I have received has come from an individual west Yorkshire fireman, who wrote saying:
"on 25 December 1988 we were called to a flat fire in an area of Halifax. I was in the team which were first on the scene. We gained entry to the premises and found the body of a young man in his early thirties. It was yet another distressing statistic in the ever growing list of fatalities caused by asphyxiation by smoke at a fire scene. This death, like many others, could have been prevented by the purchase of a domestic type smoke detector … maybe one day my colleagues and I will have less pathetic figures to pull out of a fire situation. It's not very nice, and even us firemen have emotions."
For generations, this House has been at the forefront of protecting the people of this nation, but too often it has taken action after tragedies have occurred. It is time now to take the next step forward in fire safety. For a lesser
162
price than many people spend on burglar alarms to protect their homes, the safety of their families can be increased significantly.
With or without legislation, I hope that many more smoke detectors will, with the passage of time, be found in British homes, but I hope that the House now feels sufficiently moved by the weight of public opinion in favour of this cheap and simple device to give my Bill a First reading so that the reassuring noise given off by a smoke detector such as the one I hold aloft now—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must put that away.
Mr. Burt: I hope that that reassuring noise will be heard in more and more British homes and that, to that end, hon. Members will give my Bill a First Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. John Wheeler, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. David Sumberg, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. Conal Gregory, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Charles Kennedy and Mr. Simon Hughes.

Installation of Smoke Detectors Bill
  INSTALLATION OF SMOKE DETECTORS
  Mr. Alistair Burt accordingly presented a Bill to require the installation of smoke detectors in domestic premises; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 April and to be printed. [Bill 87]

  ESTIMATES
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131(2) (Liaison Committee), and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House agrees with the Report [23rd February] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Royal Navy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
[Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1987–88 on the Future Size and Role of the Royal Navy's Surface Fleet, HC 309, and the Government Reply, Cm. 443.]
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I am pleased to open the debate on the Royal Navy. Today we have the first of the three days during which we discuss each of our armed services. It is normal on these occasions to start with an account of the work and activities of the Royal Navy, and this I intend to do.
However, I shall speak more briefly than is usual about that work for two reasons. First, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, have more to say, both about the achievements of the Royal Navy and about its current activities. Secondly, I intend to give rather more time than is customary to the ships and equipment of our Navy. It is, of course, as Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, my particular area of ministerial responsibility. Moreover, we have a large number of new classes of vessel and new types of equipment coming into service and we are in a period of rapid technical development.
It is perhaps appropriate in this context to note that, on this day 123 years ago, the Navy finally declared grapeshot obsolete, after well over a century in service with the fleet. I doubt whether much of the new equipment we are now bringing into service will stand the test of time quite so well as that. Such are the lengthy time scales of naval procurement that we are only now beginning to see the full fruits of the major investment in the Royal Navy that this Government first began nearly 10 years ago.
The Royal Navy continues to plan an essential part in ensuring the defence of the United Kingdom and her allies. The numbers and sophistication of Soviet maritime forces have continued to increase. To give just one example, the latest Kirov class nuclear-powered battle cruiser, Kalinin, was commissioned last year. It is equipped with surface-to-surface missiles and guns, and carries up to three helicopters. Its displacement is seven times greater than that of our latest ship, the type 23, and its crew is nearly five times as large. NATO clearly must be ready to respond to the threat that this and other Soviet forces might pose to the Alliance's northern flank and to our transatlantic and cross-channel lines of communication.
The Royal Navy has a crucial role in this task. Forward maritime defence is vital if we are to prevent Soviet submarines from breaking out into the Atlantic to attack reinforcement shipping and break our vital sea lines of communication. In the event of hostilities or a crisis occurring the Royal Navy would provide nearly 70 per cent. of the NATO maritime forces immediately available to deploy forward into the Norwegian sea and cover the eastern Atlantic and Channel areas prior to the arrival of United States reinforcements. In addition, throughout the past year, as in every year since 1969, the Royal Navy has continued to maintain at least one Polaris submarine on patrol at all times, thus ensuring the constant readiness of our nuclear deterrent.
The Royal Navy and Royal Marines, ably assisted by
164
their respective reserves, also make an important contribution to the direct defence of the United Kingdom by countering the threat of mines in coastal waters, defending ports and anchorages and protecting key points. Within home waters, the Royal Navy and Royal Marines also help to safeguard the United Kingdom's fishing interests and offshore gas and oil platforms, as well as contributing to the vital role played by our search and rescue service. The Royal Navy also supports the Royal Ulster Constabulary by patrolling the Province's coastline.
Although the majority of the Navy's commitments are in the NATO area, experience since 1945 shows that actual operations occur more fequently out of area. We continue to maintain a naval presence in the Caribbean, the south Atlantic and Hong Kong, while the Armilla patrol remains in the Gulf area, ready to render assistance to entitled merchant shipping if needed. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed forces will, I hope, be able to enlarge on these aspects of the work of the Royal Navy later. All these roles will be familiar to right hon. and hon. Members, but they remain as important and valid today as they have ever been.
Again in 1988, as throughout its long and very distinguished history, the Royal Navy has continued to discharge its responsibilities. We sometimes forget the professionalism, dedication and sheer hard work that underlies that phrase "continues to discharge". Our Navy represents tremendous value for the nation, and the Government in turn aim to provide value for money both for the navy and the taxpayer in the way we equip and support it.
The new plans for the Defence Budget set out in the 1989 public expenditure White Paper include increases in the defence budget of £175 million in 1989–90 and £610 million in 1990–91 over and above the previous planned provision. The 1991–92 provision is £910 million above that for 1990–91.
That means that the budget is now set to grow by about £1 billion a year in cash terms over the next three years. On current forecasts for inflation, the plans allow for real growth in defence spending over the next three years. They provide the money judged necessary by the Government to fund defence properly over that period and to allow us to maintain capable forces in all of our major defence roles and commitments. That gives us a sound framework for confident planning into the 1990s.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Are the Minister's assumptions based on the rate of inflation on which last year's Budget was based, or on the current level of inflation which appears to be of the order of 7 per cent.?
Mr. Sainsbury: As the hon. Gentleman would expect, they are based on the public expenditure White Paper. He should bear in mind that the influence of the mortgage interest rate on the rate of inflation does not necessarily apply to procurement of defence equipment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I should have thought that hon. Members would realise that not many defence contractors have mortgages on their factories which would be subject to that effect.
Up to the end of the financial year 1987–88, over £4·5 billion more had been spent on the Navy in real terms, taking account of GDP inflation and excluding Falkland Islands and Trident costs, than if spending had continued at the level inherited from the previous Labour

165
Government. That has meant that £4·5 billion more has been made available for the conventional role of the Royal Navy.
We may, if previous experience is a guide, expect to hear some criticism from the Opposition Benches of aspects of our defence policy. I very much doubt whether we shall hear a great deal about their own policies. I dare say that Opposition Members will try to persuade us that their policies are in preparation. I would suggest that they are more likely to range from the incoherent to the profoundly implausible. In any event, I suspect that we shall not hear much of the defence policies of the Social and Liberal Democratic party or the Social Democratic party. They probably have enough on their plates defending themselves from each other to spare much thought for other defence issues.
Dr. David Owen: The Social Democratic party's defence policy is clear. The Minister will find that it does not vary in any major particular from that of the Government. But have the Government no obligation to society? How can the hon. Gentleman justify taking 7,500 jobs out of Devonport and suddenly now announcing that he will not even put HMS Southampton into Devonport to redress in some way the damage that has been done to the regional economy of the south-west?
Mr. Sainsbury: I have not announced that. The right hon. Gentleman should wait to hear what I have to say about the dockyards.
The Royal Navy remains the second largest NATO navy, deploying some 200 vessels of all classes. That represents a very substantial investment in all areas of maritime capability. Each year, for example, we spend approximately £3 billion on equipment procurement for the Navy. It is worth recalling that 64 new ships have been ordered by the Government since 1978–79. Vessels currently on order include no fewer than five first of class vessels, of which three are planned for acceptance in the coming year.
We have provided for the updating of the strategic deterrent and currently have two Vanguard class submarines on order. VSEL has recently submitted a tender for the third, planned for order later this year.
Mr. Bob Cryer: When the hon. Gentleman talks about updating the strategic deterrent, could he tell us exactly what extra extent of extermination power the Trident nuclear weapons have over Polaris and give us an idea of the number of people that the Government are prepared to kill on a mass scale by use of Trident, which they are prepared to use, as I understand it?
Mr. Sainsbury: All hon. Members will be familiar with the hon. Gentleman's lack of comprehension of the nature of a policy of deterrence. I have to remind him that a deterrent, in order to be an effective deterrent, must be a credible deterrent. That is what Trident is.
Three aircraft carriers will continue in service with the Royal Navy, all of which have now been modified to increase their complement of Sea Harriers from five to eight. As has always been our intention, two carriers will be available for operations immediately or within a short period, and the third will be maintained in refit or standby.
The Government have also been able to maintain a balanced and capable surface fleet and remain committed to a force of about 50 destroyers and frigates. Significant
166
improvements have been achieved in the capability of the escort force as new type 22—and soon type 23—frigates enter the fleet, and as existing ships are updated with new weapons systems and sensors.
In 1988 four new type 22 frigates entered the fleet. A fifth ship, HMS Campbell own, was accepted only last Friday from Cammell Laircl, and HMS Chatham, the last of the type 22 frigates, is planned for acceptance at the end of the year, bringing to an end the build programme for this class.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My hon. Friend will know that there is some concern on these Benches that the 50 destroyers/frigates may not be in the pristine order in which we would expect them to be. In particular, some of our newer ships have not got the modern equipment which anyone would agree to be necessary. What can he say to give us some encouragement about these matters?
Mr. Sainsbury: What I am about to say will, I hope, give my hon. Friend the encouragement he seeks. In general terms, the capability of the fleet as it now exists is greatly in excess of what it was in 1978–79.
Last July, when I announced the order for three new type 23 frigates, bringing the number currently on order to seven, I told the House that we intended to invite tenders for a further batch of type 23s later this year.
The first type 23, HMS Norfolk, is to be accepted from her builders later this year. She will carry a number of new weapons and equipments—notably, vertical launch Sea Wolf to meet the air threat, Harpoon anti-surface vessel sea-skimming missiles, sonar 2031 towed array, and a helicopter. It will be more economic to build and will have a 25 per cent. smaller crew than the type 22s.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The whole House will welcome the Minister's reference to the type 23s and hope that there is more and better news to come. Can he tell the House if the first of class, the Norfolk and the Marlborough, are yet capable of the central command control system operation?
Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps I could come to that in a moment. There seems to be a tendency to anticipate the things I am going to say, so perhaps I should press on.
I will expand a little on the additional capability represented by the vertical launch Sea Wolf and the additional capability to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) referred.
Sea Wolf is a fully automatic, all-weather, day and night naval point defence system for the protection of surface ships from missile or aircraft attack. It Is a derivative of earlier Sea Wolf systems, the main difference being that the missiles are housed in a vertical launch silo structure in the ship, which replaces the conventional trainable six-barrel launchers. That method of launching missiles improves system reaction times, eliminates launcher blind arc problems and provides an improved capability of defending against "saturation" attacks.
The house is aware that there have been problems in the development of the command system to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) referred. The CACS 4 programme was cancelled when it was realised that the computing power and capacity of the original design would be inadequate for the planned weapon and sensor fit and that the realiability goals—to which we rightly attach a great deal of importance—were most

167
unlikely to be achieved. The new type 23 command system will incorporate the rapid advances in computer technology that have been made in recent years. It will be based on modern, distributed computing architecture and will have many times more computing power than CACS 4. It will also incorporate adequate redundancy and resilience to satisfy stringent availability, reliability and maintainability requirements.
New project definition studies were recently undertaken, and the results are being evaluated. I am sure the House agrees that while it was a difficult decision to cancel CACS 4, it was also the right one. Although a number of early type 23s will spend some time in service without an integrated command system, each weapon and sensor system will be capable of independent operation. The absence of a command system in the type 23 does little to impair intrinsic performance of its main defensive armament but will impose a number of limitations on its use.
Mr. O'Neill: Am I to infer from the Minister's remarks that the first five type 23s will not have the CACS and that there is not to be any announcement yet as to when contracts for that system will be signed? Am I right in thinking that April 1989 is no longer the target date for the signing of such contracts?
Mr. Sainsbury: As I said, the definition studies were recently completed and are now being examined. I should not like to forecast how long it will take to complete that examination and to lead on to a contract. It could be by the date to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I repeat, there will be a period when a number of ships will not, on initial fit, have the new command and control system. I explained why that is, as well as the improvements that will be derived from the new system and the capability of the ships meanwhile. Those ships will still provide a very much more effective contribution to our maritime forces than the Leander class frigates that they replace.
The Government remain committed to maintaining an amphibious capability in the longer term. Last autumn, we invited tenders for an aviation support ship to provide dedicated helicopter support for amphibious operations. We expect to receive tenders for the vessel in July. The ASS will have the primary role of embarking, supporting and operating a squadron of naval support helicopters, and carrying a commando group of Royal Marines, together with the support vehicles and equipment they require. The ship will be capable of landing troops in battle-ready formation both by helicopter and landing craft. That will provide a most useful increase in capability.
In addition, we are currently assessing the results of feasibility studies into the replacement of the assault ships, Fearless and Intrepid, in parallel with the results of a study into the option of extending their lives. We shall make a decision on the way ahead in plenty of time to ensure that the capability that those vessels represent will be replaced when the ships reach the end of their current useful lives in the mid-1990s.
Events in the Gulf have increased awareness of the threat from mines. This year sees the entry into service of HMS Sandown, the first of the Royal Navy's new class of
168
single role minehunters, which is to be accepted from Vosper Thornycroft next month. Four more of those highly advanced vessels are on order from the same yard.
The SRMH is designed to hunt for mines in conditions where minesweeping would be impossible. It can operate, for example, in deeper water throughout the continental shelf, and is equipped with a sophisticated sonar in advance of anything comparable being used in that role elsewhere. It is also highly manoeuvrable, and has a smaller complement than the vessels it will succeed. Its GRP, non-magnetic hull is designed to reduce the threat from modern mines. Its cost is only 75 per cent. of that of a Hunt class minesweeper, and its procurement has clearly demonstrated the benefits of batch ordering. I can fairly say that that represents excellent value for money.
Sir Antony Buck: That is welcome news, because the Royal Navy's minehunting and minesweeping capability is of vast importance. In view of my hon. Friend's earlier remarks about the Royal Marines and helicopters, can he say whether the Royal Navy is also considering minesweeping by helicopter, as has been done by other nations? Such a development might tie in with my hon. Friend's welcome news about the possibility of replacing Intrepid and Fearless in due course, and the continuation of our amphibious capability.
Mr. Sainsbury: Our experience in the Gulf indicated that our minesweeping and minehunting techniques were superior to those of nations using helicopters. I advance the Sandown class as being equal or superior to any form of minehunter or minesweeper.
HMS Quorn, the last of the highly competent Hunt class mine countermeasures vessels, was delivered by the builder in January. The aviation training ship RFA Argus also joined the fleet during the past year.
We have maintained and modernised our mixed nuclear and conventional fleet of submarines. This month saw the entry into the fleet of the SSN HMS Trenchant, bringing the number of nuclear fleet submarines to 16 as compared to 11 in 1979. Four of the new class of diesel electric patrol submarines are currently on order. The first, HMS Upholder, is planned for acceptance around the end of this year.
We have, and will continue to provide, modern and capable aircraft to enable our platforms to fulfil their role. Further orders of Sea Harriers are planned, and major updates are in hand to upgrade existing naval aircraft, including mid-life updates to the Sea Harrier to improve its weapons capability, and improvements to the Sea King helicopter's sonar that will enhance its anti-submarine warfare capability. The development of the Anglo-Italian Merlin or EH101 helicopter continues.
Another area where significant progress is being made is in our sonar capability. Sonar 2050, for example, is a new state of the art, hull-mounted sonar for surface ships. It is to be fitted on build to all batch one and two type 23 frigates, and will be retrofitted to the type 22s and the later type 42s at refit. The contracts for the development and initial production of 17 equipments were placed following competition. A third production order, covering a further 10 fits, will be put out to competition shortly.
By taking full advantage of the latest research into signal processing conducted by the Admiralty research establishment at Portland, sonar 2050 is both a far more capable system than its predecessors and, by using the

169
latest technology, considerably smaller and cheaper—and we believe that it will prove to be more reliable than its predecessor, sonar 2016. Further savings were achieved by designing the new sonar to work with the ARE-designed sonar 2016 transducers already fitted to the type 22s and 42s, thus avoiding the costs of replacing those expensive assemblies. The first two ships, HMS Brilliant and Broadsword, have been fitted and early reports are of much improved detection capabilities. Having mentioned sonar 2016, I acknowledge the Comptroller and Auditor General's recent report on reliability and maintainability of defence equipment and the favourable comments on sonar 2016 as a project that should be emulated. Sonar 2050, I am pleased to report, is designed to surpass sonar 2016 in that regard.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the invaluable work of our scientific and technical staff at the Admiralty research establishment, whose expertise and hard work has kept the United Kingdom among the world leaders in those and other areas of naval technology.
There has, understandably, been a good deal of interest in all parts of the House in the future of HMS Southampton, following her collision while on operational duties in the Gulf. Today, I can announce that, for technical reasons, we have decided to combine the repair of HMS Southampton with her refit, which was originally scheduled to begin this autumn, and to seek competitive tenders for the expanded work package.
Dr. Owen: Shame.
Mr. Sainsbury: I am very surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman saying, "Shame," at hearing of competitive tenders. He does not seem very interested in the idea of obtaining good value for money for the Royal Navy or for the taxpayer. This decision accords with the Government's policy of seeking to increase the proportion of naval shipwork exposed to competition, as recently endorsed by the Public Accounts Committee. In the light of the wide interest shown by the private sector, we expect to receive bids from both the shipbuilding and the shiprepair industries, a well as from the commercially managed royal dockyards. Tenders will be issued shortly, and, subject to a satisfactory price being obtained, we expect to be able to award a contract by the early summer, which would enable HMS Southampton to return to operational service in 1991 with an enhanced capability.
I appreciate that this decision will disappoint the work force at the Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation. Southampton's refit had been expected to form part of the programme at the FMRO. All those concerned are aware that we have been undertaking studies into the future of the FMRO, and this work is continuing.
I should like to confirm that today's announcement does not imply that any decision has been taken on the long-term need to retain a refit stream in Portsmouth. I should also like to emphasise that the role of Portsmouth as a major naval base is not in doubt. Our present plans do not envisage a reduction in number, or a change in type, of the ships base-ported there, and the fleet will continue to need a local capability to support operational ships and submarines with programmed maintenance and unprogrammed work for repair or operational enhancements. In this context the Government recognise the excellent record of the FM RO since its establishment in 1983.
170
As I said in the corresponding debate last year, however, there can be no guarantee that the current level of employment at the FMRO will continue indefinitely. Whatever the outcome of the current studies into its future role, some manpower reduction will be necessary to reflect efficiency targets and the drop in total naval production load available since the FMRO was established in 1983. This reduction would have been necessary irrespective of the decision on HMS Southampton. The normal process of consultation with the trade unions will take place, but the number of redundancies is likely to be small, and they will be achieved on a voluntary basis.
I would like next to say something about the royal dockyards, which, together with the FMRO at Portsmouth, currently undertake some three quarters of the refit and repair work for the fleet. The efficiency and manning levels of the dockyards have understandably been a matter of concern to the House.
There has been a general recognition that the period immediately before and after the change to commercial management was bound to be difficult. The difficulties were increased by the further changes that have been taking place in the total refit, repair and maintenance workload. As I have explained on other occasions, this reduction was the result of a number of factors, including the much reduced maintenance requirement of modern warships, and a move away from restorative refits that nearly amounted to rebuilds. which were found not to be cost-effective. I am glad to report that as we move out of the transitional period—it is now nearly two years since vesting day, and only a couple of refits that started before the handover are left outstanding—we are now seeing the benefits of the new system.
Both companies have made important progress: organisationally the yards have been restructured; the advent of commercial accounting and information technology-based planning systems has led to improved control of costs and greatly improved management information; and pay and effectiveness agreements have been negotiated with the work force, rationalising the complex structure of ex-Civil Service allowances, and introducing flexibility between crafts and grades.
Individual ship refits are now being completed within budget, with few exceptions. This process has been reinforced by encouraging movement, particularly at Rosyth, towards the achievement of full-risk pricing, which gives the dockyard a greater incentive to complete a refit within time and budget.
I should like to extend my congratulations to both DML and BTL for the determined, yet sensitive, way in which they have conducted industrial relations, which has produced, locally, changes that could not have been achieved so readily under the monolithic Civil Service structure before vesting day. The work force, too has played its part in adopting a constructive approach to the changes that are necessary to compete in the commercial market and secure a more prosperous and soundly based future.
Another aspect of our overall pursuit of value for money is the reviews that we have been undertaking of the organisation and location of the sea systems controllerate, which is that part of the procurement executive responsible for ships, submarines and their equipment. The reorganisation of the controllerate into project-related groups which reflect more fully the latest procurement practices has already largely been implemented. The sea

171
systems controllerate is now undertaking a study into the possibility of collating its staff in order to improve the integration of procurement activities. Sea systems controllerate project staff are currently dispersed between Bath and Admiralty research establishment sites at Portsmouth and Portland. This study is thus distinct from other studies in hand, which are looking into the feasibility of relocating other parts of the department away from London. The results of the preliminary in-house investment appraisal have convinced me that collocation is the best way forward.
I have endorsed the conclusions that this approach would be both practicable and cost-effective, but further work is necessary to refine the initial costings and to produce firm recommendations for a preferred site option. This further work is expected to be completed by the end of August, and I expect to be able to take a decision before the end of the year.
Mr. Ian Bruce: With regard to centralisation of the sea systems controllerate—putting 4,000 people on a single site—does the Minister not believe that it is very foolish to allow a three-year delay in getting the organisation working efficiently? Should we not be looking at the way in which we run this organisation on the three separate sites? After all, 10 years ago we moved it off a single site because it was inefficient there.
Mr. Sainsbury: Understandably, my hon. Friend takes a very close interest in this issue and in the welfare of those of his constituents who are involved. No doubt he appreciates that one is always dealing with a changing situation and with changing requirements. As he knows, the work that the sea systems controllerate had to do 10 years ago was very different from the work that it has to do now. The points that my hon. Friend has mentioned will certainly be taken into account in the study to which I have referred.
On this occasion, as on others, I have taken the theme of value for money. I am confident that the whole House will agree that we do indeed get exceptional value for money from the skills and commitment of the officers and men of the Royal Navy and its Reserves.
I have explained how we seek to provide that same value for money throughout all those parts of the Ministry of Defence that support the Royal Navy, including the procurement of ships and equipment. As a result, I believe, we have a Navy continuously improving in capability, in which we can all take pride.
4.17 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Like the Under-Secretary, I welcome the debate. The fact that it is taking place on the Adjournment affords hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to pursue a wide range of issues. While, traditionally, these debates cover strategic concerns—the nature of the threat and our ability to meet it; the state of the service; morale, pay and conditions; and constituency procurement concerns—it is often difficult, in opening, to find a coherent line to take. The Minister's concentration on procurement was understandable, especially in view of his responsibilities, but it is regrettable that he gave us very little fresh
172
information—information that we would not have been able to obtain by reading Ministry of Defence handouts and so on.
The Opposition have to register our disappointment that no announcement is being made about type 23s. We approach any service debate with enhanced expectation that at least one of the major procurement questions will be answered, but we have yet to receive any kind of reassurance on the type 23s.
However, I am more than happy to join the Under-Secretary in his tribute to the service and to those who devote their lives to it. Our record in the Gulf, with the Armilla patrol, is an example of the unique contribution that we can make. We often forget that—partly because of our history and partly because of our geography—we are uniquely equipped for the kind of mine-hunting and minesweeping work that our service men have done in such difficult, unpleasant and uncomfortable conditions. We welcome the fact that they have been so successful that some of them are now able to return to cooler waters and a more pleasant climate.
I should like to take a slightly different tack and consider at least some of the tasks that previous defence estimates laid out as the responsibility of our Navy.
The 1987 White Paper identified a number of tasks as being the responsibility of the Navy: the interception and containment of Soviet forces in the Norwegian sea; direct defence, reinforcement, resupply and economic shipping in conjunction with United States and European maritime forces; anti-submarine defence of NATO's striking fleet, supported by the RAF; and the protection and deployment of the combined UK-Netherlands amphibious force to reinforce the north flank of NATO.
It has been suggested that each of those tasks is of a considerable size, and that a country with our resources will have great difficulty in meeting all of them. Certainly cost-cutting is still happening, and the global figures that the Under-Secretary announced do not mask the effect that the defence budget will continue to fall in real terms until the early 1990s. The part of the equipment budget on which the Minister has placed such a strain has been affected by inflation far above the retail prices index, whether or not it includes mortgage increases. Historical evidence supports the view that the replacement cost of military equipment is far in excess of anything reflecting inflation, and that the money available for the tasks involved will, of necessity, result in a cut.
Mr. Sainsbury: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the budgetary figures that I gave represent an increase of some 3 per cent. over the present figures in real terms, after allowing for inflation. I hope that he was listening when I drew hon. Members' attention to several types of equipment and classes of ship which, with the use of modern technology, are costing less than the equipment and ships that they replace.
Mr. O'Neill: It cannot be denied that some equipment costs less, but more often it costs considerably more than we budget for. The reliability and maintainability reports of recent weeks suggest that a considerable amount could still be done to reduce costs. I realise that the Minister is not complacent and I am sure that that will be done, but in saying that we have enough money to meet our tasks he is in grave danger of misleading the House.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the second and third Trident submarines are costing decidedly less than the first? Are not the Government, through consistent batch ordering, reducing the costs of the same items of equipment?
Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman can argue for competitive tendering and for batch ordering, but he cannot always argue that "rent-a-missile" means considerable savings. The reductions in the cost of the Trident programme are accounted for more by the fact that servicing is to be done at Kings bay in Georgia than by any other single item, apart from hitherto beneficial changes in the exchange rate.
As the Minister has said, no other continental or northern European member of the Alliance makes the same maritime contribution as us. At a time when the United States Government are trying to reduce their public expenditure deficit, I imagine that the US navy will be one of the more attractive targets for cost-cutting. It is therefore essential for us to appreciate the nature of our tasks in the light of what we consider to be the threat posed by Soviet naval forces.
For the same reason that the US navy does not deploy its entire 600-ship fleet in the Atlantic, the Soviet navy does not devote all its assets to these waters. Global powers recognise other areas of concern, and although we may feel that the sun rises and sets in Europe, people in California are far more concerned about the Pacific basin and the Indian ocean. The Soviets, for their part, are clearly anxious for their relations with Japan and the People's Republic of China to improve, but until that happens they will wish to continue to dedicate much of their resources to the coastal protection of their eastern seaboard.
It must also be recognised that a sizeable part of the Soviet naval offensive capability is frozen in the Kola peninsula for long periods in the year. It is significant that the activities of the Soviet navy have been reduced considerably since our last Navy debate on 3 March last year. In July last year, General Akromeyhev said that the cutback was an example of the Soviet attempt to develop a purely defensive doctrine.
The reduction in activity was confirmed by Admiral William Crowe, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who attributed it to cost-cutting in a report in the International Herald Tribune on 18 July 1988. The US navy has produced figures showing that the decline covers Soviet destroyers, frigates, corvettes, logistic ships, attack submarines and strategic submarines carrying nuclear warheads and cruise missiles.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in the past two or three months the Soviets have moved an additional Kiev carrier and an additional Kirov cruiser to the north fleet, as well as an additional squadron of Backfire bombers for naval aviation? That is hardly a build-down. Exercise activity has somewhat diminished, but modernisation proceeds apace.
Mr. O'Neill: I shall come to that in a moment.
In 1984 the Soviet fleet deployed an average of 46 submarines each day. By 1987 the number has fallen to 25. In 1987 the average deployment of warships fell from 31 in 1984 to 24, and for the first time in a number of years no
174
Soviet task force was sent to the Caribbean. Those findings were confirmed in an article in The Daily Telegraph on 23 February.
The cuts may be entirely due to perestroika. It was suggested last year that, owing to cost considerations, the Soviet navy spent 85 per cent. of its time in port, while the figure for the US navy is about 66 per cent. Those statistics may also be attributable to Gorbachev's desire for the Soviet armed forces to assume a more defensive posture. I do not know the reason, and I do not think that any hon. Member has a clear idea of it.
What is clear, however, is that, when Gorbachev spoke to the Yugoslav Parliament 12 months ago, he suggested a freeze in the number of US and Soviet ships in the Mediterranean from 1 July 1988. He also suggested that ceilings should be set on their numbers thereafter, and that both sides should give notice of their intention to move warships and to hold naval exercises and start to invite observers to watch the exercises. He said that measures should be drafted to ensure the security of intensive shipping in the Mediterranean, especially in international straits. He also wanted to withdraw US naval and Soviet naval craft from the Mediterranean. According to Reuters, the response from NATO was mixed and cool.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Has not the Soviet navy decided to adopt that defensive posture? The Soviets are effectively massing their naval forces precisely where the British Navy must put itself in time of war. The naval forces will be massed against our frigate and destroyer screens going up into the Norwegian sea to reinforce Norway in the event of a land war within Europe.
Mr. O'Neill: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is saying that the Soviet Union is withdrawing its naval capabilities up into the far northern waters, where they will be frozen for a large part of the year.
Mr. Bruce: In Soviet territorial waters.
Mr. O'Neill: Part of that is Soviet territorial waters. The hon. Gentleman has said that it could be a defensive posture. I am not sure whether it is a defensive posture, but I am merely trying to explain some of the strategic thinking which may lie behind the Soviet action. I quoted the speech made by Gorbachev last year in Belgrade. He made another speech in September 1988 in Krasnoyarsk, in which he called for talks and spoke of not increasing Soviet forces in the Pacific region. He invited naval powers in that region to hold discussions about freezing and reducing naval and air force activities in the region and he identified the area where the coasts of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Japan, North Korea and South Korea converge. He suggested giving up Cam Ranh bay if the United States agreed to eliminate its military bases in the Philippines.
Mr. Bruce George: Are those not examples of Mr. Gorbachev's proposals that are slightly tongue in cheek? In citing them, my hon. Friend may detract from the more serious offers. In the case of the Mediterranean, the Soviet fifth eskadra is tiny, so to abandon it and to put that squadron back into the Black sea would be almost marginal for Soviet purposes if, in return, the Soviet Union demands the withdrawal of the sixth fleet, which is not only infinitely larger, but performs a crucial task for NATO in the southern region. Furthermore, if Soviet naval forces were removed from

175
Cam Ranh bay, that would, again, be virtually marginal compared to the withdrawal of American naval forces from the Philippines. Is it not true that those proposals may be less than serious and geared more to capturing public opinion than are some of the other proposals, which deserve to be treated more seriously?
Mr. O'Neill: I am grafeful to my hon. Friend for his intervention; he has begun to make the point that I am going to make.
Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) maintains that the Soviet fleet is largely bottled up in the Kola peninsula by weather conditions. He must surely accept that it can be moved at any time and must be taken into consideration with the whole of the Soviet naval forces.
Mr. O'Neill: I dealt with that point when I answered the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce). The Soviet fleet there will be bottled up for much of the year and will not be able to sail the world seas.
Judging by the statements made by Gorbachev, it seems that he has an approach to questions of disarmament by which he makes several statements, over a number of months, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said, are often dressed up with other issues that are extraneous. He made an appeal to the United States in the middle of the presidential election with his Krasnoyarsk speech, which did not invite a serious response. But the important thing is that Gorbachev is making those speeches and offers, and something will happen. If we in the West are not careful, we shall end up with yet another propaganda defeat similar to the defeat we suffered after the speech Gorbachev made in the United Nations before Christmas.
What is even more important is that, when we talk about conventional forces in Europe and discuss it within the confines of the area from the Atlantic to the Urals, we often choose to ignore the fact that, whereas the Soviet lines of supply go from the Urals to Eastern Europe, our critical lines of supply go across the Atlantic. If we think that we can keep our naval capability out of talks, we are living on borrowed time. Rather than going into such talks in a grudging and half-hearted way, we should explore the possibilities as soon as we can.
When we consider the deployment stage and questions of strategy rather than the grubby matters of procurement—one can understand a shopkeeper being preoccupied with such matters—the Minister may be allowed to say something more on that. That is one of the advantages of a debate such as this, in which we are not constrained by the terms of a motion before the House. We can be relatively expansive and we recognise that we are not likely to make tremendous demands on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in trying to get into the debate.
Gorbachev has been making statements and they are straws in the wind. The hon. Member for Dorset, South was present with me at an interesting and useful conference at Greenwich, at which a number of analysts who were in no way sympathetic to the Soviet Union repeatedly made the point that we should anticipate the Soviet Union making cuts in its naval capabilities before too long. The analysts said that there were two schools of thought. One believed that the Soviet Union wanted to
176
contribute genuinely to the disarmament process and the other took the cynical view that we would see the Soviet fleet become leaner and meaner. I am not sure about that.
Much has been made of the size and quality of the Soviet fleet. There is much in their craft that is comparable to those of the West, but the Soviets are constrained by economic concerns, and cuts are resulting. The most famous of those is the new Soviet nuclear-powered carrier, originally known in the west as "Black Com 2". When it was launched in December 1985, it was known as the "Leonid Brezhnev". For reasons that I do not need to explain it has since been renamed the Tbilisi. What is important is that the RUSI News Sheet in autumn last year reported a series of modifications because the Russians had not been able to get their act together technically or in the way that they had hoped. The carrier has been downgraded, the aircraft and helicopters have been limited to 50 and the conventional take-off and landing facilities have been forgone. The article concluded that the Soviet Union's first supercarrier does not have the fighting edge it was assumed to have.
It is general knowledge that the level of information technology and computing that the Soviet navy has at its disposal is considerably more limited than that available to the Western navies and that the general spread of technology throughout the Soviet navy is considerably restricted by comparison with ours. The naval threat may not be as great as it was assumed to be. We know that the Soviet Union has been forced to economise and is beginning to seek talks. We should consider that carefully, from the point of view of trying to take advantage of its discomfiture. We should not go into such matters in a blaze of publicity in which we are seen to be forced to the conference table by the weight of public opinion in this country or elsewhere.
We have had this afternoon the ritual expression that we have a fleet of, probably, about 50. It is clear that the national guessing game continues and that we may be down to 43 or, in a bad week, to 28. The truth seems to be that if we have 50 destroyers and frigates with a life of 20 years, we must replace them at the rate of two and a half a year or five every two years, if we scrap five every two years. If we do not do that and if we try to replace them at a higher rate than we scrap them, that will be ideal, but at the moment we are nowhere near that.
We try to extend the life of the ships, and some of them are now very old—well beyond their 25-year lifespan. There is at least one that goes beyond that. If we extend their life too far, their quality diminishes and their effectiveness is reduced. They become more costly and difficult to maintain. They distort manpower and training patterns and become irrelevant in our response to any threat. Until we get the rate of ordering suggested in the Select Committee's report, we will not get away from the problems of morale and of people leaving the service, as they have been doing, and the difficulties that are created for the Navy as a result of the Government's unwillingness or incapability to meet its legitimate demands.
It is not just the present class of frigate that we need to worry about. The anxiety of the shipbuilding industry is not confined to the loss of orders, but involves the uncertainty of intentions. It might have helped if the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement had told us something about the Euro-frigate and about the Government's plans for the next class. As we know, studies are going on. They are taking the form of elaborate

177
programmes of drip-feeding the shipbuilding industry. But in Yarrow—the only commercial yard in the United Kingdom capable of participation in the NFR90—the design team has fallen from 360 to 160 in the last two years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary may not be in a position to say anything about it, but I believe that, when the Secretary of State was at Yarrow, he said that the Government intended to make a statement towards the end of the year. Perhaps the Minister of State will confirm later that we shall have to wait until the end of the year for a clearer indication about what will happen to the collaborative project which is in its early stages. Can the Minister confirm that it will be sustained and that by the end of the year we will know definitely whether we will have a Euro-frigate for the 1990s? It is disappointing that the report in the Sunday Telegraph about a possible announcement for three more type 23s has turned out to be optimistic.
The Under-Secretary gave us no room for reassurance in his remarks on computer-assisted command systems. He even suggested that there would be a slippage in the date of April 1989 for the confirmation of an order. He has indicated that five type 23s—the pride of the British surface fleet—will go to the defence of the country in a state in which they are less than capable of defending themselves and that our seamen will be at a disadvantage compared to an enemy, because we will not have the kit that other navies have.
Mr. Neville Trotter: If the hon. Gentleman had been a Minister, would he have gone ahead with a design that was not competent and not able to defend the ship?
Mr. O'Neill: After eight years of government we would have been able to establish better control of major projects.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Nimrod.
Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman refers to Nimrod. The Labour Government did the business on TSR2; they took the tough decision and cancelled it. The Conservative Government were in power for seven years before they were prepared to grasp the nettle of Nimrod. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it took seven years to identify the problems in something as glaring as Nimrod. Surely they should have been able to deal with something as insubstantial as the software system in CACS much more quickly.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: When it came to the decision to switch on Nimrod, it was the Opposition who suggested that we should have stayed with GEC.
Mr. O'Neill: The Opposition argued at the time that there was a case to be made for sustaining support for the British design for another 18 months. That was the position that we took and which we would have been happy to justify. We were not in government. The Government had eight years to make up their mind. At the end, they sold out British workers and designers because they did not stand up to the people in their own Ministry who sniped persistently at Nimrod and who kept changing the specification. The Minister is on weak ground when he seeks to divert attention to that issue.
178
I take the Minister's point that we have to await a definite statement on the future of our amphibious capability. We have the usual paragraph that appears every year, but the mid-1990s are getting closer. I do not think that the House will be fobbed off indefinitely with that paragraph. We need something far more concrete than a pious hope that in a couple of years the project analysis will be finished. The Minister owes the House much more, perhaps not in this debate but certainly in the defence estimates debate in July or October.
As to the repair and refit of HMS Southampton. if it had been just the repair of the craft, it would have been legitimate for it to go to Portsmouth. However, given the nature of the work and the fact that it is a professional decision which is not really in the hands of politicians, the decision to repair and refit would have been a heaven sent opportunity for the Government to give much-needed work to Devonport. That might have restored the balance of the Government's betrayal of the dockyard. They reduced the size of the core programme and made an already difficult task in that dockyard much harder.
Following my visits to the two dockyards since privatisation, I agree with the Minister that a great deal has been done. It is a tribute to management and the unions that the understandable anxieties of the work force when the privatisation schemes were going through have to some extent been met. Both sides have buckled down to the job of trying to meet their responsibilities to the Navy. Sad to say, the Ministry of Defence is not meeting its responsibilities to the dockyards.
Mr. Sainsbury: I join the hon. Gentleman in what he said about the dockyards. Do I understand him to say that he would deprive all the other shipbuilding and repairing yards that would be interested in tendering for HMS Southampton, including those in Scotland, of the opportunity to tender for the work?
Mr. O'Neill: Perhaps the Minister will tell the House which yards he is talking about. Perhaps he will tell us which ones are left and which are capable of doing the work. Will he reel them off?
Mr. Sainsbury: If I stick to the ones in Scotland, I anticipate that we are likely to have a tender from Babcock Thorn Ltd. in Rosyth, and it is possible that we will have a tender from Yarrow. In the north-east, we would expect to hear from at least one, if not two, yards on the Tyne. In the north-west we would expect to hear from Cammell Laird.
Mr. O'Neill: The Minister has not given them all. I imagine that we could get down to plastic hulls from Vospers and one or two places like that. The Minister and I disagree on a basic point. We believe that the quality of the work and the way in which it has been carried out over the years suggests that the naval dockyards are the most effective places to carry out major repairs and refits for the Royal Navy. When the quality of work was compared, that of the dockyards was far superior to that of the private yards. From experience, I should have thought that the Minister would put that as a higher priority than trying to hawk repairs around the yards of Britain in the misleading expectation that he might either create work in other parts of the country or save a few bob for the country.

179
I know that, as a result of television programmes, a number of questions have been tabled about the Trident programme. The "World in Action" programme certainly suggested that all is not well with the expenditure on Trident. At an appropriate time, the Minister will no doubt tell the House much more about it. I am sure, too, that he will have to attend the Select Committee when it carries out what I imagine is its annual survey of Trident.
We have not heard anything today about the construction of the atomic weapons research establishment and the recruitment of staff. We have not heard of the progress of the only British independent part of our deterrent, and whether we will have that, as promised, by 1994–95 or whether there will be a slippage and, as well as renting the missiles, we will have to rent some warheads too.
The Government have yet to come up with the sort of arithmetic that suggests that our Navy will be supported and protected from inflation and from the inter-service battles, which are caused by the inadequacy of the defence budget that in large measure is accounted for by expenditure on the Trident programme. Frankly, there is not much that can be done about the Trident programme, because it is so far down the road. By the next general election, I believe that it will be about 70 per cent. complete.
The Government are misleading the House when they do not take account of the other factors that have yet to be addressed. It is all very well for the Minister to talk piously about the quality of, and the contribution made by, our service personnel, but he must recognise—we made this point in October during the debate on the White Paper—that the demographic changes are not working in favour of the Government. By the early 1990s we shall have considerable difficulty in recruiting personnel. In the 1990s we shall have acute problems in the capital or equipment intensive areas of our services—the Air Force and the Navy.
We must look seriously at the recruitment, training, education and remuneration of our service personnel. We must pay the Government credit for the fact that once again they have accepted the recommendations of the pay board. Only time will tell whether those recommendations will be met when the rate of inflation continues to rise. Certainly the services will be able to recruit some of our finest and most capable young people while there is still unemployment in many areas; those young people will join the services because there is nothing else for them. However, when the number of youngsters drops in the early 1990s, they will need to be attracted to a career with favourable remuneration, working conditions, time off, support and accommodation.
While the Under-Secretary may not have felt that it was within his province, I believe that he gave only one side of the story when he spoke about the increased resources available for the armed services. I hope that the Minister of State will respond to that point.
The Labour party has yet to be reassured on the point made in the Select Committee report about the apparent confusion in the Ministry of Defence over the role and functions of the escort fleet, and what we are supposed to be doing with the 43 or 50 frigates and destroyers. We have yet to receive a clear explanation from the Government of
180
why we need our present Navy. I certainly believe that we need one, and I have indicated some of the areas in which the Labour party would want to make use of that service. The Government must tell us why they need it and that they see the sea lines of communications being defended. Whether they do that on the basis of supporting convoys or individul ships, they must tell us how they will meet their responsibilities for the amphibious craft.
The Government must tell us far more frankly about the ordering programme that we need to maintain the capabilities that we require. The Opposition are not happy with what we have heard today. We await the White Paper not with optimism—as we suspect that it will be more of the same thing—but because we recognise that the Government must do a lot better before they can enjoy the confidence and support of a service for which at present we appear to be doing far less than we should. At present the Navy is doing for us a job which is quite remarkable in the circumstances created by the Government.
4.56 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: It is always a pleasure to listen to an Opposition Front Bench spokesman who has clearly done his homework and has tried to master his brief. I say that in genuine admiration of the way in which the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has come to grips with his job. I believe that parts of his analysis would evoke no dissent from Conservative Members. Indeed, most of us could go along with most of his analyses. Now that the hon. Gentleman has his feet under the table—or, to put it more accurately, his bottom on the bed of nails—we must hear from him just what is the defence policy of the Labour party.
We have listened to the hon. Gentleman for 40 minutes. He has made some criticisms of what the Government are doing—some of which are good subjects for debate—but we have not heard one word about whether the size of the Navy is right, whether it is doing the right job or whether the Labour party would have a Navy at all if it were in Government. To go on in the way in which the Labour party is at present is not fooling the electorate or anyone in this House. I look forward with great interest to debating with the hon. Gentleman when he tells us the Labour party's defence policy, whether it has one.
The Minister's speech was welcome in many respects. It was upbeat, and it has good cause to be, because our record on defence and on what we have done for the armed forces is a good one, although, as my hon. Friend knows, some of us feel that there are areas for legitimate debate and criticism. However, as far as it went, his speech was excellent.
The Minister's point about HMS Southampton was well made. To do the refit at the same time as the repair was a competent decision. I believe that the hon. Member for Clackmannan went along with that assessment. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made an uncharacteristically parochial remark. He normally paints on a wider canvas rather than considering only—serious though they are—the interests of constituents. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would really consider it right for work to go to a dockyard regardless of cost, date of delivery or ability to perform. Obviously the decision to put it out to tender, which

181
Devonport could well win, is the right one. On reflection, I believe that he will realise that it was one of the less sensible remarks that he has made in the House.
I am glad, too, that we have had a chance to debate the Select Committee's report on the surface fleet, published at the end of last summer. I hope that the analysis that we attempted to make of some of the Government's dilemmas will help the House. I am sad to see that the Government tendered a rather churlish reply. They felt that they were being criticised and got at and, in their reply, retired somewhat into a bunker. I assure them—if they need my assurance—that it was not critical. I said at the time that it was not a critical report but I added that it was a challenging report, because we have to base our assessment of what is going on on the assumptions that the Government have announced, and if we find that there are areas where the Government appear not to match up to those assumptions, that is a legitimate cause of comment.
We tried to analyse the role of the Royal Navy, should we come to war, and the hon. Member for Clackmannan gave much the same analysis as we have all come to accept of the tasks that the Navy might have to do. There is a notable remark in the Government's reply:
"The Government attaches high priority to countering the Soviet submarine threat and to ensuring the security of the Northern Flank. It believes that this will best be achieved by a forward maritime strategy, while possessing flexibility to respond as necessary to opposing force dispositions in the event of war."
That is not to mention any convoy escort duties which might be required, any threat to our shore line or to the Channel which might require mine clearing, minehunting and defence. The Government continually stress the importance to their strategy of flexibility, but flexibility must be in very large part a function of numbers: the fewer ships there are available, the less flexibility, by definition, there can be.
What we have not had from the Government is anything to dispel our concern that forward operations will require such a high proportion of the surface fleet that there will be very little strength for operational flexibility elsewhere. I think that that is a subject that we can legitimately pursue and I hope that it is one that the Government will see fit to argue their corner about, rather than simply dismissing it in a very short paragraph of a Government reply.
I turn now to the question of the figures which, in many areas, the Government reject. They are, of course, entitled to reject our conclusions but it is odd that they do it without suggesting that the facts on which these conclusions are based are wrong. We are left a good number of facts, and there has been no indication in their reply that the Government argue with the facts, simply that they draw different conclusions. That is a matter for the House and it is a matter for individual hon. Members to debate, but if we are to try to have a constructive debate with the Government from the Select Committee's point of view, it is important that they do more than simply dismiss our arguments and produce counter-arguments of their own, based on the same facts as ours, if they agree with them.
We shall continue to monitor very closely the situation as regards the availability of the surface fleet. We now have, after a certain misunderstanding, the monthly returns from the Commander-in-Chief, Fleet. We are very grateful for them—they are useful to us—and we shall continue on the House's behalf to watch the numbers—
182
because they do vary, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan said—and to make sure that, in maintaining the commitment for "about 50", we are not stretching the word "about" beyond the limits of any dictionary definition.
Good news too from the Minister that the planned study for amphibious replacement is under way, but the constant assertion that there is plenty of time is beginning to wear thinnner and thinner as these debates come and go. We were fortunate enough to get out to see Exercise Teamwork in the autumn on board the amphibious ships with the Marines, and, excellently as they are doing their job—and the crews are making the most of them—they are very old ships and really are coming to the end of their natural life.
Mr. Eric S. Helfer: The hon. Gentleman says that we have not got much time. Who is about to attack us? The Soviet Union? America" Who? I have never heard such a lot of rubbish.
Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I was referring to what the Minister said, which I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman heard, about there being plenty of time before the present amphibious capability becomes obsolete. It is to that——
Mr. Heffer: We do not need that immediately. There is a defence.
Mr. Mates: I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman has a point of view that we need no defence. It is a view that finds very little sympathy on the Government side of the House, as I know it finds very little in the country. Unpalatable as he may find that, it is the reason why there are a hundred more of us in the House than there are of his party.
Mr. Heffer: It is a lie to say that I do not believe in defence.
Mr. Mates: I am not generally called a liar, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am not giving way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
Mr. Heffer: It is a lie to say that I do not believe in defence.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you not bring the hon. Member to order? It is the second time that he has used the word.
Mr. Heffer: Yes, and I will repeat it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a lie to say that I do not believe in defence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) is not accusing the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) of telling lies. It would be out of order if he were to do so.
Mr. Heffer: He accused me.
Mr. Mates: I thought that we were having quite an interesting debate until, rather like a thunderflash in a dustbin, the hon. Gentleman arrived, having not heard the opening speeches and understandably not realising that I

183
was referring to a part of the Minister's speech that he had not heard. Then he asked me who we were threatened by. I do not feel threatened by him——
Mr. Heffer: I feel threatened by you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Mates: On the whole, I take that as a compliment. Nevertheless, it would be prudent if we got this debate back on to its tracks. The interesting diversion to the whole concept of whether we need defence or not is for another day.
The frigate-ordering programme is at the heart of numbers of flexibility. Shortly after our report was published, the Government announced their decision to order three new frigates. This was, of course, welcome as the Government recognised that it was just the sort of measure that the Committee was looking for. They say that this more than meets the requirement which the Committee has identified for 2·6 new ships to be ordered each year if the fleet is to remain at its present size. What we said was that we need to achieve an average of 2·6 ships to be ordered annually over a period of more than six years. We hope that this requirement will be met but that remains to be seen.
At the end of their reply, the Government
"notes the Committee's concern [about] the size of the … fleet … and the announcement of its decision to order 3 new Type 23 frigates will presumably help to allay these concerns."
While that helps to allay the Committee's concerns, it does not allay them completely, because we are now waiting to see how many ships are to be ordered this year and then how many are to be ordered next year. I say this not as a criticism but as a challenge, because the Government have set themselves a very high target to achieve if they are to maintain the pledge of a fleet of about 50 surface ships, all in good order and not over the top in age. This is something that we must watch in the closest way to see that they are maintained.
We have seen a good bit of the Navy this year. We were able to spend a day on board HMS Illustrious in the North sea on exercise and we visited Exercise Teamwork and went ashore with the Royal Marine commandos in alliance with the Norwegian forces, on both of which occasions we were most impressed with all that we saw. We received a comprehensive briefing at Northwood—perhaps too frank for the taste of the one or two Ministers—when we made an initial visit of this Parliament to the headquarters of the fleet. Nevertheless, it is refreshing that we can see the Navy working as professionally as it always has. I speak for the whole Committee when I say how impressed we have been with the Navy's attitude, demeanour, professionalism and dedication. That goes for those parts of the Navy that we have not seen, particularly those who have been involved in the Gulf and in the Armilla patrol.
In conclusion, I should like to say how warmly I welcome what the Government are doing—up to the point they have told us about. In the near, middle and distant future we shall be looking for an absolute undertaking that the guarantees and pledges made about the strength of the Royal Navy will be honoured.
5.9 pm
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: NATO's unity during the past 40 years has been based mainly on a common perception of the threat posed by Soviet expansionism, in both its military and political manifestations. As Mr. Gorbachev continues to set the international agenda, however, there is evidence of a weakening of that common perception. How do we, as parliamentarians concerned for security policy, interpret a development that is increasingly bewildering to colleagues and constituents who are increasingly in favour of a radical reassessment of western policy, and probably impatient to see some evidence of early progress?
How do we explain the exemption of naval forces from the forthcoming negotiations in Vienna on conventional forces? Why do naval forces call for separate treatment in arms control talks? Why is there no reference to the naval component in the assessment of the Soviet threat in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988", either in paragraphs 104 to 108 or pages 5 to 7?
Surely, the most significant strategic development of out time is the enormous expansion of Soviet maritime capability since the early 1960s. I do not refer just to the growth of the Soviet navy and naval air force—it is twice the size of our Royal Air Force—but to the carefully nurtured growth of its merchant, oceanographic and fishing fleets, which are now operating worldwide.
How do we respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) to assess this naval threat in the light of perestroika? Has perestroika yet led to any reductions in the Soviet maritime posture? I entirely share my hon. Friend's curiosity and anxiety that, if there are grounds for doing so, we should proceed as soon as possible to re-examine the naval threat.
As a result of my curiosity during the past three months, and of exchanges with SACEUR, and the commander in chief in the Pacific—this is relevant because the largest of the Soviet fleets is now deployed in the Pacific and no longer in the Kola inlet—and talks in NATO only last week and at SHAPE, I was repeatedly assured that there was no evidence yet, even on the margins, of any reductions in Soviet military postures—maritime or otherwise—as a result of perestroika. That suggests to me that, even more than arms control, the western alliance needs an overall political concept for dealing with the new circumstances brought about by Mr. Gorbachev's new thinking. Failing that, the Western alliance will undoubtedly run into trouble over its strategy doctrine and the practical decisions needed to carry it out.
The Soviet northern fleet is of greatest concern to us. We must continue to ask ourselves why the Soviets need such naval forces, even if reduced—although as yet there is no evidence of that. Why do the Soviets need such potent forces? Can they be only for defensive purposes?
In addition to protecting shipping on their own sea lines of communication, the Soviets have the ability to threaten allied reinforcement shipping that is vital to the West for the defence not only of the central European land mass and the northern flank of NATO, but for the sustenance of our own civilian populations. We must expect the Soviets to conduct amphibious operations in support of their land campaigns.
The threat is multidimensional and increasing in reach and capability. At one end of the spectrum is surveillance

185
from space; at the other, complex underwater warfare from the open oceans and polar regions, to the vicinity of our own shallow seas and choke points.
In a time of rising tension or hostilities, we, with our allies, would be responsible for the maintenance of sea control in the whole of the east Atlantic. For the United Kingdom, that includes—this must be stated and restated—first, a major anti-submarine effort using our carriers, towed array frigates, submarines and maritime patrol aircraft and, secondly, the support of reinforcement forces.
In consequence, we shall see a significant change in the make-up of the fleet. During the 1990s, type 12s, Leanders, Counties, Bristols and type 21s will all leave the active fleet. Air coverage will continue to be provided only by type 42 destroyers, while our principal anti-submarine warfare escorts will be type 22 and type 23 frigates. We shall work towards just two two classes of surface escort—the type 23 for the ASW and a successor to the type 42 for anti-air warfare. I hope that the latter will come from the NFR90 programme. I entirely share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan for the preservation of that programme, not only for our own shipbuilding capacity or fleet but for the collaborative programme of which it is a part. A more broadly based collaborative programme is not available to the Alliance. Now and then we hear whispers that that programme is at risk. I hope that it is not and I hope that the Minister will accept my hon. Friend's invitation and assure the House that the programme is as secure as it can be at this stage.
I think that, on personal contemplation, any hon. Member will agree that the forward look that I have offered to the House is bound to come about. How far is that development reflected in today's defence estimates or the long-term costings'? Yet, if there are marginal reductions in the Soviet maritime posture—even without the additions described by the Minister when he opened the debate—we still have to face the threat from fast, deeper-diving and quieter Soviet submarines such as the Alpha, and the heavy armament of the Oscar. I single out only two classes, but they both demand a higher standard of response. Bigger and more numerous weapon control and communication systems often lead to larger and therefore more costly ships.
The underwater threat today is as great as it was in 1942–43. In spite of advances in methods of detecting submarines and the effectiveness of the weapons used against them, operational research in world war two showed that the submarine threat could be effectively countered only by adequate numbers of escorts and aircraft operating together as an integrated ASW force. The operative word here is "adequate". Do we have adequate surface forces?
Despite the Government's oft-repeated pledge to maintain a fleet of about 50 destroyers and frigates, I wonder how many hon. Members present—all of whom are interested in our security policy—are really assured on that point. As I recall, we have not had a debate for some years in which such anxiety has not been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In the debate in October on the defence estimates, I raised several questions and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement replied to me afterwards, for which I am grateful. I am sorry that he could not stay, so that I could thank him for his good response, which was helpful to debates of this kind. I hope that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will convey my public thanks
186
to him. I asked him how many vessels were operational and how many in dockyards or on disposal lists. He replied:
"On 11 November, 38 Destroyers/Frigates were available immediately, or within a short period, and nine were in refit".
Those are sobering figures The Minister continued:
"We plan to pay off 2 ships by the end of the financial year; Two new type 22s will be introduced into service in the same period."
So it is possible that we are now down to 38, and certainly no more than 40. The Navy has been demanding peacetime commitments of the fleet in the south Atlantic and on the Armilla patrol, commitments which account for as many as 25 per cent. of the 38 surface ships. This overstretch must prejudice naval participation in NATO exercises.
Extending ships' lives and modifying upkeep cycles could maintain the fleet, but that will involve keeping a number of ships in service longer than was originally intended. Moreover, extending a ship's life increases maintenance requirements and is likely to lead to further reductions in availability——
Mr. Archie HamiltonI hope that I can put the hon. Gentleman out of his agony. The statistics at the moment are that there are 49 destroyers and frigates in the fleet, 41 of which could be made available for operational deployment immediately or within a short period.
Mr. Duffy: I am grateful for that information, but it still represents a reduction to 41 from 43 just a year ago. The trend is downwards. The number is certainly not 50 or thereabouts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannon reminded the Minister. The figures that the Government are good enough to yield up show a descending trend, which is a matter of concern to both sides of the House.
I also want to discuss the structure and composition of the fleet. The Minister told me:
"The average age of our major warships is currently just over 12 years, which compares favourably with that of our NATO allies.
By now the average age of our carriers is six years, of our destroyer and frigates 12 years, and of our landing platform docks—including amphibious ships—22 years. So we cannot settle for figures alone. We thank the Government for being helpful about figures, but we need to know more about the quality of the ships.
Considering the vast amount of shipping that would operate in the north European NATO area in a time of crisis, we realise that it would be completely at the mercy of the mine unless routes were secured by NATO's mine countermeasure forces. Much of the burden of securing the sea lanes, not only for merchant ships but for the Navy's warships and attack submarines and SSBNs, will fall on the Navy's mine countermeasures vessels. The Minister knows that I have been especially interested in this subject for some time; I keep asking questions about it, and did so last October, thereby securing a further reply from the Minister. I wanted to know how many of the minesweeper orders planned under a £1 billion modernisation scheme introduced by the Government near the beginning of their period of office would be completed by the mid-1990s. The programme was intended to provide us with about 50 new hulls. The Minister replied

187
"We have brought 19 new MCMVs into service since 1979, and there are currently five single role Mine Hunters on order. We expect to order more in due course, but no decision has yet been taken on the size and timing of further orders."
So 19 out of 50 have been finished and we are more than halfway through the life of the programme. Although the Minister referred to the programme, he did not mention new orders, although it had been expected, last year as well as this, that there would be an order for four SRMH-type vessels.
I have said enough to show that there are ample grounds for concern about the state of the Navy. That concern cannot be limited to frigates, destroyers or mine countermeasures vessels. The MOD was reported last summer as trying to divert criticism by pointing out that the Navy also has carrier and submarine forces, but it failed to mention that there is neither the manpower nor the aircraft to man one third of the carrier forces, even in crisis. The MOD also failed to point out that no further nuclear submarines—attack submarines—can be built for use by the fleet until the Trident force is complete, with the result that the attack submarine force will age in the same way as the frigates and destroyers, perhaps to a point from which recovery will be difficult.
Feasibility studies for the replacement of the amphibious assault ships Fearless and Intrepid continue, according to the Minister. He mentioned the aviation support ship and said that a tender would be invited in July. All that suggests a slowing down.
Merchant shipping, as was shown in 1982, now forms an integral part of the amphibious lift capability in contingency planning and would provide the bulk of the British minesweeping forces too, having a vital role in the carriage of NATO reinforcements across the Atlantic.
The defence statement devotes only two paragraphs to merchant shipping and, compared with the 1987 statement, amounts to a tacit admission that the size of the British merchant fleet is no longer adequate to meet both NATO's reinforcement requirement and that of the support of the United Kingdom's armed forces.
On manpower, outflow is still high. The most serious shortfalls are to be found among the voluntary reserves. In 1984 the Government announced a plan to increase the strengh of the voluntary reservists in the Royal Naval Reserve by 40 per cent., from 5,226 to 7,800 by the early 1990s. The previous year it was announced that the Royal Marines Reserve would be increased from 1,047 to 1,580.
This defence statement shows that, on 1 January a year ago, the RNR had 5,600 men and women, and the RMR 1,300. Thus, four years after launching their expansion plans, the Government have achieved less than 10 per cent. of their target for the RNR, and less than 50 per cent. for the RMR in five years.
Mr. Wilkinson: As a former aviator, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the RNR Air Squadron is more than fully recruited—it has many applicants whom it cannot place in stocks.
Mr. Duffy: As a former reservist I take pleasure from that, but it is the only section of which that is true. Overall, the MOD still needs to enrol another 2,200 recruits over and above wastage levels by 1994—the promised target
188
date by which it was hoped that the reserve will be capable of manning 60 per cent. of all British MCM ships and providing 12 per cent. of total naval manpower in war.
I was pleased to learn from the Minister that more resources will be available in real terms to the Navy over the next three years. I have had time to only describe a few areas in which those increased resources will be very welcome.
5.28 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): The House will have been extremely pleased to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who clearly stated that forward defence was vital to preventing a Soviet naval breakout. We have often heard it said that the forward defence of Germany is the forward defence of the United Kingdom. It was refreshing to hear a Defence Minister stating that the principle of forward defence applied also to maritime defence.
This principle was reiterated in the Western European Union platform of The Hague in which all the member countries committed themselves to the defence of their nations at their borders. When we are talking about northern defence in naval terms, most of us are thinking about a northern dimension of maritime defence. The balance of power on the northern flank preoccupies strategists and is of great concern for the security of this country.
Over the past 20 years, the Soviet navy has indeed become an instrument for global power projection. It can be argued why that occurred, but in the past 20 years not only has the Soviet navy acquired a blue water capability but it has become a formidable component of the USSR's strategic nuclear deterrent force; if deterrent be the right word. With the introduction into service of the very latest SSBNs such as the Typhoon and the Delta IV, the need for the Soviet Union's strategic nuclear submarines to go into the farthest oceans of the globe to carry out their intimidatory or deterrent missions has been obviated. Now of course, the SSBNs of the Soviet Union can lurk equally effectively in the dark and icy waters of the Arctic, the Barents sea and the Greenland sea.
This may in part be an explanation for the apparent diminution of exercise activity in the past three years. There may be other reasons such as that the Soviet navy needs to absorb the new equipment which it has acquired. It probably needs to make some savings in running costs by cutting down on sea time. Naturally, as the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the chairman of the political committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, has pointed out, it would indeed be embarrassing for the Soviet Union if the naval exercise programme of the Soviet fleet was out of step with the political statements of Secretary-General Gorbachev. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), has alluded to this factor.
If we accept that the deterrent balance is operating in a period of arms control when it is likely that land-based systems will be the first to be dismantled—which was already the case for the INF—then the importance of sea-based nuclear delivery systems will increase, with SSBNs and submarine-launched cruise missile systems as well as air-launched cruise missile systems and dual

189
capable systems also. Therefore, it is very important for the Soviet Union to maintain the modernisation of its northern fleet. It seems to have done so, as I pointed out.
However, we must not confuse apparent intention with capability. Intentions can change as rapidly as the men who are supposed to have them. Capabilities, especially in modern naval warfare, can take decades to acquire. It is clear that the Soviet Union has acquired the capability to operate the very latest systems. Its submarines, such as the Typhoon, are the deepest diving in the world. They have acquired quiet technology from the United States and are a formidable threat.
Furthermore, the Soviets regard sea power as a seamless web, with a spectrum of capabilities from the intelligence gatherers to the fishing vessels, from the merchant marine to the oceanographic vessels to the high sea and coastal forces of the Soviet navy, with its attendant naval aviation. Britain must address this maritime threat on the northern flank.
Mr. O'Neill: Does the hon. Gentleman for giving way, also accept that the British Navy considers that its activities take the form of a seamless garment? The point I particularly wish to make concerns the acceptance of the forward northern strategies by NATO. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that acceptance implies the willingness and the capability of the Alliance to fight a nuclear war at sea, and to win in the very early stages of a conflict in Europe? Is that what the hon. Gentleman understands to be the underlying theme of a northern maritime strategy? If so, is it any wonder that the Norwegian Government are most concerned about the provocative deployment of these ships in northern waters?
Mr. Wilkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. His remarks merit clarification.
I was lecturing to the Oslo Military Society last night. The naval strategy and forward posture of NATO greatly interest Norwegians. They regard the forward naval strategy of SACLANT to be as important as the West Germans regard the forward strategy of SACEUR. SACLANT's posture is a deterrent one. In other words it is important to have adequate warning of a possible threat available to the NATO alliance. Secondly, the warning should be properly interpreted. Thirdly, political decisions should be taken promptly and fearlessly. Fourthly, reinforcements should take place early enough.
Two aspects of such reinforcement must be highlighted. The defence of northern Norway depends very much on the arrival at the earliest possible date of SACLANT's striking fleet Atlantic. Without the early arrival of SACLANT's carrier battle groups into the Norwegian sea, it is possible that deterrence might fail. This is important. The second aspect is that relevant amphibious forces have to be mobilized—first, the United States marine brigade so that it can be put into Norway to take advantage of the equipment that has been pre-stocked there recently; secondly, the United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious force, which should at least get under way. It is arguable, however, that it should not be put ashore too early, as the flexibility that such marine forces inherently possess should be available until the appropriate moment.
We delude ourselves if we imagine that NATO surface vessels would be able to survive in the Norwegian sea if deterrence broke down without the striking fleet Atlantic. The dominance of Soviet air power is such that they would
190
be very much exposed. When people talk of the European role, especially that of the Royal Navy, before the arrival of SACLANT's striking fleet Atlantic, I assume that the emphasis will be on the activity of SSNs to try and keep tabs on the SSBNs and important components of the northern fleet. Certain commentators suggest that Invincible class carriers would be safe to operate up north, I question this very much. An early objective of Soviet commanders would be to deny NATO the northern airfields in Norway, if not to take them.
We should recall that the Soviet marine brigade which is available in the Kola now exercises regularly and would be a serious threat. Therefore, the key to the whole scenario up north and to the effectiveness of our strategy is the air situation.
Mr. Trotter: My hon. Friend has referred, rightly. to the need for the striking fleet, but will he confirm that he is referring to conventional deterrence?
Mr. Wilkinson: I can give my hon. Friend no such confirmation. The whole essence of deterrence is to have a range of capabilities, and by their nature, carrier groups are dual capable. That is why the Soviets would be foolhardy to launch aggression of any kind against northern Norway or any part of the Alliance. It is important for the Alliance to have a nuclear capability because it is fundamental to our strategy. That is well understood by the Soviets and it has helped to preserve the peace.
Mr. O'Neill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for answering my earlier question in some detail. He has painted a scenario in which there would be the possible use of NATO SSNs against Soviet SSBNs—against ballistic missile submarines in the Soviet fleet. Does he not think that the early challenge of those SSBNs would bring about the likelihood of an early use by the Soviet Union of nuclear weapons on the basis that they should either lose them or use them? It was that kind of provocative act which I implied in my initial question.
Mr. Wilkinson: No. I used the phrase "keep tabs On". One must remember that a forward naval strategy has a peacetime dimension just as much as it has a wartime dimension. The Norwegians are fearful lest the Norwegian Sea should, in peacetime, become a mare Sovieticum, for the NATO allies do not spend nearly as many sea days as do the Soviets in this inhospitable stretch of water. We should, in peace, have a capability and exercise there regularly, and then, should we have a transition to what could—and we hope it will not—be war, we would be in the right place at the right time and with the right range of naval forces.
In this period, when we a re rightly preoccupied with arms control and are seeking to make progress towards a reduction perhaps of 50 per cent. in strategic nuclear delivery systems—and, hopefully, reductions in chemical weapons and ultimately in conventional forces on the central front—we should not forget that these developments make even more important naval power in general and naval nuclear deterrent power in particular.
As we are increasingly preoccupied with the central front and the attendant balance of forces, let us not forget the imbalance of the northern region, in that the Soviet Union is in place there with substantial forces, whereas the Danes and the Norwegians are totally dependent, if

191
deterrence fails, on our NATO reinforcement. Such reinforcement cannot effectively take place unless we take the hard political decisions early enough, unless we make the reinforcement decisions quickly and effectively and, above all, unless we have the air power available to make the forward naval strategy possible.
5.44 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: I wish to comment in particular on the final comments by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), for there will be satisfaction in all parts of the House that this debate should be taking place against a background of a more positive international climate than has been the case with naval debates for some years.
We welcome the progress that has been made on arms control. We hope that the INF treaty will be followed by progress on strategic nuclear weapons, and we hope that there will be progress in the conventional stability talks, which will enable mutual security and stability to be assured at much lower levels or armaments deployment.
There are clear signs that the Soviets are beginning to make cuts in their offensive capabilities. They have a long way to go before they have achieved the sort of cuts that would remove the sense of insecurity which exists in western Europe, but it is right to acknowledge that the process has at least started, and that is to be welcomed.
Welcome though those developments are, they are no reason for taking risks with our defences or for gambling with our security. In particular, they offer us no reason for giving up Britain's nuclear capability. That is why I believe it right for the Government to be proceeding with the Trident programme. It is well known that Trident would not have been my first preference for Britain's minimum nuclear deterrent, but those arguments are now behind us. It is now clearly a question of Trident or no nuclear deterrent in Britain, and on the basis of that choice, I prefer Trident to no nuclear weapons of any sort
I say that because I do not believe that the aim of securing the sort of mutual balanced nuclear disarmament that we want to see would be helped by Britain throwing away its nuclear weapons. I was glad to see Mr. Gorbachev taking that view when a delegation recently waited on him in the Soviet Union.
Trident is a flexible system. Its firepower can be reduced by reducing the number of missiles carried on each submarine or by cutting the number of warheads on each missile. I hope that the British Government are alive to the possibility of such developments in terms of arms control and are willing to scale down Britain's nuclear capacity in line with cuts made by other nations.
Before dealing with the role and size of the surface fleet, I must deal with the issue of decommissioning nuclear submarines, a problem which is with us. We know that Dreadnought came out of service in 1982, that its nuclear fuel was removed and that it has been lying at Rosyth ever since, awaiting a decision on the appropriate method of disposal. We also know that a further nine nuclear-powered submarines will be coming out of service by the year 2000.
I understand that the Ministry of Defence has identified three possible options for dealing with the problem. The first is to sink the entire submarine at sea. I should have
192
thought that in the present environmentally conscious world climate, that would not be a popular step to take. So that is not a strong option.
The second is to bury the intact reactor compartment somewhere on land. Again, I cannot imagine that we would be knocked down in the rush as inhabitants of the United Kingdom volunteered to have those components buried in their areas. The third alternative is to cut up the reactor plant and store the parts piecemeal with a view eventually to disposing of them in deep sites which have yet to be developed.
Replies to parliamentary questions show that no decisions about those options have yet been taken. We are told that the options are under active consideration, which reminds me of old Civil Service joke that when something is said to be under active consideration, it means that the papers have been lost and officials are searching for them. I hope that that is not the case in this instance, although we have been told by the Ministry of Defence that those options have been under active consideration for several years.
In a memorandum provided to the Defence Committee, the Ministry says:
"it is not possible to say when a decision on the way forward will be reached. It remains the MoD's intention however that decisions will be taken in good time to ensure adequate and safe disposal or storage of this category of nuclear waste and to prevent unacceptable interference with RN operations."
That is, I am sure, intended to be a reassuring comment. It sounds, I am sure the Minister will accept, somewhat bland and complacent, and I hope that we shall get some greater sense of urgency on this matter, some clearer indication of when decisions are to be taken, when the Minister replies.
I now turn to the role of the Royal Navy and the size of the surface fleet and, like others who have spoken in this debate, I will start with the issue of forward defence. In our last debate on the Navy on 3 March, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces made it clear that forward defence was a very important element for the Royal Navy. He said:
"The Royal Navy would thus make a key contribution to NATO's strategy of forward defence, seeking to contain and intercept Soviet maritime forces in the Norwegian sea before they could reach the wider expanses of the Atlantic."—[Official Report, 3 March 1988; Vol. 128, c. 1176.]
In the evidence that has been given to the Select Committee, it has become, I think, fairly clear that that appears to be the primary aim of the surface fleet in a wartime situation.
The limited number of vessels available makes it likely that other roles—defence of convoys for example, and protection of seas around the United Kingdom—would inevitably have a lower priority because of the demands of this forward defence strategy.
I have no difficulty with the concept in general of forward defence. I can see too the attraction of seeking to bottle up Soviet maritime forces, and particularly Soviet submarines, north of the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap. If that could be achieved, it might well provide the most effective defence for the re-supply convoys which would have to cross the Atlantic from north America.
However, there are certain obvious question marks hanging over this strategy and its effectiveness. In a period of tension, for example, the forward deployment of royal naval vessels in the Norwegian sea could only monitor the

193
movements of Soviet naval forces. Clearly, in a period of tension there is no way in which one could stop the movement of those Soviet naval forces, and one could not stop them reaching the Atlantic, where they could subsequently, if there were to be a conflict, prey on merchant ships crossing the Atlantic.
In a period of tension it can at least be argued, I think with some force, that forward deployment would be seen as extremely provocative and could aggravate an already difficult situation. So there are doubts about the effectiveness of this strategy; it would certainly absorb a large proportion of scarce naval assets, and it could turn out to be ineffective by simply trying to bolt the stable door long after the horse had gone.
The Ministry of Defence, faced with that sort of criticism, has stressed that this is a flexible approach and that the strategy would have to vary depending on the circumstances of the time. The difficulty I see is that, the fewer ships that are available, the less possibility there is for that degree of flexibility, and that is where we come back to this constant problem of the current size of our surface fleet.
We have already had comment in this debate on what "about 50" means in terms of numbers. We have already established that, at any given time—this is clearly a changing picture—fewer than 50 vessels are actually available. The evidence given to the Select Committee by the Ministry of Defence, for example, shows that, on 2 March 1988. 36 ships were fully available for operations, with seven preparing for operations or in trials and training. On 10th June, 32 ships were fully available, with eight more available at short notice. So, at any given time, considerably fewer than 50 vessels are available for actual service.
I sought to argue in the debate last year that one of the problems about this situation is that the current size of the surface fleet appears to be dictated not by the tasks that it is being asked to carry out but by the availability of funds to pay for the vessels needed. I was very encouraged to see a memorandum put to the Defence Select Committee by Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton, who made just the same point. He said:
"Thus the present size … of the destroyer/frigate force bears no actual relation to the present threat, but is based solely on what this Government believes it can afford to spend on it."
He went on:
"This opinion has been publicly stated on many recent occasions by the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic—who asserts that he has no more than half the number he needs to perform his assigned war tasks—and by our own successive Commanders in Chief."
Lord Hill-Norton commented about the implications of the "about 50" force when he was personally responsible for these matters. He said that, at that point,
"the number which Ministers accepted to be necessary was 68, and I have seen no evidence that the threat has since diminished."
That sort of expert comment puts the "about 50" surface vessels argument into perspective. We really ought to ensure that we have the number of vessels to carry out the tasks or we ought to reduce the tasks to be sure that they can adequately be carried out by the force we have. We cannot simply go on stretching the available assets to cover a wider area than is reasonable.
Like other Members who have spoken, I think the issue is not only the number involved but the age of the vessels that we are talking about. In 1981, the Government
194
proposed to dispose early of older ships and that they would accelerate the introduction of the type 23 frigates. However, when they came to respond to the fourth report of the Defence Committee in 1986–87, they referred to
"decisions to extend ships' Lives and modify upkeep cycles, with the result that it is not now necessary to order three frigates a year in order to maintain a surface fleet of about 50 destroyers and frigates."
It is therefore quite clear that the Government are honouring their famous pledge to maintain the "about 50" surface fleet by keeping in service a number of older ships, which on earlier criteria were coming to the end of their useful life. That clearly seems to be a policy response to financial pressures on the defence budget, but it has had implications for the effectiveness of the surface fleet. As other hon. Members have pointed out, older ships need larger crews, and that adds to the demands on the Navy's manpower. It is certainly likely to aggravate the problem of family separation, which in its turn has an adverse impact on the problem of retention of trained and skiled manpower. We also know that older ships may be more vulnerable; they certainly have higher maintenance costs, lower reliability, and all the problems of obsolescence.
Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton had something to say about this in his memorandum to the Defence Committee:
"Our ships must have capabilities which match the threat, and if they do not their deterrent value progressively lacks credibility. To dilute capability by running on our current generation of ships beyond an effective age, would require a reversion to the policy of major up-dating which experience has proved to be too expensive."
That again, I think, is a very important issue.
We have already had reference in this debate to the question of ordering policy, and the Select Committee in their report, which we are considering in conjunction with this debate, suggested that a total of 25 frigates was due to be withdrawn from service over the next decade, even allowing for the longer operational life which the Government now proposes. At that point, eight ships were on order, and the Committee therefore calculated that 17 vessels were needed over six and half years. That led to the famous calculation that we needed an ordering rate of 2·6 ships a year.
In reality, the Select Committee suggested, that meant ordering two in 1988, three in 1989, and then alternately two and three every year up to and including 1994. After the publication of that report, the Government announced an order for three new frigates, and I remember the Minister claiming that that had more than met the need for the 2·6 identified by the Select Committee. Of course, the Select Committee was making it clear that that was only the first stage in the programme it had outlined. The order that the Government announced last year followed a period when, in two out of three years, no orders at all had been placed; the last time the Government ordered three type 23s was in 1986–87, and there was no order at all in the following year. With that sort of pattern, the ordering rate will clearly fall well below the programme set out by the Select Committee. The result is that we shall end up with a smaller, older and less effective surface fleet.
Admiral Lord Hill-Norton addressed just that point when he said:
"Unless there is a large increase in the rate of ordering, applied at once and continued, the Royal Navy thus faces an inevitable decline to a total which will certainly be less than 45

195
operational destroyers and frigates in the mid 1990s. This must come close to the total of 42 planned in the ill judged 1981 Review."
He concluded:
"The facts seem to demonstrate that the Government intends, perhaps unwittingly, to allow a decline of this order to occur."
Such a charge, by someone with the experience and distinction of Admiral Lord Hill-Norton, must be taken much more seriously than it has been so far by the Government. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply on that issue.
6 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: It is understandable that in opening the debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement should have concentrated on the Royal Navy's equipment, but I want to begin by referring to the men and women who serve in it. When one visits the Navy one is always impressed by the enthusiasm, confidence, air of responsibility and professionalism of those one meets, who often seem to be particularly young men and women.
The commander of the United States surface warfare establishment said last year that there was no better anti-submarine warfare force in the world than the Royal Navy. That was a tribute indeed, coming from that source. It is due mainly to the high professionalism of the people who serve in the Royal Navy.
The quality of life in the Royal Navy is as high now as ever. If one reads the Navy's annual reports that are circulated to retired officers, one sees the worldwide extent of the service's involvement—the submarines Superb and Turbulent surfacing together at the north pole—the first occasion on which two Royal Navy submarines have been there together; Endurance at the other end of the globe on its annual duties in the Antarctic; the Ark Royal leading a squadron to Australia; the guard ships of the Falkland Islands, and the 7,000 men in the submarine service about whom we naturally seldom hear much. I was struck to hear last year of the conventional submarine that sailed on patrol to the Falklands from the United Kingdom and was away for no fewer than 139 days, of which 109 were at sea—a remarkable achievement. It is only right to also pay tribute to the men of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary who support the Navy wherever it may go in the world.
Naturally, in the circumstances of last year, it is the Gulf to which we should pay particular attention. Month after month in harm's way, the Navy has performed there with superb professionalism and the highest morale. We are talking here today about the theories of naval warfare, but it is important to remember the endurance of our crews on those ships in the Gulf who served watch and watch about, six hours on and six hours off, under constant threat of attack day after day on a regular basis. In 70 days HMS London alone escorted 13 million tonnes of merchant shipping in and out of that hostile area, the crew constantly tense and on alert for attack.
In the 10 months to the end of October, before the escorting of convoys ceased, no fewer than 621 merchant ships were escorted and not one was attacked, and none were attacked under escort in the previous period during which the patrol operated. No less than 25 per cent. of all sea time in the Royal Navy has been Gulf-related. The
196
escort of merchant ships in the Gulf has now ceased, but the squadron remains on patrol in that part of the world. Who can say that trouble will not flare up again in those distant waters?
Naturally enough, over the years when we have been considering the Royal Navy's role, its NATO context has received most attention. This is the 40th year of NATO and it has been a remarkably successful peace-keeping operation. It is against the capabilities and intentions of the Soviet Union and its navy that we must continue primarily to consider the future force, strength and disposition of the Royal Navy.
The Soviet navy's capabilities remain undiminished. In the past three years 15 per cent. of the Soviet main northern fleet has been replaced by new ships. Two nuclear-powered battle cruisers have joined this fleet, as have two new aircraft carriers, and there is now in service a nuclear-powered electronic jamming vessel, unique in the world. Whatever the Soviet leadership's intentions, there is constant military expenditure on new and very capable equipment at sea as on land and in the air. Until we see some reduction in that massive military production by the Soviet Union, we must continue to be on our guard. All hon. Members hope that the reduced tension that we enjoy today will continue, but it would be unwise to ignore the Soviet capabilities.
When we consider the Royal Navy's future, we should pay particular attention to its worldwide capabilities and the tasks that it may unexpectedly be required to perform. Who can say what will happen in 10 years' time in some remote part of the world? Who could have foretold that the author of a rather dull-sounding novel might set the middle east aflame in the way that is possible at this time? Who can say that there will not be some need for the Royal Navy to intervene in some far-off spot which has nothing whatever to do with tensions between east and west? This in itself is a justification for maintaining Britain's naval capability.
The demands on the sailors in the Royal Navy are as high now as they ever have been. Inevitably, naval life has always involved separation, and I pay particular tribute to those at home in the naval personnel and family service who look after the 33,000 families of the sailors, especially when they are away on long-distance voyages. The Navy has always worked hard, and it is now working very hard indeed. We must keep an eye on the sea-shore ratio, which always used to be 40 per cent. at sea and 60 per cent. ashore, but is now in danger of swinging the other way. The highest priority must be to retain the skilled and expensively trained senior ratings and officers in the service. At present, that is not a particular worry, but it is something to which we must give constant attention for the future.
I have noticed with interest the complex changes that have been made to the system of allowances in all three services. The Royal Navy's allowances have been particularly complex. I understand that the objective has been to compensate particularly those who suffer from family separation through sea service. If the Treasury, or anybody else, were tempted to save money in that direction, it would be a false economy. It is essential to maintain a system that encourages senior men to continue to serve in the service.
There is a clear case for less manpower-intensive ships so that we can reduce the strain on naval manpower. The published aim is that the total personnel strength of the

197
Navy will be reduced by another 4,000 in the years ahead. The best way of achieving that reduction must be through the introduction of new ships requiring smaller crews. We have a major ordering programme in hand, with 10 frigates and nine submarines under construction. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear me say that there is a need for further orders, in particular for further frigate orders.
In the Falklands campaign we proved that our ships are good and there is no question but that the new type 23 frigate will be very good. In 1854 Lord Kelvin said:
"The public cannot tolerate large increases in costs for small increases in performance for guns and ships. Large increases in costs and questionable increases in performance can be tolerated only for racehorses and fancy women."
There is the same tendency today for the cost of each new generation of military equipment to be much greater than that of the last. However, unlike in Lord Kelvin's time, the new ships are at least twice as good as those that they are replacing.
The question of the number of frigates will obviously continue to be very contentious. I suggest that my hon. Friends have created a cross for themselves by ever putting forward the figure of "about 50". Once that figure was publicly mooted it became a benchmark against which all the time comparisons would be made. So far as I am aware, nobody has ever said that there ought to be 50 infantry battalions or 50 squadrons of aircraft in the Royal Air Force, but, perhaps unwisely, the figure of "about 50" has become a benchmark for the strength of the surface navy.
Mr. Sayeed: Is my hon. Friend aware of the NATO force goals, which deal with figures of ships now required?
Mr. Trotter: I suspect that other NATO force goals similarly refer to the number of infantry battalions and squadrons of the Royal Air Force that we should have.
Having set the target of 50 in the public perception, we ought to achieve it, and I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State say this afternoon that we are nearly there. The figure is 49; we need only one more to achieve 50. I suggest that it would be well worth while to ensure that we have 50 so that this argument can cease. But, far more important than whether we have 49, 48 or 50 is the capability of those ships and I believe that there is a very strong argument for continuing the type 23 programme.
Twenty-six type 22s and type 42s will continue to serve in the fleet for many years ahead, but there are all the old Leanders and in time the type 21s to replace. Presumably we shall need some 24 new frigates to replace them. Seven type 23s have so far been ordered; that leaves 17. I very much hope that we shall see at least three more ordered in the very near future. It is now a year since the tendering process started for the last batch and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider very seriously whether they should not now be starting the procurement process for the next batch of type 23s.
The life of a warship should be decided not just on the obsolescence of its equipment and the wear and tear on its systems, but on its operating costs. The old Leanders are undoubtedly very costly to maintain and operate. Inevitably there is very heavy maintenance, not just because of their age, but because of their design and the fact that they have an old steam plant and, in particular, a very large crew. The crew of a Leander is 50 per cent
198
bigger than that of a replacing type 23, and, as I have already said, the latter is twice as good as the ship it is replacing. There are, therefore, great manpower savings as well as capability improvements and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to think very carefully about the need for a sustained replacement programme of these older ships.
The need for other naval orders is, I suggest, at least as self-evident. The AORs are an essential part of the concept of the operation of the type 23. I hope that before too long we shall hear that tenders have been requested for the third of the AORs. I believe that the original intention was that there should be six and I hope that we shall build up to that figure as soon as possible.
The support given this afternoon from the Front Bench for our amphibious capability was good news. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about the need for our Royal Marine force to arrive in Norway at the earliest possible moment in a crisis. I would see its arrival in good time as a deterrent to an attack on Norway and to conventional war breaking out in that part of the world.
Certainly the Royal Marines have a unique capability also to intervene in unexpected crises in the rest of the world. It is good news that the Government are proceeding with the aviation support ship and are planning a replacement for the two commando landing ships Intrepid and Fearless. Surely it must be better to go for a new build in this direction rather than a refit of the existing hulls, which will be 30 years old. We shall have a much better ship and a much smaller crew if we start all over again and design with modern technology.
Sir Antony Buck: I should like to say how much I agree with my hon. Friend about the replacement of the amphibious ships to which he has referred. Many of us are firmly committed to the amphibious capability. In dealing with the northern flank, would he commend one thing, which I believe has been an improvement over the years, and that is the prepositioning of heavy supplies, so that the men can be got there quickly and will be greeted by the supplies they need, which do not have to be taken great distances across the sea?
Mr. Trotter: As my hon. Friend knows, that is the case with the American marine brigade, which has its equipment based prepositioned. The problem with prepositioning is that there has to be two lots of equipment—one based there and one for other operations—which is expensive. Also, of course, one must maintain the capability to intervene elsewhere than the north. But I agree entirely with the principle of what my hon. Friend has said.
Turning to the question of repair work for the Navy, I was absolutely astonished to hear both the Opposition Front Benchers say that the repair of HMS Southampton should not go out to competition, and presumably that Tyneside should not be allowed to show that it can win this work and should not be given the chance for fair competition. Apart from the fact that it is most unfair to suggest that this work should not be made available, it would be more costly simply to allocate the work to one of the dockyards as suggested by the Opposition.
In my own part of the world, Swan Hunter has just won the design contract for the updating of both the type 42s and the three aircraft carriers, and I know that the yard is

199
very capable of carrying out the work on HMS Southampton. I wish it well in its bid. The taxpayer will certainly gain as a result of our going out to competition.
I welcome the stated intention to increase the percentage of repair work in general that will go out to competition rather than just be allocated to Rosyth and Devonport, but I would ask my hon. Friends when we will see the further Leander refit and the conventional submarine refit going out to the wider tender that was promised after the successful experiment with a Leander frigate and one of the Oberon class submarines—two or three years ago. I very much hope that before long we shall see a further round of that type of refit work going out for general competition.
I suggest in particular to my right hon. and hon. Friends that it would be cheaper if all the RFAs went out to refit in the smaller commercial yards. I cannot believe that it is economical for that work to be carried out in Rosyth and Devonport. Indeed, 66 per cent. of the work carried out in the repair yards on the Tyne in recent years has been for the Navy, and most of the ships concerned have been RFAs won in competition.
I shall refer briefly to the role of the Merchant Navy. I believe that hon. Members of all parties are very concerned about the continual decline, not only of the British merchant navy, but of the merchant navies of the other western countries of the NATO alliance. The reasons have been well rehearsed on previous occasions on the Floor of the House, but I would just say that the development of the Channel tunnel can be expected further to reduce the number of ships available to us in an emergency. Both the Defence Committee and the Transport Committee of the House have reported in the past year and expressed their concern on this decline.
I welcome the action taken by the Government, such as the establishment of a merchant navy reserve and the assistance given with training. It is encouraging to note that twice as many cadets started training for the United Kingdom merchant navy in nautical colleges last year as was the case the year before. Nevertheless, much more needs to be done, not just by this country but also by the Alliance as a whole. In particular, in this country, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should give more thought to measures that can be useful to British shipowners in maintaining ships under the red ensign. Certainly, that is what happens in other countries.
I was astonished when I pursued with one of our shipping companies a press comment that it had recently purchased a vessel to operate under the Belgian flag. The company replied that this was true and that there were savings of approximately US$500,000 a year as a result of registering the ship in Belgium rather than Britain. I have sent a copy of that letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor as I believe it is an excellent example of the truth of what is said about the unfairness of the tax system in this country compared with the systems in countries competing with us. Much more needs to be done if we are to maintain a merchant navy of a reasonable size for the future.
In my judgment, the relaxation of tension between East and West in Europe is likely to continue. That will inevitably lead to a reduction in the level of front-line and forces in Europe, especially on the central front. This must
200
mean that the reinforcement of Europe in a crisis will become more important than ever, and that Britain's role at sea will continue to be of great importance. It is a very important factor in deciding the priorities in defence that our warships, designed for their NATO role to help deter a world war, are available for and capable of a far wider role in the world as a whole in troubles that are not connected with East-West tensions but are far more certain to occur.
6.19 pm
Mr. Bruce George: There have been remarkable developments in East-West relations over the past couple of years. I speak as a former general rapporteur to the political committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, who used to write gloomy reports on what was happening in East-West relations, and about the failure of arms control. When I look at those reports now they seem like historical documents—even though they are only three or four years old. Few people could honestly admit that they foresaw such dramatic developments in East-West relations.
Three or four days ago, as a member of a North Atlantic Assembly sub-committee on Eastern Europe, I was wandering around the T72s held by the Dukla motor rifle regiment in Czechoslovakia. I might have taken advantage of the offer to get inside a T72 but it is really designed for smaller people. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who is the president of the North Atlantic Assembly, who was also present, could have got inside that T72. That experience was an indication of developments that could not have been anticipated.
We must still ask whether the threat has subsided. Has it gone away? Will swords be beaten into ploughshares, and, even after the remarkable developments that have occurred, ought we to be euphoric? We have experienced euphoria on several previous occasions. In the period after the Cuban missle crisis, when the new team of Brezhnev and Kosygin came to power, there were high hopes of great improvements in East-West relations, but they were dashed. Hopes were dashed again in the early 1970s, after the signing of SALT I. One only hopes that current developments are sustainable and that, in a few years' time, our enthusiastic response to arms control developments will not be seen historically as an illusion.
We must hope that the fundamental changes that appear to be taking place in the Soviet Union will be reflected in Soviet military doctrine, force levels and action—so that Soviet forces, to cite the comments of Mr. Gorbachev, are seen to adopt an unequivocally defensive posture. However, one recalls that Mr. Brezhnev consistently stressed the defensive nature of Soviet armed forces, albeit that that was greeted with extreme scepticism by NATO and by most analysts.
I am optimistic though cautious. To believe that the threat has been eliminated or is diminishing to such an extent that there is no requirement for a Royal Navy of any size or substance or for armed forces is premature and an act of self-delusion. There will be a requirement for a substantial Royal Navy for the foreseeable future, even if it is not the Soviet Union that poses a threat. One cannot be certain that Mr. Gorbachev's reforms will be sustained, so although the immediate threat has diminished, many other navies are emerging.

201
There has been a remarkable increase in the number of medium-sized naval powers. Right hon. and hon. Members should ponder the fact that the Soviet Union's naval construction industry produces far more vessels for export, with India being a major recipient of the Russian naval construction programme. With arms control breaking out and, one hopes, being sustained, the Soviet Union and NATO, too, will persist in exporting equipment—including naval equipment—to Third world states. It is unwise to presume that all threat has been removed just because the threat from the Soviet Union is diminishing.
One must always take into account that crises can emerge at any time. The case made by the Select Committee on Defence in its now famous report, "The Future Size and Role of the Royal Navy's Surface Fleet", clearly revealed a requirement for a substantial Navy in the future. Apparently, Select Committees are not the flavour of the month that they were for most of the post-1979 period. Government Departments are rather critical of them. The Defence Committee has produced a stream of well-argued and somewhat critical reports. The Government were not too pleased by the Committee's reports on the Westland affair, defence commitments and resources, and on business appointments. It remains to be seen how pleased the Government will be by our forthcoming report on the Gurkhas. Certainly the Government were less than euphoric about the Committee's report on the future size of the surface fleet. I am pleased that that report has been tagged for today's debate.
The Chairman of that Select Committee said that that report was not critical. Having re-read it, I am not convinced that his analysis is correct. It is a very critical report. A Select Committee does not exist to blow kisses at the Department concerned and to produce reports that will delight it. It exists to analyse objectively, and if a Select Committee's conclusions cause embarrassment, that is its job. It will praise where merited, but will also criticise where necessary.
The Government's response to the Defence Committee's report on the surface fleet was unfair. The Ministry either rejected most of its recommendations or made critical comments of what was said. The Committee confirmed the considerable over-stretching of the Royal Navy, particularly as we were in the middle of the Armilla patrol and of the Gulf operations. It reported the serious decline in the merchant marine and the detrimental effect that that would have on reinforcing and resupply from north America in the event of a crisis.
The Select Committee was sceptical about the strategy of forward defence. Paragraph 25 of its report comments:
"The aim of forward defence is to 'contain the Soviet fleet as far north as possible and thereby avoid or limit the amount of the threat which comes into the vast expanse of the Atlantic itself'. The Royal Navy would deploy early into the Norwegian Sea and then 'hold the ring' "—
in the words of the witness, Mr. Richard Mottram, from the Ministry of Defence—
"until the arrival of US carrier battle groups."
My great anxiety is that, if we participate in a forward maritime strategy with inadequate resources, and with ships that are not properly armed, the task of holding the ring
"until the arrival of US carrier battle groups"
could prove to be an exciting experience. I certainly would not wish to be on hoard any ship that, in the event of
202
conflict, would be subjected to the greatest concentration of air and maritime power in the world—in a very difficult area, off the coast of Norway—if the Soviet Union was successful in taking some airfields in northern Norway. One must remember how close is the Kola peninsula and the vast concentration of Soviet naval power to Norway. I would be cautious about adopting an almost gung-ho attitude, in saying that the Royal Navy will deploy far forward and that its task will be to "hold the ring".
The Select Committee was also critical of the Government's aspiration to maintain
"about 50 frigates and destroyers".
I believe that it made a great contribution to the Royal Navy by pointing out the serious shortfall that existed and that that would continue into the future unless the Ministry of Defence embarked on a programme of ordering that would allow it to meet its objectives. Not long after that report was published—clearly, the Secretary of State for Defence did not wish to appear to have been bounced by the Select Committee—an announcement was made that further orders would be placed.
However, as the Committee pointed out, 2·6 ships per year must be ordered over a period of more than six years. Even if the Government make an announcement soon, they will have to move quickly and be more diligent than they have been so far if they are to meet their target of 2·6 ships annually—albeit three ships one year and two the next. We do not want to see the Government playing games by using ships that have reached the end of their natural lives just to keep the number of about 50 and thus preserve their credibility.
Under the 1980–81 plan, which was the responsibility of John Nott, as he was then, the intention was to dispose early of older ships and to accelerate the introduction of the type 23. That simply has not happened. The Government, whatever they decide, have much more to do if they are to maintain the credibility of the Navy. As a number of hon. Members have said, the key to flexibility is numbers that are large enough to be flexible with. If we allow the surface fleet to diminish to such an extent that flexibility is no longer possible, that will be to the disadvantage of the Royal Navy. If we are not able to keep 50 frigates and destroyers of reasonable quality, the Government ought to come clean and say that there are some functions that they are simply not able to perform. That would be very difficult for them to do, so I hope very much that they will maintain an ordering programme that will allow them to meet their own stated objectives.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Armilla patrol represented an increase in our commitments and that we have managed to deal with it?
Mr. George: The Armilla patrol consisted of three minesweepers plus frigates and destroyers on site, with three en route and three going home. That is nine out of 30, 40 or 45 frigates and destroyers—a very high percentage. As a consequence of that operation, many of the Royal Navy's other tasks, such as training, had to be abandoned. We were told, indeed, that some small countries were engaging in more NATO training and exercising than was the United Kingdom.
The crisis in the Gulf and the involvement of the Armilla patrol showed two things. First, it demonstrated very clearly that Europe had the will and the capability to

203
operate out of area—and I think that the decision of the Western European Union and the various navies will be seen as epochal in the emergence of NATO and of the WEU. Secondly, it showed that, when there is a crisis, it consumes a high proportion of naval assets. One might extrapolate and say that, if it took 25 to 30 per cent. of British naval assets to patrol the volume of shipping going through parts of the Gulf, it is mind-boggling to imagine how many frigates and destroyers would be required should there ever be a convoy system from north America to Europe. One should put that in perspective. In the Gulf the Navy was very over-stretched. One can only be relieved at the ending of the conflict, not just for the sake of the people who were involved directly, but because the Royal Navy will be able to pursue its peacetime objectives rather more efficiently.
Earlier, the Minister was rather soothing in his remarks about the potential crisis of the type 23s and about British Aerospace's Sea Wolf missiles not performing as they were intended to. Five Royal Navy type 23 frigates, when they enter service in the 1990s, will be unable to perform as was originally proposed. The cost of these ships is £700 million, yet, despite what the Minister said, I am not at all reassured that, should there ever be a crisis, they would be able to operate in a war environment. I say so because of the failure of the CACS 4 Ferranti system. It was quite wrong for a Conservative Member to tell the Opposition spokeman that he would have continued the CACS programme if he had been in office. Clearly, the system was imperfect. This demonstrates the imperfections not only of the contractor, who was unable to meet the specifications, but of the Ministry of Defence, which failed to monitor the programme in such a way that the alarm bells could be heard.
In effect, the Government are saying that, although the British taxpayer has spent £700 million on type 23s, our sailors might be sailing, inadequately defended, into a vulnerable area. Neither the Government nor Ferranti comes out of this episode particularly brilliantly. I have heard rumours that one of these five ships may be sent off to the West Indies, where the threat is not particularly high. What a deplorable waste of very expensive and very scarce resources. It is only right that the Government should be embarrassed by what has happened.
I should like to ask a question—perhaps I will get an answer—about some suggestions concerning the stress on the type 42, batch 3, hulls. Some type 23s have had to have their hulls strengthened, and I understand that this has happened in the case of HMS Gloucester, a type 42. How many vessels have gone through the process so far, and what has been the cost? How many more ships will have to have their hulls strengthened? Is there not some basic design or other failure that compels the Royal Navy to have hulls repaired before they ought to have been subject to the stress that has had such an adverse effect upon them?
Are the Government giving consideration to what will happen to our carriers when they reach the end of their natural lives? I know that it is rather ironic, in the light of the delays being announced in replacing Fearless and Intrepid, to ask whether the Government are giving serious consideration to whether we will have carriers after the end of the lives—perhaps 25 or 30 years away—of our existing carrier force. But such is the expense and the
204
magnitude of construction and design that we shall no doubt soon reach a stage where some initial thought has to be given to the matter.
Let me move on fairly briefly to consider the Soviet navy. We are all aware that it has developed remarkably since the 1950s—indeed, since the second world war. It has been transformed from no more than a coastal patrol fleet to one with a blue-water capability. We have to be careful in evaluating the size, missions and capability of the Soviet navy. The remarkable increase in Soviet ship construction in the 1960s, and up to perhaps the late 1970s, largely under the influence of Admiral Gorshkov, appears to have begun to slow down. Probably that started when Ustinov became Minister of Defence. The Soviet Union has some fine high-technology assets, but it has much that is obsolescent. Quite clearly, the building of new ships is slowing down, but it took us some time to realise that.
A couple of weeks ago I attended a conference at Greenwich. One of the papers, presented by an American named Baker said:
"The size of the Soviet fleet—both in numbers and in total tonnage—has been acknowledged as shrinking".
It is true that the ships are now bigger and more complicated, but we must be careful not to argue that the inexorable rise of the Soviet navy is proceeding at the pace of the 1960s and the 1970s. In 1987, for example, the Soviets launched five submarines, three of them nuclear-powered. They launched two destroyers and one frigate, apparently for the KGB. I suppose that, like me, many people did not realise that the KGB operates ships in quite large numbers. All of this does not indicate a continuing massive build-up.
There are encouraging signs, over and above the slowing down in the naval shipbuilding programme. Clearly, the Soviet Union is not operating out of area, as we understand the term, to the extent that it was. As was mentioned earlier, there are far fewer operations in the north Atlantic. Any conclusion that that might encourage us to reach that the Soviet navy is retreating to become once more a coastal patrol would be premature. I am not arguing that the Soviet navy does not pose a potential threat; all that I am saying at this stage is that we should not paint a picture more fearsome than the reality.
Convoying and the defence of the sea lines of communications play an important role in the security of NATO, affecting not just the British Navy but the Portuguese. Before any hon. Members interrupt to ask what that has to do with a debate on the Royal Navy, let me make it clear that there is a connection. The Portuguese navy is critically important in the Iberlant area between the Azores and western Europe: in fact, Portuguese ships are the only NATO ships operating permanently there. Because of straitened financial circumstances, the Portuguese have entered into a liaison with most NATO countries for the provision of three frigates, to be built by Blohm and Voss in Germany. Those ships will be handed to the Portuguese, although they will be making a substantial contribution over the next few years.
German and American contributions have been enormous, and even tiny Luxembourg has made a generous contribution to the construction and equipment of the three frigates. Our contribution, however, has been miserly. Initially the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) announced a contribution of £5 million. Inflation has been serious and over a period of some years

205
the sum has been raised to just over £6 million, but in my view that is inadequate to cover the possible provision of a helicopter for the Portuguese frigate programme.
Mr. Sayeed: Luxembourg contributes 1·2 per cent. of her GDP to defence spending; we contribute 4·7 per cent. of ours. We provide far more than Germany, which spends 3 per cent. of GDP. It is about time that others started to spend a bit more.
Mr. George: I do not wish to focus on Luxembourg's deficiencies. I am simply saying that for a tiny country it makes an infinitely larger contribution to the Portuguese frigate programme than we do, despite our 600-year history of liaison with Portugal.
Westland hoped that the £6 million could be used for the purchase of one Lynx helicopter, and that perhaps the Portuguese would purchase another four. Recently the United States topped up its aid to Portugal following Portugal's criticism of its military, or security assistance, programme. A remarkable package including F16s for the Portuguese air force also included the offer of helicopters, which might be placed on the Meko 200s.
Unless the Government make a much improved offer to the Portuguese, Westland will run a considerable risk of not being able to make one of its helicopters, which the MOD will pay for, and then sell the rest. The Portuguese may be making a mistake, in that although they would get the helicopters for nothing, the cost of upgrading and altering the Mekos will make the offer eventually quite expensive. I hope that the MOD will reconsider its rather miserly offer—not just for the sake of Anglo-Portuguese relations or because of Westland, but because we owe it to ourselves, to the Portuguese and to NATO. The offer should he set against the offers made by the Dutch, the Canadians, the Americans, the Germans, the French and virtually everyone else. It is not a question of pouring money down a hole: money spent on helicopters for the Portuguese navy will directly benefit the security of the United Kingdom.
Disarmament at sea is not a subject that we in the West have been particularly keen to pursue, for a number of reasons. One is our superiority in naval forces. Most Western nations are by definition maritime—geography compels them to be—but the Soviet Union, despite making enormous strides in the 1960s and 1970s in building up its navy, is still basically a continental power.
Some of Mr. Gorbachev's offers on naval arms control were made rather truculently. As I tried to suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), they were not his best and most genuine offers. He extended them in Vladivostock and again in Murmansk, arguing for, among other things, parity in the Mediterranean. That is nonsense, because the sixth fleet is linked intextricably to the defence of Greece, Turkey, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and the whole of the Mediterranean. It is the glue that binds the geographically dispersed members of our Alliance in the southern region.
To withdraw the sixth fleet, or to drop it to the level of the Soviet Mediterranean squadron, would have wide spread repercussions. Moreover, the Soviet Union could still deploy its forces in the Black sea and, by virtue of its surge capability—as long as it remained consistent with the Montreaux convention—could, over a period of
206
weeks, supplement its diminished force in the Mediterranean to a level much easier to achieve than that of the United States.
The fact that the Soviet Union has been rather disingenuous in that respect distracts us from more serious proposals. We should give more consideration to naval arms control, on which the Soviet Union has issued many proposals, most of which seem detrimental to NATO. It proposes zones of peace, nuclear-free zones, an ASW-free zone, safe SSBN havens and, as I have mentioned, parity in the Mediterranean. We should also give more thought to naval confidence-building measures. Confidence building is not a substitute for arms control, but it is a useful supplement, and the Government should think more about enhancing confidence between the two alliances.
This is the first defence debate since the Labour party began a serious review of its defence commitments. The policy review will be completed in April and later put to the party conference—and, I hope, approved, if it contains policies different from those for the 1983 and 1987 elections. I do not say that because it would be more intelligent electorally. It has been known in parliamentary history for policies to be changed for purely electoral reasons, but they are the wrong reasons. Policies should be changed because they will be more relevant when changed.
I was saddened by the collapse of consensus on security matters in the 1980s. I consider it important—indeed, almost incumbent on Governments and Oppositions—to adopt security policies that will survive the passage of one Government or another. Such consensus exists in many countries. It exists in Norway but not yet in Denmark, although it is improving there. It is being re-created in the Federal Republic, although, I suspect, not for reasons that some would particularly like. It has virtually always existed in France. It exists in Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, America, Turkey and even Greece. We think that the fracturing of the consensus exists everywhere because it exists here, but that is nonsense.
There is no way in which Governments and Oppositions will agree on every aspect of policy or in which the Labour party, at a general election, will have a defence policy that is identical or close to that of the Government. But there is progress and we may be on the way to re-establishing the consensus. To re-create the consensus, some Government concessions will be required. They must not simply wait for the Labour party to move towards their position.
With a mixture of multilateral, bilateral and unilateral proposals—whatever the formula is—I hope that the Opposition will be able to devise a defence strategy that will meet the desires of party members and of potential supporters. That will be an enormous task and I wish the policy review process the best of fortune in the months ahead. There will be many crises and problems, and some people in the Labour party will not like the abandonment of unilateralism. It is sad for some when policies change, but if such change makes possible a greater consensus on defence and makes it possible for the Labour party to have policies on the Navy, the Army, the Air Force and nuclear weapons that will be viable internally and externally, then so be it. Although some party members may dislike such change, the overwhelming majority of potential Labour voters will endorse such a policy if, as I hope, it emerges from the policy review committee.
6.51 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He is the one not so small voice of sanity within the Labour party. However, although I have great respect for his powers of persuasion, I do not believe that he will necessarily be wholly successful in returning his party to some form of sane defence policy.
I want to follow the hon. Member in a discussion of East-West relations and also on the treatment of the Select Committee by the Ministry of Defence. Peace is apparently breaking out in East-West relations, with glasnost, perestroika, the intermediate nuclear forces treaty and the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Some people appear to be suffering from the delusion that it is now safe to relegate defence spending to the second division, but at a time when the Warsaw pact forces have a 3:1 superiority over NATO in tanks and artillery and a 2:1 superiority in tactical aircraft and attack helicopters, when the Soviets are deploying Fulcrum, Flanker, Foxhound, the T81 tank and Typhoon and Oscar class submarines, the suggestion that defence spending no longer matters damages the ability of the Alliance to negotiate and the cause of peace.
Despite Soviet rhetoric, in every sphere of weapons—nuclear, chemical and conventional—there continues to be a numerical imbalance in favour of the USSR. The Russian bear's growl has become a grin, but it has not lost any of its teeth. At a time when we require a new battle tank, when Jaguar and Phantom aircraft need replacing, when the defences of the northern area are under strength and when we lack maritime strength, in depth, we should not demonstrate a faltering determination.
We cannot be wholly confident that President Gorbachev will be able to surmount the entrenched self-interest, to overcome the bureaucratic inertia that is inherent in the Soviet system or to control the danger of anarchy which follows when a hint of freedom is offered to the oppressed. Although it is our fervent hope that he will be successful, we must acknowledge that such a success will be a first in the history of the Tsarist or Communist Russia. We cannot afford to let our hopes blind us to the possibility of President Gorbachev's failure or its consequences.
With all that is happening in East-West relations, and with defence inflation outstripping the retail price index, there is understandable concern about defence spending, and those concerns are shared throughout the Alliance. Yet I detect in certain members of the Alliance a simplistic approach to complicated questions, an over-optimistic assessment of Soviet intentions and a willingness to permit short-term political expediency to determine long-term policy.
Many of us welcome the United States Defence Department report "Allied Contributions to the Common Defence," which was published in April 1988. It is an important part of the burden-sharing debate. There is much to commend in the document, although I would criticise its emphasis on input rather than output—on the amount spent rather than what is achieves—and even when it deals with outputs, its concentration on quantity rather than quality damages the report and is regrettable. Although we must acknowledge the 340,000 United States troops who are permanently stationed in Europe, the United States reinforcement commitment and the nuclear guarantee, we should also recognise that those are in the
208
interests of the United States. The defence of America starts in Europe, as well as in the Pacific basin. Washington is closer to Europe than it is to Anchorage in Alaska or than San Francisco is to Japan.
We in Europe are not freeloaders on the whole. In conventional terms, we provide 90 per cent. of the manpower, 85 per cent. of the tanks and artillery, 80 per cent. of the combat aircraft and 65 per cent. of the major warships. Yet within Europe, there is considerable disparity of commitment. As I pointed out earlier, 4·7 per cent. of our gross domestic product is committed to defence, whereas Germany and Belgium contribute only 3 per cent. and the latter does not even participate in the common European air defence system. Italy contributes 2·2 per cent. and Denmark only 2·1 per cent., although it has one the highest per capita incomes in Europe. Spain's figure is 2 per cent. of GDP and it has enforced the withdrawal of the United States 401st tactical fighter wing. Luxembourg—and I know that it is small—contributes a paltry 1·2 per cent. of its GDP to defence.
The United Kingdom has 67,000 men permanently stationed in Europe. Our defence expenditure has increased by more than 20 per cent. in real terms since 1979. We have nothing to fear and everything to gain by opening up the burden sharing debate. We must persuade other European countries that it is in their interests to accept a fair share of defence costs; otherwise, the United States budget deficit and the ever present middle America isolationist pressures may persuade Congress that the United States withdrawal from Europe would be justified and Europe's own fault.
We can and should question how we allocate the massive, but finite, resources that we individually and collectively devote to defence. I would argue, as would other hon. Members, that the least likely line of Soviet advance is through central Europe, the most heavily fortified region in the world. I wonder whether such a concentration of defence spending does not have more to do with assuaging German sensibilities and fending off United States isolationist pressures than with providing the best value for money in defence terms.
Despite an earlier incarnation, this is not a Navy versus Army debate, but a question of how we provide the greatest assistance to the NATO Alliance, while retaining the essential out-of-area capability. If we are to deter through strength, we must acknowledge that our sea lines of communication are vulnerable and that the likely line of any Soviet action would not be on land through Europe, but at sea via the northern area. Yet our policy of forward defence in that area is clearly deficient. First, it commits nearly all NATO maritime resources well forward, but the lack of towed array ASW frigates, maritime patrol aircraft and forward repair ships, which act as force multipliers, results in our being unable adequately to fulfil even current NATO policy.
Secondly, it is clear that, as our air, surface and submarine forces would be more than fully stretched fulfilling their ASW role in the forward area, there would be no spare assets to provide strength in depth and to protect our lines of communication and resupply. Up to one third of Soviet maritime forces are deployed south of the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap at any one time. With no allowance for attrition, with a decline in the NATO merchant fleet and with a ship, however capable,

209
not being able to be in more than one place at a time, the policy of forward defence in the northern area soaks up all our assets. It is fallible and dangerous to rely on it.
I have a few specific questions for my hon. Friend. During Exercise Teamwork, I saw on HMS Illustrious that they were using a coastal chart first published at the turn of the century. It is true that there had been minor corrections. Have we full access to all the sea-mapping data that the United States navy has been compiling since 1957 in the northern area? I have been advised by a senior serving Royal Navy officer, experienced in ASW, who has often liaised with the United States, that the United States continues to keep secret from us some submarine charts of the northern area.
From the number of vertically launched Sea Wolf missiles that have been ordered, it seems likely that the Ministry of Defence intends to order eight type 23 frigates in the medium term. Yet, as we know, those frigates will be commissioned without a command system that will integrate the weapons carried and permit the frigates to be effective fighting units. I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, South: I have absolutely no confidence that those ships will be able to operate in a hostile environment until they have an effective command and control system. Recognising the complexity and the interaction of current weapons systems and those that will be fitted, there is no chance of sending men to sea in those ships and keeping them safe in any hostile condition until the type 23 command system is fitted.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister of State give any estimate of when he expects the command system for the type 23 frigate to be installed? How is Sea Wolf to be fired? I understand from the meeting that I had with British Aerospace two weeks ago that, as soon as the trials are finished, it intends to take off the control mechanisms. Can my hon. Friend provide an indication of the likely ordering pattern of the type 23? The answer will probably be no, as it has been to the Select Committee on Defence on numerous occasions. I will ask anyway; if one does not ask, one never gets anywhere.
Will my hon. Friend tell me how the Government intend to honour their commitment, given in 1981, to dispose early of old ships? We have in operation one batch 1 Leander, four batch 2 TAS Leanders, three batch 2 Leanders, five batch 3 conversion Leanders and two batch 3 broad beam Leanders—a total of 15—and six type 21s. There is no doubt that the batch 1 and batch 2 ships require replacement very soon. It does not matter how frequently the weapons systems are updated: the hull itself gets tired and noisy and is more vulnerable to submarines. Those ships are a danger to those who serve in them.
Can my hon. Friend tell me whether there has been any change in our offensive mining capability since he last spoke? It was extremely poor and out of date. Can he tell me whether the Ministry of Defence has done anything about it?
I want to deal finally with the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the Select Committee on Defence. One might have hoped that the Ministry of Defence would have welcomed the Committee's inquiry into the surface fleet, but its response to questioning and to requests for information made it seem that at times we were conducting a dialogue with the deaf. It may be a naive hope to expect the MOD to recognise that we are all on the same side, but I would have hoped that, after the report had been
210
published and the Select Committee had indicated its wish to continue to monitor the position, the MOD would riot have continued its policy of obstruction and obfuscation.
I shall give the House an example. On 2 November 11988 the Select Committee wrote to the MOD requesting information that would enable us to keep tabs on what was happening to the surface fleet. Seven weeks later, on 19 December, just before the Recess, it replied, acceding to some of our requests but saying that information on the key area of interest was not held centrally. On 21 December—we move fast in the Select Committee—we wrote back, asking that we be given a copy of "The Fleet Operating Programme", a document already produced monthly, that covers nearly all the essential points of which we wished to be regularly apprised. It is true that such a document is not held centrally at MOD but at fleet headquarters at Northwood, but the Minstry's answer was pure semantics.
I have a clear impression that some officials in the Ministry are less than helpful. I believe that to be counter-productive. It is the House of Commons that has to authorise expenditure for the services. It is the House of Commons that set up the Select Committee on Defence to monitor defence expenditure, policy and administration. It is unacceptable that the attitude of a few officials within the Ministry, in their dealings with a Committee of the House, should border on dumb insolence.
I feel sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends do not believe that their Department encompasses the sum of human wisdom on defence matters. I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome contributions from those outside the Department. What would the attitude of my hon. Friend the Minister of State be if he were treated by his officials in the way the Select Committee has sometimes been?
I have been somewhat critical of our maritime policy and our ability to fulfil even current objectives. I have urged Ministers to encourage other NATO countries to pay their full share of defence costs. I have asked specific questions and I have requested that it be made clear to those few civil servants within the Ministry of Defence who do not understand that it is to Parliament that their Department is ultimately responsible.
I want to end on a happier note, because I recognise that my right hon. Friend and his Ministers are struggling valiantly to provide the defence that we need at a cost that we can afford. A service debate gives us the opportunity to write an end of term report on MOD endeavours. My assessment of the progress of my right hon. and hon. Friends is, "Heart in the right place; doing well, but could do better."
7.9 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On these occasions, few speeches fail to mention the professionalism and commitment of our service men and women. On this occasion I believe that we can claim that those who serve in our Navy are among the most dedicated and professional. An eloquent example of that is the success of the Armilla patrol. We know that our Navy has a proud tradition, which is still properly maintained, even in times of great technological change. However, we should be guilty of grave injustice to that tradition if we did not match the dedication and skill of those who serve in the

211
Navy with proper equipment and, if necessary, with a level of expenditure that allows them adequately to fulfil their responsibilities.
The equivalent debate to this one was on 3 March of last year. The Official Report on that debate repays reading again, because virtually all who contributed to it—with the exception of those who spoke on behalf of the Government—were concerned about the numbers of the surface fleet. Since then we have had the sixth report of the Select Committee on Defence, which has been referred to as challenging rather than critical, and then a little later in the debate, as critical rather than challenging. I shall leave others to form their own judgments as to its proper characterisation. I hope to show, however, that a number of issues and concerns raised by that report have still not been answered.
Following the printing of the report on 21 June 1988, on 11 July there was an announcement in the House of an order for three type 23 frigates. If one looks at the terms of the report and then the terms of the announcement, one is left with the suspicion that there may, in fact, be some substance in what one always thought to be the logical fallacy, post hoc propter hoc. On 19 and 20 October last year we had a debate on the defence estimates. On the first day of the debate the chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), who has already spoken, said he would not change a word of the sixth report of his Committee in spite of the Government's response. Although he may have described his attitude this evening as being challenging, it is clear that he still would not change a word of that sixth report.
On 26 October last year, Admiral Sir Julian Oswald—soon to be the First Sea Lord—told the Press Association that the Royal Navy had reached the absolute minimum of destroyers and frigates necessary to meet its commitments. We know that since then, commentator after commentator has been critical of the Government's candour on this matter, and that commentator after commentator has been critical of the consequences to our responsibilities. Almost every day the belief is gathering strength that what was not achieved by the 1981 review is now being achieved by stealth or by indolence.
When the Minister began his contribution he gave a hint, as it were, of good news to come, but in truth that turned out to be no more than a hint—it was a hint and not a matter of any substance. I refer especially to the issue of the size of the surface fleet. I welcome the announcement about the repair and refit of HMS Southampton and the fact that that is to be put out to competitive tender—those who are good enough to win the tender will deserve to have the work. However, one is entitled to ask what is our precise approach to the surface fleet. Do we determine our numbers by our strategy or are we determining our strategy by our numbers? That is an issue what will not go away.
As the debate has shown, the Select Committee's concerns have not been removed, nor, indeed, have its questions been answered. I shall remind the House of some of those concerns and questions. The first point made by the Committee was that there was no coherent long-term plan for the Navy. Secondly, it said that there was a need to order—not to put out to tender—two to three ships each year. Thirdly, it said that the capability of the frigate
212
force has suffered because of the extension of the operational lives of the Leander and type 21 vessels—bringing with it additional demands on manpower—and possibly resulting in more applications for premature voluntary release. Finally—and in the context of all that the Committee has said, possibly its most perceptive observation—there was the Committee's concern that the wartime objectives place too heavy an emphasis on forward maritime strategy to contain Soviet forces in the Norwegian sea, resulting in prejudice to the task of defending transatlantic shipping.
None of those concerns has been properly answered. The root of them all lies in the building programme. Until the Government tackle that programme, the weaknesses will remain; and, unless they tackle it, the weaknesses will be exacerbated. The Government must tackle that programme in a systematic way, with a clearly published programme of work. That will be essential for companies such as Yarrow, which was a beneficiary of the announcement of 11 July last year. It is at least as important for companies such as Swan Hunter, which wants to tender, but is forced to take major decisions about capacity and employment with no proper information about the future of the market place. It is in the interests of the Ministry of Defence to makes its intentions clear; otherwise the competitive base may be eroded and it will find itself negotiating with a monopoly supplier.
I say with some regret—I include those in today's debate—that Ministers are wholly unconvincing about the numbers of destroyers and frigates available. The very words "about 50" are imprecise and misleading. Why not say, "Not less than 50"? Why not say something definite and specific? Let us suppose that the Minister went to purchase a motor car. He asked the salesman, how many previous owners that it had had, and the salesman replied, "About two, sir." Would he be satisfied with that reply? Would he not regard it as the kind of imprecision which should put him upon his guard? I ask hon. Members whether they would buy second-hand frigates from Ministers.
How can it be that five of the new type 23 frigates will be unable to operate effectively vertical launch Sea Wolf missiles? For that I rely on the authority of Jane's Defence Weekly of 11 February 1989.
The CACS 4 system has been rejected. The Under-Secretary was at his most felicitous, his most reasonable and almost, I suppose, his most charming. He verged on, but perhaps did not achieve, the necessary blandness of the salesman. What he did not tell the House and what he gave the House no undertaking upon is how that will be prevented from happening again. He was not able to tell the House when the necessary command and control system will be installed. A Minister who learned that the command and control system was insufficient in quality or range would have been foolish to press ahead with it. The House is entitled to know whether those lessons have been learnt and whether steps have been taken to ensure that the same difficulties do not occur again. Who takes responsibility for the circumstances which have arisen?
The Minister made no mention of any further orders for auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels. As further frigates are built there will be a need for more AORs. Is it the Government's intention to order more? If they did, that would give much encouragement to the shipbuilding

213
industry in all parts of the United Kingdom. I do not recall any mention of the NFR 90—indeed, other hon. Members have raised this issue earlier. Perhaps the Minister will give us some up-to-date information. There was no mention either of any consideration by the Government of the use of smaller vessels, such as those of corvette size that may be ideally qualified to perform tasks related to national security in and around the United Kingdom, such as dealing with gun running and drug trafficking.
As I have said already, the Minister gave some hint of largesse or generosity to come but, when examined, it was no more than a hint and was of little substance. The mobilisation of NATO would require a thousand transatlantic sailings by cargo ships in 30 days, over and above normal traffic. Just as the Select committee on Defence felt it necessary to ask, we too must ask how it is possible to defend these movements and to maintain the forward maritime strategy of bottling up the Soviet fleet in the Norwegian sea on the figures available of the numbers in the surface fleet.
Running through this whole issue is a conflict of priorities caused by a paucity of resources. The Government must ask themselves—and, if not, the House undoubtedly will—how that conflict is to be resolved. There are two alternatives. We may choose one course of action at the expense of the other—that is to say, establish and adhere to priorities; or we may provide sufficient resources to meet all the desirable strategic requirements. The second of these alternatives is the more desirable militarily. It will have financial consequences, but these cannot be ignored if we are to ensure that the Navy is in a position to fulfil the responsibilities which we impose upon it.
The Navy has been charged with the most awesome military responsibility of all, because strategic nuclear weapons fall under its responsibility—now Polaris but soon to be Trident. A consensus seems to be growing that, by the time of the next general election, the Trident programme will be so far committed that its outright cancellation will be neither practical militarily nor financially advantageous. For that, I need do no more than echo the words of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), speaking in the debate on the defence estimates to which I have already referred. He told the House then that, by 1992, 60 per cent. of the expenditure of the Trident programme would be committed and that cancelling the Trident programme in 1992 would allow savings of only between £1 billion and £3 billion, depending on the interpretation of the terms of the contract.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. and learned Member agree that one of the dangers of the whole Trident programme is that, once it is nearing completion, those involved with it will suddenly discover all sorts of other expenditure which must be incurred to make it work? It is a little dangerous to assume that the cost will stay fixed once the thing nears completion.
Mr. Campbell: The experience has been that the cost has gone down since the first estimates were made, assisted to some extent by advantageous rates of exchange but also, no doubt, by a degree of advance and of technical innovation. I accept that there may be what I think the hon. Member is referring to by implication—hidden costs—but any cost directly recovered from the cancellation of
214
the programme would not be such as to justify cancellation at the point at which any new Government might have the opportunity of making that decision.
We must all accept, therefore, that Trident will be in place, or effectively in place, and that the decisions about defence which any Government elected in 1992 must take will be conditioned by the fact of its existence. No one now argues that one should take the strategic nuclear deterrent, or the submarines which would be the means of delivering it, tow them into the middle of the Atlantic, open the sea-cocks and hope that they will simply sink to the bottom.
Mr. Sayeed: I should like to be absolutely certain what the latest Liberal party defence policy is. Would its members pledge themselves to maintaining Trident submarines and the weapons that go with them for the forseeable future?
Mr. Campbell: Yes. I hope that a monsyllabic answer does not take the hon. Gentleman unawares.
One thing is certainly true, that any strategic nuclear deterrent is justified only as long as it contributes to the peace. The current independent deterrent has done so. Bat we would be quite wrong to take the view that there is some intrinsic merit in strategic nuclear weapons. Their value is only in the consequences that they bring about or, perhaps, putting it another way, in the consequences that they prevent. If the time ever came when the United Kingdom's independent nuclear weapon turned out to be an obstacle to arms reduction, there would be no case for its retention.
While it is not possible to say precisely when such a moment might arise, what one can say in this context is that the events of the past two or three years would have been entirely unpredicted during the Brezhnev years. One can also say that any agreement which involved giving up the independent nuclear deterrent of the United Kingdom would have to be part of an arrangement involving us and our allies and not as part of some purely bilateral deal with the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union itself recognising that that particular offer or any kind of arrangement based on an offer of that sort would be entirely unsuitable and. to them, unacceptable.
In relation to our defence policies we should be seeking to create an atmosphere in which each side feels confident that the other will not attack it, in which the interests of one side become the interests of the other.
With some important variations, this debate could have been held last year because the concerns about ship numbers remain the same, the questions which had not then been formulated perhaps as precisely as they have now been by the Select Committee on defence remain the same and, sadly, the answers remain, for some of us at least, on both sides of the House, equally unconvincing. On that matter, if nothing else, this debate has produced a consensus.
7.26 pm
Mr. David Martin: I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this debate, having sat through two days of the defence debate last October without succeeding in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the eye of Mr. Speaker or Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an extra-special pleasure to speak on behalf of people in Portsmouth on such a crucial matter as the

215
future of the Royal Navy, particularly when we have just heard the news that HMS Southampton is to go out to tender for repair of the damage that it sustained last year, and to be refitted at the same time.
The news that it will be leaving Portsmouth for that purpose will go down like a lead balloon in my constituency, because HMS Southampton was already in for refit from September of this year until November 1990. Some very anxious people will be wondering what is to be put in place of that work which was scheduled by the Ministry to be done at Portsmouth.
The supply of warships, their maintenance and their repair depend crucially on the public money available. We all understand that, and we all understand that we must get the best possible value as well as the best quality of work. But since 1984, with the rundown of Portsmouth dockyard and the creation of the fleet maintenance and repair organisation, the naval and civilian work force have shown great ingenuity: there is flexibility between the trades, financial management and control are sound, and the organisation is running as efficiently as possible. It specialises in the very type 42 work that is required on HMS Southampton.
The track record of the fleet maintenance and repair organisation in Portsmouth bears repeating because it is vital that further work should come to replace that which was expected from HMS Southampton. HMS Newcastle was refitted in 1987; the work was completed two weeks early and it came out at £2·4 million under budget. HMS Cardiff was returned to the fleet just before Christmas 1988; the work was completed five weeks early and it was about £2 million under budget. At the same time, in 1987–88, HMS Birmingham came from Rosyth—where a certain amount of work had been carried out—and the fleet maintenance and repair organisation at Portsmouth was amazed at just what was required from those who knew what they were doing with type 42s to sort out HMS Birmingham before it could be returned to the fleet.
At present, the work force is halfway through its work on HMS Exeter. Excellent progress is being made and the work is also running under budget on labour and material. Therefore, the news that the planned refit of and repairs to HMS Southampton will not now take place in Portsmouth is most disappointing and will not be well received in Portsmouth.
The results of the Killick report are anxiously awaited and it is understood that the report finds that work at Portsmouth—particularly that on type 42s—is carried out in the most efficient way. We understand that the report recommends a small diminution of the work force but, for the foreseeable future, I am somewhat reassured by what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the continuing major role that is intended for the fleet maintenance and repair organisation. However, a ship in the port is always worth two in the mind of the Minister. As soon as possible, we want some alternative work in Portsmouth to take the place of that which, disappointingly, we shall not have. Of course, we understand that value for money must come first.
The morale of those who work at Portsmouth is crucial. We could easily lose specialist labour and expertise, and we do not want further redundancies of skilled men. We shall, perhaps, need to take on those same men or others in the
216
future when work is brought to the port. In the meantime, we do not want unnecessary job losses which would not only cause unhappiness for the families of these people, but would not make the most efficient use of manpower in the future. If HMS Southampton is not to be refitted and repaired in Portsmouth and no replacement work is found, any substantial further rundown at Portsmouth would be met with blanket dismay. I repeat that I was somewhat reassured by the Minister's earlier remarks, but we need the delivery of some alternative work as soon as possible.
Portsmouth lost the work on HMS Southampton because competitive tenders were sought elsewhere. Therefore, in the future, the Ministry of Defence must devise a method to enable Portsmouth to compete with the commercial yards. There is now enough information to bid properly but, at present, whether Portsmouth is cost-effective or competitive relies on the say-so of the Ministry of Defence.
I believe that it was Humpty Dumpty who said in "Through the Looking Glass":
"When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
For Portsmouth the word "competitiveness" means what the Ministry of Defence says it should mean, neither more nor less. Portsmouth must be able to compete properly. The port loses work to those who are said to provide better value when refitting and repairing ships of the Royal Navy. By all means let us have value for money, but we must allow Portsmouth to provide that value for money. We shall meet any challenge given to us fairly, and we want to remain one of the prime ports serving the Royal Navy in so many ways.
I plead the case for Portsmouth not solely because of the hundreds of years of fine tradition of unmatchable service to the Royal Navy, but because of the proven efficiency and commitment of the service and the civilian work force to continuing a major role at the dockyard.
The concept of tradition brings me to my second topic—HMS Victory and the future of the flagship of the Commander-in-Chief, Naval Home Command. HMS Victory is not only the flagship of the Commander-in-Chief but also the flagship of the Royal Navy and the nation. It is the oldest commissioned ship in the world. Many people do not realise that it is actually in commission and not merely a tourism or public relations exercise—although it plays a tremendous role in naval public relations both internationally and nationally. In Portsmouth, emotions run deep over the future of HMS Victory.
Why should I raise the matter of HMS Victory in this debate? It has a ship's complement—including the captain—of about 10 and has about 14 full-time equivalent guides who serve in the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines and show people over the ship, lending it a vital air of authenticity. In addition, the enthusiasm, commitment and knowledge of those naval personnel when showing people over the ship are germane in helping recruitment and the image of the Royal Navy, which it is so important to promote.
Last year the rumour was that it was intended to give the guides' jobs to civilians and have the ship run by the heritage project at the naval base. I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces who, in his usual courteous way, set out the up-to-date position. Someone has said that having asked for bread we were offered a stone. I

217
would not accuse my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of that, but the letter on the future of HMS Victory's guides contained stony features that were well disguised as bread. It stated:
"In the case of the Victory guides, the naval authorities decided last year that the guide billets would be withdrawn by 1st April 1990 and the outgoing personnel deployed to operational duties elsewhere."
That is a great pity.
We have a field gun crew which cannot be said to carry out a particular task for a modern up-to-date Navy, but it performs an irreplaceable role. As I have already pointed out to the Minister, outside Buckingham Palace we could have civilians in fancy dress on wooden horses, but it would not be the same, as far as our traditions are concerned. It is important to consider tradition and factors that add to the gaiety of the nation, if nothing else. I use the word "gaiety" without its modern connotations particularly so that it may keep its old and much more understood sense. We must continue some of these traditions because they add something to this country's forces which is quite irreplaceable and which no one else in the world can provide.
It may sound as though I am going over the top and one might ask why I am so excited about 14 full-time equivalent guides being removed from HMS Victory. However, it means that the remaining 10 of the ship's complement, including the captain, will have lesser tasks to perform and will become more isolated. The time will perhaps come when people will question what they are doing on board HMS Victory, because they no longer control guides but seem merely part of the tourist project. Once removal of the guides and the fact that they do not provide a vital role in the public relations of the Royal Navy is accepted, a further diminution of the role played by HMS Victory will follow.
That is why I raise the point in this debate and I hope that I can join any rearguard action to keep those guides serving in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. Perhaps we can get the Wrens to help us, too, if necessary.
It is fitting that I should have mentioned Wrens. In my maiden speech in the defence debate in October 1987 I asked whether it was not time for the Wrens to be given the opportunity to serve at sea. I suggested that it should at least be part of their training to be ready for such service, and that that should be a goal for the 1990s. I under-estimated the zeal and speed with which Ministers can occasionally gratify the wishes of Back Benchers. Within a year, in September of 1988, the headlines read:
"Twelve Reservists become first Wrens to serve at sea".
The major maritime and amphibious exercise Teamwork 88 mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) involved a dozen reservist Wrens serving in merchant ships—so we are on our way.
Of course this is a sensitive issue: there are practical difficulties involving accommodation and head arrangements. One always hears about the difficulties of toilet facilities if women are to go down the mines or into the ships of the Royal Navy, but we can overcome such problems, given the political will to do so.
In the period of increasing manpower difficulties during the 1990s, I want Wrens who volunteer for these duties to be fully trained for combat roles, including tactical signalling, which proved deficient at the time of the Falklands war. Women serve in these roles in many navies all over the world. We may not describe them as combat
218
roles, but combat roles are increasingly difficult to distinguish from non-combat roles. Ships in supporting roles at sea increasingly have to be armed and ready to play vital defensive and offensive roles merely to stay afloat in the water, so I cannot see an argument for distinguishing between the roles for serving Wrens in future—or for saying that other navies have found that this does not work. I know of no navy that has found that.
We must be much more positive about the future of women in the service. I do not accept patronising objections to women being trained for combat roles; such objections have been overcome in foreign navies. I do not accept the excuse that husbands will not like serving wives to work alongside men or that wives of serving men will not like them to work with women. These days, many service wives work alongside men ashore, and many husbands of civilians work away from home alongside women. I question the traditional attitudes. Let us use Wrens as much as we possibly can in the modern Navy.
Arising out of operation Teamwork 88, I was a little concerned to see a quotation in The Daily Telegraph from a Commodore Brian Turner of the joint British-Netherlands force:
"I doubt Nelson would have turned in his grave. He was something of a ladies' man after all."
The trouble is that, if all sailors have as amorous a service life as Nelson did, we shall pander to those who say that women cannot serve in the Royal Navy because their role is to remain on shore.
I have spoken about Portsmouth and some of the wider interests of the Royal Navy. At the head of my list is the future of Portsmouth, which serves the Royal Navy in the wider sense, including the maintenance and repair of ships. I hope to be reassured as soon as possible that Portsmouth will have enough work to carry it forward and keep it in the forefront of serving the Royal Navy.
7.45 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) would not expect me to follow the arguments deployed in his special pleading for his constituency. I want to use the debate to question the possession by the Royal Navy of nuclear weapons, and our possession of an independent nuclear deterrent.
Whenever the Prime Minister or any other Minister is challenged about Trident, he or she trots out the standard reply that nuclear weapons have kept the peace in Europe for the past 40 years. That bland statement covers a multitude of sins. It ignores the fact that millions of people have died as wars have been fought out by proxy in Korea, Indochina, Central and South America, Africa and more recently Afghanistan. It also ignores the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that the United Kingdom's independent deterrent has had any effect on the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe.
I shall not rehearse the arguments about the morality of our possession or use of these weapons. Instead I shall discuss their utility. I say to my hon. Friends, one or two of whom seem to be nuclear fanatics, that before they try to persuade the Labour party to change its policy on nuclear weapons they should carefully examine the lack of credibility in the systems being proposed.
As long ago as 1962, although it took another 17 years before it was made public in 1979, in a speech to NATO Ministers Robert MacNamara said:

219
"relatively weak nuclear forces with enemy cities as their targets are not likely to be adequate to perform the function of deterrence…In the event of war, the use of such a force against the cities of a major nuclear power would be tantamount to suicide, whereas its deployment against significant military targets would have a negligible effect on the outcome of the conflict. In short, then, weak nuclear capabilities, operating independently, are expensive, prone to obsolescence and lacking in credibility as a deterrent."
What better description of the United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent could one find than
"expensive, prone to obsolescence and lacking in credibility"?
I want to mention another aspect of this lack of credibility—command, control and communications. We should all know that to possess any credibility a deterrent force must meet the criterion that those one hopes to deter understand that one can use it successfully. That is not true of the independent use of our nuclear deterrent, and I am pretty certain that the Russians know that. Command and control communications are complex and sophisticated, for good reason. No one in his right mind would want to unleash these weapons lightly or by accident, because the consequences of their use are unimaginable. So political control of them must be absolute—but therein lie a number of technical problems.
We have no early warning system of our own; we depend firmly on the American system at Fylingdales and on the Americans' commitment to pass on information. We should not take it for granted that, if we wanted to use the weapons independently, they would pass it on. Although considerable resources have been devoted to increasing the potential firepower and invulnerability of the independent nuclear deterrent by purchasing Trident, little has been spent on updating or improving the communications system for submarines carrying missiles. That is the key issue, and probably a major weakness in the whole philosophy.
Communicating with submarines is extremely difficult, and follows a simple rule: the easier it is to communicate between shore and submarine and the more reliably the message is transmitted, the more vulnerable the submarine becomes. This country, unlike the United States and France, has no TAMACO-type facility for aircraft to make these communications. We appear to be wholly committed to vunerable, onshore-based transmitters. Even low frequency transmitters consist of vast ground aerials that can transmit messages only slowly, while other forms of communication such as long wave, medium wave, high frequency, very high frequency and ultra high frequency require the submarine to surface to receive the message or to be very close to the surface.
The transmitters are extremely vulnerable to attack and to electromagnetic pulse effects. It is not inconceivable that a single megaton nuclear device exploded at 100 km above the United Kingdom would so severely damage the transmitters as to make communication with the independent nuclear deterrent fleet impossible without compromising the safety of the submarines. Where is the credibility of an independent nuclear deterrent that cannot be given the order to fire? Do the Government expect the Trident submarine commanders to decide themselves whether or not to fire?
The Minister has dodged questions repeatedly, but he must answer the question whether he is relying on submarine commanders who turn on a wireless to listen to
220
Jimmy Young on the radio. If they cannot pick up Jimmy Young, should they assume that Britain has been attacked? There is no credibility to the system unless the Government can convince the House and everyone else that there is a way of instructing Trident commanders whether to retaliate.
The Government seem to be well aware of the problem. They have at last committed themselves to building a trial transmitter for the extremely low frequency band. A transmitter at Glengarry forest in Scotland would have some advantages. At least the submarines could stay submerged. It is much harder for a submarine to be identified. The disadvantage lies in the extremely long wavelengths that are involved. The transmission of data is very slow and it takes several minutes to transmit a message of three or four letters. Clearly there are problems with the system that the Government have not addressed—first, how much money will be spent?
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) from the Democrat Bench claimed that by the time the next election came round the Trident costs would be committed. But once the system has reached that stage all sorts of extra costs will arise. I hope that the Government can tell us how much they expect the extremely low frequency transmitter at Glengarry forest will cost. When will the system be operational? The Government, in parliamentary answers, talk about building the transmitter, assuming that planning permission will be granted, in 1991 and 1992. But it would not start operating until 1993. The transmitter would be only experimental. It is questionable whether it could be used or would 'be merely a prototype and a larger device would need to be built, if the system was to work at all.
There is the question whether it would stand up to electromagnetic pulse effects. There is a danger that most of our radio transmission systems for any system of command and control, and a series of other microelectronic processes, would be greatly affected by it. I notice that the Minister dodged that question once again last Friday. Perhaps the Minister could explain whether such a transmitter would just communicate with Trident or whether it would have some wider role. There is also the question whether it would cause more damage to the environment than it was worth.
If the whole point of putting missiles in submarines is safety and that they will survive a first strike and make retaliation possible, there is little sense in making submarines vulnerable to attack when communicating with them. It is a bit like putting something on British Rail. It is about the only organisation that does not know where it is going.
Putting missiles on submarines has a useful political purpose. It keeps them hidden from public view and makes it much harder for people to mount protests against them. It bears out the old adage "out of sight, out of mind". The oft-stated reason for buyng Trident is to ensure that British bombs can penetrate the Galosh ABM system around Moscow. The same reason was given for updating Chevaline and Polaris.
Yet this counter-value policy cannot be described as credible. I return to Robert MacNamara's remarks. He has described that view as "tantamount to suicide". He described the effect of such a force on NATO's policy of controlled escalation as follows:

221
"Such a failure in co-ordination might lead to the destruction of our hostage—the Soviet cities—just at a time at which our strategy of coercing the Soviets into stopping their aggression was on the verge of success."
A counter-force strategy for the United Kingdom independent nuclear deterrent is of course ridiculous, given its size. We must ask what it is really there for. The crazy logic of the deterrent theory is that British missiles would be indistinguishable from American ones to their most likely recipients. One suspects that the real purpose is not to deter the Russians but to blackmail the United States and to make sure that they do not withdraw their nuclear guarantee for NATO.
Instead of us having a nuclear commitment to make an impact on deterring the Russians, the policy is designed to make sure that the United States is tied in to giving us a nuclear umbrella. If that is its real purpose, we must make certain that such a deterrent is genuinely independent of the United States. Is there much point, when it is really there to blackmail the United States? We are dependent on the United States for early warning, as received at Fylingdales. Ought we not to have our own early warning system if that is the idea? In fact, we shall not really be effectively able to communicate with our submarines, although that is not stated publicly by the Government. We shall need to rely on the United States TAMACO system.
Again, does that really give us an opportunity to blackmail the United States? It means that we can use the deterrent only with their permission. Therefore, it becomes only a minor part of NATO's response rather than being genuinely independent. If we are really trying to persuade the Americans to commit their nuclear forces rather than to deter the Russians, we must face up to the fact that it might be in the interests of the United States and the Russians to stop us using our independent deterrent.
That raises the question how far we are totally reliant upon the United States for the supply of technology for Trident. We are totally committed now to returning the missiles to Georgia for servicing. I suggest to the House that it is crazy for us to be pouring £9 million or £10 million of public money into Trident when we do not have a command and control system that would convince the Soviet Union that it was genuinely independent. Its real purpose is to blackmail the United States into maintaining a nuclear umbrella. Surely we could do that with a far cheaper system than Trident. We could do it without committing ourselves to a nuclear strategy. We could do better for this country by abandoning the whole concept of Trident and the nuclear deterrent that goes with it. We could save the money to make sure that we have a proper conventional defence force. The way in which the Navy is being steadily eroded has been well illustrated in the debate. Perhaps, better still, we could spend far more money on the education and health services and to make sure that British industry had the research and development that is needed to make it competitive in the world.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will find a few minutes in which to convince me and the House that we have a credible system of political command and control over Trident. I suggest to the Defence Select Committee that it is important for it to ask whether we can produce the missiles to go into Trident. It is equally important for the Committee to ask whether there is command and
222
control over the system. Unless that can be established, the policy has no credibility. We should be far better to get out of the nuclear rat race.
7.58 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I shall make a brief contribution, perhaps somewhat briefer than I had intended, because my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) has already made my essential point, doubtless more eloquently.
My remarks concern the women's armed services and, especially today, the position, training and opportunities for women in the Royal Navy, for the WRNS.
The statement on the defence estimates shows that women as part of the cadet forces have risen substantially between 1982 and 1988, as indeed they have increased in other services. There are many reasons for that, doubtless including the very attractive programme of training and opportunities that has been given to our cadet forces, and on which the Royal Navy and the other services, and the Government, are greatly to be congratulated.
Women find the cadet services attractive because there is little distinction between the opportunities open to them and those open to their male counterparts. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is considerable enthusiasm among women for the cadet services.
It is a different story when it comes to the recruitment and retention of women into the main branch of the service, the WRNS, because, whereas the cadet forces as a whole are declining and the women's element is rising, in the main service the women's element is declining, with a minor decline in the number of officers but a sharp decline in the number of service women.
Why, if we can attract young people into the cadet branches of the service, do we fail to attract more mature women into the main service? And having attracted some, why do we have such a problem retaining them?
It is not surprising that in the Royal Navy, as in the other services, many women leave for reasons of marriage or pregnancy or both—that is an insoluble problem facing the women's services—but there is a substantial rise in the number of women leaving either because they wish to leave at their own request prematurely or because, on reaching the end of their immediate contracts, they do not wish to renew. Having let the period of notice run out, they leave. Those last two reasons suggest that women do not find the service as attractive a long-term proposition as we would like. Is that due to the disparity of opportunities between the male and female branches of the services?
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South highlighted the fact that women do not go to sea. I cannot join his enthusiasm that at long last we have 12 reservists at sea. The numbers will have to be greater before we can welcome it as a significant advance.
Women in the OTCs can learn to fly and have training at sea, but the same does not apply when they go into the service proper. That must act as a discouragement to women. If they cannot get the same training and adventure opportunities, not to mention the same scholarships—it is significant that all the flying scholarships in the cadet corps, like the sea scholarships, go to men—they will not be encouraged to take it as a serious career option.
Women are more likely to be retained—particularly those who know that in the long term they will leave

223
anyway, to marry—at least in the short term if they are given the sort of training and grounding for future civilian life that will create later opportunities for them. In that connection, a glance at the qualifications that are gained—not only academic but craft, driving and technician qualifications—makes it clear that there is a substantial disparity between male and female achievement.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South said, we have declining manpower in the services. Some of that is due to straightforward rationalisation and some to giving certain tasks previously performed by those in uniform to civilians. But much of it is due to failure to retain. It is therefore vital to capitalise on the willingness and enthusiasm of women—as exemplified by their willingness to join the cadets, the OTCs and so on—by making special endeavours to retain them. Not only could they do the sort of jobs to which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South referred, but they could take part in a wide range of roles.
I appreciate the reluctance of the Ministry to pour resources into training women for roles which could be defined as essentially combative and therefore not likely to be a long-term investment. We are not yet ready as a society to see women in combat roles; on that score I disagree somewhat with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South, but as he rightly pointed out, there are many ancillary combat roles which involve what might be described as real work rather than simply ground and civilian-type work. If women cannot feel that they go into the forces equal with males, we shall not retain them in the armed services. We are not doing so at present and we are certainly not retaining women in the Royal Navy as successfully as we might.
We must examine why that state of affairs exists and try to prevent reaching the stage when women are as little represented in the Royal Navy as they are in this House.
8.6 pm
Mr. George Galloway: I spoke in the debate on the Royal Navy last year immediately following the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), which I suppose shows that neither of us has moved up the pecking order, at any rate in the last 12 months. She spoke eloquently then, as she did this evening, but I hope she will forgive me if I do not follow her down the path which she took.
Before coming to my main remarks, I wish to make a comment mainly for Labour party consumption, flowing from a statement which was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). I want the Labour party conference to change its defence policy in October. Indeed, I voted for it to do so last October.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South does not make it to the rostrum at the next Labour party conference, for if the kind of inflammatory and reckless statements that he make today are made there, I fear that that will bedevil our chance of modernising the Labour party's defence policy.
My hon. Friend made what I can only describe as an extraordinary contribution, on two counts. First—I appreciate that this was popular with Conservative Members, judging from the acclamation with which it was
224
received—he pined for the days when we had a consensus on what he called security matters with Conservative Members and, even more extraordinarily, with our United States allies.
Anyone who imagines that the Labour party can ever again have—if it ever did have—any sort of consensus on security matters with the Conservative Government, with their attitude to official secrets and the security services, and the use or abuse of them, is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am surprised to hear the hon, Gentleman's comments about the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) because one finds when speaking to members of the forces that any of them who have spoken to the hon Member has faith that at least somebody in the Labour party understands what their job is all about. Indeed, the hon. Member for Walsall, South tends to describe himself as a missionary of, rather than a spokesman for, the Labour party. I should have thought that if we needed a consensus on anything, it was to assure the personnel in the armed forces that they have the support of Members in all parts of the House.
Mr. Galloway: I was intending to speak about the armed forces, as I did last year. Perhaps I should remind the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) that he is talking to a former lance bombardier of the Royal Artillery battery II of the Army Cadet Force. I am no "pinko pacifist", or any kind of pacifist, and I pay tribute now, as I did last year, to the outstanding work of the Royal Navy. It happens, of course, also to be a big customer of the major engineering employer in my constituency, which is a second reason for saluting it on the occasion of the Royal Navy debate, but I would do so in any case, as an admirer of our senior service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South made a fundamental error in imagining that there can ever be a consensus on defence matters, let alone security matters, between us and the party opposite; and even less between us and the United States of America, because, to quote a Communist, albeit a dead one, and an Italian one at that—they are usually regarded as fairly pale pink—without having MI5 put on my tail, if indeed they are not already there, Togliatti said that defence policy is the daughter of foreign policy. If defence policy, as I believe, is the daughter of foreign policy, if we had the same defence policy as this Government, we would have to have the same foreign policy. The chances of that are, I hope, remote, because our view of the world is very different from theirs: they have had to be dragged, screaming and kicking, by the Americans into a perception that the world is changing.
It is because the world is changing that I want to see the Labour party's defence policy changing. I am sure I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs in advancing this argument to our spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who I know will do the job very well, but I hope that that is the basis he will concentrate on in the Labour party in changing our defence policy, as I hope it will be changed.
In opening the debate, the Minister reminded us that it is 123 years ago today since the Royal Navy outlawed grapeshot as ordnance. At the very first whiff of the smoke detector which was let off behind him, he ducked and

225
bobbed and weaved in such a way as to put in question his steadiness under fire, and frankly, his contribution from then on was downhill all the way.
Sitting through the whole of the Royal Navy debate last year, I assumed that, as a new Member, I was simply not picking up the information which I assumed would be forthcoming. However, having sat through it all again this afternoon and this evening, I have to say that the Minister's speech—I hope it will be redeemed in the wind-up—was bereft of any military and strategic discussion of the reason for the Royal Navy and its role in the world, or of any news at all about procurement. There were some vague hints on procurement, some misleading hints on procurement, and a deafening silence on other important issues of procurement to which I wish to come.
Many hon. Members have talked of the Government's complacency over the size of our surface fleet. We used to be committed to a surface fleet of 50 ships, which then became "about 50"; I learned last year, and it has been confirmed again this evening in information from such unquestionable old salts as my hon. Friend from Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South who seemed to be popular enough with those on the opposite Benches, that in fact our surface fleet is somewhere between 28 and 43.
Even at its high point, that estimate of 43 is not "about 50"; at its low point it is only just over half of 50. I went to the library to look up the Oxford Dictionary definition of the word "about", and here it is:
"very nearly or not many more or less".
Now, I concede that if the Minister were to say that he was going to give me 50 apples and actually only gave me 43, I would probably be satisfied enough with that not to make too much of an issue of it, but when we are talking about a Navy with worldwide responsibilities, with responsibilities to protect our shoreline—our senior service, in the front line of our defence posture—not to come within at best seven, and at worst a good deal less, of 50 does not qualify by my understanding of the English language as "about 50".
Mr. Archie Hamilton: I did say that the number of destroyers and frigates that we had was 49. That seems to me to be very nearly 50.
Mr. Galloway: That of course does not take into account those that are out of service, are being repaired or are unavailable for one reason or another.
This Minister who has just intervened made an extraordinary intervention earlier in saying that we had managed with the Armilla patrol when something came up. However, the Armilla patrol, with which our Royal Navy did a wonderful job but which was a long way from our main military commitments of defending our own shores or playing a role in NATO, occupied a third of our available surface ships. That was an extraordinarily risky undertaking, for if anything else had come up while a third of our surface ships were all those thousands of miles away, we would very definitely have been in queer street. The Government really have to do better on this question of "about 50". If the Oxford dictionary is right, "about 50" has to mean very nearly 50, and that is not what we are deploying at the current time.
To digress from this question for just one moment—this is a barb aimed not at the Government but at the yawning acres to my left, where the nationalist parties might be—I was astounded—perhaps the Minister did not
226
see the programme—to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) say on "Question Time' on Thursday night that in the independent Valhalla to which he is committed Scotland will have its own army, navy arid air force. As someone very interested in defence procurement, I would have told him if he had been here this evening—I tell him anyway in the hope that he will read the record—what an extraordinary proposal that is.
I am not sure how big an army, navy and air force we are going to have. Scotland has 3,000 miles of coastline, which presumably the Scottish navy is going to patrol. That is going to need a hell of a lot of Scottish navy boats. Yarrow might do rather well out of it, but when one begins to calibrate the cost to the Scottish exchequer of such a navy, not to mention the air force and army, I think the plans of the Scottish National party for independence require a little more scrutiny. Perhaps I should wait until the SNP Members are in the Chamber before taking that matter any further, but I put it down as a marker.
The Secretary of State, who is not with us this evening—I must have missed his excuse; I presume it is a good one or much would have been made of it—was at Yarrow, which is my constituency, just three weeks ago. In his absence, I congratulate the Secretary of State for Defence on his accessibility. He is always ready to meet constituency Members of Parliament with an interest, and always ready to meet the work force too, which is somewhat less usual. I convey to him the gratitude of the work force at Yarrow for his kindness in meeting them at very short notice and in being very frank with them about the business of defence procurement which is now in front of us.
When he was at Yarrow, the Secretary of State will have seen the outstanding work which is being done there. It is the leading yard in the production of type 23 frigates. he will have seen the skill of the work force and of the management. He will have seen the new module hall which places it in a strong position in the tendering processes to come. He will have seen at first hand the skills and commitment of that work force.
The Secretary of State will also have heard from them that there have been substantial redundancies at Yarrow despite winning the order for three frigates last year. That is a result of the ordering pattern which has created a dip in the work load, leading to substantial redundancies, including the redundancies of workers whom it will be hard to get back into the yard because they have been dispersed.
The Secretary of State will have seen the extraordinary deal which has been struck between the Yarrow work force, the trade unions and the managers, which gives for the first time in any British shipyard complete flexibility of labour. Outfitters are now doing welding and other tasks which hitherto would have seemed unbelievable and impossible in trade union practice in shipyards. The work. force has signed a deal with the management of complete flexibility. The Government should acknowledge and welcome that, as the Secretary of State did, in private at least, at that meeting.
How many type 23s will be tendered for this year? Will it be three or four? Can the Minister assure us that there will be competitive tendering? Will he guarantee that the job will go to the yard which can produce the ships most efficiently and economically at the right price and at the right time? Will he look at the serious problems created by dips in the work load at yards such as Yarrow?

227
The Minister talked about the aviation support ships. He said that the tenders for those would be required by July. That is welcome news, but is there any possibility of Ministry of Defence assistance at the design stage? Yarrow would be required to spend £500,000 on the design work required for that tendering process. That gives hon. Members an idea of the scale of the task. I understand that other privatised companies have been given financial assistance from the Ministry of Defence for the design stage for tenders on work as important as that. Can a similar advance be made to Yarrow?
Last year there was almost deafening silence from the Government on the NFR90, to which other hon. Members have referred, but at least last year reference was made to the NFR90. I think that the Government conceded that they had agreed a procurement definition, but this afternoon, the Minister did not even mention the acronym NFR90. Given that the Ministry of Defence has put the British FFG90 proposal firmly in the icebox, the Minister has a clear responsibility to tell us when he replies about the Government's current posture on the NFR90.
Are we still committed to the procurement definition? Have we moved on in the past 12 months from that posture? Are we to cater for next century's surface ship needs by building the Euro-frigate in a collaborative project? Will 50 such frigates be built? Will Britain get the 12 that we were supposed to get? What will be Britain's share of the design work if and when the NFR90 project goes ahead? Many people's livelihoods and Britain's defence needs dictate that the Government give us some idea of their thinking on that.
Only two years ago, in Yarrow's drawing office, there were 360 of the most skilled draughtsmen and technical workers in Britain. That number is down to 160 and falling, despite the yard winning the three frigate orders last year. That is, first, because we are not building enough ships—we need about 50 rather than the obfuscation that we have had—and, secondly, because of the timing of the work. Workers in the drawing office of a place such as Yarrow are highly skilled and competent. If they are left, like sand in a tray, to blow and scatter in the four winds out of the industry, out of the city—out of the country, many of them—because of the redundancies they have suffered, their skills cannot easily be reassembled. In some cases it would be impossible to reassemble them. I hope that the Government can announce a procurement policy which avoids the peaks and troughs which have led to that situation.
8.25 pm
Mr. Robert Banks: I believe that during the debate a consensus has emerged from all parts of the Chamber on the need for Britain to maintain a strong, effective and modern conventional Navy. Where the Government differ from the Opposition is over the use of nuclear forces in the deterrence role which the Navy is at the forefront in providing.
I listened most carefully to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He made a well-reasoned contribution, speaking with all the knowledge and experience that he has accumulated over many years, particularly in his service on the North Atlantic Assembly. I thought that we might be able to move to a wider
228
consensus, but the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) spoke of wishing to see the Labour party change its defence policy. I must ask—from what to what? I am unclear about what the policy is now. It has not emerged from the debate and it will be interesting to see where it moves to. We shall look forward to having that explained to us.
During a period of peace and relatively little strain in the armed forces, it is always difficult to maintain a sense of tightness and efficiency and, as has been said, the Navy deserves great praise for what it has achieved in efficiency and its capability. The nation can be proud of the Royal Navy, and, more especially, of its reputation worldwide. With the Royal Navy I must include the Royal Marines. They are always included in our debates on the Royal Navy, but not a great deal is said about them. They do a job every bit as important and they do it as efficiently as our service men in the Royal Navy.
Conditions have improved enormously and that has been important in maintaining a peacetime force. We can take some pride in the fact that over the past 10 years our ships have been well equipped. A great deal of thought goes into their design for the comfort of the seamen who serve in them. I can say with some feeling that conditions have improved dramatically since the time when I served in a coal-burning ship of the Royal Navy many years ago.
Mr. Frank Cook: Good God.
Mr. Banks: I thought that someone might say that, but it is true.
The Royal Navy has a special role in NATO and on the international scene. Its role is to guard the Atlantic approaches and secure our supply and reinforcement traffic lanes and ports of entry. Our minds tend to centre on Europe as the central theatre and the flashpoint for any conflict that is likely to occur. That is probably a mistake, because the flashpoint could occur on the northern flank just as easily as on the southern flank, though some may argue that that would be a more likely place for trouble to arise. Nevertheless, the width and scale of protection which the Royal Navy has to maintain necessitates an immense amount of work in covering both the northern and the southern flank and accepting our international responsibilities on the global front.
I wish to pay a brief tribute to our seamen who man the ships that guard the Falkland Islands. The seas in that part of the south Atlantic are dark, inhospitable and rough, and it is no easy task to spend long periods of time in a ship in those unfriendly seas. I hope that events will soon enable those ships to be taken off station, because we now have an airfield established on the Falkland Islands for rapid reinforcement. Given a more sensible approach from the Argentine Government to the problem of the Falkland Islands, I hope that we shall be able to reach some agreement which will reduce the tension between our two countries.
The Navy must therefore be multi-purpose, with fast destroyers and frigates, aircraft carriers and mine-laying, mine-sweeping and mine-hunting abilities are needed. I do not want to get deeply into the argument about the 50 destroyers and frigates which we aim to maintain—or thereabouts, or almost, or whatever expression we like to link with it. I feel tempted to break ranks regarding the general views that have been expressed today and say that we should have a 55 or 56-ship destroyer-frigate Navy.

229
Looking at the size and strength of the Soviet fleet and bearing in mind our role within NATO, I believe that there would be justification for taking the Navy up to those numbers. But I certainly stand by Ministers in their desire to maintain about 50 frigates and destroyers as the complement we need to maintain within our Navy.
The debates on arms control have centred chiefly on ground forces and nuclear forces in central Europe. I certainly would like to see negotiations on conventional armed forces succeed. We should all like to see that. It would reduce tension and enable us to reduce our defence budget.
I believe—this is another factor in our debate—that there may be opportunities for us to take an initiative in trying to bring the Russian Government to the table to negotiate on naval arms and forces. I do not think that it is feasible to negotiate on the basis of maintaining forces at certain levels in different parts of the world, but there is a very strong case for looking at the numbers and types of ships and the armaments they deploy and working towards limiting arms. If there is an opportunity of doing that, we should be very unwise not to take it, but we should do it from a position of strength, not weakness. So until those talks can be promoted we must maintain the strength of our Navy and of our other armed forces in their naval application.
Since the 1970s the Russian Government have been spending about 50 per cent. more, in real terms, on defence. Those are figures which we cannot escape. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) asked why the Russians had this enormous navy at their disposal, which they deploy on a strategic basis. We do not know the answer to that question. It can be used to influence and it can be used aggressively. Let us hope that, through patient negotiation, we shall be able to reach at least some modus vivendi for reducing the numbers and systems that are deployed.
By the middle of the 1990s, the entire Soviet strategic nuclear force will have been replaced since the 1980s by newer, modernised systems. That is another factor which should ensure that we maintain a modernised nuclear stance. I am very pleased that we have mantained the Trident building programme. It is worth recording that—much to my surprise—the estimates of the total cost of the system have now been reduced. It will cost something like £9·09 billion on today's estimates, which is a saving of billion on previous estimates. When we decided to go ahead with Trident I believed that the estimates would prove to he on the low side, and I congratulate Ministers on achieving this cost saving.
How are we to take some sort of initiative over an approach to the Soviet Union to seek to reduce the amount of weaponry deployed by our respective navies and within NATO? I believe that the North Atlantic assembly has a role here in making a detailed study, such as it has at times already undertaken, which can be used by member Governments of the strength and deployment of Soviet forces and in making suggestions for an initiative.
Our Navy is the largest in western Europe. We have the ability to deploy some 200 vessels of all classes. We have spent about £3 billion on modernising equipment in the past year, and similarly in previous years. So we have a very good record, but we must ensure that technology is incorporated in the new systems with which we equip our ships. It is hugely important to have ships that are technologically more advanced in the methods of
230
deploying and using their weapons and to rely on the accuracy of those weapons rather than on numbers of ships. We must remember that satellites are a very sophisticated surveillance technique and will make a very great difference to the way in which ships can hide from the threat of opposing ships. I do not think that there is any doubt of our ability to use this technology, because the people serving in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have the necessary skills.
The concept of a NATO) frigate is certainly in the doldrums. I regret that, because the object of the exericise is to produce a standard vessel which can be used by all NATO navies, and that is something we should aim for. The specification of that vessel is the current difficulty and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will give some thought to the matter and to what we can do to propel the project forward. The purpose of NATO is to ensure that we work more closely together, and if we build a common frigate, at a lower cost, with all the advantages of interoperability of equipment, which we all operate and understand, we shall be better equipped.
Mr. Sayeed: I am certainly surprised that my hon. Friend believes the project to be stalled. Perhaps he has some other information, but Y had understood that it was in the project definition stage, that the Government had agreed that it should go ahead, that it was being discussed in Europe and that we should expect later this year some findings from the group that is looking at the project.
Mr. Banks: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention because the most recent information that I have is that there is still great difficulty in deciding on the project definition. I hope that the matter will be clarified.
Finally, the role of the reserves provides important insurance, and I much appreciate the new numbers for the service that have been included in the complements. They are to be welcomed. I particularly welcome the advertisement in The Times today, which lists a number of companies that give active support in enabling people to serve as reservists. It is the first time that I have seen such an advertisement. The number of companies that support our reservists is impressive. We should not under-estimate the value of the reservists' work or the enormous reliance that we should place on them in time of war.
8.40 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am puzzled by the questions on Labour party policy that have been put by right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches. Our defence policy is roughly the same as that of Canada. It is that we shall remain members of NATO but refuse the right of any country to have nuclear weapons on our soil. I have not noticed the Prime Minister or Government supporters criticising Canada—or Norway, which was visited by the Prime Minister without any criticisms being made of its defence policy. I am not sure what is meant by modernising Labour's policies. They are already extremely modern, and are aimed at removing the threat of nuclear annihilation from our planet—which is the most morally sound and modern policy one could have.
Getting rid of Trident, which costs about £10 billion, would allow us to meet the claims made by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House for an adequate conventional surface fleet. We could also use some of that

231
money to improve the National Health Service and to replenish the wilting coffers of local authorities, which are hard-pressed to provide adequate services because of central Government cutbacks. Schools in my constituency could be rebuilt, and if Trident were cancelled and its funds transferred elsewhere, the effects of capital expenditure cuts of local authorities could be immediately remedied.
The Government's policy of possessing nuclear weapons is also puzzling. Currently, the Government are breaking diplomatic relations with Iran, and they are right to do so. They are taking that action because of Iran's threat against only one person. However, the Government, through their deployment of Polaris and their expensive increase in nuclear firepower in the form of Trident, threaten the lives of millions of people. That is a curious moral juxtaposition. The Government are outraged at a threat to the life of one person, but maintain the threat of mass extermination with a cool indifference that is breathtaking.
I remind the House that even Polaris, which is to be phased out, offers each submarine that carries it more firepower than was used by both sides in the 1939–1945 war. Nevertheless, the Government are spending billions of pounds to extend that firepower. As I pointed out to the Minister earlier, not only is £250 million being spent annually on maintenance, but such expenditure deters supporters of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Minister disagreed with me, but then had to correct himself, when he suggested that the United Kingdom does not support that treaty. We are signatories to it. One hundred and thirty three non-nuclear nations have said—this is an implicit part of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty—that nations that do not possess nuclear weapons undertake not to manufacture or deploy them, provided that the nuclear nations which are signatories to the treaty—and the United Kingdom is one of them—negotiate in good faith to remove their own nuclear weapons.
The only country that is in breach of that,which is ratting on its international obligations, and which is breaking its word to at least 133 nations—and to the two nuclear nations of the Soviet Nation and the United States—is the United Kingdom. That is what the Government are doing. As we are bound by that treaty to negotiate away our nuclear weapons, we should not be embarking on the expensive folly that is the £10 million Trident.
When we get rid of Trident, we shall join other NATO countries that will not tolerate nuclear weapons on their soil. Such a thing is not so startingly radical that Conservative Members should raise their eyebrows. Rather, I am a little startled that some of my own party raise their eyebrows at such a modest proposal, which is practical, sensible and morally superior. It happens to be wrong to threaten to exterminate civilisation on a scale that would make Hitler and Pol Pot put together look like boy scouts. I repeat my argument. Given the Minister's glazed look, perhaps I may spray it on his eyeballs. Each Polaris submarine carries more firepower than was used by both sides during the 1939–1945 war.
Ultimately, the Government must be prepared to use that deterrent, because otherwise it is no deterrent. It is an interesting question to put to the Government as to
232
whether they are only pretending about using the nuclear deterrent, or are serious. The Government will say, of course, that they are serious. It is a highly immoral situation, and nothing on earth will persuade me that the deployment of nuclear weapons is a moral or justifiable act.
In case the Minister suggests that the nuclear balance is such that Britain must negotiate from a position of strength—and increase its strength from Polaris to Trident, whose firepower can be as much as 10 times greater—I draw to his attention page 230 of the current volume published by the Institute of Strategic Studies, headed "The Strategic Nuclear Balance". That reveals that the total number of launchers deployed by the United States under the strategic arms limitation talks is 2,002, whereas the number deployed by the Soviet Union is 2,503. It may be thought that the Soviet Union has more launchers, but Soviet technology is not as good as that of the United States, so Russia does not MIRV its nuclear weapons as effectively as the West does. As the Minister will know, the figures for the United States do not include existing launchers on Polaris or projected launchers on Trident.
The figure given for the number of nuclear warheads deployed by the United States under SALT is 14,637, but for the Soviet Union it is only 11,694. That means that the Soviet Union has fewer than the United States and the United Kingdom, which are consequentially already negotiating from a position of strength. But apparently, we are still to increase our nuclear firepower by as much as 10 times, to negotiate from a position of strength. That does not make much sense.
If one redefines nuclear capacity under the strategic arms reduction talks—START—one finds that United States' warheads total 9,789, while those of the Soviet Union number 10,595. As the Institute for Strategic Studies points out, the actual bombing capacity of both sides is greater than that—10,585 warheads in the case of the United States, as opposed to 10,455 in the case of the Soviet Union. But that does not include Polaris.
So, on every conceivable count, the case for getting rid of nuclear weapons is all-powerful. It will revive the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the wilting belief that the United Kingdom Government are going to do something about it—and they are signatories. It will release massive resources for the things that people need and want. They do not want extermination, as they have shown over the years by continuous demonstrations, campaigns and expressions of concern. I will argue this case with any Tory Minister or Back Bencher on any public platform he wants to provide. The truth is that, after a couple of years of arguing the case, Tory central office told Conservative Members not to engage in the debate because they were losing, because the case is so overwhelmingly powerful.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: If the case is so overwhelmingly powerful, why do 65 to 70 per cent. of the people of this country feel that we should have our own independent deterrent?
Mr. Cryer: When questioned about their belief in Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush and Mr. Gorbachev, an overwhelming majority put greatest faith in Mr. Gorbachev. In that respect they line up with the Prime Minister, who believes that Mr. Gorbachev is an outstandingly "bold and

233
courageous leader"—they are her words. Why should we marshal all this massive nuclear power against a nation that has the admiration and support of the Prime Minister—so much so that when he had five minutes at Brize Norton, for refuelling, she rushed out to the tarmac with a cup of tea and a bun? This was to ingratiate herself with a man because of whose threat we are spending enormous sums. Either she is schizophrenic, or she believes he is a bold and courageous leader. Actually I believe the former and it makes me apprehensive that she has the nuclear keys around her neck.
I want to conclude because there is someone else wanting to speak and in any case I do not want to be too controversial about this issue. The fact of the matter is that we have in the services personnel who are trained and who can be called upon to use the keys to fire nuclear weapons. Whether they do so is another point. Frankly, I doubt whether they would. Nonetheless, we have those people, and we have in the Government people who can unleash this massive firepower and have their instructions so to do.
I think that we ought to give the personnel in the armed forces some say in the organisation and in what goes on in those forces. Since nearly all Tory Members are absolutely besotted by the Common Market, we should take a leaf out of the book of some other Common Market countries and give the right of association to members of the armed forces—in this case, the Navy. In 1984 there was a report of the European Assembly—PE 84688/final/annex 2—in which the service men of a number of nation states were given the rights of professional organisations. They are able to be consulted but have no negotiating rights. The states were Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Denmark, which is a loyal member of the EEC, with full negotiating rights.
The document points out that, in the Netherlands,
"as in the federal republic of Germany, officials and servicemen are not entitled to take part in negotiations. However the association must be consulted when the legal status of servicemen is affected by ministerial rulings etc."
That exactly fits the circumstances of being required to carry out orders to embark on a policy of mass extermination.
"A central consultative committee has been set up for this purpose with the Secretary of State as chairman. It meets twice a month and discusses all legal conditions and provisions which affect servicemen and the policies, guidelines and general principles of the personnel programme. There are subcommittees dealing with matters relating to the army, navy and air force which meet once a month."
The document goes on to say:
"There is freedom of the press including the right to distribute broadsheets."
If the Governments are so sure of their case why do they not adopt the policy of the Netherlands and allow broadsheets to be distributed in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force?
"There is no right to strike, but soldiers in uniform may stage demonstrations when they are not on duty."
In the Federal Republic of Germany,
"The right to form associations to safeguard and improve working and economic conditions is guaranteed to everyone and to all trades, occupations and professions … The right to form associations is therefore a fundamental right under the constitution. This right may not be restricted for soldiers by laws concerning military service".
In Luxembourg, service men
"are allowed to organise or join non-political unions. The majority are members of the Syndicat professionele de la force publique, which is part of the Conféderation générale de la function publique."
234
Lastly, in Denmark,
"Servicemen therefore have the same negotiating rights and the same right to conclude agreements as all the other government employees. There are various groups of professional organisations for serving officers, reserve officers and serving soldiers. These associations negotiate on general pay and working conditions with the Minister of Defence. They voluntarily renounce the right to strike."
If these rights are good enough for other EEC member states—and we are continually being told that there is a lot in respect of which we have to align ourselves with the EEC—why not give these rights to our service men and women, whom both sides in this debate have praised, and on whose shoulders such a heavy task has been placed as a result of the mistaken, befuddled, immoral policies of the Government?
8.58 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) who, by gabbling his words at the end, gave me a little time to speak. I must admit, however, that I should have preferred to hear more from the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). I hesitate to praise the hon. Gentleman, because he may end up being deselected. However, I have to say that when listening to the hon. Gentleman one gets the impression that he has actually studied the subject and understands what it is about. He makes some extremely logical and sensible suggestions, to which I think the House would do well to listen.
Last year I had the wonderful opportunity to be the guinea pig on the new armed forces parliamentary scheme set up by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who took a few years to persuade Ministers and others of the good sense of getting Members of Parliament out with the armed forces to learn at first hand, at the sharp end, what the forces were all about. Although I spent 40 days with them last year I am not suggesting that I am an expert, but at least I understand the questions that should be asked in the armed forces about what we are doing.
I pay tribute briefly to the whole company of HMS Newcastle, the type 42 destroyer on which I was looked after for several days. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has just left, because I agree with him that consulting everyone in the armed forces—I know that such consultation takes place informally—gives an excellent idea of what they really think. Morale in our forces, from the lowest rank to the highest, is second to none, and those people wish to express their opinions for the good of the service, not for their own good.
I pay tribute also to the men and women at the royal naval base at Portland and on HMS Osprey, who have looked after me on many occasions. They, of course, are based in my constituency. I also have the honour to represent many of those who work at the Admiralty research establishment who back up the work of the Royal Navy, and the sea systems controller and others involved' in procuring capital equipment.
Let me deal first with manpower. The Royal Navy and all the country's forces—indeed, all its industries—realise that they are sitting on a time bomb. The birth rate has fallen enormously, and there will be considerable competition for the good-quality manpower, of the right age, that we need to join our forces. I can certainly say that

235
I have worked in no service or industry with such good-quality manpower at its call, and I believe that we must think carefully about the retention of staff.
The message getting through to the Government seems, unfortunately, to be "Let us put up salaries to retain staff." People's main worry, however, concerns the amount of shore leave that they will be given in which to see their families. It was interesting to hear two of my colleagues mention the possibility of more jobs being changed so that they are done by Wrens. That, unfortunately, would mean fewer shore billets and less leave. Unless we decide that women should go into combat zones and perform combat duties, we would, I feel, be foolish to do away with shore billets.
My overall impression from talking to people in the service is that we seem to have the idea that in the armed forces, particularly the Royal Navy, we are training every man jack to become First Sea Lord or Chief of Defence Staff. Constant training and retraining means that almost everyone has less than 12 months' experience. In high-technology posts the average length of experience is often only a year, which is not sufficient. Once someone has acquired good expertise in one job he is promptly swapped into an entirely different job. We should be trying to retain that knowledge. I know that variety is necessary if people are to remain interested in their jobs, but I think that we have gone too far in the wrong direction.
Having been on Royal Fleet Auxiliary and Royal Navy vessels, I feel that there is a difference of philosophy on training. Accidents happen with high-capital equipment: on HMS Southampton a bit of bad driving ended up with a vast amount of equipment going almost to the bottom of the sea. Whoever is on the bridge at any one time may have little sea experience, and we still cling to the idea that for 24 hours a day, week in week out, one man is ultimately responsible for running a ship.
Out at sea, as I was for a fortnight, the captain of a vessel can often be seen becoming more and more tired. is that the right management philosophy on board ship? The captain should be able to have a proper rest so that he can think clearly. During a meal or conversation in the captain's cabin a message may come over the Tannoy: a junior officer is on the bridge and wants to know whether to steer left or right. It is amazing that our captains are able to make decisions in such circumstances, and to be constantly aware of what is happening to the ship—to know from the sound of the air conditioning whether there is a fire problem, for instance. We should look carefully at how we utilise our manpower.
The Navy seems to vacillate between carrying out repairs on shore and having enough equipment to do so on board ship. I have been on a number of vessels much of whose equipment could not be repaired because the right spares were not available. Perhaps there was one spare circuit board. Often, having grabbed a circuit board and popped it into a piece of equipment, someone will find that it is a circuit board that was sent back three months ago with a spurious fault. The repair people did not find the spurious fault and it was still there when the circuit board came back.
We have heard much about the number of ships in the Royal Navy. Having been to the conference a week ago to which the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill)
236
referred, I am a little concerned about what we are told by the experts and whether the story we are given in the "Statement on Defence Estimates" is the story that we should believe. What concerns me more is not that Back Benchers are given a spurious story, but that Ministers are not given the correct story. When one hears defence analysts from academic and defence backgrounds talking about the Royal Navy and the American navy versus the Russian forces, one receives a wholly different picture.
Mr. Frank Cook: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, in developing his theme, would care to comment on the view expressed by Dr. Robert McGeehan, the spokesman for the Pentagon, at the official seminar for opinion leaders at the NATO defence college in October last year in Rome. He said that the tacticians and military strategists should deprive elected politicians of the best intelligence—meaning information—and that it should be kept away from politicians because of the way in which they had abused it in the past. Will the hon. Gentleman express an opinion on what kind of democracy that would be?
Mr. Bruce: That would be a threat to democracy and it is important for us, as Back Benchers, to harangue Ministers constantly and to ask whether they really have the facts. It may be that we do not want certain facts to go into the public domain, but I have the uncomfortable feeling that the captains of our vessels and even people within the higher echelons of the forces have information kept from them. The story of the 50 or thereabouts escorts is a moveable feast. The subject is constantly being churned around and as long as it is moved around and people are not allowed to focus, it will be difficult to make decisions. In my year with the Royal Navy, I have felt that the Ministry of Defence, Ministers and the people in charge have not necessarily had the right information. I shall do my best to ensure that they and all of us have that information.
The debate about the number of ships misses the point to an extent. The number of ships does not matter unless we define their role first. The question of 50 or thereabouts escort vessels is a sacred cow. If one goes out on an escort vessel and says to the captain that he has 200 people under his command and that the ship can defend itself, and if one then asks, "What do you have within the vessel to sink anybody else?", one finds constantly that surface vessels, in particular, are sent to sea to defend themselves and have little offensive capability.
We have gone away from the debate that we should be having about surface vessels versus submarines. We should be considering the role that we expect our escort vessels to play within the Norwegian sea and we should ask ourselves the correct question about whether they are a survivable force or the best force. I believe that if there is money to be spent either on submarines or on surface vessels, the hunter-killer submarine must come out ahead of surface vessels. I spent only two days with submarines in the north Atlantic. On exercises, HMS Illustrious was sunk with the greatest of ease. Submarines are credible machines of war in the conventional sense.
When I consider our frigates and destroyers, I question whether they have much firepower in a NATO role. We have to examine carefully what we use the conventional Navy for out of area. We have a strong role out of the NATO sphere. Since the end of the second world war,

237
there has been an enormous development in what we have had to do. We must ensure that the escort ships have a credible role out of area in the conventional sense—not that they are protecting themselves against the incredibly sophisticated missile systems that Russia could send at them, but that they have more firepower to go into Third world areas where there may be lots of bush fire wars in the next 20 or 30 years.
Almost all service men who have had guns fired at them have been given a campaign medal. In Armilla we have a group of people who have been steaming up and down what are probably the most dangerous waters in the world for almost a decade under incredibly bad conditions. Because no one has fired at them and because they have had a peacekeeping role, we seem to have forgotten that they should be recognised in the normal way. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will make a recommendation through the normal channels for a campaign medal for those who have served in the Armilla patrol.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State would be surprised if I did not mention the sea systems controllerate. Our capital equipment procurement needs to be improved. Many people in my constituency, and in Portsmouth and Bath, are committed to doing a good job for the Royal Navy. Unfortunately, for years we seem to have been writing reports about reports about reports. For the last 18 months we have been locked into a debate about the red herring of centralisation. That will probably continue for three more years unless a decision is made to cancel collocation and to get the three sites working efficiently for the good of the Navy so that the staff can get on with the good job that they are doing.
9.12 pm
Mr. Barry Field: The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) told us that the new SLD defence policy was to retain Trident in service. That will come as a considerable shock to many councillors in my constituency who are ardent supporters not only of his party but of CND. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Many of us are not certain where Mr. Gorbachev and his policy of glasnost are taking us. Now that NATO for the first time will face battle-hardened troops as a result of the war in Afghanistan, the Royal Navy's nuclear deterrent is more important than ever.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for allowing me to visit the Royal Navy's hydrography department at Taunton. I look forward to visiting Northwood tomorrow morning. I particularly enjoyed my trip in a nuclear submarine. My visit to the hydrography department was very interesting. It was everything that I was led to believe it would be.
However, there are matters of concern to which I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend. There has been considerable discussion about aggregate dredging and seabed depletion. I understand that it is part of the hydrography department's duty to advise the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on territorial limits and the Crown Commissioners on seabed surveys. The issuing of licences in that respect needs to be tightened considerably. I am pleased that HMS Gleaner is working currently in my constituency and that coastal surveys are being conducted.
I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) saw in use on a Royal Navy ship a chart
238
dated 1908 of the north Norway coast. However, I am surprised to find that the commercial interests in hydrography and chart making have to be filtered through to the Department of Transport as a matter of priority. While much has been done in the Hydrographer's department to make it more commercial and more enterprising, I believe that it could explore many more avenues. It has a number of original charts, some of them going back to the days of Captain Cook. If it was removed from a cash-limited budget, I believe that it could venture into areas of commercialism that would produce a considerably enhanced income.
I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that he explores the requirement for electronic charts that would be of considerable use not only to yachtsmen, but to merchant sailors throughout the world, because they would solve the problem of having to update manually the existing chart service.
I am puzzled to know why the meteorological centre at Bracknell can put its information directly into shipping broadcasts, yet navigational warnings cannot be promulgated by navtex direct from the Hydrographer's department at Taunton. I hope that my hon. Friend will seriously consider that matter, especially as we are still issuing daily navigation warnings in printed form that must consume a considerable amount of money, expense and effort.
I should like to record my appreciation of the reception given to me by the Hydrographer's department and the way in which it answered my many questions. I hope that at least part of its functions might yet be lifted from the cloying hand of the Treasury and be created into an agency. After all, after 1990 the Navy will no longer have to use the Property Services Agency, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend has considered the position of the teams of divers and engineers whom the Department of the Environment currently maintain for the inspection of Navy underwater structures. Will the Minister continue to use that service in-house, or will he put it to an outside agency?
Having Hifix in my constituency, I hope that I may have the Royal Navy as an ally for the replacement of the Decca chain with the Loran C system, in addition to the new geosatellite system which, of course, is once more back on its way after the Challenger space disaster.
Today's news makes my concern about the GEC-Siemens bid for Plessey especially topical. The £1 billion Spearfish programme has been open to competition, and it is only Plessey which is offering any serious competition in the market. Should it be taken over by GEC, that competition would be removed.
As my hon. Friend will know, Plessey has succeeded in beating GEC with its bids for naval radar, and the 996 has been an especially successful naval radar. I understand, however, that when West Germany requested information on this radar system, it took two years to obtain the permission, which was then only given for an outline specification. Should Siemens be successful in bidding for Plessey, that would beg two important questions—one of national security and the other of competition.
Of course, on the Isle of Wight we have the only working model of a non-rotating radar MESAR system, which I understand has some considerable potential for naval purposes.
I am pleased to participate in this, my first debate on the Navy, having in my constituency at East Cowes the site of

239
the first naval college, where I believe our much loved and sorely missed Lord Louis Mountbatten embarked on his naval career. On the other side of the river, we have the only yacht club in the United Kingdom to fly the white ensign.
I conclude by telling my hon. Friend how much we, as an island community, look forward to the arrival of the royal yacht and the guardship at Cowes week every year. If any hon. Member ever doubts the benefit of the Royal Navy goodwill visits, just let him speak to any of my constituents. I ask my hon. Friend to send a signal to the fleet to tell it how welcome it will be again this year at Cowes. I hope, too that HMS Sandown may eventually visit Sandown, Isle of Wight.
9.19 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: I would like to join those who have thanked the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy for their sterling work in the past year. Hearing the list of exercises, visits and events taken by or forced upon the Navy I am struck by the breadth of activity that Britain expects of its senior service. This was made apparent to me in my recent visit to the Falkland Islands, where, in the vastness of the oceans under British naval protection and the inhospitability of the land, the naval forces there continue to work with determination and great humanity, never forgetting the complexities of the political, economic and social factors that have given rise to the need for a military presence.
May I also add my tribute to those of the Ministers and of my hon. Friends on the return of the Armilla patrol after the brilliant work that was done in the Gulf.
I am, however, struck by the audacity of the Minister in applauding the achievement of the Navy in the past year while apparently failing to understand or even recognise the depth of despair in some sections of our naval forces, which is evident in articles about the problems of naval procurement, of shortages, morale and manpower and the increasing cost of Trident and its impact, notably in the squeeze on resources, on the remainder of the service. To this end, I would like to make a few comments about naval arms control.
In the past year we have seen that reducing the offensive elements on either side is a confidence-building measure. This has been recognised in conventional stability talks in Vienna. It was also recognised in the Stockholm agreement of 1986. Why should the same principle not apply to naval forces? In the past year the Soviet Union has made the running in naval arms control, one of the most neglected issues on the agenda of the super-powers. There are only five multilateral agreements dealing with maritime issues and they concern mainly nuclear not naval weaponry or strategies.
For our purposes today let us remind ourselves of the unilateral initiatives for naval arms control proposed by the Soviet Union. President Gorbachev has proposed anti-submarine weapons-free zones, notably one in the Barents sea, anti-submarine warfare-free zones and an SSBN sanctuary policy. He also supports a ban on sea-launched cruise missiles and has repeatedly stated that the Soviet Union will not enter a START agreement without some type of limit on long-range land attack SLCMs. The United States has, however, refused to
240
include these in the START talks. The United States has about 4,000 of them, and they allow the United States to negotiate through strength, as well as giving it the enormous military advantage of spreading its military strike capability from 13 aircraft carriers to 190 ships and submarines.
Rear Admiral Studemann of United States Naval Intelligence also notes that the Soviet Union is paying increased attention to international proposals for naval arms control and constraints on naval operations. Since 1986 Mr. Gorbachev has proposed mutual withdrawals of United States and Soviet naval forces from the Indian ocean and from the Mediterranean; limitations on naval activity in the Pacific, possible Soviet withdrawal from the naval base in Cam Ranh bay in return for United States withdrawal from the Subic bay complex in the Philippines; the creation of a nuclear weapons-free zone in Northern Europe; restricting naval activity in the Baltic, north Norwegian and Greenland seas, including special limitations on anti-submarine warfare weapons; prior notification of naval exercises in the presence of observers of such exercises; and the complete prohibition of naval activity in areas such as international straits and major shipping routes.
These proposals would, if implemented, undoubtedly result in a reduction of NATO's maritime superiority, which is based on bottling the Soviet navy in the Kola peninsula. This has been seen by many as an offensive maritime strategy.
Mr. Julian Brazier rose——
Mr. Boyes: No, not just at the moment. Tory Members have taken too long.
All we can say about maritime strategy is that it is based on the view that there will be a Warsaw pact attack on Europe and that Western Europe needs to meet that attack with reinforcements. These will have to be escorted across the Atlantic. The Soviet fleet will be prowling around and must be restrained. The scale of these reinforcements is phenomenal and farcical. It is phenominal because in the first 30 days it is anticipated that 300,000 men and 100 air squadrons would cross the Atlantic. After 180 days 1·5 million men, 8·5 million tonnes of freight and 3 billion gallons of fuel would have come across in a total of over 3,000 ship sailings and 28,000 transatlantic flights.
It is farcical because United States-led NATO offensive forward maritime strategy is likely to result in swift retaliatory responses from the Soviet Union's SSBNs. Experts differ, but a war in Europe may not last long enough for there to be reinforcement from across the Atlantic. Time, tide and war wait for no one. However, these are only proposals, open to negotiation. As unilateral initiatives, they show the importance of not relying only on multilateral negotiations and moves. In a global climate in which economic forces are pushing for political initiatives and the authority and stability of the current Soviet leadership may well be at stake, it is important to comprehend the nature of Western responses. The response of the United States and NATO to these recent Soviet overtures has been positive in respect of the negotiation of confidence-building measures and overwhelmingly negative towards proposals such as SSBN sanctuaries, nuclear-free weapon zones in the south Pacific and Nordic regions, and US sea-launched cruise missiles.

241
Does the Minister recognise that if Britain does not hunt submarines, that will give the USSR more confidence with its SSBNs in the Barents sea? In return, the USSR must agree not to hunt United States or British submarines off the United Kingdom or United States coasts. Does he agree that the British Government could take a fundamental and important confidence-building step if they so wished? This confidence-building measure hands a big verification problem to the Soviets. It is much easier for the West to use its highly sophisticated tracking technology to close in on the Soviets than for them to do the same to us.
As the House will know, naval confidence-building measures include information exchanges between superpowers, observation/inspection agreements and operational constraints. The Atlantic Assembly report notes that confidence-building measures generally reduce the risks of confrontation by demonstrating the peaceful and defensive intent of naval operations. As such, they would enhance stability and decrease super-power tensions.
Given these benefits, will the Minister reaffirm the Government's commitment to confidence-building measures? The incidents at sea agreement, which is praiseworthy, already exists, but we need to go further. Will the Minister reassure us that when he next speaks to his United States counterpart he will note the House's anxiety that the United States navy appears to reject confidence-building measures? While we may understand that such measures may be seen by the United States navy as infringing United States naval operations, we urge the Minister to ask the United States Defence Secretary to locate naval policy more in the promising framework of current international security, and less in the old days of crisis management.
The United States and NATO have been stonewalling on discussions affecting maritime strategies. That manifests itself in the same way as other defence-related double-talk: we are told that it is necessary to have more efficient, lethal and sophisticated weapons, and then we can have less.
How dare we call this rational? It is nothing of the sort. It is the game played by politicians, military personnel, industrialists, bureaucrats and even, at times, diplomats. Do exercises in arms control control weapons procurement? Arms control talks may be a super way of meeting one's opposite number, but do they achieve anything else?
The Labour party likes to call a spade a spade, and digging, digging. We apply the same rules to political language. After all, the offensive role of the United States navy, which may enable it to have political kudos and higher resource allocation in the United States, should be of minor concern to us as an independent country.
As an independent country—with, as the Government so frequently boast, its own nuclear deterrent—and as a member of NATO, we must take note of factors affecting global security. Since last year, there has been a sea change in international relations. In the light of this different economic and political atmosphere, will the Minister accept the view that Trident must be included in stage two of the strategic arms reduction talks?
I note that the defence estimates state that, if United States and Soviet strategic arsenals were substantially reduced,
"we would want to consider how we could best contribute to arms control in light of the reduced threat. But the US and
242
Soviet reductions would have to go much further than 50% before we could consider including the British deterrent in arms control negotiations".
How much further do super-power reductions have to go before Trident can be included in START? The defence estimates note that, even with a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic arms, greater stability in Europe will not be achieved without reduction in the Soviets' conventional weapons and a ban on chemical weapons.
In the light of this statement in the defence estimates, will the Minister consider the following? In the past months, the Soviet Union has reduced its forces in Europe by 500,000 troops, 10,000 tanks, 8,500 artillery pieces arid 800 combat aircraft.
Before becoming President, Mr. Bush twice used his tie-breaking vote in the Senate to support the modernisation of the United States chemical weapon programme. At the Paris conference on chemical weapons in January, the Soviet Foreign Minister announced that the Soviet Union would begin to destroy chemical weapons. Meanwhile, the final budget of the Reagan Administration increased spending on binary weapons production from $9·7 million in 1988 to $60·7 million in 1991. Does the huge economic, political and military cost of continuing the Trident ultimately depend on international affairs or on an image that the Government like to create? Is the Government's policy——
Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Boyes: No, I will not.
Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman does not want a debate.
Mr. Boyes: Is the Government's policy to include Trident in reduction talks if the super-power talks result in strategic reductions of more than 50 per cent.? There is a ban on chemical weapons, and the Soviets are reducing their conventional forces.
To answer the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier): I gave up time to allow two Conservative Members to speak, one of whom spoke for longer than I shall have done by the time I sit down.
I should like to say a few words about procurement. Sometimes the latest weapons technology in the most sophisticated, efficient, accurate and expensive hardware just does not work. The necessity to develop new weapon systems, if only to compete in international markets, accounts for about half the military budget. NATO's 16 nations spend$400 billion a year on their weapons and armed forces—half the world's total of such spending. The British defence budget for 1988–89 amounted to £19·2 billion, with 95 per cent. going to Britain's NATO commitments. Of total expenditure, £2·8 billion is allocated for the development and production of sea equipment.
To put this in perspective, since 1979 Government spending on defence has risen in real terms by 17 per cent., while education has achieved an increase of only 10 per cent. Spending on housing, transport and overseas aid has declined in real terms. Yet this military budget is said to be too small. The loudest protests to that effect come from some Conservative Members, some military personnel and people working in the industrial complexes that continue to lean on military contracts.

243
What happens to this huge military budget? The "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" notes:
"We have adopted a more commercial attitude, exploiting the best practices to obtain long-term value for money …
Our fundamental aim remains unchanged: to buy for the armed forces the equipment they need to the required quality, at the right time and at the keenest price …
Whenever possible, we express a requirement in terms of specified criteria, such as performance and reliability, and leave it to the contractor to decide how to meet them."
How does that proclaimed procurement policy square with this year's quota of Government-inspired fiascos?
The Minister mentioned the ongoing contract with Ferranti to develop the computer-assisted automated command systems for frigates. We must remember that the first contract, with impossible-to-reach specifications, has been scrapped at a cost of £17 million. This is an incredible and unpardonable waste of taxpayers' money. Even though the statement on defence estimates notes:
"we place responsibility and risk with the contractor, providing him with the incentive to deliver equipment at the agreed time and at the agreed price",
we know that Ferranti's first contract was written off.
Why is it that, having made changes in procurement practices, this Government—always boasting of efficiency—still preside over messes? In a world in which the major powers are attempting to reach some sort of global security which does not totally rely on the might of the military, it ill behoves the United Kingdom Government to order weapons systems and then keep changing the specifications and mismanage the ordering. Will the Minister give an accurate figure to the House of how much taxpayers' money has been written off by original over-specified orders?
The Trident D5 is another example of a complex weapons system searching for a justification. We are told of the costs of Trident being reduced: is that really true? The "World in Action" team last week uncovered overcharging—or gold-plating—on Trident contracts. As the Trident procurement management is meant to be the tightest of any procurement project, why are people like Sir Ronald Mason, former chief scientific adviser to the MOD, saying the management has to change? Perhaps that explains why design work on a new class of hunter-killer submarine is under way.
The remaining three Trafalgar class hunter-killer submarines are being completed at Barrow. Another order for the generation of SSNs is likely to be placed in the near future. Are these hunter-killer submarines to be used as protection for Polaris or Trident in future? Can the Minister enlighten the House? Does this mean that RAF Nimrods and hunter-killer submarines and anti-submarine frigates are being deployed to protect Polaris? If so, is that not yet another unallocated and unspecified cost of the Trident programme, and of maintaining strategic nuclear weapons? The House should be told the real cost of Britain's nuclear deterrent. What are the opportunity costs of the forces patrolling with and protecting Trident?
On the subject of miscalculations, I draw the attention of the House to the fiasco of the torpedoes. As we all know, due to procurement problems with modern torpedoes, the Belgrano was sunk with 1940s technology. Modern technology was not reliable enough for the job.
244
Do we take this as a lesson and continue to use tried and tested technology? Why should we spend money at all if we need a lot of 1940s torpedoes?
With this in mind, because of dissatisfaction with Marconi torpedoes, is it not true that Sir Peter Levene has been examining the possibility of acquiring torpedoes from other producers, including producers abroad? Is it not true that torpedo testing has shown success rates as low as only 16 per cent. from some models?
Also, Sir Peter Stanford, the former Commander-in-Chief, Naval Home Command wrote an article in the United States Naval Institute's journal in January 1989, in which he drew out the main issues. He noted how important is the service fleet, especially in the Atlantic in supporting, even the 600-ship United States navy. He wrote:
"it takes no great depth of perception to expose the gap between the Thatcher Government's rhetoric and the reality of their naval policies."
He added:
"the Government's claim to maintain a fleet of about 50 destroyers and frigates is becoming a standing joke. In the eight years after the British Government's target for surface combatants became about 50 destroyers and frigates, the orders actually placed with ship builders to sustain the rolling programme amounted to no more than seven. Four other orders were made to replace battle losses in the Falklands and these are of no account in this calculation."
It is clear that the Government's procurement policy has cost the taxpayer millions of pounds, yet our services have not had the equipment that they deserve with which to carry out the tasks that we ask them to do on our behalf. We expect the Navy to ensure the security of the United Kingdom. For it to do this we need to ensure that our military forces have the quantity and quality of equipment to undertake such a task. The Royal Navy must also play a part internationally, but this must be for security rather than to be provacative. The Government are not giving the Navy the necessary tools so that it can carry out the task that we require of it.
9.37 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): This has been an excellent debate. I must admit at the outset that I had an almost surreal feeling when listening to the Opposition. One had to ask what had happened to the Labour manifestos of 1983 and 1987. One had to ask whether the unilateralist dog had ceased to bark. But of course, it did not take long before the House was reminded by the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that unilateralism is still alive and well in the Labour party today. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has a difficult task ahead of him in reconciling the differing views of Labour Members. I doubt whether he will get unanimity on almost any defence policy that he manages to dream up. I am not certain that there is even a vague consensus.
Of course, it is not just the Labour party that is working on defence policy. We must ask how the SLD is doing. It has shaken off the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), whose views on defence have always been robust. I think I heard the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) say that cancellation would be neither financially nor militarily prudent; when asked whether he would maintain Trident, he answered unequivocally yes.

245
Like my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), I must ask what has happened to all the Liberals who are members of CND and so on. Are they suddenly going quiet, and will they not have any stake in the future policy of the SLD? It strikes me that many arguments have yet to come and that it will be good spectator sport, at any rate for Conservative Members.
A number of issues have been raised during the debate and I shall try to cover them. Concern was expressed, understandably, by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) about the future of the fleet maintenance and repair organisation. As a result of the decision to seek competitive tenders for the combined repair and refit of HMS Southampton, we are examining what work can sensibly be rescheduled or reallocated to make the most cost effective use of the resources of the FMRO during the original planned period of the Southampton refit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) spoke of the future of merchant shipping. The decline in the British registered merchant fleet has continued over the last year, but our national defence requirements can still be met and there are welcome signs that we may now be entering a period of relative stability. The industry has returned to profitability, orders for new ships have risen sharply and cargo rates are also rising.
The House will recall that we introduced a number of measures last year to help the industry. The Merchant Shipping Act enabled us to provide financial assistance for the training and travel costs of British merchant seamen and to set up a merchant navy reserve. The Finance Act changed the foreign earnings deduction rules to enable more seamen to benefit. Business expansion scheme arrangements for shipowners have been expanded to encourage investment. The full effect of these measures has yet to be seen.
On the NATO front, the continuing shortage of vessels for transatlantic reinforcement remains a matter of concern, but nations are working together to increase the availability of vessels for this and other purposes. The study on the supply and demand for merchant shipping by NATO in crisis and war is well under way.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol. East (Mr. Sayeed) spoke of concern about CACS 4 and the successor system to it. I remind hon. Members of what the Under-Secretary said on this matter earlier this year:
"The lack of a command system will restrict the co-ordination of the weapons and sensors although each weapon and sensor will be capable of independent action. Without the full integration of the weapons and sensors the overall effectiveness of the ship will be reduced, particularly in a demanding multiple threat situation. Despite this, however, the type-23 will provide a very much more effective contribution to our maritime forces than the Leander class frigates that it will replace"—[Official Report, 10 January 1989; vol. 144, c.60.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and a number of other hon. Members spoke about our amphibious capability. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) was worried that tenders would not be invited for the aviation support ship until July. In fact, tenders have already been invited and responses from industry are due in July.
As for the capability of the assault ships Fearless and Intrepid, the feasibility studies into a replacement which were under way at the time of the last debate on the Royal
246
Navy, last March, have now been completed. Their results, as well as the possibility of extending the lives of these ships, are now being evaluated. In the meantime, Fearless is currently undergoing a major refit.
No Navy debate would be the same without the great discussions that we always have about whether the surface fleet numbers about 50. I should have thought that to have 49 ships—destroyers and frigates—was quite good when we have talked about 50, and I make no apology for 49.
It is important to put the debate in context. We are in danger of giving the impression that the Navy is composed of only about 50 ships. That is not so. The Royal Navy deploys some 200 vessels of all classes. The figure of about 50 destroyers and frigates reflects the Government's judgment of what is the right contribution for us to make, taking into account the contribution also made by other surface ships, submarines and aircraft and the forces of our NATO allies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East spoke about the aging fleet, but that is quite a wrong impression to give. The average age of our escort fleet is about 12 years and compares favourably with equivalent fleet ages of our major allies and the Warsaw pact. Moreover, we expect the average age to fall as newer and more capable ships enter the fleet. Many older vessels were originally expected to have a long life and are, in fact, highly capable ships; it is perfectly sensible to run them on. The Armilla patrol has been carried out by, among others, type 42 destroyers and the less modern Leander class frigates. They have been capable of meeting the singular requirements of the patrol at least as effectively as more elaborately equipped vessels deployed by some other Western navies. We must also bear in mind the fact that it is reckoned that a United States navy cruiser costs around $1 billion, and our Royal Navy crews reckon they do the job just as well, if not better.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South asked about the cracks in type 42s. A study in 1988 showed that four batch 3 type 42 destroyers could experience problems if operated in exceptionally severe sea conditions. Preventive measures, consisting of external strengthening, are being undertaken; they have been completed on HMS Gloucester, are in hand on HMS Manchester, and are scheduled for next year for the other two ships involved. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the cost of those modifications.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East will not be surprised that I will not give him a precise undertaking on orders for type 23s. I will say, however, that our plans provide for sufficient orders of type 23 frigates to meet our target of about 50 ships. The orders placed last July for three type 23s underline this commitment, and we expect to hold a competition for a further batch later this year.
My Department holds regular meetings with shipbuilders to ensure that, within well-established guidelines, the industry is well informed on the Department's policy towards the size and shape of the fleet and the likely pattern of future requirements. The aim is to assist shipbuilders to judge their future work load and prospects in a competitive market.
Mr. Boyes: I have been given to understand that the Government have placed a limit of £105 million on the tender for a new helicopter carrier. A few minutes ago the Minister was talking about HMS Fearless; could he put a price on the work that was done?
Mr. Hamilton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a price for that, but the £105 million is a guide price for the aviation support ship, and, of course, we have given industry a number of options on what to come up with for that, including converting an existing merchant hull, which may be an answer to the problem.
Mr. Galloway: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I asked him five questions and he has not answered any of them, though he has answered plenty of other people's questions. Can he answer one point for me on the tendering for the type 23s? Will he give a guarantee that the decision about where those orders will be placed will be made on the basis of competitive tendering and that the yard that makes the best offer in terms of economy, quality and price will get the job?
Mr. Hamilton: Clearly, all the criteria that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will be taken into account when we decide who gets the order.
I must respond to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East about the attitude of Ministry officials, who cannot defend themselves, to the Defence Committee. I assure my hon. Friend that each and every response to the Committee was made on behalf of Ministers and approved by Ministers, so if he has any complaints I hope that he will address them to me, because I am paid to respond to them. I hope that he will also accept, on reflection, that the Ministry's response to the Defence Committee has been very helpful. We are providing classified raw data about fleet activity regularly. We made no difficulty about that, but we needed to be clear precisely what the Committee required; that was not clear at the outset. Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree it is sometimes necessary to clarify requests for information rather than setting in hand unproductive work for no purpose. I do not call that an exercise in semantics.
Mr. George: I have been a member of the Select Committee on Defence for 10 years, during which time relations between the Committee and the MOD have generally been good, but in the past six months they have dropped to a level the like of which I have never known. It is one thing to criticise the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), but his views are shared by every member of the Committee and I hope that the Minister will do more to develop relations with the Committee so that we may do our job just as the Government do theirs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not make that point maliciously, but simply because relations have deteriorated to an all-time low.
Mr. Hamilton: That is clearly not the unanimous view of Committee members. I simply say that if my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East has any complaints I should like him to address them to me, and not criticise officials who are only acting on instructions from Ministers.
Several hon. Members have asked about the NATO frigate NFR90. The United Kingdom remains committed to that important NATO collaborative project which could eventually meet the Royal Navy's requirement for an anti-air warfare escort coming into service at the end of the century to replace the type 42 destroyers. The contract for the project definition study was signed in January this year and work has begun. It is expected that that will take about two years to complete. The next milestone will occur
248
later this year when all eight member nations will review progress and consider the alignment between the programmes for the ship and its major weapons systems.
My hon. Friends the Member for Portsmouth, South and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) asked about making greater use of the WRNS, and they were right to do so. [Interruption.] There is almost no phrase that one can use in referring to the WRNS that cannot be misinterpreted by the dirty-minded. I fully acknowledge that they make first-class recruits. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone expressed reservations about having them in a combat role. We have to bear in mind that these days 70 per cent. of the Royal Navy goes to sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) said that if we were not careful we would end up with fewer shore billets.
At the moment we use the WRNS as weapons analysts and helicopter ground crews and they go to sea in that capacity. However, difficulties arise if they are at sea for too long. One of the difficulties is the effect that that has on the wives and girl friends of sailors who may be suspicious about what they might be up to. However, the position is being reviewed by the Navy and we expect it to come up with some recommendations.
The hon. Members for Clackmannan, for Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and for Walsall, South suggested that the western Alliance was being left behind by President Gorbachev's arms control initiative. It was suggested that the time was right for NATO to take an initiative in maritime arms control. The Government's view is that, following the successful negotiation of the INF treaty, the priorities in arms control should be to pursue agreements on strategic arms control, the elimination of chemical weapons and reductions in conventional forces in Europe. Those reflect our concerns in particular with the Warsaw pact's capability for surprise attack and large-scale offensive action on land.
It is necessary for the maritime balance to be seen in the light of NATO's dependence on long sea lines of communication, whereas the Warsaw pact is structured for offensive action with short internal lines of communication. Therefore, maritime forces around the world must be viewed in a global context—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). It is self-evident that it would be difficult to consider them within regional arms control agreements.
However, naval forces are not excluded from talks on confidence and security-building measures. The United Kingdom will be participating fully in these talks to identify measures that will help to reduce misunderstandings. I would, however, remind the House that in doing so, we shall ensure that such measures will not give away the freedom of action at sea which may be crucial to our ability to maintain our security.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) mentioned the armed forces parliamentary scheme. The scheme is designed to enable a small number of hon. Members each year to learn about the role, make-up and activities of the armed forces in some depth. For the pilot scheme my hon. Friend was attached to the Royal Navy, in particular to the flag officer, sea training, at Portland. Using this attachment as a base, he was shown a wide range of Royal Navy activities, giving over 30 days, spread throughout the year, to the scheme. I am very grateful for

249
his help in the pilot. The scheme has now become a permanent feature of the MOD's relationship with the House.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement referred to the role of the Royal Navy. I should like to focus on the reasons why we must continue to maintain and improve our naval capacities.
The Soviet Union still maintains a massive naval force which in a conflict could seriously threaten NATO's vital supply and reinforcement routes across the Atlantic.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Throughout the debate we seem deliberately to have dodged the whole question of command and control of Trident.
Mr. Hamilton: Yes, I have deliberately dodged the question of command and control of Trident. In repeated answers to the hon. Gentleman I have told him that this is classified information. We do not intend to reveal to him how we communicate with our submarines or how we intend to do so in future. That information would be of enormous use to the Soviet Union. Obviously, it would very much like to know how we are able to control Trident in the future. That is not information which we could ever allow into the public domain. We have not done so in the past and we will not do so in the future.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan referred to the problem of the Soviet fleet being iced up on the Kola peninsula. I have checked up, and I do not think that the Soviet fleet has ever been iced up in any circumstances.
There have been reports that since 1985 the Soviet Union has been restricting its global naval activities and speculation that that shows a reduction in the threat. This, too, was raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan. I remind the House that throughout the 1980s the Soviet navy has continued to expand—it has undergone an "enormous expansion", in the words of the hon. Member for Attercliffe. It has a submarine force of some 350 vessels worldwide—the largest in the world.
The proportion of nuclear-powered submarines in the Soviet fleet is increasing, and recent designs emphasise improved quietening, speed and weapons versatility. The new Akula class of nuclear-powered attack submarine, for example, is assessed to be the most capable attack submarine yet developed for the Soviet navy. Conversions of the older Yankee class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines continue, some probably related to the
250
long-range sea-launched cruise missiles programmes—the SSN21—which we believe is now operational, and the SSNX24, under development.
That is coupled with a trend in Soviet major warship construction towards larger units with increased firepower and more sophisticated sensors. A number of my hon. Friends referred to that fact. Production of the Kirov nuclear-powered and Slava class of guided missile cruisers continues, as does production of the Sovremennyy and Udaloy classes of guided missile destroyers. Only recently the third unit of the Kirov class, Kalinin, deployed to the Soviet northern fleet, together with the fourth unit of the Kiev class of VTOL aircraft carrier, Baku, with its improved sensor and weapon fit.
The Soviet naval aviation order of battle has increased by over 20 per cent. in the 1980s. Numerous qualitative improvements have also been made, including the introduction of the Bear F Mod 4 ASW aircraft, two new naval combat helicopters and the Fencer E reconnaissance aircraft. Backfire medium-range bombers have now joined naval aviation forces in the Kola. A new 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier is due to begin sea trials later this year. That ship will improve Soviet tactical aviation capabilities significantly beyond the range of land-based air defences. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that their activity may be down, but their quality is up, and that is absolutely right.
We believe that the Soviet navy will continue to allocate many of its forces to its priority missions of SSBN protection and defending the Soviet homeland. It seems unlikely that it will be affected by the new defensive doctrine to the same extent as other services of the Soviet armed forces. The Soviet navy is placing increasing emphasis on qualitative as opposed to quantitative factors, which may enhance its overall capability—certainly to pursue its priority missions. Therefore, it is imperative that even in the current improving East-West relations, we should not allow our guard to drop.
The Soviet Union has drawn attention to the fact that NATO's principal naval forces normally located or based in the north Atlantic outnumber those available to the Warsaw pact. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood said, we must not confuse the intentions of the Soviet Union with its capabilities, because intentions can change. Nobody knows what will happen in the Soviet Union in years to come——
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Wood Treatment (Pesticides)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
10 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clywd, South West): No doubt the Minister is aware of my early-day motion 143. That briefly puts the case and, with supporting amendments, now has the signatures of more than 117 right hon. and hon. Members. The toxicity of lindane and of pentachlorophenol is well known and well documented in this country and abroad. I quote from information supplied by the Royal Society of Chemistry on lindane alone:
"Lindane—or to give it its proper name: the gamma isomer of hexachlorocyclohexane … sometimes called benzene hexachloride—produces signs of poisonings that resemble those produced by DDT, ie tremors, ataxia, convulsions and prostration, with stimulated respiration. Violent tonic and clonic convulsions occur in severe cases of acute poisoning. Fatty changes in the liver and kidney tubule degeneration have been noted in fatal cases."
As to lindane's carcinogenic, teratogenic and mutagenic properties, the society comments:
"Epidemiologic studies have not demonstrated associations between DDT exposure and cancer in humans. There was a review in 1976 of the program on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans of the International Agency for Research on Cancer … Ten of the ninety-four chemicals, which the agency had determined to be carcinogenic on experimental animals only, were pesticides. These included Lindane."
As to systemic toxicology,
"In animal tests, Lindane causes convulsions. In a study in 1976 this effect was produced by a single topical application of 1 per cent. Lindane on weaning rabbits. Since topical Lindane is used in treatment of scabies, the production of convulsions by this route of application is of significance. Lindane has also been reported to have an effect on host defence mechanisms."
On toxic responses of the immune system, the Royal Society of Chemistry comments:
"Insecticides examined for immunotoxicity in rodents can be grouped into three general classes. Lindane belongs in the general class of the organochlorine insecticides."
There is also some evidence that lindane affects female
reproductivity.
For those reasons, many countries have restricted lindane, and the United States of America has banned its use in the home. In 1976, it cancelled permits for products containing lindane in vapourisers for indoor usage, such as smoke fumigation devices. America also cancelled registrations and denied applications for registrations of lindane-containing products for all uses unless labels giving statements for each application are used. In addition, at least 16 countries restrict lindane's use. They include Argentina, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, West Germany, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore and Yugoslavia. France has also almost banned PCP.
The connection between aplastic anaemia and lindane is perhaps circumstantial, but it was mooted as long ago as 1965 in an American study entitled, "Aplastic Anaemia Following Exposure to Benzine Hexachloride (Lindane)". In cases involving an eight-year-old girl and a 52-year-man, a connection was established between the use of lindane in smoke pellets, which is a use within the home, and a high concentration risk. I believe that that certainly had a bearing on its prohibition in America.
Aplastic anaemia is a rare disease, but all the textbooks relate its occurrence to exposure to radiation and one
252
exotic chemical or another, and at least one authority quotes lindane as possibly such a chemical. I have had letters from many people throughout the country who suspect they have suffered from the effects of these chemicals—anecdotal evidence, but taken together, constituting weighty circumstantial evidence.
I submit that, as many countries have already banned or severely restricted the use, of lindane, it is anomalous for us to continue to permit its use. It is not that there are no alternatives. Several large timber treatment firms have already responded to public and medical concern by abandoning pentachlorophenol lindane and another suspect chemical—TB 10—in spray treatments. They use permethrin or cidomethrin, a pyrethrin-based compound, which is currently considered the least suspect chemical. I say "least suspect" because all these treatments are, after all, designed to be harmful to some form of life. This one is perhaps not so long lasting, and, at present, building societies insist on 30-year guarantees. I am sure that the industry would prefer not to have to offer such a lengthy guarantee, because it forces them to use chemicals that remain in the environment too long.
One way of putting the matter right might be for the building societies to be discouraged from making such environmentally damaging demands. I submit that it would be more sensible to have a 10-year guarantee and relative safety. I at least believe that people are more important than the protection of investments.
It was the very insistence of building societies that drew the problem to my attention in the first instance. In my constituency a young boy was subjected to this chemical after his parents' house, which was bought with a mortgage, was sprayed by a firm that used lindane and PCP. The boy was affected after three or four weeks, and it was only later that his parents realised that his condition had been caused by this chemical. Fortunately he survived the experience, although he is still His is not the only case that I know of. The only reason he is not in worse health—and I hope that it will continue to improve—is that he was moved out of the house. Of course, that caused problems for his parents. They now have to live apart, which imposes a financial burden on them.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment will be replying on behalf of the Government, although I suspect that his Department is not necessarily entirely responsible for this matter. That is another facet of the problem, for, while the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 covers workers in this and other situations in which these chemicals are used, it specifies that people working with them should have respirators and gloves.
It specifies also that when wood treated with the chemicals is used for fabrication, the chemicals should be allowed to evaporate in the open air for a number of weeks. If these rules are properly enforced, the people who work in the industry are probably at little risk, but that does not help the poor residents of houses that have had remedial woodworm treatment. They have no protection and are exposed to very high levels 24 hours a day. Indeed, the Building Research Establishment has discovered that maximum levels are reached after four weeks. It is fair to assume from that that the high levels are maintained for a matter of months, and it is certainly not safe for people to enter after two days, as woodworm treatment packages recommend at present. I am sure that the Minister has

253
considered that point, and I hope that he will be prepared to exact some action from his colleagues in other Departments.
This loophole desperately needs plugging. It is ludicrous that lindane cannot be sprayed when bats are present because, not surprisingly, they die, while humans can legitimately be exposed for indefinite periods to chemicals that are extremely dangerous to susceptible individuals.
I have a wealth of material on the subject with me and could go on for hours, but I will leave it at that and allow the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) to add his comments.
10.10 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) for allowing me five minutes of his Adjournment debate. He has made an extremely powerful case.
I became involved because a constituent of mine, Mr. Eric Riley, died in January 1988 in tragic circumstances. The Rileys bought an old pub in Kings Lynn called The Old Town Wall House, in Wyatt street. The Elizabethan building required a tremendous amount of work. Being DIY enthusiasts the Rileys did much of it themselves, but they also called in professionals to treat the timber beams. The professionals applied lindane and PCP.
Within days both Rileys began to feel ill. They suffered from headaches, flu-like symptoms and stomach upsets. Eric Riley, as well as working in the house, was sleeping in a room whose beams had been recently treated. The professionals who treated them had said that it was perfectly in order for the couple to move into the room within a week or so, so that is what they did.
About four months later, in April, Mr. Riley was no better. He collapsed from an epileptic fit, after which his health deteriorated steadily. He also suffered from appalling memory loss. The sad saga—a catalogue of health deterioration—culminated in his death in January 1988. All the evidence points to his having died as a result of exposure to lindane and PCP.
Like the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West I have received many letters from people throughout the country who have heard about our EDM and the enormous concern felt by hon. Members. Those who have written have related similar cases—similar incidents, a similar pattern of health deterioration and in some instances death.
We should like these products to be banned as they are in other countries. As the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West pointed out, there are alternatives on the market. One company, Cuprinol—based in Frome—has removed lindane and PCP from its manufacturing process, substituting other products. It is not as though those chemicals have to be used in wood preservatives.
If my hon. Friend the Minister feels that he cannot act to ban these products, they must be withdrawn pending a full investigation. I also urge my hon. Friend as strongly as I can to play a part in bringing in a centralised system to co-ordinate reports of pesticide poisoning. We also need an independent body to monitor such poisoning: at present we have no such mechanism.
The problem cuts across a number of Departments. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, at present the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food answers for the Advisory
254
Committee on Pesticides, which, I understand, is carrying out a report on lindane at present. The Department of Health is involved, as is his own Department, through the Health and Safety Executive. It is regrettable that there is not one Minister to co-ordinate or control these matters. If the Government are to be taken seriously in terms of concern for consumers, concern for the environment and concern for green issues, they must get a grip of this problem.
We are not discussing salmonella or listeria, from which the weakest in the community may die, but healthy young people who have died as a result of exposure to these chemicals. The medical evidence is overwhelming. I urge the Minister to play a part in trying to make some of the running on this issue. If he feels that he cannot go as far as I would like, he can, at least play a part in bringing in the measures suggested by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West which are reasonable and which the Minister could co-ordinate and see through. I support the hon. Gentleman entirely and hope that a senior Minister will soon stand up and announce positive action.
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I want first to thank the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) for the way in which he introduced the debate. He has brought before the House a matter of great seriousness, which was reflected in the support that his early day motion has attracted. I am grateful for the opportunity to put the facts before the House.
We have been given a somewhat alarming picture of death and disease, but on present evidence, wood preservatives used in this country, providing they are used in the correct way, do not present a hazard to health. All pesticides are, by their nature, active against living organisms and hence their use can pose a potential risk both to health and to the environment. It is therefore particularly important that all users follow the required safety precautions. Provided that this is done, there is no evidence to suggest that the wood preservatives in use generally present any threat to human health.
First, I want to set out the measures that the Government have introduced to control pesticides and that will explain to the hon. Gentleman why it is appropriate that I should be standing at the Dispatch Box even if, as an Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my relevance is not immediately apparent.
Under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, wood preservatives and other pesticides require approval before they can be advertised, supplied, sold or used. That is given jointly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Ministers in five other Departments, including the Department of the Environment. My right hon. Friends are advised on this by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides. It consists of a number of eminent scientists and experts drawn from research establishments, universities and medical colleges. Before approval, all productss have to be thoroughly tested using recognised scientific procedures and the data from those tests are then assessed by the committee.
Approval to put a product on the market will be given only if it can be used without risk to people, livestock, domestic animals and the environment. All products must

255
be properly labelled, setting out the correct conditions for use, which include appropriate safety precautions and warnings. The way in which these products are then used is invariably subject to the general provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. That means that employers have to ensure that employees carrying out the work are safe. Employees have to follow the instructions of use carefully and take all possible precautions to protect others who may be affected. Those are powerful and wide-ranging provisions.
I recognise that there has been considerable publicity in recent months over wood preservatives. The Health and Safety Executive has been looking into cases reported in the media where allegations have been made of ill health caused by wood preservatives. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that, before a judgment can be made on such incidents, all the relevant scientific information—including possible exposure to other hazardous substances—must be available, but it is not always easy to ensure that.
However, where it has been possible fully to establish the facts, no firm evidence has emerged of properly used wood preservatives containing lindane, PCP or TBTO causing harm to human beings. The executive's inspectors and doctors in its employment medical advisory service carry out investigations into all individual cases of suspected pesticide poisoning which are notified.
The results of those investigations are considered by the pesticides incident appraisal panel, entered into a national computer database and published annually. The advisory committee on pesticides is currently considering whether there are any ways in which the system of reporting pesticide incidents may be further co-ordinated or improved. The hon. Member particularly mentioned the tragic case in his own constituency of a local schoolboy who developed aplastic anaemia. That case is distressing and clearly the possible causes of the serious condition must be investigated. I know that it has been suggested that the condition might have been caused by the treatment of his house with wood preservatives. But again I have to tell the House that the weight of scientific knowledge does not support the case that lindane, an ingredient in wood preservatives, is the cause of aplastic anaemia.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) made a powerful contribution, drawing on knowledge of a case in his constituency concerning the Riley family. I appreciate the concern that he feels for his constituents. If I heard him aright, he said that medical evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact that people suffer in the way he described because of pesticides. I do not know about the case of which he has spoken. If he gives me details I will look into it. When he said that the overwhelming medical evidence is that these pesticides are causing the types of illness that he described, my understanding is that the medical evidence does not point in that direction.
Lindane has been extensively used in agriculture, medicine, forestry and wood preservation on a worldwide basis for almost 40 years. It is one of the most widely studied of all chemicals and the weight of evidence suggests that wood preservatives containing lindane are safe if used in accordance with the required conditions of
256
approval. The possibility that is may cause aplastic anaemia or other blood disorders has been studied by a number of national and international expert committees, but none has been able to identify a clear relationship.
The advisory committee on pesticides reviewed all the scientific evidence on lindane in 1981. It concluded that current evidence did not confirm that is should be considered carcinogenic and recommended that is should continue to be approved as an ingredient in wood preservatives. However, due to public concern about the risks to human health. In 1988 the committee recommended that all uses of lindane should be reviewed again. That review has now started.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West also referred to PCP, another active ingredient in wood preservatives. It has also been widely used in wood preservatives for many years. Concern has been expressed about the dioxins which may be produced during the manufacturing process and which may be present in PCP as impurities. In fact, PCP is not manufactured in Great Britain, but all PCP used here is required to comply with a detailed specification which strictly controls the level of dioxin impurities. The available evidence does not justify greater restrictions being placed on PCP than at present, but it is now being looked at again within the European Community. Of course the Government are taking a full part in those discussions.
In recent years there has also been international evidence indicating that TBTO, used in anti-fouling paints on boats, could seriously affect marine life and aquatic systems. Strict controls have therefore been placed on the use of TBTO in such paints. Although there is no clear evidence that the use of TBTO in wood preservatives presents a threat to human health, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides is nevertheless undertaking a review of this substance.
I know that environmental groups have expressed concern in the light of recent studies which have indicated that wood preservatives containing lindane are toxic to bats. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is examining the issue of wood preservatives and bats in greater detail and a working group of scientists will be reporting to the committee. In the meantime, the Health and Safety Executive has specified that timber treatments containing lindane must be labelled "Dangerous to Bats".
The hon. Member has raised the question of the health of those employed to treat timber in situ using wood preservatives. Again I concede that it is a very important issue. Although the precautions to be taken when using a wood preservative appear on the container label, the Health and Safety Executive has also prepared a guidance note on the subject. It reinforces the precautions and gives general advice to professional users, including builders, on all aspects of the safe use of preservatives. The executive plans to publish that in the next month or two.
The note outlines the need for a thorough site survey and gives advice on the selection of the treatment necessary, which may not always involve the use of pesticides. If wood preservatives are needed, the note suggests that assessment is necessay to select which approved pesticide should be used. The choice should be based on that which offers the lowest risk to the health and safety of users, members of the public, domestic animals, wildlife and the environment generally.
The note also advises on the training necessary for professional users of wood preservatives and identifies the

257
hazards which may arise in the workplace when wood preservatives are used. In particular, it gives advice on the control measures necessary to r otect users and the actions which should be taken to protect the occupants of any premises being treated. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the standard of controls elsewhere. He is, of course, right to say that where other countries have placed restrictions on the use of certain substances we should take note and assess whether we should take similar action ourselves. On the other hand, if we consider that more stringent controls than those currently in place elsewhere are necessary, we should not hesitate to take the lead in introducing them.
The House should know that most European Community countries allow both lindane and PCP to be used in wood preservatives, subject to certain restrictions. The exception is France, which is not thought to place any restriction on wood preservatives whatsoever. In the United Kingdom, of course, our restrictions are set out in the regulations to which I referred earlier.
Another very important step is that the Government have approached the European Commission with a proposal that controls on the use of wood preservatives should be standardised throughout the European Community. Those proposals are currently under discussion.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does the Minister appreciate that in a recent answer, I was told by a Minister that in excess of 200 people a year—including many young people—were dying of aplastic anaemia? Are there any records available to identify whether among those 200—including a young, fit man of 19 in my constituency—were people working with the chemicals to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?
Mr. Nicholls: I cannot recall having given that answer myself to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I am grateful to him for clarifying that my memory on that point is correct. Obviously, it is a point that he will want to take up with the right hon. or hon. Friend of mine who gave him that answer. Tonight I am trying to set out the known medical position. Clearly, if he takes the matter up with my right hon. or hon. Friend, he will receive an answer.
In conclusion, I would emphasise that many of the allegations about wood preservatives in current use are anecdotal and on examination prove to be groundless. Nevertheless, as I have said, there is already an extensive control regime in operation in the United Kingdom, and the advisory committee on pesticides is further reviewing lindane and TBTO.
Discussions about PCP are taking place within the European Community, and the Government have proposed across the board controls on the use of wood preservatives throughout the European Community.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend for providing the opportunity for this debate.
Of course, it would be premature to judge the outcome of the reviews being undertaken by the advisory committee on pesticides or the European Community. Nevertheless, the Government will continue to keep the situation under review and will make their decision based on a scientific assessment of the facts.
We shall not hesitate to take appropriate action if any new and significant evidence becomes available.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

WALES

  Cervical Cytology
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will publish in the Official Report the latest available figures of the failure of take-up of cervical cytology appointments for each health authority in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not available at this stage. However, the relevant computer package is now in place on all family practitioner committee computers and the Welsh Office will be monitoring the position as soon as meaningful data are available.

  Civil Servants (Political Activity)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff within his Department in each of the following categories:(a) politically restricted, (b) intermediate and (c) politically free as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code, are local authority councillors.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The figures are(a) none, (b) three and (c) one.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff within his Department in each of the years 1979 to 1988 in the categories(a) politically restricted, (b) intermediate as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code, have (a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully appealed to the Civil Service appeal tribunal against a refusal of permission to take part in local or national political activity.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The totals are In 1987 one member of staffin the intermediate group unsuccessfully appealed to the Civil Service appeal tribunal. There have been no other cases.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff within his Department fall within each of the categories:(a) politically restricted, (b) intermediate and (c) politically free as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The totals are(a) 313·5, (b) 1,596 and (c) 256·5.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff within his Department in the category intermediate, as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions code, have permission to engage in local or national political activity.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Six.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff within his Department in the category politically restricted, as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions code, have permission to engage in local political activity.
  104
  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Departmental Staff (Voluntary Public Service)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy with regard to(a) paid and (b) unpaid leave for staff to undertake voluntary public service.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department follows the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code and each application is considered sympathetically on its merits.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the removal allowances granted to prison officers in the last year before their abolition.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since May 1984 newly joined prison officers have not qualified for payment of removal allowances on taking up their first appointment after initial training. The cost of removal allowances paid to new entrant prison officers in the last year before abolition was £2·3 million. Removal allowances are still paid to established prison officers in accordance with the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code when they are transferred at public expense.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many early resignations there have been from the prison service by area in the latest available year; and what reasons were given for such resignations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During 1988 a total of 319 staff of all grades resigned from the prison service before minimum retirement age. The figures for each region were:

  Number

  Midland

  46

  North

  81

  South-East

  144

  South-West

  48

  Information about reasons for resignation is not available.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average annual number of hours worked by prison officers prior to the introduction of Fresh Start; and what is the figure for prison officers working under Fresh Start at the latest available date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Before the introduction of Fresh Start, prison officers worked on average 56 hours per week. The equivalent figure for 1988–89 is 46·6 hours. From 1 April this year no prison officer will work more than an average of 45 hours per week and this will reduce progressively in subsequent years so that from 1 April 1992 all officers will work an average 39-hour week.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects increases in prison officer staffing levels to reach a level equivalent to half the capacity represented by the reduction in annual working hours of prison officers to be achieved.
  105
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The undertaking under the framework agreement to replace with additional staff half of the hours lost as a result of the transition to a shorter working week is already being implemented. We are making additonal new recruits available annually before each decrease in hours. This process will continue until the end of the framework period on 1 April 1992.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many newly trained prison officers applied for a posting(a) in London and were posted elsewhere and (b) outside London and were posted in London in the latest available year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Of the 2,743 officers who joined the prison service in the year ending 31 January 1989, 441 were posted to London, having expressed a preference to be posted to another part of the country. All those who expressed a preference for a London posting were posted there.

  Prisons (Lay Visitors)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the provision for compensation for lay visitors injured in the course of their duties;

  (2) whether nationwide insurance cover is provided by his Department for prison lay visitors.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply to a question from the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 17 January at column 138.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison lay visitors have been registered in the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years; and how many for each year have been injured in the course of their duties.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Appointments of lay visitors to police stations are made by the appropriate police authority. No central register is kept.

  We are not aware that any lay visitor to police stations in the Metropolitan police division has been injured in the course of his or her duties. Information about lay visitors outside the metropolitan area is a matter for the police authority concerned.

  South Yorkshire Police
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of South Yorkshire as to what, by territorial division and sub-division for the South Yorkshire police, the present establishment manning levels are; what is the actual figure; what are the comparable national figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on South Yorkshire is set out. Comparable information about other police forces is not held centrally.

  South Yorkshire Police (as at 22 February 1989)

  Force

  Establishment

  Actual strength

  2,951

  2,903

  A Division

  510

  504

  Divisional HQ

  48

  57

  A1 Sub Division

  169

  166

  106

  Force

  Establishment

  Actual strength

  A2 Sub Division

  137

  131

  A3 Sub Division

  156

  150

  B Division

  402

  392

  Divisional HQ

  44

  44

  B1 Sub Division

  177

  170

  B2 Sub Division

  181

  178

  C Division

  402

  391

  Divisional HQ

  40

  45

  C1 Sub Division

  150

  144

  C2 Sub Division

  105

  102

  C3 Sub Division

  107

  100

  D Division

  472

  454

  Divisional HQ

  42

  44

  D1 Sub Division

  274

  259

  D2 Sub Division

  156

  151

  E Division

  311

  305

  Divisional HQ

  34

  35

  E1 Sub Division

  140

  137

  E2 Sub Division

  137

  133

  F Division

  315

  297

  Divisional HQ

  40

  40

  F1 Sub Division

  142

  131

  F2 Sub Division

  133

  126

  Complaints Against the Police
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by year and by police force the number of complaints that the Police Complaints Authority has received since its inception in April 1985; how many have been substantiated; how many prosecutions have been instituted; what was the result; if found proved, what was the sentence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The numbers of complaints against each police force dealt with by the Police Complaints Authority are contained in the authority's annual reports for 1985 (Cmnd 307), 1986 (Cmnd 295) and 1987 (HC 465). Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The report for 1988 will be published later this year. The reports also contain other details of the authority's casework, including analyses by category of the disciplinary outcome of all complaints, the reasons for the authority's decisions that no disciplinary charges should be preferred and for 1987 the total number of criminal charges brought.

  Totals of the numbers of all complaints which were substantiated and the type of proceedings that resulted are published annually in the reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Football-related Offences (London)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many exclusion orders have(a) been sought and (b) been granted against persons convicted of football-related offences in the Metropolitan police area in the last five years for which information is available;

  (2) what is the current policy of the Metropolitan police Commissioner towards seeking exclusion orders against persons convicted of football-related offences in the Metropolitan police area; and if he will make a statement.
  107
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since 1 August 1987, when the exclusion order provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 came into force, the Metropolitan police have recorded 254 exclusion orders made against persons convicted of a football-related offence in the Metropolitan police district. The decision to make an exclusion order is a matter for the courts, who may exercise their power if they are satisfied that the making of an order will help to prevent violence or disorder at, or in connection with, prescribed football matches.

DEFENCE

  NATO (Anniversary)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has planned any local celebrations for the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in areas where there is a prominent military presence.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence and NATO are sponsoring a NATO briefing tour and a touring exhibition to mark the 40th anniversary of NATO. They will visit 21 locations throughout the United Kingdom between April and September. There is a prominent military presence in most of the localities covered.

  RAF Upper Heyford
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the report on noise levels to the east of RAF Upper Heyford to be complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The report is being prepared but it cannot be finalised until further noise measurements to assess the effect of an alternative take-off pattern have been completed. A short period of settled weather with winds from an easterly direction would allow completion of this exercise.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the study into the possible realignment of the runway at RAF Upper Heyford or other ways of reducing aircraft noise to be complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  I hope to be in a position to publish the results of the study shortly after Easter.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on his proposals to change the status of Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) announced on 18 April 1985 at column 251 that we were considering a change in the status of FRA vessels which 108
  would have meant their ceasing to be registered as British merchant ships for the purpose of the Merchant Shipping Acts, and operating instead as Government-owned vessels on non-commercial service.

  We gave an undertaking that full consultation would follow that announcement and during that process it became clear that this proposal could have had unwelcome implications for the legal rights of RFA personnel. We have therefore decided to prepare instead a new Order in Council to replace the 1911 Order in Council which now governs all RFA vessels. The new Order in Council will enable RFA vessels to be designed and operated in a way which will meet military requirements, and to remain as British-registered vessels.

  Air Combat Manoeuvering
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreements or understandings he has reached with British Aerospace to make use of its proposed air combat manoeuvering facility in the North Sea.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  International Military Services
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if International Military Services still maintains its office in Tehran.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on 13 January 1988 at column 200. The position is unchanged.

ENVIRONMENT

  Pensioners
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reproduce the figures 7, 8, 10 and 11 of his Department's note on the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge, published on 15 December 1988, to show the impact on pensioner couples.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. The figures show that 55 per cent. of married pensioner couples stand to pay less with the introduction of the community charge.

  Improvement Grants (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much funding has been provided by Bolton council for improvement grants for owner-occupied homes over each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Bolton metropolitan borough council has reported the following information:
  109

  Renovations: Grants paid to owner occupied dwellings Bolton

  Year

  Conversion and improvement

  Intermediate

  Repairs

  Number of dwellings

  Amount2 (£ thousand)

  Number of dwellings

  Amount2 (£ thousand)

  Number of dwellings

  Amount2 (£ thousand)

  1984

  573

  4,174

  298

  1,041

  128

  405

  1985

  550

  4,517

  213

  615

  144

  497

  19861

  429

  3,016

  140

  348

  79

  256

  1987

  510

  2,984

  271

  663

  111

  384

  19881

  356

  2,073

  246

  498

  83

  294

  1 Figures cover nine months since returns for the June quarters of 1986 and 1988 have not been received.

  2 Up to and including the March quarter 1986 includes amounts paid to landlords (including housing associations). Of all amounts reported paid to owner-occupiers and landlords since March 1986 owner-occupiers accounted for 88 per cent. of conversion and improvement grants, 94 per cent. of intermediate grants, and 99 per cent. of repairs grants.

  Heveningham Hall
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the latest position on the ownership of and the intended developments at Heveningham hall.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Heveningham hall is owned by ID Investment Development AG, which purchased it in 1981. Gulfpark Property Management Ltd, which manage the hall on the behalf of the owners, have stated publicly that rebuilding of the fire-damaged east wing will start this spring.

  Housing
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East,Official Report, 20 December 1988, column 191, how many foam slag houses in each of the areas listed in that answer are owner-occupied, council houses and alternatively owned.

  Mr. Trippier
  North East Derbyshire district council has now identified 196 poured concrete houses using foam slag aggregate: 178 are council-owned, and 18 owner-occupied. Ownership details for the Scottish properties are not readily available.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has plans to include foam slag houses within the categories covered by the Housing Defects Act.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have no evidence justifying designation of foam slag properties under the housing defects legislation.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East,Official Report, 20 December, column 191, on foam slag and no-fines houses, he anticipates that the Building Research Establishment will be able to publish its forthcoming technical guidance.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Building Research Establishment hopes to publish its report on Wimpey no-fines houses this summer. It expects to issue technical leaflets on the other, less common, no-fines types at intervals over the next year.

  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the performance targets set for the chairman of the 110
  Severn-Trent water authority in 1987–88; and if he will specify the annual bonus received by the chairman in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Information about Government controls on the Severn-Trent water authority, including performance aims and achievement against them, is set out in the authority's report and accounts for 1987–88 on pages 60 and 61. A copy is available in the Library.

  Water authority chairmen and executive board members were first eligible for performance bonuses in respect of 1986–87. The chairman of the Severn-Trent water authority received a bonus of 7·5 per cent. of his annual salary for that year and 9 per cent. for 1987–88.

  Industrial Pollution Control
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to his consultation document on a new system of industrial pollution control for industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received responses from 91 organisations and individuals. A list of these has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Respondents gave a broad welcome to our proposals. In particular, there was a widespread acceptance of the idea that processes subject to control should be operated according to the best available technology not entailing excessive cost; and of our proposal that the new system should adopt a consent-based approach for authorising discharges, but with a residual duty remaining with the operator to carry out all other functions not specified in the consent in accordance with best practice.

  A clear majority of respondents to the Department's separate consultation document on the inputs of dangerous substances to water also agreed with our proposal that the responsibility for authorising the discharge of substances from prescribed processes to water should rest with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution acting in consultation with the proposed National Rivers Authority. The Department therefore proposes to proceed on this basis. We shall make a further announcement about the results of this consultation exercise shortly.

  Our proposals, which will mark a significant advance in industrial pollution control in this country, have been welcomed in this way, and will be introduced into legislation at the earliest opportunity.

  Insulation
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why loft and roof insulation are not included in statutory building regulations; and if he has plans to add them to present requirements.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: The Building Regulations 1985 include a requirement for the insulation of the roof or loft. A consultation paper issued last July porposed that the existing thermal insulation requirements (including those for the roof) should be upgraded. Responses to the consultation are being considered. It was also proposed that the form of this part of the regulations should be brought more into line with that of other parts, by requiring reasonable provision to be made for the conservation of fuel and power, and by including guidance on insulation standards in the approved document. Experience has shown that this approach enables effective control to be maintained, but in a clearer and more flexible way

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he plans to issue to community charges registration officers on how to register(a) submariners spending alternate periods of four weeks at sea and four weeks on shore, (b) members of the armed forces on four months tours of duty in Northern Ireland, (c) Gurkhas, (d) Royal Navy personnel on sea-going vessels and (e) members of the armed forces attached to foreign forces and serving abroad with them.

  Mr Ridley
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: My Department is consulting the local authority associations, and we shall issue guidance shortly.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment is he has any proposals to seek to exempt from community charge residents of(a) homes for elderly persons run by the Abbeyfield Society or (b) other homes run by other organisations including local authorities and charities of the same type of accommodation and level of care as Abbeyfield.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: I intend to amend the definition of a residential care home in paragraph 9(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (using the power conferred by paragraph 9(6)) to include any home run by the Abbeyfield society. This will bring the definition of a residential care home, for community charge purposes, more closely into line with the definition used for income support purposes.

  People receiving care or treatment in a home run by any organisation will be exempt from personal community charge liability, if they have their sole or main residence in the home, and if the home falls within the description in the 1988 Act of a residential care home, a nursing home, a mental nursing home or a hostel providing a high level of care.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what instructions he proposes to give to valuation and community charge tribunals concerning the provision of material in ethnic minority languages and translation facilities.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: The Government are making available to local authorities
  112
  translations of the notes to the community charge canvass form in five important minority languages. These explain the right to appeal. Most members of valuation and community charge tribunals will have been members of local valuation panels, and will have experience of appeals from people whose first language is not English. Anyone appealing to a tribunal may be accompanied by a friend or representative, who may speak on their behalf.

  Water Pollution
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why there has been a delay in the publication of the first report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on river water quality containing data collected in 1987; when he expects the report to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: The first annual report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution covering the period 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988 is due for publication before Easter. The issue of the Department's annual digest of environmental protection and water statistics published on 24 February contains information on river water quality based on data collected in 1987.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide details of the financial target percentages and external financing limits for each water authority for the year 1989–90.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: The external financial limits for water authorities in England (DOE services) are given in the table, on a full-year basis. They will be adjusted to take account of the privatisation of the water authorities, due to take place in the year. It is not the intention to set financial targets by statutory instrument for the year 1989–90 because the water authorities will have been privatised before it is over.

  External finance limits for water authorities in England 1989–90

  DoE services only

  £ million

  Anglian

  29

  Northumbrian

  12

  North-West

  50

  Severn-Trent

  24

  Southern

  28

  South-West

  3

  Thames

  -65

  Wessex

  12

  Yorkshire

  25

  Civil Servants (Political Activity)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff within his Department fall within each of the categories(a) politically restricted, (b) intermediate and (c) politically free, as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: The numbers are as follows:

  DOE(central)

  Property Services Agency

  Politically restricted

  1,385

  974

  Intermediate

  5,000

  13,650

  Politically free

  1,285

  8,600

  113
  Part-time and casual staff are included in these figures.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff within his Department in each of the years 1979 to 1988 in the categories(a) politically restricted and (b) intermediate, as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code, have (i) successfully and (ii) unsuccessfully, appealed to the Civil Service appeal tribunal against a refusal of permission to take part in local or national political activity.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: One officer in the politically restricted category of staff appealed in 1986 to the Civil Service appeal board against the Department's refusal to permit him to stand for election to a local authority. The board upheld the Department's decision. No other appeals have been made.

  Departmental Staff (Voluntary Public Service)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy with regard to(a) paid and (b) unpaid leave for staff to undertake voluntary public service.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: My Department's policy on these matters accords with paragraphs 870–873 of the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Peak Park Planning Board
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many people have been appointed by Derbyshire county council to serve on the Peak Park planning board; and how many of them live in the board's area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, 22 February 1989, c. 702]: Eight members of the board are appointed by Derbyshire county council. At present one of these lives within the national park.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been paid by his Department to the Peak Park planning board over the last six years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, 22 February 1989, c. 702]: A total of £10,834,400 in national parks supplementary grant has been allocated in respect of the board's net expenditure over the period 1983–84—1988–89.

  Water Supply (Nitrates)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which water abstraction plants for domestic use in the Anglian water region are complying with EEC limits on the nitrate levels in water supply; which are not; and on what dates each of the plants which are not complying will comply with the limits.

  Mr. Moynihan
  With the exception of the following:

  Isleham

  Congham

  Bircham

  Waneham Bridge

  Fring

  Drove Lane (Clayhill)

  Sedgeford

  Barrow

  Beachamwell

  Ulceby

  Gayton

  Otby/Bully Hills

  Marham

  Aswarby

  Moulton

  Binbrook

  Bedford

  Haborough

  114

  Little London

  Bowthorpe

  Branston Booths

  Lyng Forge

  Thorpe

  Harpley

  all remaining water treatment plants in the Anglian water authority region comply with the nitrate standard in the EC drinking water directive.

  Programmes of improvement have been submitted to my Department and, depending on the progress of the development work now in hand, all plants should comply with the directive standard by 1995.

  Cryptosporidia
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to tackle the outbreak of cryptosporidia contamination in the Thames water authority's Farmoor reservoir; if he will initiate a full inquiry into the causes of this outbreak; what action will be taken to prevent a recurrence of this outbreak; how far the levels of cryptosporidia contamination exceeded normal safety standards; and when this contamination was first discovered.

  Mr. Howard
  A possible link between a diarrhoea] illness called cryptosporidiosis in the Oxford and Swindon areas and the water supply from Thames water authority's Farmoor treatment works was first identified a little over a week ago.

  On finding cryptosporidia organisms in the treatment works and the distribution system on 20 February, Thames Water, in conjunction with local health authorities, immediately advised the public to take certain precautionary steps including boiling water for one minute before use by young children and immuno-compromised people. The water authority took urgent steps to remove the organisms from the water and tests over the last few days indicate that there has been a substantial improvement in the water leaving the works. Thames Water cannot yet be certain that there are none of these organisms left in the water and it is, therefore, maintaining the advice to boil water for the time being.

  I understand that Thames Water also proposes to undertake an independently led review at learning lessons from the experience.

  I am entirely satisfied that Thames Water has behaved in a very responsible manner throughout this incident and is taking all the necessary steps.

  Until 1985 there had been no confirmed connection anywhere in the world between cryptosporidiosis and water supplies. However, it is extremely difficult to detect the organism and complex new analytical techniques are only now being developed. Thames Water is in the forefront of these developments. For both these reasons, there is no routine sampling for this organism in water supplies.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the response of the Thames water authority to the possible threat to the public water supply in the Swindon area from the organism cryptosporidia;

  (2) what information he has on routine testing by water authorities for the organism cryptosporidia in the public water supply; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what information he has on the incidence of the organism cryptosporidia, in the public water supply; and if he will make a statement.
  115
  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith).

TRANSPORT

  Railways (Electrification)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold talks with the chairman of British Rail about the closure of the longsight overhead line department and the alternative provision of emergency electrification problems in the new region.

  Mr. Portillo
  No, I see no reason to do so. These are management matters for the British Railways board.

  London Underground (Automatic Ticket Barriers)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Leyton of 8 February,Official Report, column 707, what information he has as to the total expected cost of the automatic ticket barriers programme on London Underground.

  Mr. Portillo
  LRT estimates that the total cost of installing automatic ticket barriers at 63 stations will be £22·2 million at current prices.

  Accidents
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each year since 1980 the number of(a) fatalities and (b) serious injuries on Britain's roads and railways, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the table; 1987 is the most recent year for which complete data are available.

  Fatal and serious casualties on roads and railways: GB 1980–87

  Road accidents

  Rail accidents1

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  1980

  6,010

  79,390

  69

  807

  1981

  5,846

  78,259

  76

  319

  1982

  5,934

  79,739

  57

  251

  1983

  5,445

  70,623

  69

  264

  1984

  5,599

  73,059

  76

  259

  1985

  5,165

  70,980

  74

  322

  1986

  5,382

  68,752

  72

  372

  1987

  5,125

  64,293

  104

  434

  1 All accidents, comprising train accidents, movement accidents, and non-movement accidents. Casualties comprise passengers, railway staff and other persons.

  Road Signs
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to include in the relevant regulations, for use within the highway, speed-activated signs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Speed-activated signs may already be authorised by the Secretary of State for appropriate locations. Further experience and research is required before such signs are generally prescribed in the Traffic Signs (Speed Limit) Regulations for use by local highway authorities.
  116
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in installing speed-activated signs on roads for which he has responsibility in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no current plans to install speed-activated signs on trunk roads in Leicestershire.

  A427 (Leicestershire)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will designate the A427 in Leicestershire a trunk road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. The proposed M1-A1 Link, a new trunk road, will serve the movement of longer distance traffic in that area. Work on that scheme is expected to start later this year.

  Rural Transport Facilities
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the rate of grant for rural bus services in 1989–90.

  Mr. Portillo
  Rural bus grant will be paid at the rate of 1p per eligible bus mile.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to encourage the provision of transport facilities in rural areas not well served by public transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Rural Development Commission is provided with £1 million a year from the Department of Transport to encourage new transport facilities in rural areas inadequately served by public transport. To date 194 grants, totalling £1·8 million, have been made. Funds are still available to support worthwhile projects.

  To assist that process the Rural Development Commission and the National Advisory Unit have jointly produced a new booklet to promote new approaches to the transport needs of rural communities. The booklet describes the scope for encouraging more flexible commercial services as well as self-help options, such as community buses and social car schemes as well as other solutions. The booklet points the way to sources of advice and financial incentives available. It should prove a valuable guide to the development of transport facilities for rural communities. A copy of the booklet entitled "Promoting Transport for Rural Communities" has been placed in the Library.

  Traffic Commissioners
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the annual reports of the Traffic Commissioners for 1987–88 will be published.

  Mr. Portillo
  The reports will be published on 28 February and I am placing copies in the Library.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now announce the shortlisted tenderers for the provision of a second crossing of the river Severn.
  117
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. We received preliminary proposals from eight private sector consortia in response to the invitation published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 7 December 1988 for proposals for the provision of a second crossing over the River Severn. This initial selection process was aimed to avoid abortive tendering costs being incurred by the construction industry.

  We are grateful to all those who responded.

  The shortlist of consortia selected as full tenderers is Costain/Amec/Wimpey; John Laing/GTM Entrepose; Tarmac/HBM/Fairfield Mabey; and Trafalgar House/ Balfour Beatty.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sanitary Towels
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce guidelines to ensure manufacturers remove the words "fully flushable" from packets of sanitary towels pending further research on the problem of blocked drains and contamination at sea.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no plans to do so. I understand that the industry has its own rigorous flushability test code and that it continues to work closely with the Water Research Council to ensure that any non-degraded waste material is effectively screened by water and sewage authorities.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list in the Official Report (a) the main post offices and (b) the sub-post offices in the areas of Colchester borough and Maldon district which have opened or closed since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  The Post Office has supplied the following information. There has been no change since 1979 in the provision of main post offices in the Colchester Borough and Maldon district. During the same period one sub-office has been opened, at Fiveways (Colchester); and four sub-offices have been closed, at Lee road, Greenstead road, St. Botolph's (all in Colchester borough) and Mill road (Maldon district).

  Money Lenders
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he intends to remove the £30 limit on agreements on the licensing of money lenders.

  Mr. Forth
  As part of the review of the consumer credit licensing system, it is proposed that the exemption from licensing of traders lending money for sums not exceeding £30 shall be removed.

  Product Standards
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster(a) how many British Standard Institute technical committees exist to advise on drawing up product standards and (b) how many of these committees have a representative of a consumer organisation, defined as a member of an organisation belonging to the consumers in the European community group sitting as one of their members.
  118
  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 24 February 1989]: The British Standards Institution informs me that BSI has 3,160 technical committees and sub-committees, of which about 1,200 are active at any one time, and the great bulk of which have work programmes which include product standards. Of these, about one quarter are concerned with consumer products. The consumer policy committee of BSI, which brings together most United Kingdom members of the consumers in the European Community group and others, is represented on 305 BSI technical committees and sub-committees.

  Trade Deficit (International Comparisons)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the European countries which have a larger trade deficit than the United Kingdom are oil producers.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: With the exception of Norway no other western European country produces significant quantities of oil. The United Kingdom trade deficit is larger than that of Norway.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Health and Safety
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of Council if he will seek to initiate a review of all offices occupied by right hon. and hon. Members and their staff, to establish whether guidelines laid down under health and safety legislation in respect of space per person are being exceeded.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Lady to the Services Committee's second report of Session 1986–87: "New Parliamentary Building (Phase 2)", HC378, and its first report of Session 1987–88: "New Parliamentary Building (Phase 2): The Next Steps", HC561. Those reports, which were recently considered by the House, recommend certain standards of accommodation for Members and their staff.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if, in view of reported atrocities by the Ethiopian armed forces against civilians in Eritrea and Tigray, he will seek to procure the termination of support for the present Ethiopian regime through the Lome conventions;

  (2) whether he will consult his European partners in the Twelve as to the propriety of continuing Lome aid to Ethiopia in the light of its activities in the north of that country;

  (3) if he will take steps to reduce by £25·3 million the United Kingdom component of long-term aid to Ethiopia under Lomé III until the Ethiopian regime ceases its operations against civilians.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 February at column 1.

PRIME MINISTER

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

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

  Storm Damage (Clear-up)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest estimate of the cost of clearing up operations after the storm of 13 February; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It is too soon to assess the extent and cost of damage and restoration work arising from the recent storms. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has sought detailed reports directly from those authorities affected in order to make an assessment of the situation as soon as possible.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will appoint a Minister for the Protection of Consumers.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  10 Downing Street (Chief Press Officer)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the regrading of the post of chief press officer at Number 10 Downing street; and what staff inspection procedures were conducted prior to this regrading.

  The Prime Minister
  This post has not been regraded.

  Modern Language Teaching
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans, in view of the increasing needs of the single European market, to seek to increase the emphasis being placed by schools and colleges upon the teaching of modern European languages.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government attach importance to improving the nation's skills in modern foreign languages. Our policies aim to make all levels of the education system more responsive to national needs and consumer demand.

  ILEA (Abolition)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether she has any plans to meet representatives of the borough of Wandsworth to discuss funding for 1990–91, following the abolition of the Inner London education authority;

  (2) whether she has received any representations from the borough of Wandsworth about the level of funding following the abolition of the Inner London education authority in 1990; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Engagements
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
  120
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

THE ARTS

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. McLennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the breakdown of awards to arts organisations under the business sponsorship incentive scheme by regional arts association areas, Wales and Scotland for each year since its inception.

  Mr. Luce
  A regional breakdown from October 1984 to 1987–88, in descending order of awards under the business sponsorship incentive scheme, is as follows:

  Scheme started 1 October 1984

  Region

  Awards

  BSIS

  Sponsorship

  1984–85

  London

  14

  217,800

  888,232

  National

  11

  113,433

  353,791

  Northern

  5

  22,310

  66,925

  Yorkshire

  4

  63,350

  215,050

  South West

  4

  41,332

  128,994

  Scotland

  4

  38,706

  196,114

  Southern

  3

  48,417

  245,250

  West Midlands

  3

  42,501

  127,500

  Wales

  3

  32,500

  112,500

  North West

  2

  45,000

  160,000

  Eastern

  2

  11,751

  35,250

  East Midlands

  1

  15,000

  45,000

  Merseyside

  1

  3,000

  9,000

  International

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire and Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  57

  695,100

  2,583,606

  1985–86

  London

  39

  363,039

  1,184,000

  Scotland

  19

  124,620

  285,450

  Southern

  18

  85,101

  188,522

  South West

  17

  73,027

  172,726

  Eastern

  16

  64,152

  175,850

  National

  13

  136,379

  324,930

  West Midlands

  10

  65,402

  130,980

  North West

  8

  75,684

  90,900

  Wales

  8

  54,335

  122,500

  Northern

  7

  24,500

  43,300

  East Midlands

  7

  14,434

  21,100

  South East

  6

  58,500

  167,070

  Merseyside

  4

  52,750

  80,250

  Lincolnshire and Humberside

  2

  14,000

  14,000

  Yorkshire

  2

  7,000

  7,000

  International

  1

  5,000

  5,000

  Total

  177

  1,217,923

  3,012,578

  1986–87

  121

  Region

  Awards

  BSIS

  Sponsorship

  London

  44

  435,176

  1,537,007

  Southern

  25

  161,408

  256,322

  National

  22

  270,887

  522,592

  Scotland

  21

  122,214

  430,974

  Yorkshire

  15

  88,833

  130,500

  West Midlands

  14

  64,967

  88,900

  Wales

  12

  81,917

  155,417

  South West

  12

  69,717

  79,050

  Northern

  12

  59,440

  77,440

  Eastern

  12

  74,785

  86,415

  North West

  8

  25,384

  42,050

  South East

  8

  58,500

  58,500

  East Midlands

  6

  8,600

  10,600

  Lincolnshire and Humberside

  6

  10,234

  19,700

  Merseyside

  3

  12,500

  12,500

  International

  1

  8,500

  8,500

  Total

  223

  1,553,062

  3,516,467

  1987–88

  London

  36

  354,329

  779,097

  Scotland

  26

  1193,352

  1348,438

  Southern

  19

  131,386

  168,550

  South East

  15

  115,385

  232,650

  National

  15

  156,665

  359,992

  Wales

  14

  82,334

  142,700

  West Midlands

  13

  56,584

  68,550

  South West

  12

  84,250

  188,375

  Eastern

  10

  62,500

  116,850

  Yorkshire

  10

  56,267

  142,050

  North West

  9

  36,584

  112,250

  Northern

  7

  38,535

  64,501

  East Midlands

  5

  12,760

  12,760

  Lincolnshire and Humberside

  5

  9,834

  14,500

  International

  3

  35,000

  90,000

  Merseyside

  2

  7,250

  17,750

  Total

  201

  1,433,015

  2,859,013

  1 Since the Written Answer on 6 February at column 544, the figures have been slightly re-adjusted in the light of further information.

  Tate Galleries
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will estimate the annual central Government subsidy per visitor in the latest available year to(a) the Tate at Millbank and (b) the Tate in the North.

  Mr. Luce
  It is not possible to make direct comparisons in the form requested since the Tate gallery Liverpool has only been open since 28 May 1988.

  Grant-in-aid allocations for the Tate and visitor numbers are as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  6,497,000

  1988–89

  10,551,000

  Visitor numbers

  1987

  1,742,000

  1988

  12,091,000

  From 28 May 1988

  2491,000

  1 Including Tate, Liverpool.

  2 Liverpool only.

  Grain-in-aid per visitor over the two year period is approximately £4·45.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Servants (Political Activity)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many staff within the Civil Service in the category intermediate, as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions code, have permission to engage in local or national political activity.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: A review in 1987 showed that about 97,000 people in the intermediate category were in posts whose occupants are given standing permission to take part in local or national political activities.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many staff within the Civil Service fall within each of the categories(a) politically restricted, (b) intermediate and (c) politically free as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: The information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many staff within the Civil Service in each of the years 1979 to 1988 in the categories(a) politically restricted and (b) intermediate, as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code, have (i) successfully and (ii) unsuccessfully appealed to the Civil Service appeal tribunal against a refusal of permission to take part in local or national political activity.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: The Civil Service appeal board has heard three appeals against a refusal of permission to take part in local or national political activity. In each case, the Department's decision was upheld. One appeal, from a member of the restricted category, was heard in 1986 and the other two, both in the intermediate category, in 1987.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many staff within the Civil Service in each of the categories(a) politically restricted, (b) intermediate and (c) politically free as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code, are local authority councillors.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: This information is not held centrally.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Conventional Arms Talks (Vienna)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the commencement of conventional arms talks in Vienna.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Negotiations on conventional forces in Europe and on confidence and security building measures will begin in Vienna on 6 March. My right hon. and learned Friend and other Foreign Ministers of CSCE participating countries will attend their opening. NATO Ministers first called for such talks in May 1986. An outline of NATO's objectives in these negotiations is set out in the 8 December statement from the North Atlantic Council ministerial meeting, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Israeli-occupied Territories
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States State Department on its report regarding human rights abuses in the Israeli occupied territories.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. The State Department report is in line with our own assessment.

  Iraq (Chemical Weapons)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, during his recent visit to Iraq, he gained assurances from the Iraqi Government that they will, in future refrain from using chemical weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on 20 February 1989 at columns 472–3.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to hold meetings with European Economic Community Ministers with regard to the establishment of the single market in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Foreign Secretary and I regularly meet with Ministers from other member states at Foreign Affairs Councils the next one of which will be 20–21 March. However, single market issues are normally dealt with in the Internal Market Council which is attended by DTI Ministers. The next IMCs will be on 13 March and 6–7 April.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent information he has received on alleged atrocities being perpetrated by Ethiopian armed forces against the civilian population in the north.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have recently received oral and written reports from the Relief Society of Tigray (UK). We are studying these carefully.

  Mr. Amery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, having regard to the 45th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, he will, under item 12 of the agenda, seek to raise the issue of the repeated violations of the Ethiopian regime against the human rights of the peoples of Eritrea and Tigray.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We shall refer under item 12 of the agenda of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to our concern about reports of violations of human rights in Eritrea and Tigray.

  Iranian Arms Procurement Office
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Iranian arms procurement office in Victoria street has re-opened; and if he will make a statement.
  124
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Iranian military procurement office has not re-opened.

  Iran (Arms Supply)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affiairs what has been the status of the supply of arms to Iran since the end of the Iran-Iraq war; and what it is at present.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There has been no change in our policy on arms sales to Iran as set out in the answer by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Trade and Industry on 18 January at column 241.

  Argentina (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on recent arms sales from the United States of America to Argentina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United States transaction referred o in press reports was arranged a long time ago. Although we were aware of it, we have no reason to believe that it will increase the threat to the Falkland Islands, or that it reflects any change in United States policy.

  Since the lifting of its human-rights-linked arms embargo in 1983, the United States has supplied Argentina with routine equipment and spares. The United States Government are aware of our concerns.

SCOTLAND

  Universities
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any proposals to change the statutory powers and functions of the rectors in the ancient Scottish universities.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer to the answer that I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) on 15 February 1989 at column 223.

  Devolution
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in formulating his policy on devolution, he consulted experts on the way in which devolved powers operate in Spain, Germany and the United States of America.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No.

  Homelessness
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homeless 16 and 17-year-old males and females there are in Scotland; what is his estimate of the projected number there are likely to be as a result of the 1988 changes in income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information sought is not collected centrally.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his best estimate of the number of poll tax
  125
  registration forms incorrectly filled in in each of the local authority areas of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The processing of community charges inquiry forms is a matter for individual community charges registration officers and the information requested is not held centrally.

  Strathclyde (Jobs)
  Dr. Godman
  To as the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, columns 783–4, how many of the planned jobs in Strathclyde were realised in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Greenock and Port Glasgow.

  Mr. Lang
  Figures on employment levels, realised are not available in the form requested. Many of the projects

  Table 1

  YTS Filled Places

  1988

  1989

  Training Occupational Classifications

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  Administrative and Clerical

  Clerical

  98

  109

  118

  127

  120

  119

  116

  115

  108

  109

  Typists, Keyboard Operators

  28

  27

  51

  49

  45

  63

  58

  53

  52

  54

  Computing

  40

  38

  30

  24

  22

  18

  18

  18

  17

  19

  General

  18

  17

  21

  22

  25

  23

  28

  28

  27

  30

  Creative, and Educational and Recreational Service

  3

  3

  3

  9

  13

  18

  17

  16

  19

  30

  Health, Community and Personal Service

  Hairdressers

  152

  147

  143

  130

  135

  140

  150

  145

  140

  162

  Other H, C and P Service

  9

  9

  12

  12

  11

  11

  10

  10

  10

  10

  General

  19

  19

  17

  18

  22

  28

  25

  27

  26

  31

  Selling and Storage

  Retail Selling

  141

  131

  133

  145

  156

  146

  156

  152

  154

  166

  Stores and Warehouse Workers

  54

  57

  61

  54

  64

  63

  64

  63

  60

  56

  Other Selling and Storage

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Catering and Food Preparation and Processing

  Chefs, Cooks

  2

  —

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Other C and FP and P

  12

  18

  30

  27

  30

  28

  31

  32

  30

  36

  General

  16

  15

  13

  12

  13

  15

  14

  19

  19

  21

  Transport Operating

  6

  6

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  4

  2

  Construction and Civil Engineering

  Bench Joiners

  4

  4

  4

  2

  1

  5

  5

  5

  5

  6

  Plumbers

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  General

  84

  72

  99

  96

  98

  102

  100

  109

  105

  127

  Electrical and Electronic Engineering

  Electrical/Electronic Maintenance Fitters

  33

  33

  33

  33

  47

  32

  30

  30

  30

  33

  Other Electrical/Electronic Engineering

  23

  31

  31

  30

  28

  28

  27

  27

  30

  29

  General

  7

  5

  5

  7

  6

  5

  3

  2

  2

  2

  Mechanical Engineering and Metal Production and processing

  Other Mechanical Engineering and Metal Production/Processing

  11

  10

  11

  10

  7

  9

  8

  8

  8

  6

  General

  59

  51

  60

  59

  55

  63

  56

  50

  44

  47

  Motor Vehicle Repair and Maintenance

  Motor Vehicle Mechanics

  84

  82

  63

  57

  65

  72

  72

  71

  74

  78

  Motor Vehicle Body Repairs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General

  50

  46

  54

  51

  49

  48

  48

  45

  42

  45

  Printing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Clothing and Textiles Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  2

  5

  5

  10

  Classification not known

  84

  80

  85

  79

  77

  69

  67

  62

  60

  58

  126
  announced in more recent years are not yet complete, as a result of which, full employment levels will not have yet been reached.

  YTS
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish for 1988 and to date for Greenock and Port Glasgow(a) the number of filled places in YTS by training occupational classification and (b) the number of contracted places in YTS by training occupational classification.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not available in the exact form requested. Figures for Inverclyde district for the current financial year from April 1988 to January 1989 are given in tables 1 and 2.
  127

  1988

  1989

  Training Occupational Classifications

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  Total

  940

  902

  969

  936

  981

  1,000

  999

  988

  968

  1,063

  Note:

  Some filled places figures exceed agreed place numbers. This is because managing agents have the flexibility to increase provision within certain limits.

  Table 2

  YTS Agreed Places

  Training Occupational Classifications

  1988

  1989

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  Administrative and Clerical

  Clerical

  161

  149

  149

  144

  144

  144

  144

  144

  144

  144

  Typists, Keyboard Operators

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  Computing

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  General

  28

  28

  28

  28

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  Creative, and Educational and Recreational Service

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Health, Community and Personal Service

  Hairdressers

  225

  173

  169

  169

  169

  169

  169

  169

  169

  169

  Other H, C and P Service

  29

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  General

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  Selling and Storage

  Retail Selling

  188

  272

  270

  239

  239

  239

  239

  239

  239

  239

  Stores and Warehouse Workers

  63

  62

  62

  62

  62

  62

  62

  62

  62

  62

  Other Selling and Storage

  —

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  Catering and Food Preparation and Processing

  Chefs, Cooks

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Other C and FP and P

  114

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  General

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Transport Operating

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Construction and Civil Engineering

  Bench Joiners

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Plumbers

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  General

  102

  102

  102

  102

  102

  102

  102

  102

  102

  102

  Electrical and Electronic Engineering

  Electrical/Electronic Maintenance Fitters

  37

  37

  37

  33

  33

  33

  33

  33

  33

  33

  Other Electrical/Electronic Engineering

  33

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  General

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  Mechanical Engineering and Metal Production and processing

  Other Mechanical Engineering and Metal Production/Processing

  2

  2

  2

  2

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  General

  117

  117

  117

  117

  135

  135

  135

  135

  135

  135

  Motor Vehicle Repair and Maintenance

  Motor Vehicle Mechanics

  63

  64

  64

  64

  64

  64

  64

  64

  64

  64

  Motor Vehicle Body Repairs

  17

  17

  17

  17

  17

  17

  17

  17

  17

  17

  General

  52

  52

  52

  52

  52

  52

  52

  52

  52

  52

  Printing

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Clothing and Textiles Manufacturing

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Total

  1,445

  1,382

  1,376

  1,336

  1,358

  1,358

  1,358

  1,358

  1,358

  1,358

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the average weekly take-home pay for YTS leavers in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; and what steps he is currently taking to review these pay rates.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government do not collect such information. However, the centre for educational 128
  sociology at Edinburgh university gathered some information in autumn 1987 on average rates of pay offered to young people after they left YTS as part of the Scottish young people's survey. Details were as follows:
  129

  Gross weekly earnings

  Sample numbers

  Strathclyde

  £86·02

  392

  Scotland

  £88·01

  801

  The survey sample size precludes the provision of meaningful figures for Greenock and Port Glasgow.

  When a young person leaves YTS for a job the pay received is entirely a matter for the employer.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the sale of Loch Hourn plantation, Highland region, by the Forestry Commission was carried out in compliance with the guidelines on Forestry Commission disposals set out in the written answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly on 23 January,Official Report, column 405.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes.

  Heritage
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria must be satisfied before he will take sites of historic or archaeological importance into his guardianship.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Sites to be taken into the guardianship of the Secretary of State are normally those sites of eminent national importance, in historical or archaeological terms, whose maintenance and management cannot satisfactorily be undertaken by any other party.

  Civil Servants (Political Activity)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff within his Department in each of the following categories:(a) politically restricted, (b) intermediate and (c) politically free, as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code, are local authority councillors.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The answer is:

  (a) none

  (b) three

  (c) none.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff within his Department in each of the years 1979 to 1988 in the categories(a) politically restricted and (b) intermediate, as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code, have (i) successfully and (ii) unsuccessfully appealed to the Civil Service appeal tribunal against a refusal of permission to take part in local or national political activity.

  Mr. Rifkind
  None.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff within his Department in the category politically restricted, as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions code, have permission to engage in local political activity.

  Mr. Rifkind
  None.
  130
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff within his Department fall within each of the categories:(a) politically restricted, (b) intermediate and (c) politically free, as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The numbers of Scottish Office staff falling into the three categories are(a) restricted—846, (b) intermediate—4,826·5 and (c) free—1,048·5.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff within his Department in the category intermediate, as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code, have permission to engage in local or national political activity.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Scottish Office records date from 1972. Since then 42 members of staff in the intermediate category have received permission to engage in local or national political activity.

  Departmental Staff (Voluntary Public Service)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy with regard to(a) paid and (b) unpaid leave for staff to undertake voluntary public service.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Staff are granted(a) paid and (b) unpaid leave in accordance with the Civil Service pay and conditions code. Each case is considered sympathetically and on its own merits.

  Education Policy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what regard he has paid to the opinion of the organised teaching professions in shaping his policies on schools and education in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: I am always prepared to take account of the views of teachers' organisations when formulating policies for education in Scotland.

  I have been particularly pleased to see the EIS ending its opposition to school boards.

  Self-governing Schools
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each of the teachers' organisations consulted by him whilst preparing his paper on "Self-Governing Schools: Extending the Choice for Scottish Parents".

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: The teaching unions have all been invited to comment on the paper on "Self-Governing Schools"—to date three have responded.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the unemployment statistics for Greenock and Port Glasgow by district electoral division, or on another convenient basis.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 February 1989]: On 12 January 1989 (the latest date for which information is available) the number of unemployed claimants in each electoral ward of the Greenock and Port Glasgow parliamentary constituency was as shown in the table.
  131

  Ward name

  Unemployed claimants

  Bellville

  426

  Blairmore

  352

  Bow

  468

  Broomhill

  275

  Clune Brae

  483

  Gateside

  281

  Gibshill

  637

  Greenock East Central

  671

  Greenock South

  367

  Greenock West Central

  251

  Greenock West End

  180

  Larkfield

  425

  Port Glasgow East

  574

  Port Glasgow South

  485

  Port Glasgow West

  305

  Upper Larkfield

  439

  Constituency Total

  6,619

  This information is available in the Library.

NATIONAL, FINANCE

  Relocation
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department has taken to evaluate the Fylde coast as a suitable place for relocated Civil Service jobs.

  Mr. Brooke
  Departments for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible have in hand the serious and substantial reviews of relocation opportunities referred to in the answer I gave on 9 February 1989 at columns 751–2 to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran). Like those being conducted by other Departments, these reviews are directed towards finding sites offering easier labour markets, value for money and increased operational efficiency. Decisions will be announced once the essential process of assessment, consultation and decision for each review have been completed.

  Official Secrets Bill
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it would have cost to have reprinted the Official Secrets Bill following completion of the Committee stage.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: The cost to Her Majesty's Stationery Office for printing the Official Secrets Bill after its Committee stage would have been £2,374.

  Civil Servants (Voluntary Work)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the overall policy of the Civil Service with regard to(a) paid and (b) unpaid leave for staff to undertake voluntary public service.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: Paid leave may be granted for a variety of voluntary public service activities which have statutory support, including local government work, magisterial duties and school governor business. Annual limits, ranging from three days to 24 days, apply to each activity and an individual may be granted a maximum of 24 days paid special leave in any one year.
  132
  Unpaid leave is granted at the discretion of the employing Department. It may be allowed in addition to paid leave for work with statutory bodies or given to staff engaged in activities on behalf of non-statutory "voluntary aid" bodies.

HEALTH

  Renal Dialysis
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the National Health Service hospitals, by region, which provide renal dialysis, the number of dialysis machines at each hospital, and the number of in-patients and out-patients treated per annum at each unit.

  Mr. Freeman
  Renal units in England which report to the European Dialysis and Transplant Association registry (EDTA) are listed by regional health authority:

  Northern

  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle

  South Cleveland Hospital, Middlesbrough

  Sunderland Royal Infirmary

  Yorkshire

  Hull Royal Infirmary

  St. James's University Hospital, Leeds

  The General Infirmary at Leeds

  Trent

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield

  Nottingham City Hospital

  Leicester General Hospital

  Derby City Hospital

  East Anglian

  Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge

  Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, Norwich

  North West Thames

  Charing Cross Hospital, London

  St. Mary's Hospital, London

  North East Thames

  The Royal Free Hospital, London

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London

  The London Hospital (Whitechapel)

  St. Paul's Hospital, London

  Westcliff Hospital, Westcliff-on-Sea

  South East Thames

  Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Canterbury

  St. Thomas' Hospital, London

  Guy's Hospital, London

  King's College Hospital, London

  Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton

  South West Thames

  St. Helier Hospital, Carshalton

  Wessex

  St. Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth

  Oxford

  Churchill Hospital, Oxford

  Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading

  South Western

  Southmead Hospital, Bristol

  Derriford Hospital, Plymouth

  Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital (Wonford), Exeter

  Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester

  West Midlands

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham

  East Birmingham Hospital

  North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary, Stoke-on-Trent

  133

  Wordsley Hospital, Stourbridge

  Walsgrave General Hospital, Coventry

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, Shrewsbury

  New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton

  Mersey

  Royal Liverpool Hospital

  Sefton General Hospital, Liverpool

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital (Alder Hey)

  North Western

  Manchester Royal Infirmary

  Royal Manchester Children's Hospital

  University Hospital of South Manchester (Withington Hospital), Manchester

  Hope Hospital, Salford

  Royal Preston Hospital

  Special Health Authority

  (Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's)

  Hammersmith Hospital, London

  The list does not provide an accurate guide to the facilities available to the residents of particular regions, since there is significant movement of patients across regional boundaries. Furthermore, the list includes only those centres which report data directly to the EDTA registry; some units, particularly those which are satellites of main renal centres, are therefore omitted. Military hospitals are also excluded.

  Information on the number of dialysis machines is not collected centrally. The EDTA does not disclose activity statistics relating to individual units, but information on the number of patients receiving different forms of dialysis by region is given in my reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 30 January at columns 42–44.

  Listeria
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has that unpasteurised milk or cheese is more likely than pasteurised to give rise to listeriosis.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have no such evidence. The chief medical officer's recent advice to pregnant women and other vulnerable groups to avoid certain types of soft cheese drew no distinction between those made from pasteurised or unpasteurised milk.

  Food Storage
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health below what specific temperature the chief medical officer advises that food stored in a refrigerator should be kept.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The chief medical officer has not issued any such specific advice.

  Medical Audit Schemes
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what pilot studies he has initiated into medical audit schemes; what hospitals were involved; what private hospitals have been subject to medical audit; and which of the relevant Royal Colleges have recommended any such schemes.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Effective systems of medical audit are already established in a number of hospitals and the benefits are widely recognised within the profession. The royal colleges are committed to the principle of medical audit and in many cases have played a major role in developing audit methods and promoting their use.

  Plastic Surgery
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he proposes to provide funds for a third consultant post in plastic surgery in Leicester.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I announced in "Working for Patients" that we intend to fund centrally 100 additional consultant posts over the next three years. We will soon be inviting bids from health authorities for these posts. Whether individual bids succeed will depend on their meeting the criteria of the scheme. It is also open to health authorities themselves to fund new consultant posts as part of their normal service planning.

  Electoral Registration Statistics
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report the total number of people in each parliamentary constituency in England and Wales listed on (a) the electoral registers for 1988–89 and (b) the electoral registers for 1989–90.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total numbers of people listed on the electoral register for 1988–89 in each parliamentary constituency have been published by the OPCS in table 1.4 of "Electoral Statistics: 1988" (Series EL No. 15), a copy of which is in the Library. Similar figures for 1989–90 are still being collected from local electoral registration Officers. They will be included in "Electoral Statistics: 1989" (Series EL No. 16) which is scheduled for publication at the end of May.

  Locum Doctors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the cost by year, for the last five years, to the Trent regional health authority, by area health authority, for employing locum doctors; what has been the national average over the same period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: Figures derived from the annual accounts of the district health authorities comprising the Trent region are shown in the table.

  Equivalent expenditure in England represents an approximate annual average per authority (district health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals) as follows:

  £ thousand (cash)

  1983–84

  35

  1984–85

  51

  1985–86

  81

  1986–87

  131

  1987–88

  215

  However, these averages include data for the four Thames regions which tend to spend more in this category than other regions.

  In November 1988, health authorities were advised of the maximum rate they should pay to agencies supplying locum doctors for work in hospitals from 12 December 1988. We have no evidence that the advice has led to any significant reduction in the number of available agency locums; and we are currently considering the outcome of widespread consultation on guidance to be issued to health authorities on their employment.
  135

  Expenditure on Non-NHS Staff (Agency, Etc)—Medical

  £ cash

  Trent Region

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  District Health Authorities

  North Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  10,340

  4,149

  Southern Derbyshire

  14,829

  —

  —

  —

  330,215

  Leicestershire

  660

  —

  —

  —

  2,043

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  2,706

  19,903

  South Lincolnshire

  —

  230

  53,968

  128,774

  461,371

  Bassetlaw

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  —

  11,361

  6,130

  Barnsley

  168

  358

  262

  42,685

  23,990

  Doncaster

  —

  6,079

  49,060

  204,049

  164,169

  Rotherham

  1,261

  —

  —

  —

  28,748

  Sheffield

  12,765

  477,968

  606,789

  653,210

  855,549

  Total

  29,683

  484,635

  710,079

  1,053,125

  1,896,257

  Note:

  The figures relate to the health authorities' provision of hospital and community health services and exclude the costs of directly employed NHS medical staff engaged on locum duties.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Polytechnics (Science and Engineering)
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of places in science and engineering in polytechnics remain unfilled in the current year.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on the number of places available in polytechnics is not held centrally either in total or by subject.

  School Leavers (Qualifications)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given Her Majesty's inspectorate in the light of the number of school leavers with insufficient basic educational qualifications.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government look to Her Majesty's inspectorate for independent advice on all educational matters. We look forward to studying its forthcoming review of the lower attaining pupils' programme, which we established in 1982. Provisional statistics indicate that, following the introduction of GCSE, the proportion of school leavers with qualifications in English, maths and French has increased significantly, as has the proportion of 16-year-olds gaining five or more results at grade C or above.

  Food Research
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his responsibilities for food research.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department is responsible, through the science budget, for funding research by the research councils. This includes work relevant to food undertaken by the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Medical Research Council.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in respect of his letter of guidance to local authorities about the conduct of ballots for grant-maintained schools.
  136
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in respect of his letter of guidance concerning the conduct of ballots for grant-maintained schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Parents, governors and others continue to make known to my right hon. Friend their concerns about the conduct of ballots on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have applied to him for grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have applied to him for grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications he has now received from schools wishing to opt out of local education authority control.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have so far applied for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have now applied for grant-maintained status; and when he expects to decide on those applications.

  Mr. John L. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the number of schools seeking to opt out under the Education Reform Act.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend recently approved proposals for grant-maintained status published by Skegness grammar school and Audenshaw high school, and has today approved the proposal from St. James's School, Bolton. A further 11 schools have published such proposals, and 16 more have been required to do so by a positive vote of parents in a secret, postal ballot. My right hon. Friend will determine such proposals as quickly as the statutory procedures and his consideration of all the relevant factors permit. The Department understands that ballots are at present required to be held in respect of a further 13 schools. A large number of parents and governors continue to contact the Department about making applications for grant-maintained status.
  137
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many ballots have taken place for schools to adopt grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement on the conduct of these ballots.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have balloted on changing to grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the latest ballots of parents for grant-maintained school status.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Parents have voted in ballots on grant-maintained status at 49 schools. My right hon. Friend is determined to ensure that all such ballots, and the preliminaries to them, are properly conducted. The Department wrote recently on this matter to the chief education officers of all local education authorities in England. I have sent a copy of that letter to all hon. and right hon. Members in England and Wales, and a copy has been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of local education authorities in disseminating correct information about grant-maintained status when changes of schools to such status are being contemplated.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the conduct of ballots for schools considering opting out.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on intimidation in the context of schools deciding to apply for grant-maintained status.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department's letter to local education authorities of 13 February sets out my right hon. Friend's views on these matters. It makes clear his concern about suggestions that some local education authorities may have been seeking to hinder or deter parents, governors and staff from considering a possible application for grant-maintained status, or from carrying out the statutory duties associated with such an application. It reminds local education authorities of their duties and responsibilities and of the need to ensure that any information they provide is accurate and represents a proper use of public funds.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has had representations from the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust with regard to funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust with regard to funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer hon. Members to the replies my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on Friday, 17 February at columns 416–417.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding the national curriculum.
  138
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he is making in introducing the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have received over 200 written comments from bodies representing various educational and other interests on the draft orders for mathematics and science published before Christmas. We shall take these into account in preparing final orders, which I expect to lay before the House early next month and which will start to come into effect in the autumn.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase support for nursery education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).

  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met members of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend often meets representatives of the CVCP to discuss a variety of issues.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department is taking to monitor the implementation of sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The primary responsibility for the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 falls to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. His social services inspectorate is undertaking a study of the implementation of the Act, including sections 5 and 6. Our two Departments will discuss the outcome of this study in due course.

  University Research (Dual Funding)
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether it is his intention to maintain the principle of dual funding of research in all universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have no plans to depart from the principle of the present dual support approach to publicly funded research in universities. My right hon. Friend has advised the Universities Funding Council, which takes over university funding responsibilities, from the present University Grants Committee on 1 April 1989 that, within that framework, there needs to be greater concentration and selectivity of research; that funding for research should be more clearly distinguished from funding for teaching; and that the council should consider how judgments on the quality and quantity of research should influence its funding decisions.

  Education (Basildon)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent correspondence he has received on education in Basildon.

  Mr. Butcher
  Apart from the recent letter from my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend has received no recent correspondence on the organisation of education in Basildon.

  St. Francis Xavier School, Woolton
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from parents and others on the future of St. Francis Xavier school, Woolton.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the future of St. Francis Xavier school, Woolton, Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received four letters about the actions of the governing body of St. Francis Xavier School following their receipt of a request from parents that a ballot should be held on whether the school should seek grant-maintained status.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with financial institutions concerning the Government's White Paper on student loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with financial institutions concerning the Government's White Paper on student loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with financial institutions concerning the Government's White Paper on student loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend met leaders of the clearing bank and building society sectors on two occasions before the publication of the White Paper. He and officials have been engaged in a series of discussions with a variety of financial institutions since then, and those discussions are continuing in a constructive spirit.

  Food Safety
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his responsibilities for research into food safety.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department is responsible, through the science budget, for funding research by the research

  Thousands

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Secondary school pupils over school leaving age

  278

  261

  245

  235

  Full-time and sandwich students (full-equivalents) in maintained further education colleges

  327

  320

  309

  300

  140
  councils. This includes work relevant to food safety undertaken by the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Medical Research Council.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to direct that the research councils increase research into the cleanliness and safety of foods for human consumption in the light of current public concern.

  Mr. Jackson
  No: the total resources available for science are distributed taking into account the needs of individual institutions and programmes, but that distribution is not determined by my Department. It is for councils to determine their expenditure on particular areas of research. However the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does commission a considerable volume of research with the Agricultural and Food Research Council, a significant proportion of which is related specifically to food safety.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities received a capital allocation for 1989–90 less than the figure shown as committed expenditure in their bid.

  Mr. Butcher
  A total of 48 local education authorities received a prescribed capital allocation for expenditure for 1989–90, less than the figure shown as committed expenditure in their plans.

  All local authorities were informed in December 1987 that committed expenditure arising from building works started in 1988–89 or earlier would be covered only up to the level of their provisional indications for 1989–90 and 1990–91. They were advised to contain their commitments within these figures except insofar as any excess could be financed from other sources—such as virement or capital receipts.

  Women Teachers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to encourage more women into science and maths teaching.

  Mr. Butcher
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today by my hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin).

  Further Education
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the statistical projections with regard to those remaining in full-time education after 16 years which are contained in the public expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. Butcher
  The relevant statistical projections contained in the public expenditure White Paper are:
  141
  Since the public expenditure White Paper was written, provisional information has shown that the proportion of 16-year-olds staying on in full-time education has risen from 46 per cent. to 49 per cent. between 1987 and 1988. Future projections will take account of this and other information as it becomes available.

  Teachers
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in agreeing new collective bargaining arrangements for the teaching profession.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to introduce legislation relating to changes in negotiating procedures in respect of teachers' pay and conditions of service.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he is going to announce his plans for the restoration of negotiating machinery for teachers' pay and conditions.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he is going to announce his plans for the restoration of negotiating machinery for teachers' pay and conditions.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he is going to announce his plans for the restoration of negotiating machinery for teachers' pay and conditions.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 31 January at column 159.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to receive the recommendations of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 16 February at columns 323–26.

  University Grants Committee
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next plans to meet representatives of the University Grants Committee; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the University Grants Committee; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will arrange to meet the University Grants Committee to discuss the proposed closure of the school of veterinary medicine at Glasgow university.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend frequently meets in the course of usual business the chairman of the University Grants Committee and the chairman and chief executive-designate of the Universities Funding Council to discuss a variety of issues relating to university funding and subject provision.

  Scottish Universities
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to meet representatives of the principals of Scottish universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 31 January at column 164.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in response to his consultative paper on student unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  No consultative paper has been issued. My Department is still analysing responses to its questionnaire about student unions. On the basis of the information obtained the Government will reach conclusions on the best action to take and will then consult all those concerned about those conclusions.

  Physics and Chemistry
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teaching of physics and chemistry in universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer to the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 31 January at column 162.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of all 16-year-olds commenced studying A-levels in(a) September 1988 and (b) September 1978.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The proportion of 16-year-olds in England studying A levels was 25 per cent. in 1987–88 and 20 per cent. in 1979–80. Information by age prior to 1979–80 is not available, and information for 1988–89 is not yet available.

  School Governors
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to introduce legislation to prevent local authorities from appointing nominees from one political party for all places as school governors; and what representations he has received concerning local authorities which have done this.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government have received various representations on this matter and has consistently stated that those authorities which nominate only majority party supporters as school governors are not behaving as their electorates would expect. We hope that they can be persuaded to adopt a fairer approach. We are not convinced that this is an appropriate matter for legislation.

  Universities (Financing)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the financial problems facing the universities; and if he will make a statement.
  143
  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received many representations about all aspects of university policy, including university funding.

  School Sports
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the level of participation of school children in team sports(a) currently and (b) 30 years ago.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not available centrally.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of his science budget is spent in Wales, Scotland and England, respectively.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1987–88, the latest year for which figures are available, 3 per cent. of the science budget was spent in Wales, 9 per cent. in Scotland and 71 per cent. in England.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what increases in real terms are proposed in the science budget in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what increases in real terms are proposed in the science budget in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  The announced allocations for the science budget for 1990–91 and 1991–92 allow for real terms increases of 8·8 per cent. and 7·9 per cent. respectively over the revised allocation for 1988–89.

  Teacher Supply
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to ensure adequate teacher supply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave on 31 January to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) at column 157.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for assisting local authorities in reducing surplus places in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for assisting local authorities in reducing surplus places in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Local education authorities are aware of the high cost of under-used capacity at schools with a substantial proportion of surplus places. They recognise therefore that it is very much in their own interests to continue to come forward with proposals to rationalise their school provision where appropriate. The Government's public expenditure plans assume that authorities collectively will achieve the national targets for the removal of surplus places.

  City Technology Colleges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made on his plans for city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made on his plans for city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer my right hon. Friend gave earlier this afternoon to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Hughes).

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the City Technology Trust with regard to funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The City Technology College Trust was established, with charitable status in April 1987. In August 1987 the chairman, Mr. Cyril Taylor made a request for grant-aid towards work that was being undertaken.

  Agreement was given in March 1988 for a grant of up to a maximum of £200,000, or ⅔ of the trust's total relevant expenditure, during the four years from 1987–88 to 1990–91. Grant is payable towards the trust's activities in finding sites for CTCs and providing advice and support to CTC projects. A request has recently been received concerning the extension of funding for a further two years.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters he has received during the last six months on the subject of student finance.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since 1 September, about 4,000.

  O-Levels
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will(a) make it his policy to encourage exam boards to make the O-level exam available in competition with the GCSE and (b) continue to allow education authorities, schools and parents to opt for either exam; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Section 5 of the Education Reform Act provides for the statutory approval of qualifications and syllabuses for children of compulsory school age in maintained schools. My right hon. Friend has asked the School Examinations and Assessment Council to advise what qualifications—GCSE and other—should be approved. He will consider that advice, which he expects to receive by May, in the context of his intention that GCSE and equivalent qualifications should constitute the principal method of assessment of pupils' attainment at age 16.

  Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he is having with the London borough of Wandsworth about its plans for running the education services in the borough; and if he will make a statement.
  145
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department is in regular contact with Wandsworth, as with other inner London boroughs, on a range of issues relating to their preparations for the transfer of education responsibility. These issues include the boroughs' development plans, the future of specific services, detailed arrangements for the transfer of functions and property and staffing matters.

  Teachers of the Deaf
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he plans to make any change in the local education authority training grants scheme so as to encourage an enhanced take-up of places for in-service training to become a specialist teacher of deaf children.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Training to become a qualified teacher of deaf children will again be a national priority area under the scheme in 1989–90 and grant-aided allocations to support our target number of 110 trainees were announced to authorities last autumn. My right hon. Friend will shortly consider detailed arrangements for the scheme in 1990–91.

  Inner London Education Authority
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made by London boroughs in preparing for taking over the responsibilities currently undertaken by the Inner London education authority.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The inner London councils are required, under section 165 of the Education Reform Act, to publish a development plan for education in their area. Ten have already done so, and the remaining three have confirmed that they will do so later this week. All the councils have consulted locally about their proposed plans and have also reached joint agreement on a range of important issues of common concern. They continue to discuss arrangements for certain services currently provided on a cross-borough basis. The Government are making available £25 million specific grant for the councils in 1989–90 to support continued planning and preparation; all are making senior appointments to their education departments and are preparing to take on further staff to work on transfer arrangements. The Government look to the inner London councils to maintain and indeed increase this momentum in the coming months.

  Secondary School Pupils
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the latest figure for spending per secondary pupil in inner London and the comparable figures for the rest of London and for the former metropolitan authorities.

  Mr. Butcher
  The average net institutional expenditure per pupil in maintained secondary schools in 1986–87, the latest year for which information about actual spending is available, is given in the table:
  146

  Average net institutional expenditure1 per secondary pupil2

  £ per pupil 1986–87 cash terms

  ILEA

  2,350

  Outer London boroughs

  1,550

  Metropolitan districts

  1,355

  1 Net institutional expenditure includes the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  2 The figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to DOE and pupil number returns to DES.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the implications for medical research financed by the Medical Research Council of new proposals for the funding of the hospital service.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements he has made to protect medical research supported by the Medical Research Council with co-operation in clinical aspects by the National Health Service, in the light of the Government's new proposals for the funding of hospital services.

  Mr. Jackson
  The White Paper "Working for Patients' (Cm. 555) makes it clear that the Government are firmly committed to maintaining the quality of medical education and research. In the light of the proposals in the White Paper, the Government will be considering how best to ensure that costs associated with research in the National Health Service are met, and that appropriate arrangements exist between the MRC and the Health Service for the effective prosecution of research.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on future Government support for clinical medical research.

  Mr. Jackson
  The main agency through which the Government support medical research, including clinical medical research, is the Medical Research Council. My right hon. Friend announced on 7 February 1989 that the council's grant-in-aid for 1989–90 will be £176 million. This is an increase in real terms of 12 per cent. on the 1988–89 figure of £150 million. The council's cash planning figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are £181 million and £185 million respectively; these will be subject to review in the usual way in the public expenditure survey. The allocation of the council's funds between clinical and other research is a matter for the council, but I understand that it is planning to increase its emphasis on clinical research. Some support of clinical research is also provided through UGC block grants to universities and medical schools, and through regional health authorities' spending.

  LEAs (Charging)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the implementation of the circular on charging by local education authorities, following the enactment of the Education Reform Act 1988.
  147
  Mr. Butcher
  The circular on charges for school activities describes provisions in the Education Reform Act 1988 which come into force on 1 April. My right hon. Friend will be monitoring the implementation of these provisions.

  School Buildings
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make extra capital allocations to inner London boroughs to programme improvements to school buildings; and in the case of Tower Hamlets, if he will provide immediate resources to allow further expansion of the inner London education authority's school building programme.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has announced the education block capital allocation for the inner London education authority for 1989–90. In making this allocation he took account of expected changes in pupil population, including those in Tower Hamlets. From 1 April 1990. the Government propose new arrangements for local authority capital expenditure; the Local Government and Housing Bill, currently before the House, sets out these arrangements.

  Village Schools
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps he plans to take to encourage small village schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  Responsibility for educational provision in maintained schools in rural as well as in other areas rests with local education authorities. My right hon. Friend is continuing to support through education support grant some £1·5 million expenditure per annum on pilot projects in a number of LEAs with a view to improving the quality and range of the curriculum in small rural primary schools. My right hon. Friend is also proposing to support a research project by the university of Leicester to evaluate the pilot projects with a view to making recommendations on practices which could successfully be replicated in other LEAs.

  Children in Care
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure that children who have been in the care of several local authorities are not disbarred from access to discretionary local authority grants.

  Mr. Jackson
  This is a matter for individual local education authorities.

  Secondary schools in England

  Examination results: average over the academic years 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87

  Local education authorities

  Expenditure per pupil (£) in the financial year 1986–87

  Percentage of school leavers attaining 5+ higher grades at O-level/CSE

  Ranking

  Barking

  1,470

  9·9

  96

  Barnet

  1,510

  41·0

  1

  Bexley

  1,370

  26·6

  24

  Teacher Supply
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on teacher supply in London and the south-east.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on teacher supply in London and the south-east.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We recognise that there are problems of teacher supply in London and in the south-east more widely. Much can be done locally through good recruitment and deployment measures. Our current action programme to combat teacher shortages focuses on regions with recruitment difficulties.

  Primary School Teachers (London)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what specific initiatives he Intends to fund, beyond that which the local authorities are undertaking, to overcome the shortage of primary education teachers in London.

  Mr. Butcher
  There is no shortage of primary teachers nationally, though we recognise that there are problems in London and the south-east. Officers of the DES and the teaching as a career unit discuss recruitment measures with local education authorities. Our publicity and advertising continues to emphasise the demand for primary school staff in London.

  Local Authority Expenditure (Examinations)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list of local education authority expenditure per capita, together with their position of relative examination success, for the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information gives the average cost per secondary school pupil for the financial year 1986–87; and the three-year average, over the academic years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87, of the proportion of school leavers who attained five or more higher grades at O-level/CSE. The latter figures are drawn from a 10 per cent. sample of pupils at each school. Sampling error is a major consideration where information in respect of individual local education authorities is concerned. While presentation of the figures in the form of a three-year average may help to mitigate the effects of sampling error, information presented over five individual years, as requested, would be subject to excessive fluctuation for valid year to year comparisons.
  149

  Examination results: average over the academic years 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87

  Local education authorities

  Expenditure per pupil (£) in the financial year 1986–87

  Percentage of school leavers attaining 5+ higher grades at O-level/CSE

  Ranking

  Brent

  1,805

  19·1

  74

  Bromley

  1,420

  30·5

  10

  Croydon

  1,535

  22·9

  52

  Ealing

  1,650

  19·6

  68

  Enfield

  1,380

  23·7

  45

  Haringey

  n.a.

  17·3

  83

  Harrow

  1,600

  37·8

  2

  Havering

  1,510

  23·9

  44

  Hillingdon

  1,520

  21·2

  62

  Hounslow

  1,505

  21·5

  61

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,530

  34·8

  3

  Merton

  1,325

  24·9

  37

  Newham

  n.a.

  12·4

  93

  Redbridge

  1,465

  25·6

  32

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,330

  26·5

  25

  Sutton

  1,300

  34·4

  4

  Waltham Forest

  1,915

  11·0

  94

  Birmingham

  1,345

  16·9

  85

  Coventry

  1,485

  19·9

  67

  Dudley

  1,350

  21·5

  59

  Sandwell

  1,410

  13·4

  92

  Solihull

  1,280

  29·4

  11

  Walsall

  1,430

  19·1

  73

  Wolverhampton

  1,395

  15·4

  89

  Knowsley

  1,515

  10·6

  95

  Liverpool

  1,445

  17·0

  84

  St. Helens

  1,340

  23·6

  46

  Sefton

  1,275

  27·0

  22

  Wirral

  1,280

  23·5

  48

  Bolton

  1,230

  24·9

  36

  Bury

  1,340

  28·4

  15

  Manchester

  1,660

  17·3

  82

  Oldham

  1,255

  16·1

  87

  Rochdale

  1,460

  20·2

  64

  Salford

  1,385

  18·9

  76

  Stockport

  1,270

  24·3

  41

  Tameside

  1,325

  23·5

  47

  Trafford

  1,315

  31·7

  7

  Wigan

  1,460

  27·2

  19

  Barnsley

  1,325

  15·7

  88

  Doncaster

  1,325

  19·2

  72

  Rotherham

  1,230

  17·4

  81

  Sheffield

  1,490

  18·9

  75

  Bradford

  1,235

  16·7

  86

  Calderdale

  1,330

  19·3

  70

  Kirklees

  1,250

  24·1

  43

  Leeds

  1,230

  21·5

  58

  Wakefield

  1,290

  15·4

  90

  Gateshead

  1,360

  18·8

  77

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,530

  17·7

  80

  North Tyneside

  1,455

  21·9

  57

  South Tyneside

  1,430

  18·1

  79

  Sunderland

  1,305

  19·3

  71

  ILEA

  2,345

  15·4

  91

  Avon

  1,310

  24·7

  38

  Bedfordshire

  1,250

  25·9

  29

  Berkshire

  1,280

  27·5

  18

  Buckinghamshire

  1,320

  31·6

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  1,205

  24·4

  40

  Cheshire

  1,235

  26·6

  23

  Cleveland

  1,355

  27·5

  17

  Cornwall

  1,175

  25·5

  33

  Cumbria

  1,315

  24·2

  42

  Derbyshire

  1,305

  21·5

  60

  Devon

  1,225

  23·4

  49

  Dorset

  1,190

  28·4

  16

  Durham

  1,225

  20·0

  66

  East Sussex

  1,235

  25·7

  31

  Essex

  1,255

  25·1

  35

  Gloucestershire

  1,260

  28·6

  14

  150 151

  Examination results: average over the academic years 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87

  Local education authorities

  Expenditure per pupil (£) in the financial year 1986–87

  Percentage of school leavers attaining 5+ higher grades at O-level/CSE

  Ranking

  Hampshire

  1,220

  26·0

  28

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,180

  25·7

  30

  Hertfordshire

  1,350

  28·9

  13

  Humberside

  1,270

  21·1

  63

  Isle of Wight

  1,150

  18·3

  78

  Kent

  1,145

  27·1

  20

  Lancashire

  1,255

  24·7

  39

  Leicestershire

  1,390

  22·9

  51

  Lincolnshire

  1,185

  25·3

  34

  Norfolk

  1,230

  21·9

  56

  North Yorkshire

  1,240

  31·4

  9

  Northamptonshire

  1,250

  20·0

  65

  Northumberland

  1,230

  29·0

  12

  Nottinghamshire

  1,365

  19·6

  69

  Oxfordshire

  1,350

  26·5

  26

  Shropshire

  1,285

  27·0

  21

  Somerset

  1,195

  22·2

  53

  Staffordshire

  1,255

  23·4

  50

  Suffolk

  1,165

  22·0

  55

  Surrey

  1,260

  34·4

  5

  Warwickshire

  1,220

  26·2

  27

  West Sussex

  1,220

  32·1

  6

  Wiltshire

  1,230

  22·1

  54

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the safety nets to be introduced for the inner London boroughs, to coincide with the introduction of the community charge and the abolition of the Inner London education authority, will be based on the actual level of spending by the Inner London education authority, or the Government's assessment of educational needs in individual boroughs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Proposals have been put to the local authority associations about the basis for the national safety net adjustments to revenue support grant which will apply from 1 April 1990. The proposals do not envisage that the safety net spending assumption will be based on local authorities' needs assessments but the two options put forward do assume that safety nets will be based on a measure of spending in 1989–90 uprated for inflation. One option is to base the safety net spending assumption on the 1989–90 RSG settlement spending assumption; the other option is to base the safety net spending assumption on the actual domestic rate poundage levied in 1989–90.

  Inner London Education Authority
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether he has received any representations from the borough of Wandsworth about the funding of the transitional arrangements in 1989–90 for the abolition of the Inner London education authority; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he has received any representations from the borough of Wandsworth about the levels of funding for education following the abolition of the Inner London education authority in 1990; and if he will make a statement;
  152
  (3) whether he has any plans to meet representatives from the borough of Wandsworth to discuss funding for education following the abolition of the Inner London education authority in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Wandsworth's director of education wrote to the Department on 20 January, welcoming the specific grant for preparatory costs which was announced before Christmas. There has been correspondence between the borough and the Department on matters relating to capital expenditure from April 1990. No other specific representations have been received from Wandsworth, although my right hon. Friend and I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the inner London boroughs, including Wandsworth, at which the financing of education in inner London from April 1990 has been among the subjects discussed. A further such meeting is likely to take place soon.

  Education (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates have been made by the London borough of Wandsworth of the cost of running education services in the borough in 1990–91; and what sum his Department has estimated for such provision.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Estimates made by the London borough of Wandworth are a matter for that borough. The Department is discussing with the inner London boroughs generally the basis of the revised needs assessments for education from 1 April 1990 and an appropriate disaggregation of ILEA spending. The cost of running education after transfer will depend on the policies adopted by each borough and the efficiency with which they are delivered.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in the last six months concerning United Kingdom research into the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received eight representations on matters which raise issues relevant to United Kingdom research into the greenhouse effect.

  Full-time Education
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the level of those aged 16 years staying on in full-time education.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 10 February at cols.846–850. The Government are committed to encouraging young people to pursue both full and part-time courses of education and training beyond the age of 16.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate (Annual Report)
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when Her Majesty's inspectorate's latest annual report will be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Her Majesty's inspectorate's annual report covering the academic year 1987–88 has been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The report draws on evidence from the inspection and other activity of Her Majesty's inspectorate and on the reports published by Her Majesty's inspectorate throughout the academic year. As I announced in October 1987, this is a new-style annual Her Majesty's inspectorate report which takes the place of previous reports which were based on inspections carried out in just one term.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Spending Power
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, on a similar basis to his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 22 June,Official Report, columns 575–80, he will publish figures showing the average total weekly benefit payable to disabled claimants in (a) Durham and (b) England, before and after the social security reforms of April were completely phased in.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Department's published "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits", a copy of which is in the Library, shows the estimated effects of the reformed benefit system on, among others, the sick and disabled. Tables 9A and 9B show in both cash and structural terms the estimated average change in disposable income of the sick and disabled.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have lost transitional protection at the most recent date.
  154
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Income Support (Water Rates)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much income support was paid out by his Department as a part of water rates for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Income Support
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the average time an unemployed claimant has to wait for income support once he or she has registered for benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Income support is normally paid fortnightly in arrears in line with unemployment benefit. I regret that no information is available on the average time that elapses between registration and the first payment of benefit.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to index-link the allowance per resident in private residential homes and private nursing homes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The maximum amounts payable under income support to people in independent residential care and nursing homes are reviewed annually as part of the general uprating of social security benefits. Increases are made selectively to take account of the charges levied by different types of home. There are no plans to link the maximum amounts directly to a particular index.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from associations or organisations representing private residential homes or private nursing homes concerning the allowance per resident.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received representations from the Registered Nursing Homes Association, the Independent Hospitals Association, and the National Confederation of Registered Residential Care Homes Associations.

  Benefit (Take-up)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Greenock and Port Glasgow were in receipt of(a) attendance allowance at (i) the higher rate and (ii) the lower rate, (b) invalid care allowance, (c) mobility allowance, (d) invalidity benefit, (e) severe disablement allowance, (f) industrial disablement pension, (g) war disablement pension, (h) retirement pension, (i) income support and (j) supplementary benefit at the latest date for which figures are available; what those dates are; and if he will give comparable figures for five years and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that information is not available in the precise form requested. Nor are details
  155
  available of the number of people in Greenock and Port Glasgow receiving (a) attendance allowance, (b) invalid care allowance, (c) mobility allowance, (f) industrial disablement pension, (g) war disablement pension or (h) retirement pension.

  The following table gives the information available on the dates listed:

  Greenock

  Port Glasgow

  (d) Invalidity benefit1

  As at 31 January 1989

  4,463

  2,008

  As at 15 January 1985

  3,481

  1,446

  (e) Severe disablement allowance

  As at 31 January 1989

  393

  256

  As at 15 January 1985

  311

  211

  (i) Income support

  As at 30 November 1988

  11,423

  4,708

  (j) Supplementary benefit

  As at 18 November 1987

  12,338

  5,369

  As at 6 December 1983

  9,720

  4,128

  As at 27 November 1979

  6,317

  2,814

  1 Includes an unknown number of sickness benefit claimants as separate records of sickness/invalidity benefit claimants are not kept.

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action.

  Note: With the exception of supplementary benefit, comparable figures for five years and 10 years ago are no longer held.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the take-up rate of benefits since the introduction of the income support scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) on 8 February at column 713.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people would gain and what would be the average gain as a result of raising the level of savings under which housing benefit is payable to £10,000 on the assumption that(a) the rules for other benefits are

  Old benefit system at hypothetical rates April 1988

  South Tyneside LA

  Married couple with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net inc. after housing costs

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  28·70

  14·50

  17·32

  15·80

  8·08

  5·64

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  94·77

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  23·70

  14·50

  17·32

  14·55

  8·08

  5·24

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·22

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  18·70

  14·50

  17·32

  13·30

  8·08

  4·84

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  97·65

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  13·70

  14·50

  17·32

  12·05

  8·08

  4·44

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  97·60

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  8·70

  14·50

  17·32

  10·80

  8·08

  4·04

  5·95

  2·55

  1·83

  97·55

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  3·70

  14·50

  17·32

  9·29

  8·08

  3·48

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  94·88

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  14·50

  17·32

  7·21

  8·08

  2·66

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  92·85

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·00

  14·50

  17·32

  3·91

  8·08

  1·36

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  94·65

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  14·50

  17·32

  0·61

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  96·39

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  99·63

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  106·03

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  112·43

  156
  unaltered, (b) the interest actually received on savings and not an arbitrarily assumed return is used in assessing benefit and (c) no change is made to the rule that those with savings of under £3,000 receive benefit in full;

  (2) what would be the cost of raising the level of savings under which housing benefit is payable to £10,000 (a) in 1989–90 and (b) in a full year on the assumption that (i) the rules for other benefits are unaltered, (ii) the interest actually received on savings and not an arbitrarily assumed return is used in assessing benefit and (iii) no change is made to the rule that those with savings of under £3,000 receive benefit in full.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as can be obtained as soon as possible.

  Spending Power
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables using the assumptions in his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 22 June,Official Report, columns 575–80, but using expenditure and benefit figures appropriate for families in south Tyneside, together with a column showing the extent of the differences resulting from the April benefit changes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 22 December 1988]: The information requested is set out in the tables. They compare the post-reform position in April 1988 not with all actual pre-form cash situation but with a hypothetical position which might have occurred, had the previous structure continued and been uprated on the assumptions in "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits" (October 1987).

  In addition, it should be noted that although the comparisons are based on average local authority housing charges in south Tyneside they do not necessarily reflect either the wide variety of rents and domestic rates that people in the borough actually pay or real families' circumstances and their housing arrangements. Finally, the comparisons take no account of the housing benefit transitional cash protection announced on 27 April.
  157

  New benefit system from April 1988

  South Tyneside LA

  Married couple with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net inc. after housing costs

  Difference between systems

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  40·32

  14·50

  17·32

  2·56

  8·08

  0·67

  5·85

  83·80

  -10·97

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  34·65

  14·50

  17·32

  0·98

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  83·98

  -12·24

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  28·99

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  85·42

  -12·23

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  24·37

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  87·40

  -10·20

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  19·75

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  89·38

  -8·17

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  16·67

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  90·70

  -4·18

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  12·19

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  92·62

  -0·23

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  7·71

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  94·54

  -0·11

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  3·23

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  96·46

  +0·07

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  99·63

  0·00

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  106·03

  0·00

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  112·43

  0·00

  Old benefit system at hypothetical rates April 1988

  South Tyneside LA

  Married couple with 3 children aged 3, 8 and 11

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net inc. after housing costs

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  32·90

  21·75

  17·32

  16·84

  8·08

  5·98

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  110·15

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  30·50

  21·75

  17·32

  14·94

  8·08

  5·37

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  113·34

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  25·50

  21·75

  17·32

  13·69

  8·08

  4·97

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  114·77

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  20·50

  21·75

  17·32

  12·44

  8·08

  4·57

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  114·72

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  15·50

  21·75

  17·32

  11·19

  8·08

  4·17

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  114·67

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  10·50

  21·75

  17·32

  9·80

  8·08

  3·68

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  112·19

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  5·50

  21·75

  17·32

  8·15

  8·08

  3·03

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  111·29

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·50

  21·75

  17·32

  6·50

  8·08

  2·38

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  110·39

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  21·75

  17·32

  3·36

  8·08

  1·14

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  110·08

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  111·98

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  113·28

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  119·68

  New benefit system from April 1988

  South Tyneside LA

  Married couple with 3 children aged 3, 8 and 11

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net inc. after housing costs

  Difference between systems

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  51·72

  21·75

  17·32

  0·90

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  100·12

  -10·03

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  46·05

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  101·65

  -11·69

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  40·39

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  104·07

  -10·70

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  35·77

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  106·05

  -8·67

  100·00

  6·62

  70·0

  31·15

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  108·03

  -6·64

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  28·07

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  109·35

  -2·84

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  23·59

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  111·27

  -0·02

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  19·11

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  113·19

  +2·80

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  14·63

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  115·11

  +5·03

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  10·15

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  117·03

  +5·05

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  5·67

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  118·95

  +5·67

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  1·19

  21·75

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  120·87

  +1·19

  Old benefit system at hypothetical rates April 1988

  South Tyneside LA

  Single person with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net inc. after housing costs

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  28·70

  19·40

  17·32

  14·58

  8·08

  5·25

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  98·06

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  23·70

  19·40

  17·32

  13·33

  8·08

  4·85

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  99·51

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  18·70

  19·40

  17·32

  12·08

  8·08

  4·45

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  100·94

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  13·70

  19·40

  17·32

  10·83

  8·08

  4·05

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  100·89

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  8·70

  19·40

  17·32

  9·32

  8·08

  3·49

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  100·42

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  3·70

  19·40

  17·32

  7·67

  8·08

  2·84

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  97·52

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  19·40

  17·32

  5·59

  8·08

  2·02

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  95·49

  158 159

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net inc. after housing costs

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·00

  19·40

  17·32

  2·29

  8·08

  0·72

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  97·29

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  100·68

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  104·53

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  110·93

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  19·40

  17·32

  ·000

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  117·33

  New benefit system from April 1988

  South Tyneside LA

  Single person with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net inc. after housing costs

  Difference between systems

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  40·32

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  85·47

  -12·59

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  34·65

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  87·90

  -11·61

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  28·99

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  90·32

  -10·62

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  24·37

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  92·30

  -8·59

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  19·75

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  94·28

  -6·14

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  16·67

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  95·60

  -1·92

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  12·19

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  97·52

  +2·03

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  7·71

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  99·44

  +2·15

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  3·23

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  101·36

  +0·68

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  104·53

  0·00

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  110·93

  0·00

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  19·40

  17·32

  0·00

  8·08

  0·00

  5·85

  117·33

  0·00

  Benefit system from April 1988

  Assumptions as in "Impact of reformed structure of income related benefits" October 1987.

  Average local authority rent and rates for South Tyneside lone mother with two children aged 4 and 6

  Income Support

  Rent

  Rates

  Housing Benefit

  CHB

  FSM

  FWM

  Net weekly spending power

  Difference between systems

  a. Not working after one year on benefit

  45·35

  17·32

  8·08

  23·84

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  66·27

  -1·88

  Income support

  Earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Fares to work

  Rent

  Rates

  Housing Benefit

  CHB

  FSM

  FWM

  Net weekly spending power

  Difference between systems

  b. Working part time earning £20

  40·35

  20·00

  0·00

  0·00

  2·92

  17·32

  8·08

  23·84

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  78·35

  +8·16

  c. Working part time earning £40

  20·35

  40·00

  0·00

  0·00

  2·92

  17·32

  8·08

  23·84

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  78·35

  +6·70

  Old tax and benefit system—assuming average local authority rent and rates for South Tyneside and a simple rescaling of April 1987 benefits to April 1988

  Lone mother with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Not working after one year on benefit

  Working part time earning £20

  Working part time earning £40

  £

  £

  £

  Supplementary benefit

  45·93

  30·89

  14·35

  Earnings

  —

  20·00

  40·00

  Tax

  —

  0·00

  0·00

  NI

  —

  0·00

  2·00

  Fares to work

  —

  2·92

  2·92

  Rent

  17·32

  17·32

  17·32

  Rates

  8·08

  8·08

  8·08

  Housing benefit

  23·84

  23·84

  23·84

  CHB

  19·40

  19·40

  19·40

  FSM

  2·55

  2·55

  2·55

  FWM

  1·83

  1·83

  1·83

  Net weekly spending power

  68·15

  70·19

  71·65

  160

  Widows
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received concerning benefits for widows since the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  [pursuant to the reply, 19 December 1988, column 123]: I have been closely monitoring the operation of the social security reforms introduced by the Social Security Act 1986. An important part of those reforms was the restructuring of widows' benefits. The prime purpose of these changes was to focus help on older widows and widows with dependent children.

  The Government believed then—and continue to believe—that the measures taken to change widows' benefit were right; over the years the needs of widows have changed dramatically. But the basic structure of widows' benefits have remained substantially unaltered for forty years, a period when there have been far reaching social changes. More women work than ever before and occupational pension cover for widows has grown significantly. The reforms concentrate help when and where it is most needed—immediately on bereavement and to provide continuing help to widows with children and older widows.

  When the revised arrangements were introduced on 11 April 1988, some women whose husbands had died before that date lost their entitlement to widows' pension which they would have had under the old rules. Several such widows have taken cases to the social security commissioner. The commissioner's decisions on four of those cases were published earlier today. We are studying carefully the full legal implications and whether there is a need to appeal on any point. The commissioner decided in these cases that there was entitlement to widows' pension for those receiving widows' allowance but not for those receiving widowed mothers' allowance. I have decided however irrespective of the commissioner's decisions, on grounds of equity and fairness, to extend entitlement to women widowed before 11 April 1988 on the basis of the arrangements applying before that date. My decision will bring in those entitled to widowed mothers' allowance as well as widows' allowance.

  As a consequence of my decision, entitlement to widows' pension will be extended to the following groups of women widowed before 11 April 1988.

  (i)Women widowed when aged 40 or over but under 45 entitled to widows' allowance on 11 April 1988 (the group benefiting from the commissioner's decision). This group will now have entitlement to widows' pension.

  (ii) Women widowed when aged 45 or over but under 55 entitled to widows' allowance on 11 April 1988. This group will now have entitlement to a higher rate of widows' pension.

  (iii) Women entitled to widowed mothers' allowance on 11 April 1988 and who will be aged 40 or over but under 45 when their children cease to be dependent. This group will have entitlement to widows' pension.

  (iv) Women entitled to widowed mothers' allowance on 11 April 1988 and who will be aged 45 or over but under 55 when their children cease to be dependent. This group will have entitlement to a higher rate of widows' pension.

  162
  There will be no changes to affect those women widowed after 11 April 1988.

  My Department will be identifying and contacting the women affected in the next few weeks, and will be arranging payment as soon as possible. Any widow who thinks she may be affected and who has not been contacted within six weeks should get in touch with her local social security office. Over 20,000 women are expected to be affected by these changes at an estimated net cost to public funds of around £5 million in a full year. Payments will be made from the national insurance fund. The additional costs in the current year and 1989–90 will be met from the Reserve. It will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. I propose to bring forward an amendment to the Social Security Bill currently before the House as soon as practicable. This will also include provision to allow payment of benefit in cases beyond a 12-month period.

EMPLOYMENT

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications in rationalising vocational qualifications.

  Mr. Cope
  The National Council for Vocational Qualifications, with the support of industry and the examining and awarding bodies, has established a four-level framework for national vocational qualifications (NVQ) and is making good progress in accrediting qualifications within that framework.

  Qualifications are accredited only if they are based on nationally agreed standards of competence; they are then allocated to the appropriate NVQ level. This process is already producing a clearer and more comprehensible qualifications system, and has led in some areas to the replacement of several awards by a single NVQ.

  So far, more than 80 qualifications from many sectors of industry and commerce have been accredited, and the council is on target to have levels one to four in place in all significant sectors of employment by 1991.

  TVEI
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to further develop and extend the technical and vocational education initiative.

  Mr. Cope
  All education authorities in the country are now participating in TVEI; 48 authorities are currently involved in extending the initiative to all their schools and colleges, 30 more authorities will begin their extension programmes in September 1989, and negotiations are continuing with a number of others. From this autumn, half a million students in more than 3,000 schools and colleges will be participating in TVEI.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of(a) employees in employment, (b) self-employed, (c) persons on Government training schemes, and (d) Her Majesty's

  163
  forces each year at mid-year from 1979; and what was the increase each year in each case in numbers and by percentage.

  Work force in employment in Great Britain

  Thousand. Seasonally adjusted

  Employees in employment

  Self-employed

  Participants in work related government training programmes

  Her Majesty's Forces

  Work force in employment2

  June each year

  Number

  Net change since previous year

  Number

  Net change since previous year

  Number

  Net change since previous year

  Number

  Net change since previous year

  Number

  Net change since previous year

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1979

  22·611

  365

  2

  1·842

  -1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  314

  -4

  -1

  24·767

  360

  2

  1980

  22·432

  -179

  -1

  1·950

  108

  6

  0

  0

  0

  323

  9

  3

  24·706

  -61

  0

  1981

  21·362

  -1·070

  -5

  2·058

  108

  6

  0

  0

  0

  334

  11

  3

  23·754

  -952

  -4

  1982

  20·896

  -466

  -2

  2·109

  51

  3

  0

  0

  0

  324

  -10

  -3

  23·329

  -425

  -2

  1983

  20·556

  -340

  -2

  2·160

  51

  2

  8

  —

  —

  322

  -2

  -1

  23·046

  -283

  -1

  1984

  20·729

  173

  1

  2·435

  275

  13

  168

  160

  2·000

  326

  4

  1

  23·658

  612

  3

  1985

  20·995

  266

  1

  2·550

  115

  5

  168

  0

  0

  326

  0

  0

  24·039

  381

  2

  1986

  21·079

  84

  0

  2·567

  17

  1

  218

  50

  30

  322

  -4

  -1

  24·184

  145

  1

  1987

  21·315

  236

  1

  2·801

  234

  9

  303

  85

  39

  319

  -3

  -1

  24·736

  552

  2

  19881

  21·597

  282

  1

  2·925

  124

  4

  335

  32

  11

  316

  -3

  -1

  25·172

  436

  2

  1 Self-employed figures for June 1988 are projections.

  2 The work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed, Her Majesty's Forces and participants on work related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of vacancies, both regionally and nationally, each month since January 1986; and what was the six-monthly change in percentage terms in each case.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is also in the Library. The table shows the seasonally adjusted level of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres for each month since January 1986 by region and nationally, together with the percentage change compared with six months previously.

  Unfilled vacancies at jobcentres

  Unfilled vacancies (seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage change compared with six months ago

  1986

  January

  60,330

  -2·8

  February

  63,460

  1·9

  March

  64,410

  5·0

  April

  65,250

  4·5

  May

  63,960

  3·8

  June

  68,280

  14·5

  July

  72,380

  20·0

  August

  75,480

  18·9

  September

  76,710

  19·1

  October

  78,790

  20·8

  November

  80,820

  26·4

  December

  80,170

  17·4

  1987

  January

  81,760

  13·0

  February

  80,180

  6·2

  March

  82,360

  7·4

  April

  83,540

  6·0

  May

  87,200

  7·9

  June

  87,920

  9·7

  July

  90,460

  10·6

  August

  90,690

  13·1

  September

  94,220

  14·4

  October

  101,040

  20·9

  November

  107,060

  22·8

  December

  102,330

  16·4

  1988

  January

  100,680

  11·3

  February

  100,380

  10·7

  March

  98,500

  4·5

  April

  101,520

  ·5

  May

  100,300

  -6·3

  June

  100,790

  -1·5

  July

  95,930

  -4·7

  August

  92,430

  -7·9

  164
  Mr. Lee
  The information is as follows:

  Unfilled vacancies (seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage change compared with six months ago

  September

  88,860

  -9·8

  October

  91,060

  -10·3

  November

  87,510

  -12·8

  December

  82,680

  -18·0

  1989

  January

  79,400

  -17·2

  Greater London

  1986

  January

  24,960

  -5·5

  February

  26,240

  -0·5

  March

  27,190

  5·1

  April

  27,360

  5·8

  May

  27,750

  7·9

  June

  28,440

  14·3

  July

  30,530

  22·3

  August

  32,430

  23·6

  September

  32,630

  20·0

  October

  33,360

  21·9

  November

  34,500

  24·3

  December

  34,650

  21·8

  1987

  January

  35,700

  16·9

  February

  35,520

  9·5

  March

  35,620

  9·2

  April

  35,810

  7·3

  May

  36,310

  5·2

  June

  36,250

  4·6

  July

  37,740

  5·7

  August

  36,950

  4·0

  September

  38,530

  8·2

  October

  40,960

  14·4

  November

  43,160

  18·9

  December

  40,440

  11·6

  1988

  January

  38,640

  2·4

  February

  36,580

  -1·0

  March

  34,290

  -11·0

  April

  35,130

  -14·2

  May

  34,350

  -20·4

  June

  33,550

  -17·0

  July

  30,450

  -21·2

  August

  29,400

  -19·6

  September

  27,770

  -19·0

  October

  29,010

  -17·4

  November

  28,550

  -16·9

  December

  28,430

  -15·3

  1989

  165

  Unfilled vacancies (seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage change compared with six months ago

  January

  26,800

  -12·0

  East Anglia

  1986

  January

  5,670

  -3·1

  February

  5,660

  -5·7

  March

  5,700

  -3·6

  April

  5,710

  -2·1

  May

  5,380

  -4·6

  June

  6,020

  10·5

  July

  6,340

  11·8

  August

  6,460

  14·1

  September

  6,560

  15·1

  October

  6,960

  21·9

  November

  6,690

  24·3

  December

  7,070

  17·4

  1987

  January

  6,910

  9·0

  February

  7,030

  8·8

  March

  7,480

  14·0

  April

  7,440

  6·9

  May

  7,850

  17·3

  June

  7,940

  12·3

  July

  7,870

  13·9

  August

  8,150

  15·9

  September

  8,320

  11·2

  October

  8,760

  17·7

  November

  8,990

  14·5

  December

  8,760

  10·3

  1988

  January

  8,830

  12·2

  February

  8,850

  8·6

  March

  9,060

  8·9

  April

  9,440

  7·8

  May

  9,810

  9·1

  June

  9,940

  13·5

  July

  10,420

  18·0

  August

  10,200

  15·3

  September

  10,310

  13·8

  October

  10,250

  8·6

  November

  10,120

  3·2

  December

  9,460

  -4·8

  1989

  January

  9,300

  -10·7

  South West

  1986

  January

  16,930

  3·4

  February

  17,940

  5·9

  March

  18,430

  11·6

  April

  18,210

  5·4

  May

  16,630

  -6·0

  June

  18,550

  7·3

  July

  18,610

  9·9

  August

  18,540

  3·3

  September

  18,570

  0·8

  October

  18,290

  0·4

  November

  18,630

  12·0

  December

  18,230

  -1·7

  1987

  January

  18,320

  -1·6

  February

  18,390

  -0·8

  March

  18,980

  2·2

  April

  19,300

  5·5

  May

  20,980

  12·6

  June

  20,150

  10·5

  July

  19,200

  4·8

  August

  19,620

  6·7

  September

  19,970

  5·2

  October

  20,880

  8·2

  November

  20,230

  -3·6

  December

  20,060

  -0·4

  166

  Unfilled vacancies (seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage change compared with six months ago

  1988

  January

  20,420

  6·4

  February

  19,820

  1·0

  March

  19,820

  -0·8

  April

  20,520

  -1·7

  May

  20,750

  2·6

  June

  20,940

  4·4

  July

  21,140

  3·5

  August

  20,160

  1·7

  September

  20,200

  1·9

  October

  20,600

  0·4

  November

  19,870

  -4·2

  December

  20,170

  -3·7

  1989

  January

  20,000

  -5·4

  West Midlands

  1986

  January

  13,180

  12·9

  February

  13,540

  12·3

  March

  14,140

  13·4

  April

  13,730

  6·0

  May

  13,960

  8·2

  June

  15,020

  15·9

  July

  15,910

  20·7

  August

  17,230

  27·3

  September

  16,530

  16·9

  October

  17,140

  24·8

  November

  16,990

  21·7

  December

  17,350

  15·5

  1987

  January

  17,590

  10·6

  February

  18,130

  5·2

  March

  18,330

  10·9

  April

  18,560

  8·3

  May

  20,570

  21·1

  June

  20,950

  20·7

  July

  21,450

  21·9

  August

  21,930

  21·0

  September

  22,740

  24·1

  October

  24,370

  31·3

  November

  24,750

  20·3

  December

  24,190

  15·5

  1988

  January

  24,370

  13·6

  February

  24,400

  11·3

  March

  24,010

  5·6

  April

  24,020

  -1·4

  May

  23,570

  -4·8

  June

  23,820

  -1·5

  July

  23,720

  -2·7

  August

  22,910

  -6·1

  September

  22,960

  -4·4

  October

  25,370

  5·6

  November

  25,270

  7·2

  December

  24,760

  3·9

  1989

  January

  23,110

  -2·6

  East Midlands

  1986

  January

  9,590

  5·3

  February

  9,790

  8·7

  March

  9,890

  10·4

  April

  9,910

  9·3

  May

  9,510

  3·4

  June

  9,940

  6·4

  July

  10,490

  9·4

  August

  10,830

  10·6

  September

  10,690

  8·1

  October

  11,170

  12·7

  167

  Unfilled vacancies (seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage change compared with six months ago

  November

  11,220

  18·0

  December

  10,810

  8·8

  1987

  January

  10,950

  4·4

  February

  11,090

  2·4

  March

  19,900

  2·0

  April

  11,670

  4·5

  May

  12,720

  13·4

  June

  12,500

  15·6

  July

  12,350

  12·8

  August

  12,410

  11·9

  September

  12,750

  17·0

  October

  13,150

  12·7

  November

  12,880

  1·3

  December

  12,740

  1·9

  1988

  January

  12,730

  3·1

  February

  13,010

  4·8

  March

  13,180

  3·4

  April

  13,750

  4·6

  May

  13,890

  7·8

  June

  14,030

  10·1

  July

  13,750

  8·0

  August

  13,580

  4·4

  September

  13,860

  5·2

  October

  14,630

  6·4

  November

  14,360

  3·4

  December

  14,190

  1·1

  1989

  January

  13,920

  1·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1986

  January

  9,350

  0·5

  February

  9,330

  9·0

  March

  9,410

  9·3

  April

  9,640

  13·5

  May

  10,320

  18·9

  June

  11,310

  22·4

  July

  11,720

  25·3

  August

  12,370

  32·6

  September

  12,460

  32·4

  October

  13,270

  37·7

  November

  13,620

  32·0

  December

  13,220

  16·9

  1987

  January

  13,860

  18·3

  February

  14,230

  15·0

  March

  14,980

  20·2

  April

  14,960

  12·7

  May

  15,800

  16·0

  June

  15,660

  18·5

  July

  15,290

  10·3

  August

  15,770

  10·8

  September

  16,230

  8·3

  October

  17,010

  13·7

  November

  16,840

  6·6

  December

  16,400

  4·7

  1988

  January

  15,910

  4·1

  February

  15,850

  0·5

  March

  15,690

  -3·3

  April

  15,730

  -7·5

  May

  15,110

  -10·3

  June

  15,140

  -7·7

  July

  15,210

  -4·4

  August

  15,030

  -5·2

  September

  15,340

  -2·2

  October

  16,340

  3·9

  November

  15,440

  2·2

  December

  14,880

  -1·7

  168

  Unfilled vacancies (seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage change compared with six months ago

  1989

  January

  14,420

  -5·2

  North West

  1986

  January

  16,820

  7·5

  February

  17,820

  12·5

  March

  17,480

  5·2

  April

  17,440

  3·9

  May

  17,330

  4·9

  June

  18,780

  12·1

  July

  19,400

  15·3

  August

  19,810

  11·2

  September

  19,630

  12·3

  October

  20,810

  19·3

  November

  21,330

  23·1

  December

  21,660

  15·3

  1987

  January

  21,970

  13·2

  February

  21,550

  8·8

  March

  22,580

  15·0

  April

  23,030

  10·7

  May

  24,220

  13·5

  June

  24,500

  13·1

  July

  24,970

  13·7

  August

  25,060

  16·3

  September

  25,070

  11·0

  October

  26,820

  16·5

  November

  26,310

  8·6

  December

  23,720

  -3·2

  1988

  January

  22,410

  -10·3

  February

  22,170

  -11·5

  March

  23,930

  -4·5

  April

  23,950

  -10·7

  May

  24,000

  -8·8

  June

  23,910

  0·8

  July

  23,250

  3·7

  August

  22,920

  3·4

  September

  23,420

  -2·1

  October

  25,770

  7·6

  November

  25,820

  7·6

  December

  24,670

  3·2

  1989

  January

  22,840

  -1·8

  Northern

  1986

  January

  8,240

  3·78

  February

  8,600

  12·27

  March

  8,800

  8·11

  April

  8,770

  8·54

  May

  8,910

  10·14

  June

  9,250

  16·65

  July

  9,780

  18·69

  August

  10,530

  22·44

  September

  10,610

  20·57

  October

  11,320

  29·08

  November

  11,600

  30·19

  December

  11,330

  22·49

  1987

  January

  11,560

  18·20

  February

  11,280

  7·12

  March

  11,270

  6·22

  April

  11,650

  2·92

  May

  11,720

  1·03

  June

  12,130

  7·06

  July

  12,260

  6·06

  August

  12,190

  8·07

  September

  12,170

  7·99

  October

  12,700

  9·01

  169

  Unfilled vacancies (seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage change compared with six months ago

  November

  12,800

  9·22

  December

  12,080

  -0·41

  1988

  January

  11,460

  -6·53

  February

  11,520

  -5·50

  March

  11,590

  -4·77

  April

  11,680

  -8·03

  May

  11,680

  -8·75

  June

  11,860

  -1·82

  July

  11,230

  -2·01

  August

  10,780

  -6·42

  September

  10,560

  -8·89

  October

  11,480

  -1·71

  November

  11,260

  -3·60

  December

  11,630

  -1·94

  1989

  January

  11,190

  -0·36

  Wales

  1986

  January

  8,510

  5·32

  February

  8,430

  6·04

  March

  8,790

  11·83

  April

  8,670

  7·17

  May

  8,750

  6·71

  June

  9,110

  7·18

  July

  9,660

  13·51

  August

  10,090

  19·69

  September

  10,400

  18·32

  October

  10,770

  24·22

  November

  10,200

  16·57

  December

  10,490

  15·15

  1987

  January

  10,510

  8·80

  February

  10,820

  7·23

  March

  10,280

  -1·15

  April

  10,230

  -5·01

  May

  10,510

  3·04

  June

  11,530

  9·91

  July

  10,990

  4·57

  August

  11,140

  2·96

  September

  11,270

  9·63

  October

  12,340

  20·63

  November

  11,810

  12·37

  December

  11,110

  -3·64

  1988

  January

  11,200

  1·91

  February

  11,180

  0·36

  March

  11,060

  -1·86

  April

  11,940

  -3·24

  May

  12,640

  7·03

  June

  12,400

  11·61

  July

  12,480

  11·43

  August

  12,130

  8·50

  September

  12,130

  9·67

  October

  12,430

  4·10

  November

  12,640

  0·00

  December

  12,360

  -0·32

  1989

  January

  12,140

  -2·72

  Scotland

  1986

  January

  14,320

  -1·58

  February

  14,940

  4·6

  March

  15,780

  8·1

  April

  15,740

  6·0

  May

  15,880

  9·7

  June

  16,990

  21·9

  July

  17,430

  21·7

  August

  17,280

  15·7

  170

  Unfilled vacancies (seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage change compared with six months ago

  September

  16,930

  7·3

  October

  16,360

  3·9

  November

  16,660

  4·9

  December

  16,750

  -1·4

  1987

  January

  17,470

  0·2

  February

  17,640

  2·1

  March

  17,910

  5·8

  April

  17,230

  5·3

  May

  18,050

  8·3

  June

  18,340

  9·5

  July

  18,430

  5·5

  August

  18,660

  5·8

  September

  19,460

  8·7

  October

  20,590

  19·5

  November

  20,950

  16·1

  December

  20,610

  12·4

  1988

  January

  19,630

  6·5

  February

  19,490

  4·4

  March

  19,750

  1·5

  April

  20,600

  0·0

  May

  20,060

  -4·2

  June

  19,630

  -4·8

  July

  19,790

  0·8

  August

  19,970

  2·5

  September

  20,040

  1·5

  October

  20,550

  -0·2

  November

  20,010

  -0·2

  December

  20,500

  4·4

  1989

  January

  19,910

  0·6

  Great Britain

  1986

  January

  162,940

  1·5

  February

  169,500

  5·6

  March

  172,840

  7·3

  April

  173,070

  5·6

  May

  170,640

  4·7

  June

  183,240

  13·8

  July

  191,700

  17·7

  August

  198,620

  17·2

  September

  199,080

  15·2

  October

  204,880

  18·4

  November

  207,760

  21·8

  December

  207,070

  13·0

  1987

  January

  210,900

  10·0

  February

  210,350

  5·9

  March

  215,070

  8·0

  April

  217,600

  6·2

  May

  229,640

  10·5

  June

  231,620

  11·9

  July

  233,280

  10·6

  August

  235,610

  12·0

  September

  242,200

  12·6

  October

  257,660

  18·4

  November

  262,610

  14·4

  December

  251,990

  8·8

  1988

  January

  247,640

  6·2

  February

  246,680

  4·7

  March

  246,590

  1·8

  April

  253,140

  -1·8

  May

  251,810

  -4·1

  June

  252,480

  0·2

  July

  246,930

  -0·3

  August

  240,110

  -2·7

  September

  237,650

  -3·6

  October

  248,460

  -1·8

  171

  Unfilled vacancies (seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage change compared with six months ago

  November

  242,290

  -3·8

  December

  235,300

  -6·8

  1989

  January

  226,200

  -8·4

  Northern Ireland

  1986

  January

  1,791

  9·9

  February

  1,907

  20·9

  March

  1,915

  16·4

  April

  2,069

  27·4

  May

  2,007

  22·6

  June

  1,992

  17·2

  July

  2,032

  13·5

  August

  2,128

  11·6

  September

  2,114

  10·4

  October

  2,118

  2·4

  November

  2,130

  6·1

  December

  1,925

  -3·4

  1987

  January

  2,010

  -1·1

  February

  1,990

  -6·5

  March

  1,963

  -7·1

  April

  1,981

  -6·5

  May

  1,992

  -6·5

  June

  2,031

  5·5

  July

  2,021

  0·5

  August

  2,089

  5·0

  September

  2,191

  11·6

  October

  2,246

  13·4

  November

  2,449

  22·9

  December

  2,937

  44·6

  1988

  January

  3,134

  55·1

  February

  2,871

  37·4

  March

  2,799

  27·7

  April

  2,801

  24·7

  May

  2,651

  8·2

  June

  2,619

  -10·8

  July

  2,725

  -13·1

  August

  2,639

  -8·1

  September

  2,625

  -6·2

  October

  2,695

  -3·8

  November

  2,863

  8·0

  December

  2,993

  14·3

  1989

  January

  2,989

  9·7

  United Kingdom

  1986

  Work force in employment in Great Britain (seasonally adjusted)

  Work force in employment

  Males

  Females

  Full-time

  Part-time1

  All

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  December 1979

  2

  2

  15,006

  5,827

  4,053

  9,880

  March 1980

  2

  2

  14,958

  5,777

  4,089

  9,866

  June 1980

  14,030

  856

  14,886

  5,711

  4,109

  9,819

  September 1980

  2

  2

  14,731

  5,663

  4,075

  9,738

  December 1980

  2

  2

  14,558

  5,589

  4,058

  9,647

  March 1981

  2

  2

  14,387

  5,532

  4,047

  9,579

  June 1981

  13,390

  843

  14,232

  5,480

  4,041

  9,521

  September 1981

  2

  2

  14,118

  5,458

  4,054

  9,512

  December 1981

  2

  2

  14,012

  5,425

  4,052

  9,478

  March 1982

  2

  2

  13,957

  5,449

  4,029

  9,478

  June 1982

  13,016

  869

  13,885

  5,420

  4,023

  9,443

  September 1982

  2

  2

  13,810

  5,369

  4,023

  9,392

  December 1982

  2

  2

  13,721

  5,366

  3,974

  9,340

  March 1983

  12,795

  868

  13,663

  5,357

  3,977

  9,334

  June 1983

  12,740

  895

  13,635

  5,378

  4,032

  9,411

  172

  Unfilled vacancies (seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage change compared with six months ago

  January

  164,731

  1·6

  February

  171,407

  5·7

  March

  174,755

  7·4

  April

  175,139

  5·8

  May

  172,647

  4·8

  June

  185,232

  13·8

  July

  193,732

  17·6

  August

  200,748

  17·1

  September

  201,194

  15·1

  October

  206,998

  18·2

  November

  209,890

  21·6

  December

  208,995

  12·8

  1987

  January

  212,910

  9·9

  February

  212,340

  5·8

  March

  217,033

  7·9

  April

  219,581

  6·1

  May

  231,632

  10·4

  June

  233,651

  11·8

  July

  235,301

  10·5

  August

  237,699

  11·9

  September

  244,391

  12·6

  October

  259,906

  18·4

  November

  265,059

  14·4

  December

  254,927

  9·1

  1988

  January

  250,774

  6·6

  February

  249,551

  5·0

  March

  249,389

  2·0

  April

  255,941

  -1·5

  May

  254,461

  -4·0

  June

  255,099

  0·1

  July

  249,655

  -0·4

  August

  242,749

  -2·7

  September

  240,275

  -3·7

  October

  251,155

  -1·9

  November

  245,153

  -3·7

  December

  238,293

  -6·6

  1989

  January

  229,229

  -8·2

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase in employment each quarter since January 1980; what was the percentage change for(a) each quarter and (b) each year; and how many jobs in each quarter were (i) full-time male, (ii) full-time female, (iii) part-time male and (iv) part-time female.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information is as follows:
  173

  Work force in employment

  Males

  Females

  Full-time

  Part-time1

  All

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  September 1983

  12,162

  982

  13,744

  5,417

  4,143

  9,560

  December 1983

  12,762

  1,039

  13,801

  5,459

  4,212

  9,670

  March 1984

  12,802

  1,030

  12,832

  5,496

  4,237

  9,733

  June 1984

  12,830

  1,045

  13,875

  5,523

  4,260

  9,783

  September 1984

  12,882

  1,048

  13,930

  5,558

  4,296

  9,854

  December 1984

  12,917

  1,077

  13,994

  5,570

  4,344

  9,914

  March 1985

  12,953

  1,062

  14,015

  5,605

  4,357

  9,962

  June 1985

  12,944

  1,086

  14,029

  5,623

  4,387

  10,010

  September 1985

  12,953

  1,096

  14,049

  5,636

  4,448

  10,084

  December 1985

  12,935

  1,112

  14,047

  5,643

  4,456

  10,099

  March 1986

  12,918

  1,086

  14,004

  5,647

  4,482

  10,128

  June 1986

  12,861

  1,138

  13,999

  5,647

  4,539

  10,186

  September 1986

  12,879

  1,167

  14,046

  5,672

  4,604

  10,276

  December 1986

  12,860

  1,198

  14,059

  5,706

  4,654

  10,359

  March 1987

  12,899

  1,201

  14,100

  5,723

  4,696

  10,418

  June 1987

  12,938

  1,263

  14,201

  5,777

  4,758

  10,535

  September 1987

  12,973

  1,306

  14,279

  5,808

  4,806

  10,614

  December 1987

  12,971

  1,343

  14,314

  5,858

  4,847

  10,705

  March 1988

  13,029

  1,330

  14,359

  5,892

  4,882

  10,774

  June 1988

  13,007

  1,356

  14,363

  5,910

  4,899

  10,809

  September 1988

  13,035

  1,358

  14,393

  5,966

  4,934

  10,899

  1 Part-time male figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  2 Unavailable.

  Work force in employment in Great Britain (seasonally adjusted)

  Net change over previous quarter

  Males

  Females

  Full-time

  Part-time1

  All

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  December 1979

  2

  2

  0

  6

  35

  41

  March 1980

  2

  2

  -47

  -51

  36

  -14

  June 1980

  2

  2

  -72

  -66

  19

  -46

  September 1980

  2

  2

  -155

  -48

  -33

  -81

  December 1980

  2

  2

  -173

  -74

  -17

  -92

  March 1981

  2

  2

  -172

  -56

  -11

  -67

  June 1981

  2

  2

  -154

  -52

  -6

  -58

  September 1981

  2

  2

  -114

  -22

  13

  -9

  December 1981

  2

  2

  -106

  -33

  -2

  -35

  March 1982

  2

  2

  -55

  24

  -23

  0

  June 1982

  2

  2

  -72

  -29

  -5

  -34

  September 1982

  2

  2

  -75

  -51

  -1

  -51

  December 1982

  2

  2

  -90

  -4

  -49

  -52

  March 1983

  2

  2

  -57

  -9

  3

  -6

  June 1983

  -55

  27

  -28

  21

  55

  77

  September 1983

  22

  87

  109

  38

  111

  149

  December 1983

  0

  57

  57

  42

  68

  110

  March 1984

  40

  -9

  31

  37

  26

  63

  June 1984

  28

  15

  43

  27

  23

  50

  September 1984

  52

  3

  55

  35

  36

  71

  December 1984

  35

  29

  64

  12

  48

  59

  March 1985

  36

  -16

  21

  35

  13

  49

  June 1985

  -10

  24

  14

  17

  30

  48

  September 1985

  10

  10

  20

  14

  61

  74

  December 1985

  -18

  16

  -2

  7

  8

  15

  March 1986

  -16

  -28

  -43

  4

  26

  29

  June 1986

  -57

  52

  -6

  0

  57

  57

  September 1986

  18

  30

  47

  25

  65

  90

  December 1986

  -18

  31

  13

  34

  50

  84

  March 1987

  39

  3

  42

  17

  42

  59

  June 1987

  39

  62

  101

  54

  62

  117

  September 1987

  34

  43

  78

  31

  48

  79

  December 1987

  -2

  37

  35

  50

  41

  92

  March 1988

  58

  -13

  45

  34

  35

  89

  June 1988

  -22

  26

  4

  18

  17

  35

  September 1988

  28

  2

  30

  56

  35

  91

  1 Part-time male figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  2 Unavailable.

  174 175

  Workforce in employment in Great Britain (seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage change over previous quarter

  Males

  Females

  Full-time

  Part-time1

  All

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  December 1979

  2

  2

  0·0

  0·1

  0·9

  0·4

  March 1980

  2

  2

  -0·3

  -0·9

  0·9

  -0·1

  June 1980

  2

  2

  -0·5

  -1·1

  0·5

  -0·5

  September 1980

  2

  2

  -1·0

  -0·8

  -0·8

  -0·8

  December 1980

  2

  2

  -1·2

  -1·3

  -0·4

  -0·9

  March 1981

  2

  2

  -1·2

  -1·0

  -0·3

  -0·7

  June 1981

  2

  2

  -1·1

  -0·9

  -0·1

  -0·6

  September 1981

  2

  2

  -0·8

  -0·4

  0·3

  -0·1

  December 1981

  2

  2

  -0·8

  -0·6

  0·0

  -0·4

  March 1982

  2

  2

  -0·4

  0·4

  -0·6

  0·0

  June 1982

  2

  2

  -0·5

  -0·5

  -0·1

  -0·4

  September 1982

  2

  2

  -0·5

  -0·9

  0·0

  -0·5

  December 1982

  2

  2

  -0·6

  -0·1

  -1·2

  -0·6

  March 1983

  2

  2

  -0·4

  -0·2

  0·1

  -0·1

  June 1983

  -0·4

  3·2

  -0·2

  0·4

  1·4

  0·8

  September 1983

  0·2

  9·7

  0·8

  0·7

  2·7

  1·6

  December 1983

  0·0

  5·8

  0·4

  0·8

  1·7

  1·2

  March 1984

  0·3

  -0·9

  0·2

  0·7

  0·6

  0·7

  June 1984

  0·2

  1·5

  0·3

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  September 1984

  0·4

  0·3

  0·4

  0·6

  0·8

  0·7

  December 1984

  0·3

  2·8

  0·5

  0·2

  1·1

  0·6

  March 1985

  0·3

  -1·4

  0·1

  0·6

  0·3

  0·5

  June 1985

  -0·1

  2·2

  0·1

  0·3

  0·7

  0·5

  September 1985

  0·1

  1·0

  0·1

  0·2

  1·4

  0·7

  December 1985

  -0·1

  1·5

  0·0

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  March 1986

  -0·1

  -2·3

  -0·3

  0·1

  0·6

  0·3

  June 1986

  -0·4

  4·8

  0·0

  0·0

  1·3

  0·8

  September 1986

  0·1

  2·6

  0·3

  0·4

  1·4

  0·9

  December 1986

  -0·1

  2·7

  0·1

  0·6

  1·1

  0·8

  March 1987

  0·3

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  0·9

  0·6

  June 1987

  0·3

  5·1

  0·7

  0·9

  1·3

  1·1

  September 1987

  0·3

  3·4

  0·5

  0·5

  1·0

  0·7

  December 1987

  0·0

  2·8

  0·2

  0·9

  0·9

  0·9

  March 1988

  0·4

  -1·0

  0·3

  0·6

  0·7

  0·6

  June 1988

  -0·2

  2·0

  0·0

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  September 1988

  0·2

  0·1

  0·2

  0·9

  0·7

  0·8

  1 Part-time male figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  2 Unavailable.

  Work force in employment in Great Britain (seasonally adjusted)

  Workforce in employment

  Males

  Females

  Full-time

  Part-time1

  All

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  December 1979

  2

  2

  47

  2

  2

  182

  March 1980

  2

  2

  -3

  2

  2

  128

  June 1980

  -105

  22

  -83

  -104

  126

  22

  September 1980

  2

  2

  -274

  -158

  58

  -100

  December 1980

  2

  2

  -447

  -239

  5

  -233

  March 1981

  2

  2

  -572

  -244

  -42

  -286

  June 1981

  -640

  -14

  -654

  -230

  -68

  -298

  September 1981

  2

  2

  -613

  -205

  -21

  -226

  December 1981

  2

  2

  -547

  -164

  -6

  -169

  March 1982

  2

  2

  -430

  -84

  -18

  -102

  June 1982

  -374

  27

  -347

  -60

  -18

  -78

  September 1982

  2

  2

  -308

  -89

  -32

  -120

  December 1982

  2

  2

  -291

  -59

  -78

  -138

  March 1983

  2

  2

  -294

  -92

  -52

  -144

  June 1983

  -276

  26

  -250

  -41

  9

  -33

  September 1983

  2

  2

  -66

  47

  121

  168

  December 1983

  2

  2

  80

  93

  238

  330

  March 1984

  7

  162

  169

  139

  260

  399

  June 1984

  90

  150

  240

  145

  228

  372

  September 1984

  120

  66

  186

  141

  153

  294

  December 1984

  155

  38

  193

  111

  132

  243

  March 1985

  151

  32

  183

  109

  120

  229

  June 1985

  113

  41

  154

  99

  127

  227

  September 1985

  71

  48

  119

  78

  152

  230

  December 1985

  18

  35

  53

  73

  112

  185

  March 1986

  -35

  24

  -11

  41

  125

  166

  June 1986

  -83

  52

  -31

  24

  152

  178

  September 1986

  -75

  71

  -3

  35

  156

  191

  176 177

  Workforce in employment

  Males

  Females

  Full-time

  Part-time1

  All

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Thousands

  December 1986

  -75

  86

  12

  63

  198

  261

  March 1987

  -19

  115

  96

  76

  214

  290

  June 1987

  77

  125

  203

  130

  219

  349

  September 1987

  94

  138

  233

  136

  202

  338

  December 1987

  111

  145

  255

  152

  194

  346

  March 1988

  129

  129

  258

  169

  186

  356

  June 1988

  68

  93

  162

  133

  141

  274

  September 1988

  62

  52

  114

  158

  128

  286

  1 Part-time male figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  2 Unavailable.

  Workforce in employment in Great Britain (seasonally adjusted)Percentage change over previous year

  (Per cent.)

  Males

  Females

  Full-time

  Part-time1

  All

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  December 1979

  2

  2

  0·3

  2

  2

  1·9

  March 1980

  2

  2

  0

  2

  2

  1·3

  June 1980

  -0·7

  2·6

  -0·6

  -1·8

  3·2

  0·2

  September 1980

  2

  2

  -1·8

  -2·7

  -1·4

  -1·0

  December 1980

  2

  2

  -3·0

  -4·1

  0·1

  -2·4

  March 1981

  2

  2

  -3·8

  -4·2

  -1·0

  -2·9

  June 1981

  -4·6

  -1·6

  -4·4

  -4·0

  -1·5

  -3·0

  September 1981

  2

  2

  -4·2

  -3·6

  -0·5

  -2·3

  December 1981

  2

  2

  -3·8

  -2·9

  -0·1

  -1·8

  March 1982

  2

  2

  -3·0

  -1·5

  -0·4

  -1·1

  June 1982

  -2·8

  3·2

  -2·4

  -1·1

  -0·4

  -0·8

  September 1982

  2

  2

  -2·2

  -1·6

  -0·8

  -1·3

  December 1982

  2

  2

  -2·1

  -1·1

  -1·9

  -1·5

  March 1983

  2

  2

  -2·1

  -1·7

  -1·3

  -1·5

  June 1983

  -2·1

  3·0

  -1·8

  -0·8

  0·2

  -0·3

  September 1983

  2

  2

  -0·5

  0·9

  3·0

  1·8

  December 1983

  2

  2

  0·6

  1·7

  6·0

  3·5

  March 1984

  0·1

  18·7

  1·2

  2·6

  6·5

  4·3

  June 1984

  0·7

  16·7

  1·8

  2·7

  5·7

  4·0

  September 1984

  0·9

  6·7

  1·4

  2·6

  3·7

  3·1

  December 1984

  1·2

  3·7

  1·4

  2·0

  3·1

  2·5

  March 1985

  1·2

  3·1

  1·3

  2·0

  2·8

  2·4

  June 1985

  0·8

  3·9

  1·1

  1·8

  3·0

  2·3

  September 1985

  0·6

  4·6

  0·9

  1·4

  3·5

  2·3

  December 1985

  0·1

  3·2

  0·4

  1·3

  2·6

  1·9

  March 1986

  -0·3

  2·3

  -0·1

  0·7

  2·9

  1·7

  June 1986

  -0·6

  4·8

  -0·2

  0·4

  3·5

  1·8

  September 1986

  -0·6

  6·5

  0

  0·6

  3·5

  1·9

  December 1986

  -0·6

  7·8

  0·1

  1·1

  4·4

  2·6

  March 1987

  -0·1

  10·6

  0·7

  1·3

  4·8

  2·9

  June 1987

  0·6

  11·0

  1·4

  2·3

  4·8

  3·4

  September 1987

  0·7

  11·9

  1·7

  2·4

  4·4

  3·3

  December 1987

  0·9

  12·1

  1·8

  2·7

  4·2

  3·3

  Mar-88

  1·0

  10·7

  1·8

  3·0

  4·0

  3·4

  Jun-88

  0·5

  7·4

  1·1

  2·3

  3·0

  2·6

  September 1988

  0·5

  4·0

  0·8

  2·7

  2·7

  2·7

  1 Part-time male figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  2 Unavailable.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central of 20 February,Official Report, column 464, if there is any basis by which he is able to estimate the number and location of jobs created by the loan guarantee scheme; and on what basis the net Exchequer cost of £450 per job is estimated.

  Mr. Cope
  The geographical breakdown of guarantees issued under the loan guarantee scheme up to 31 January 1989 is as follows:
  178

  Number of guarantees

  Value £ million

  North East

  977

  30·18

  North West

  2,679

  82·25

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,652

  48·33

  West Midlands

  1,794

  56·77

  East Midlands

  1,352

  45·48

  South East

  7,778

  280·55

  South West

  1,990

  62·15

  Scotland

  1,533

  46·79

  Wales

  1,010

  31·56

  Northern Ireland

  278

  10·01

  Total

  21,043

  694·07

  179
  Information is not available that would permit reliable estimates of the number and location of jobs created to be estimated.

  The net Exchequer cost is calculated by taking payments where guarantees are called, less premia received, and any later recoveries of guarantee payments. Deductions are made for savings in benefits and tax and national insurance payments in the first year after the loan is made, which are additional to those that would have occurred in the absence of the loan. The total number of additional jobs is estimated from surveys of loan recipients and banks such as that carried out last year by National Economic Research Associates.

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to review the rules on maternity leave.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to bring British rules on maternity leave into line with European countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. European countries have different arrangements for maternity leave/absence and associated rights according to their own priorities.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EC Fishing Regulations
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has further to improve the enforcing of European Community fishing regulations; and how he intends to negotiate with other European Community Ministers to ensure a uniform enforcement within the Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Enforcement of Community fishing regulations by the United Kingdom is recognised as being of a standard which is one of the highest in the Community. The United Kingdom has also taken the lead in pressing for improvements in the enforcement performance of other member states, and will continue to do so. Largely due to our efforts, there have been real improvements in other member states over recent years, and Community rules in this area have also been strengthened. There is now a real penalty for member states if they overfish; the powers and complement of the Community inspectorate have been increased, and the council agree measures towards the end of last year which will improve enforcement in the case of vessels landing in a member state other than that in which it is registered. More recently the Commission has made a proposal which would provide Community funding to help improve member states' enforcement.

  Sheep Variable Premium
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to resist the imposition of any headage limits as part of any replacement arrangements for the sheep variable premium scheme.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I shall continue to oppose the introduction of headage limits in the EC sheepmeat regime.

  Goat Milk
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there are any plans for goat milk production to be put under the same legislative control as dairy milk production.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 8 February at column 710.

  Salmonella Enteritidis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has plans to conduct or fund research into the development of a rapid, sensitive and specific test for salmonella enteritidis phage 4; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: My Department has kept closely in touch with the development of a rapid, sensitive and specific test for salmonella enteritidis in the AFRC institute of food research, Norwich laboratory. The Department of Education and Science is funding the work which forms the basis of this test and my Department is working with the institute on further extensions of the technology.

  Studies are also taking place at the central veterinary laboratory on the application of a whole-blood test in the field as a flock-screening test. This will be followed by work on laboratory tests such as ELISA and antiglobulin tests.

  Lindane and PCP
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries in the EEC which(a) ban Lindane and PCP and (b) allow Lindane and PCP to be used as wood preservatives (i) with restrictions and (ii) without restrictions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  Though it is not complete, information currently available to the Health and Safety Executive indicates that, in the European Community, wood preservatives containing PCP are banned in Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands and those containing Lindane in Italy and the Netherlands. I regret that full information on restrictions could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but the HSE knows of only one EC country, France, which is thought to place no restrictions. In the United Kingdom all wood preservatives are subject to the control of pesticides regulations.

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

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
The Right Honourable Sally Oppenheim-Barnes, having been created Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes, of Gloucester in the County of Gloucestershire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Wolfson and the Lord Thomas of Gwydir.

Mr. John Hope Taylor: Prison Release
2.46 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why and on whose authority John Hope Taylor was released from prison during the currency of his prison sentence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, John Hope Taylor (who was previously known as Dudgeon) was released from prison on 18th July 1987. He had been sentenced in February 1983 to seven years' imprisonment for wounding with intent and indecent assault. He was considered for parole three times during that sentence but was not found suitable for release on licence. He was released on his earliest date of release when there was no lawful authority to detain him in custody any longer.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he confirm that this gentleman was released before the termination of his sentence? Is he also aware of the fact that within a matter of months he had committed the murder of a married woman for which he has again been sentenced? Is my noble friend really telling the House that when a man is sentenced to seven years' imprisonment it is not possible to retain him there for the protection of the public?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, under prison rules a prisoner must be granted remission. All or some of the entitlement may be forfeited for offences against prison discipline. In this man's case he had done nothing to forfeit his remission. Therefore his remission was granted to him. There is nothing in the rules to prevent that from happening. The offence that he subsequently committed was when he was, quite properly, a free man.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the prison rules demand the release of a man known to be dangerous, is it not time that they were reconsidered and further thought given to the protection of the public, which the learned judge who tried the case thought he had given?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, what the learned judge thought he had given is a matter for the learned judge. What he actually gave was seven years' imprisonment. While I fully understand my noble friend's concern about this matter, he will know that remission is granted under certain circumstances. Though he shakes his head those are the prison rules which come under the Prison Act 1952 and which are passed by Parliament. Those are the rules, and as they now stand there was no authority for that prisoner to have been retained further in prison.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, these matters are indeed regrettable. However, is it not a fact that when the learned judge gave a sentence of seven years he knew perfectly well that there were remission laws and rules and that if a prisoner earned remission he had to get it? I ask the Minister whether he would see fit to inform the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that he is here criticising the judge and not the prison rules.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, what the noble Lord chooses to tell my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is a matter between him and my noble friend. I would not wish to be a postbox in that matter. I have no doubt that my noble friend heard what the noble Lord said. However, I am not sure that the noble Lord is right. I think my noble friend was saying that the rules themselves are wrong. If that is so, it is a matter of changing the rules. But it is not a matter on which the governor was in error in letting Taylor out. I quite understand my noble friend's anxiety. It is an anxiety which I and everyone else shares when a person goes out and commits a horrifying murder. He did that, and he is now in prison with a life sentence and a recommended minimum of 25 years.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is it true that when a prisoner is given a sentence of between six months and two years—whether it is nine months, one year or two years—he can be out after six months? If so, does it not make rather a nonsense of sentencing?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, remission of half the sentence is obtained if the sentence is 12 months or less. Longer sentences have a one-third remission. There is always the difficulty of how long to keep a person in prison and deciding when he should be allowed the right to become a free man again. My noble friend asks whether this makes a mockery of sentencing. To change it would involve a fundamental change in the system of sentencing that we have now.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if my noble friend is right—and he is more likely to be right than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—is there not a very strong case, when one is dealing with dangerous characters who have already inflicted serious injury and from whom the public have a right to be protected, for the prison rules which apparently produce this situation to be urgently reviewed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am overwhelmed that my noble friend should think that I am more usually right than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. That is not

937
a fact of life which I have found to be the case. The real problem is sentencing the criminal for the deed that he has done. That is a matter for the courts. It is a separate question, and a totally separate question, to ask how we should deal with people when they are in prison and whether it is right that they should go the whole hog and never under any circumstances come out. The system at the moment involves the use of remission. If a person has obtained remission he should have it. The fact that that may appear to be wrong in my noble friend's eyes is an understandable point of view.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if I heard the noble Earl correctly, modification of the rules entails repealing and re-enacting the statute in which they are embodied, which is a complex matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl is not entirely correct. The prison rules are made under the Prison Act. They are made by statutory instruments which are laid before the House and are subject to parliamentary approval.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the prisoner would have been released as a result of his case being considered at least twice by the parole board and then being adjudicated upon by the Home Secretary himself?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is not entirely correct. Perhaps I may put the House into the full picture. Taylor was imprisoned in 1979 for manslaughter and was given four years. He was released on parole in April 1981, which was his first review point. He did not breach his licence and he was released in July 1982. Four months later he was convicted for wounding and two indecent assaults. He was given seven years' imprisonment. He was considered for parole three times during that imprisonment and on each occasion he was found to be unsuitable for release on licence. But he lost no remission and therefore he was released on his earliest date of release. He was imprisoned for the third time in March 1988 for murdering a woman. It is that crime for which he has life with a recommendation that he serves at least 25 years.

East-West Relations
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many times the Prime Minister has met Mr. Gorbachev and what progress has been made in East-West relations.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has met Mr. Gorbachev three times and will meet him again in April when he visits this country. East-West relations, like Anglo-Soviet relations, have never been better.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his encouraging and reassuring Answer. Does he agree that the friendly relationship between Mr. Gorbachev and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and also between my right honourable friend and former President Reagan, have contributed much to world peace? Does he further agree that there is likely to be a similar friendly relationship between the Prime Minister and President Bush?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that my right honourable friend has made an historic contribution to the present happy situation as concerns East-West relations. I am certain that this contribution will continue, not least when Mr. Gorbachev comes to this country later this year, and certainly while President Bush is the leader of the United States.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, at the risk of injecting a perhaps less favourable note, has my noble friend's attention been drawn to the very dusty answer which was given to Sir Geoffrey Howe's request to the Russians for support over the Salman Rushdie affair? Does that reply from the Russians not indicate that, perestroika notwithstanding, they are still prepared to fish in some very muddy waters indeed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot claim and do not suggest that our relationship with. the Soviet Union is now perfect; far from it. I certainly agree that we are looking for a clear response from the Soviet Union in connection with the matter to which my noble friend has referred.

Defence Co-ordination: UK—West Germany
2.57 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress had been made towards improving defence co-ordination between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have recently established a joint study group to suggest ways of further enhancing the close links between our two armed forces within the alliance and giving them greater visibility. I shall circulate a list of their first proposals, now agreed by Ministers, in the Official Report. Meanwhile Ministers look forward to further reports later in the year.
Following are the proposals referred to above:
German army units will come to the United Kingdom beginning this year, for joint training with British units. This will continue in subsequent years on a reciprocal basis.
German service personnel will participate in United Kingdom adventurous training. British personnel will join German forces in activities such as mountain warfare training.
Information on training programmes will be exchanged.
There will be increased exchanges of service personnel.
Opportunities will be made available for German reservists living in the United Kingdom to train with British units.
The technical arrangement for host nation support to British forces in Germany will be finalised urgently.
An affiliation is being established between the Bundeswehr Hospital, Hamburg and the Cambridge Military Hospital, Aldershot.
Plans are in hand to increase public awareness of the close British —German relationship.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Has he any information as to what future plans there may be for co-operation in air defence between this country and the Federal Republic of Germany?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords. There is under consideration a plan to enhance air defence around the Royal Air Force station at Gfitersloh in West Germany, which will be jointly manned by United Kingdom and West German personnel. It will use Skyguard radar provided by the Germans and 35 millimeter Oerlikon guns, which your Lordships may be interested to know were captured from the Argentines.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it the case that the views of the West German Government and of the British Government on the so-called modernisation of nuclear weapons are completely opposite?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. I can confirm no such thing. We certainly agree with our German friends that we must keep our weapons up to date; that Lance, the weapon system to which I think the noble Lord is referring, will become obsolete in 1995; and that there can be no third zero.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that modernisation, to which he has been referring, is contrary to the spirit of the INF treaty? Is he also aware that Chancellor Kohl cannot agree, in my view, to modernisation before the next general election in Germany because the German people do not want replacement of those weapons? Therefore, would it not be more fruitful and productive if the Government directed their energies towards helping NATO to respond to the many initiatives that Mr. Gorbachev has put before that organisation in the past two years? In other words, is it not time for negotiation and not modernisation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am certain that Chancellor Kohl will be very grateful for the noble Lord's advice on how to improve his prospects in the forthcoming election in Germany. The fact of the matter is that the Lance system, to which I have referred, is nothing to do with the INF treaty which related to intermediate range systems and not short range systems.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that quite apart from the political factor in Germany, Chancellor Kohl's objections to deploying a replacement for Lance are very widely shared by others, including the French Government? Would
940
the Government not do better to refrain from pressing the Germans to accept the principle of deployment even before the replacement is on the drawing board?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said earlier, the present system—the Lance system—will become obsolete somewhere in the mid-1990s and therefore needs to be modernised or replaced by that time. The reason for this is that the short range systems play an indispensable part in NATO's flexible response strategy.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the working party referred to by the Minister of State—the Anglo-German working party—also cover nuclear questions? And will the Minister, when the working party publishes its first report, publish a list of its members and their respective jobs?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the working party to which I referred is not specifically directed towards nuclear matters, but rather to enhancing the close links between our two armed forces within the alliance and to giving them greater visibility. As regards publishing the names of those who represent the respective sides on the working party, I shall have to give that matter some consideration.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, can my noble friend kindly update the House on the German attitude towards low flying aircraft?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, those of us who occasionally hear low flying jet aircraft have every reason to understand the problems which our German friends are experiencing because of the disturbance such aeroplanes cause. Nonetheless, it is undoubtedly the case that our respective air forces—I am including the German Air Force—must train themselves to counter the threats which they could face. That, I am afraid, includes carrying out quite a large amount of low-level flying training. However, we certainly agree that such training ought to be carried out at minimum disturbance to those concerned.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, is the noble Lord in a position to say a word about the coordination of tank production between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the fact is that the two or three initiatives towards producing a collaborative tank have not so far borne fruit. Nonetheless, we hope very much that the next generation of British army tank, which will come after the one we plan to procure in the near future, will indeed be a collaborative venture.

City Technology Colleges
3.4 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many city technology colleges have been established, and how many it is intended to establish.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the city technology colleges programme continues to make excellent progress. Kingshurst CTC opened last year and two more, at Teesside and Nottingham, will open in September this year. CTCs in Bradford and Gateshead and a city college for the technology of the arts in north Croydon are planned to open in September 1990. Further announcements will be made soon.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps I may request the Minister to answer the first part of my Question. How many city technology colleges do the Government intend to establish? Will he concede that there is no possibility of the Government achieving the number stated many times by the Secretary of State—at least 20—by next year which was the original intention?
Will the noble Viscount also agree that the main reason for lack of success is the failure of the Government to attract private funding which is the whole concept of CTCs? As a result, huge sums of taxpayers' money are now involved.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the CTC programme in October 1986. The programme aims to establish 20 independent schools in urban areas offering a free education with a technological bias to 11 to 18 year-olds of all abilities. So far as concerns the timing, that is a matter for negotiation between the private sector, the LEAs and the Government.
CTCs will play a crucial part in the Government's action for cities initiative; they will serve urban disadvantaged areas and cater for pupils of wide-ranging abilities. That fact is borne out by the first CTC, Kingshurst in Birmingham, where the first year intake has an ability span of 70 to 120.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say how much money the Secretary of State announced that he expected and intended to receive from industry and how much he has actually achieved so far?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the planned expenditure is £19 million for the current year; £35.275 million for 1989–90 and £35.55 million for 1990–91.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am afraid that that response does not answer my question. I asked how much the Secretary of State had said he expected and intended to get from industry and how much he has in fact achieved.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It was a straightforward question.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I was in fact trying to find the answer. If the House will be patient for a moment, I shall endeavour to do so. No, I am sorry, I cannot find the answer; I shall therefore write to the noble Baroness on the matter.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that it is a shortage of sites rather than a shortage of sponsors which is causing the programme to be slower than necessary? The sites are not being provided by the local authorities as they might have been? Can he say what the Government are proposing to do about the situation?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's problem. It is absolutely true that the sites are not readily available. However, negotiations are taking place all over the country at present.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us what the shortfall is in teachers of technology? Further, will he agree that the concentration of so many of those teachers in these city colleges will make the situation even worse in schools throughout the country where there is a very great need to have such teachers in place as soon as possible?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is no shortage of teachers or children in the CTCs at present. Parents and children are flocking to these colleges and teachers are readily available. We are having a discussion next week on the shortage of teachers generally. Perhaps then I shall be able to answer the question more fully.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, can the Minister give the House any idea of the criteria used by the Government in deciding eligibility for the establishment of a city college for the technology of the arts? For example, can any school in a city area, where the bias is towards the creative and performing arts which necessarily involves some technology, apply for that status?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have that information with me today. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, do the Government realise that the establishment of these selective direct grant secondary schools—for that is what they are—is making nonsense of local authority planning of its own secondary education, especially at a time when the number of secondary school pupils will drop catastrophically between now and the mid-1990s, and when local authorities are having to cut down on secondary school places? Therefore, does not the whole thing make nonsense in those circumstances?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords. CTCs will cater for pupils of different abilities, and it is nonsense to describe them as elitist. They will serve urban disadvantaged areas and their intake will be fully representative of the communities they serve. CTCs represent a new investment with new money in education in our cities by government and the private sector. Already £90 million of planned expenditure by the Government has brought in over £31 million from the private sector. That, in fact, is the answer to the question put by the noble Baroness. Targeting that money at a few schools will bring maximum impact in terms of experiment and innovation. The

943
beacon effects of CTCs will mean that schools generally will benefit.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend share my bewilderment that noble Lords opposite, who constantly refer to the damage caused to society by unemployment, seem so averse to every measure taken to spread skills in society and so diminish unemployment?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I share my noble friend's bewilderment not only on that subject but on many others.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, if there is a shortage of sites for CTCs and no shortage of teachers of technology, as the Minister said, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that those resources go into state schools in the urban areas which the CTCs are supposed to service?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, CTCs have caught people's imagination. As I have said, they are being funded with new money; they are not taking money from LEAs.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am bound to say that it is news to me that CTCs are now part of the Government's employment programme. My knowledge of economics does not enable me to extend my imagination to comprehend that idea. As the Minister said that there was a training and employment aspect to this matter, perhaps I may ask why the money is not being used where it is known to be most effective; that is, in the further education sector where the Government are cutting funds for training. Why do not the Government use those enormous funds in that sector rather than in the tiny number of CTCs?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government are funding education in all parts of the education sector.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of the bewilderment to which he referred is felt on this side of the Chamber not only because of the confused answers we have had from him but because of the utter chaos of the CTC programme? Will he stop trying to run the nation's education service with gimmicks?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord will expect me to agree with him.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that the initiative is much to be welcomed and that it follows what the Germans have been doing for something like 30 years, which is why there is such a difference between the educational attainments of their workforce and ours?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I suggest that most of your Lordships will agree with him.
Lord Peston: My Lords, if we are extending this matter and going slightly wide of the Order Paper, the Minister may like to consider that the reason the German education system is so successful is that the German Government pour vast amounts of money into their ordinary straightforward schools, which is what we should like to see happen in our schools.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill will be taken.

Junior Hospital Doctors (Regulation of Hours) Bill [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before moving the Motion on the Order Paper, I owe the House an explanation for not being in my place when the Motion was called yesterday. As the order of business had recently been changed, at about 2 p.m. I took what I thought was the wise precaution of telephoning that usually reliable source of information, the Government Whips' Office, to check when I was likely to be called. I was told that it would be after the Second Reading of the Security Service Bill, at about 4.30 p.m. When I arrived at about 4 p.m. and was told that I had been called about an hour previously, one might say that my chagrin was considerable. That apart, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for making space for this brief item of business today.
I understand that even with the extra day no amendments have been set down for this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Rea.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
3.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Exclusion orders: general]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: In case the Committee feels that I am in an especially negative frame of mind this afternoon, perhaps I should point out that there is only one way to try to dispose of part of a Bill. I was advised that one cannot put down a Motion which disposes of that part of the Bill; one has to put down a Motion that each and every clause in that part should not stand part of the Bill. The Committee will therefore be relieved to know that with the Committee's leave I shall be speaking to all the Questions as to whether Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall stand part of the Bill in one speech.
Part II, as the Committee will realise, relates to exclusion orders. I suppose that I should take as my text Article 2.1 of the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. If the Committee is not aware of it already, we have not signed that fourth protocol. My suspicion is that we have not signed it because of the very matter that I wish to bring to the Committee's attention; namely, the question of exclusion orders.
Article 2.1 of the protocol reads:
"Everybody lawfully within the territory of a state shall within that territory have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence".
As the Committee will appreciate, the rights of a Minister, after consideration, to make an exclusion order defeats the very principle of that elementary right.
The Committee would not expect me to convince it if I were adopting merely a political stance on behalf of the party which on this matter I have the honour to represent. I do not intend to quote one word said by any politician who sits on these Benches or on similar Benches in another place. I intend to quote the utterances of those appointed by the Government to look completely independently into the question of exclusion orders. All have carried out detailed examination of the papers relating to those who have had exclusion orders made against them; they have gone into the whole question and taken evidence from the authorities upon whom we rely to deal with matters of terrorism, especially in regard to Ireland. I now tell the Committee what has been the conclusion of those people advising the Government completely independently.
We start with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The noble Earl held a prominent position in this place. He had the respect of all parties. In 1982, at the beginning of this matter, reviewing the question of exclusion orders, the noble Earl said that he was rather doubtful—I am paraphrasing, but, I believe, perfectly fairly—about the worth of exclusion orders when set alongside civil liberties to which they did a great deal of harm. On balance, he thought at that stage that the orders should be allowed. However, he said that if anything were to be deleted in the Act the principle of the exclusion orders and the orders themselves ought to be considered first.
A name known with great respect in this Chamber is that of Sir Cyril Philips because of the way in which
946
he combined in one lifetime a reputation for good judicial judgment with a very capable judicial mind. On an independent government assessment which was sought from Sir Cyril, he recommended in 1985 that exclusion orders should go.
I now turn to recent history. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, sits with great distinction on the Government Benches. Whenever he contributes to our deliberations he is listened to with great respect. I should have expected the Front Bench of the Government of which he has been a member in the past to extend that respect when they asked him on two successive occasions to report on the workings of the Act. I ask noble Lords' leave to quote from what the noble Viscount said. He speaks in very specific terms in his latest report—not the previous one but the one considered recently by noble Lords.
The report was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State in December 1987, and perhaps Members of the Committee will forgive me if I read every word that is valid in connection with what I am asking the Committee and the Government to agree to. Page 39 of the report says:
"Exclusion orders can divide families, make it difficult to seek a job and difficult too to get away from former terrorist associates. These restrictions are only feasible because there is a stretch of sea between Ireland and Great Britain. It cannot be envisaged that such a power could be exercised against Scottish or Welsh separatists however terroristic their activities. It cannot be used against naturalised or British-born citizens from other countries who become caught up with disputes from overseas and resort to terrorism in Britain. Moreover when a republican terrorist is excluded to Ireland the event is turned into useful propaganda. It should not be forgotten that one of the aims of terrorism is to lead a Government to introduce repressive measures; the unpopularity thus caused can be exploited further to excite criticism and turmoil as part of a vicious circle The number of orders is now greatly reduced. 1 obtained the impression that the authorities in Northern Ireland would not encounter problems of any substance if exclusion orders were to disappear; although by contrast orders excluding people to the Province do add to the heavy load already borne by the RUC and the armed forces".
On the next page, page 40, there is an assessment with which I need not trouble the Committee. I am sure noble Lords will accept from me that the noble Viscount then renews his recommendation, which he made in his previous report, that exclusion orders should not form part of the Act and the Bill now before the Committee.
I said that I would not invoke anyone but a government adviser. 1 have quoted the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who, back in 1983, felt that exclusion orders ought to be the first to go, though he was doubtful about stopping them at that stage. I quoted Sir Cyril Philips, who was asked by the Government to assess. I quoted the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who was asked by the Government to go into detail in these matters. He has twice recommended that exclusion orders should go.
What is the point of a government seeking an analytical examination of the situation and asking for advice if then on occasion after occasion they refuse to accept it? I ask the Committee to accept that advice when I propose that Part II should not stand part of this Bill.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: In his opening remarks my noble friend Lord Mishcon decided to propose that Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 should not stand part of

947
the Bill. It may therefore be in order if I speak specifically on the proposal that Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill. No doubt the Committee will remember that I supported the Government on Second Reading of the Bill, and I rise to give the Government support on Clause 5.
There exists in the clause the power to grant orders excluding persons from Great Britain. I believe that this aspect of our legal armoury is essential if we are to have some control over the movements and activities of suspected terrorists and their allies. I also believe that through diligence, patience and skill, backed by the prevention of terrorism Acts and in particular by provisions such as those in this clause, special branch officers and the Scotland Yard antiterrorist squads have saved scores of lives on the mainland. Our security services, which embrace the police, special branch officers and specialist antiterrorist teams, are under considerable strain at the moment. Apart from the new threat by Moslem extremists, those fanatical so-called warriors of God and the crazed, extreme animal rights activists—both groups now seem intent on bombings and murder—the Provisional IRA appears also to be intent on another bombing campaign in Britain.
In recent months, one active service unit was apprehended while surveying the property and movements of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There was the discovery of the London bomb factory in Clapham last December; the active service unit that was disturbed and scattered when their look-out was startled by a car thief; the bombing of Inglis barracks at Mill Hill last August; the bombing of the Parachute Regiment's Shropshire headquarters in February this year; and the discovery of a cache of Semtex explosive in a reservoir at Stoke Newington this week. This was not in the past year or two years but within the past four or five months.
It is quite obvious that in spite of vigilance at ports and airports terrorists are succeeding in slipping the net. When one bears in mind the thousands of Irish visitors to our shores, attending football matches, race meetings, boxing and other sporting events, as well as visiting friends and relatives, the job of weeding out a suspect with a view to exclusion is itself a mammoth task. The terrorist mingles with these groups, diverting on the mainland to awaken sleepers here and there, check safe houses, organise an active service unit, and assemble arms and explosives. All the time there is some terrorist activity by Irish terrorist groups and their friends in this country, so constant surveillance is required. The right to exclude a person suspected of aiding and abetting any form of terrorist activities is a vital arm in the campaign against terrorism.
I recognise that there is bound to be some intrusion into the private lives of many Irish citizens and often British citizens too. These operations of checking, detaining and questioning suspects cause nuisance and inconvenience. I am also concerned that the job is done by the investigating officers without incurring the wrath of civilians by being overzealous. I am concerned that they should as far as possible carry out their duties carefully, politely and responsibly.
948
However, I think it is important to understand that there are occasions when a group of mostly innocent travellers are held at a port. They may be used as a shroud by the security forces because there is a suspect within their midst; or the security forces may without the suspect's knowledge use the screen of innocents and allow the suspect supposedly to slip the net and thereafter keep tabs on him in the hope that an active service unit may be detected or that the suspect may lead them to the sleepers, or indeed to their cache of arms and explosives.
The use of the exclusion order is based on intelligence rather than evidence. It is that intelligence that determines whether the Home Office and the Home Secretary are satisfied that the person apprehended is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or has attempted to enter Great Britain for such purposes. If the intelligence shows that the suspect is or has been involved in those areas, action is taken. Although the results are unquantifiable, it is likely that many lives in Britain have been saved as a result of intelligence.
Although I am aware that this legislation incurs a diminution of our freedom and liberty, I am also satisfied that for the greater well-being of the majority of our citizens this maintenance of exclusion orders remains a key element in our campaign against the terrorists. In my opinion the Irish terrorists are fresh bent on another wave of terrorist type bombings and murder in Britain. The recent evidence of Provisional IRA activity and the catalogue of events I have outlined leave me in no doubt of that.
There is need for everyone to be more vigilant. The terrorists are here and they are determined. They have suffered some frustrations, but their fanatical belief in their cause to force the British security forces out of Northern Ireland with a view to a Marxist militant takeover of both the north and the south of Ireland remains undiminished. We have to provide a wide variety of legal weapons to enable our security forces to quell this continuing terrorist menace. This clause on exclusion orders, Clause 5, which enables suspicious characters to be excluded from our country is but one of our weapons. It is an important one and it has my backing.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite understandably based his case on a lawyer's argument. That was understandable because he is a lawyer. From that point of view I can understand absolutely what he said. The noble Lord invoked the assistance of two other people to support his case. Both of those people were lawyers too. From the standpoint of a lawyer I can understand his argument absolutely. But I am not a lawyer, and I want the Committee to consider this matter from a layman's point of view for a moment.
The Bill is entitled the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill. The idea is to prevent terrorism rather than to catch the terrorists after they have committed some offence, although that is also desirable. But the idea of the Bill is to try to prevent terrorism. One cannot say, if one is trying to prevent terrorism, that it is necessary to wait until a villain has done something and then catch him. We want to try

949
to stop him doing it in the first place. This Bill is one of the ways in which I believe terrorists can be prevented, or at any rate hindered, from carrying out their designs.
The measures in the Bill certainly involve some restriction of liberty. But I do not think that is entirely unknown to us. Here I am venturing on to legal ground and I am open to correction by almost anyone in the Committee. But I think I am right in saying that an accused person brought before a court who is granted bail can sometimes be granted bail on condition that he lives in a particular place or does not visit a particular place. One may say that that person is an accused person. He is, but he is no more than that. He is innocent until he is proved guilty. A policeman may think he is guilty, but until he is proved guilty he is innocent. That is the case in the Bill.
A policeman or a member of the security forces may have good reason to think that Mr. A or Mr. B wishes to carry out terrorist activities. Nevertheless, that person is not guilty. All I am saying is that such a provision is not entirely new in our practice. I direct the attention of the Committee to a provision in Schedule 2 which affects these clauses. Under that provision anyone who is the recipient of an exclusion order has the right of appeal. Admittedly his right of appeal is to the same person who made the order, the Secretary of State, but that right exists and the recipient of an order can seek an interview with the Secretary of State or the official nominated by the Secretary of State and make his case. I have no doubt that the recipient of the order can invoke the assistance of his Member of Parliament. No doubt he would do so if he thought that was reasonable.
So anyone against whom an exclusion order is made has the right to bring the matter forward publicly and complain about it. The Secretary of State is answerable finally, as all Secretaries of State are, to Parliament for what he does. There can be no doubt in the minds of Members of the Committee that there will be occasions when it is perfectly clear that somebody is setting out to commit a terrorist offence. I think particularly of a man who has already been imprisoned for a period of time and who has spent the term of his sentence saying that as soon as he gets out of prison he will commit the same offence again. That phenomenon has occurred on many occasions. When that person gets out of prison he will pick up his old contacts and start to behave in a way which would lead any reasonable man to assume that he meant what he said.
Surely, faced with that kind of activity, where a man says that he is going to come over here and blow up a barracks, this Chamber or anything else, it is sensible to try to stop him. I believe this measure is helpful in that regard. It is not used very widely as far as I am aware. I certainly never used it very widely. I used it only when I was absolutely certain that what I was trying to do would help to stop a crime. If that is what we are about, I believe this is the way to do it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I very much share the view of the noble Lord who has just spoken, as I
950
made clear on Second Reading. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, as I am sure all of us do; namely, that the possession of this power in the hands of the Executive constitutes in some cases an infringement of the civil liberties of some people. It would be foolish to deny that.
But we have to consider when debating this measure the character of the terrorist threat. We are well aware in the light of recent events such as the discovery of the bomb factory in south London referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, the attack on the barracks of the 2nd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment and the bomb at Mill Hill, of the fearsome character of the threat to which people in this country, many of them entirely innocent, can be subjected by the Provisional IRA. So that is the character of the threat.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, then went on to say that a number of reports had been submitted to the Government by those who had been asked to undertake them. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. and rightly said that he recommended the continuance of the power to exclude, although what the noble Lord said in terms of the qualifications entered into by the noble Earl was also absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was also correct in saying that Sir Cyril Philips and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had recommended in favour of dropping this power. That is also totally true. But all I can say, with great respect to those two very distinguished gentlemen, is that I disagree with them. I believe that it is wholly right and desirable to maintain this power. I think that because, as I indicated on Second Reading, I agree with the fairly obvious proposition that it is far better to bring terrorists before the courts on specific charges. If they are then convicted, they will be sent to prison for a very substantial period of time.
As the noble Lord has just said, there is another group of people about whom there is criminal intelligence information which makes it quite obvious that they are in Great Britain to carry out terrorist acts. The question therefore arises as to whether we wait to see whether they carry out those terrorist acts. I do not believe that we should or can. I believe that it is quite right for this country, subjected as it is to the threat of massive terrorist violence by the IRA, to continue with this power.
For more than four years I was involved in the examination of exclusion order cases. I know the threat posed by a number of people who were subject to exclusion orders. It is my view that if they had remained in Great Britain they would have carried out terrorist attacks and killed many innocent men, women and children in this country. It was quite clear to me that in those particular cases the power was essential in order to save human life. That being so, I very much support the Government on this question.
Lord Fitt: I have been a bitter opponent of the IRA since it began its latest campaign in 1970. All sections of the IRA have brought nothing but shame, disgrace and terror to Ireland and on occasion to this country. Yesterday afternoon in Belfast one of my closest

951
friends, a retired RUC officer, was foully murdered by a time bomb in his car. I have no reason at all to say anything which might in the slightest help the IRA or hinder action to be taken against it. However, throughout all my years in another part of this building in my opposition to the IRA I always had reservations about exclusion orders, but not for the reasons which have been enunciated here this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, said—and quite rightly so—that the Government should retain the power to exclude terrorists from our country. That is a key phrase: "our country". We have been told repeatedly that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that is why the IRA is waging war. I have always resented the fact that people who were suspected of being about to commit a terrorist crime in England, Scotland or Wales could be sent back to Northern Ireland where, as we have seen, it is far more likely that they would be able to commit a crime. The vast majority of the murders and crimes of violence which have taken place have occurred within the six counties of Northern Ireland.
The police in Northern Ireland, the RUC, must have doubts about some of the people who are at present roaming free on the streets of Northern Ireland. Would it be possible under the legislation to exclude them from Northern Ireland and send them to other parts of the United Kingdom? If that were to happen on any scale I am sure that bitter opposition would be voiced in England, Scotland and Wales. I suspect that some of the people who have been excluded from Britain and sent back to Belfast have been engaged in crimes of murder and violence in Northern Ireland.
I should like to see some mechanism, however draconian it might be, however many protests might be raised against it and however many threats might be made that the case would be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, to ensure that someone who is suspected of being about to commit a crime of violence in London is detained in London and not sent back to Belfast. I am not sure what mechanism could be devised but, as someone who has lived through 20 years of the tragedy of Northern Ireland and seen many of my friends lose their lives and many more injured, I feel that Northern Ireland should be placed on exactly the same footing as other parts of the United Kingdom.
Suspected terrorists arrested here are sent back to Northern Ireland. I hesitate to use the term, but it is one that is being used in Northern Ireland: Northern Ireland is used as a dumping ground. There are far too many terrorists in Northern Ireland already and people who are suspected of terrorism in this country should not be sent there to add to that number.
My protest against the exclusion order is not because I do not want to see such people arrested. I want them arrested and detained in this country, whatever protests may emanate from the so-called libertarians. I do not want to see suspected terrorists, or those who may be about to commit a crime, sent back to Northern Ireland.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for saying at the outset that his generous contribution to the Marshalled List is merely a device to omit Part II of the Bill, which deals with exclusion orders.
It is right that those powers should be examined with particular care because the arguments are finely balanced. The powers represent a curtailment of freedom of movement, and nobody likes that. The noble Lord referred to the recommendation of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that the weapon of exclusion should now be surrendered. The noble Lord asked what was the point of asking for advice if one did not accept it. As he knows full well, in the profession which he follows people sometimes ask for advice but they have the right to reach their own conclusions as to whether to accept it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put the matter very well. He said that he understood the reasoning of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, but did not accept it. That is also the government view.
When a respected observer of this legislation makes such a recommendation it is right to pause to consider whether it is proper to retain the power. The Government have weighed the matter very carefully. I would not disagree with some of the objections in principle to exclusion which were raised by my noble friend in his report, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Exclusion is a crude and unattractive expedient to have to use. However, our objective is to prevent terrorism. My noble friend Lord Colnbrook put that point very well when he said that this is a prevention of terrorism Bill; it is not a Bill aimed at catching terrorists. If we are serious about the prevention of terrorism there are difficult decisions which have to be faced. The Government believe that exclusion has considerable value in terms of disrupting terrorist operations. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, agreed.
I have no doubt that the power has saved many innocent lives over the years. We should be failing in our duty to protect our citizens from terrorism if we abandoned it. The exceptional threat to public safety from Northern Irish terrorism has been demonstrated time and time again, most recently in the discovery of the bomb factory at Battersea before Christmas and the attack on the barracks at Shrewsbury only last week. Against that background it is our belief that restrictions on the movement of a comparatively small number of people are wholly justified. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, said that when these attacks occur it is evident that some people have slipped through the net. I think that he was right. We have to try to ensure that the net is such that as few people as possible slip through it. The Government have a duty to adopt adequate measures to combat terrorism.
Obviously, it is difficult to demonstrate openly the effectiveness of exclusion because of the sensitivity of the information on which exclusion decisions are based. But my noble friend Lord Colville is at pains to emphasise in all his reports that my right honourable friend does not use his powers in an arbitrary and ill considered fashion. There is no question of a person being excluded on the grounds

953
of his or her political views and activities. That sort of information simply does not appear on the applications that the police submit because they know that it is not relevant. The Secretary of State would ignore it. A decision to exclude is based solely on the grounds set out in Clauses 5, 6 and 7—principally, that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person,
"is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism"
connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Exclusion is not a punitive measure; it is in a very real sense preventive. When we debated the exclusion power at Second Reading, I gave noble Lords a specific example of a person who was excluded just before Christmas. Intelligence indicated clearly that the person was deeply involved in terrorist activities. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary was satisfied of a potentially grave threat to our security if no action had been taken.
To take a different type of case, the power is sometimes used against a person who has served a long prison sentence on the mainland following conviction for a serious terrorist offence. In my judgment, if such a person continues, while in prison, to display quite openly his belief in violence and his intentions to become involved again, it would be irresponsible to take the risk of allowing him to move freely on the mainland.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, said that the exclusion orders were a vital arm in the campaign against terrorism. I believe that he is right. It is sometimes argued that people of the kind I have described should be followed to the point at which they can be charged with a criminal offence. This is unrealistic. It is enormously costly to keep constant surveillance on people who are themselves trained to evade it, and it is an extremely risky approach when people's lives are at stake. We cannot wait until there is a victim before taking action. The surveillance option would put an intolerable strain on the police and could not guarantee the prevention of acts of terrorism. It is because the exclusion power has prevented acts of terrorism that, in the present circumstances, I believe that its continuation is vital. It is the Government's view that these clauses should stand part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was concerned about sending people back to Northern Ireland. He described it as the "dumping" of terrorists in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord has had a great deal of experience of that country. I respect his views on the matter. But the IRA is always particularly anxious to create havoc on the mainland. Over the years, we have seen a succession of attempts by the Provisionals to cause major atrocities on this side of the Irish Sea in the vain hope that that will undermine our resolve to defeat terrorism.
The value of exclusion is that it prevents the committed terrorist from moving to the mainland with that aim in view. It does not by itself make much difference to the problems that are faced day in and day out by the security forces in Northern Ireland. They must of course deal with the main threat from
954
the terrorists in Northern Ireland itself, and that threat unfortunately continues, whether or not the occasional active service unit has been able to slip into Great Britain to carry out some special mission. The Royal Ulster Constabulary does not oppose exclusion. It is well aware of the difficulties faced by the police here in countering an unknown enemy. In the Province, by contrast, it knows where the danger lies and can so often take steps to contain it.
I understand that in the past few years orders excluding people from Great Britain have only rarely been made in respect of people who have lived here for more than a few months. In fact, those people who are returned to Northern Ireland are being returned to their homes.
I do not wish to minimise the harshness of the power, and I have not sought to do so. It does restrict the right to free movement, but is not used to send people into exile. I understand the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, tabled the amendments to leave out these clauses. I hope that he will see that, even if he takes a different view temporarily, there are strong arguments to encourage the Committee to retain these clauses in the Bill. I hope that it will see fit to do so.
Lord Mishcon: One could not ask for a more gracious or detailed reply. I hope however that the Minister will accept from me that a question of very definite principle arises here. The principle is not one of defending the people of our country against terrorism; that principle is shared in all parts of this Chamber, as it would be in any civilised assembly.
Perhaps I may turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, whose experience in these matters, known to all Members of the Committee, is treated with great respect. It is not a question of the lawyer looking with a legal eye, as it were, upon matters of this kind which are an invasion of civil liberties. Of course, the lawyer looks at the matter; but so does the layman who wishes to protect civil liberties.
When the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, looked at these matters—the same was true with Sir Cyril Philips and with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—it was not with the narrow legal vision of the lawyer looking to see whether habeas corpus could be invoked. They all considered the legal and political implications involved. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, of what was said by the lawyer, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. He referred to the unpopularity that such measures cause which,
"can be exploited further to excite criticism".
Having obviously referred in the remainder of the report to the authorities that he has seen—politically seen—he says:
"1 obtained the impression that the authorities in Northern Ireland would not encounter problems of any substance if exclusion orders were to disappear".
Then, talking about the job of the police and the authorities, he goes on to say, not as a lawyer, but as a politician, that,
"by contrast orders excluding people to the Province do add to the heavy load already borne by the RUC and the armed forces".

955
In his recommendation he comes to the conclusion that for good reasons—not just ordinary legal reasons—exclusion orders should go for the sake of those who are trying to enforce law and order and of those who do not wish to give instruments of propaganda to those to whom we do not wish to give any advantages at all. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, also refers to our good international name as one of the reasons why he believes exclusion orders should go.
The Minister says perfectly correctly that lawyers should be accustomed to giving advice that is not accepted: I can tell the noble Earl that it has been my experience on many occasions that the client was so well advised as not to listen to what I told him to do. I assure the Minister that this is not a question of a government listening to advice given by one person on one occasion. Its repetition time after time over the last few years means that the Government—and, if I may say so, the Committee—should listen to the voice of experience, the voice of the analyst who was asked to do a job, and the voice of someone who on two occasions has had his report and findings put before this Chamber and who deserves to have them given the consideration that I hope the Committee will give when I now press the matter to a Division.
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 193; Not-Contents, 55.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Cathcart, E.

Addington, L.

Chelmer, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Chelwood, L.

Aldington, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Coleraine, L.

Alport, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Amherst, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Arran, E.

Cross, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Attlee, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Auckland, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

De Freyne, L.

Balfour, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Bauer, L.

Dundee, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Eccles, V.

Beloff, L.

Effingham, E.

Belstead, L.

Elibank, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Birdwood, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Erne, E.

Borthwick, L.

Ezra, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brightman, L.

Fortescue, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Gainford. L.

Caccia, L.

Gisborough, L.

Caithness, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Caldecote, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grey, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Grimthorpe, L.

Carver, L.

Haig, E.

956

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Orkney, E.

Halsbury, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Hampton, L.

Peel, E.

Hanworth, V.

Pender, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Henley, L.

Porritt, L.

Hesketh, L.

Raglan, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hives, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Hood, V.

Reay, L.

Hooper, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Howe, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Rochester, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

Rodney, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Roskill, L.

Ironside, L.

Rugby, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Killearn, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Seear, B.

Kimberley, E.

Seebohm, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Selkirk, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Lawrence, L

Shackleton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Shannon, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Slim, V.

Lovat, L.

Somers, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stedman, B.

Luke, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lyall, L.

Strange, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

McNair, L.

Mais, L.

Strathspey, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swinton, E.

Margadale, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Marley, L.

Terrington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thurlow, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Trafford, L.

Tranmire, L.

Mayhew, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Middleton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Morris, L.

Warnock, B.

Mottistone, L.

Westbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Munster, E.

Winstanley, L.

Nathan, L.

Wolfson, L.

Nelson, E.

Young, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Galpern, L.

Birk, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kagan, L.

David, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Listowel, E.

Ennals, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Lockwood, B.

Fitt, L.

Longford, E.

Gallacher, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

957

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Rea, L.

Mishcon, L.

Serota, B.

Molloy, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mulley, L.

Stallard, L.

Nicol, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Oram, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Peston, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 4 agreed to accordingly.
Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Assisting in retention or control of terrorist funds]:
4.10 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line I I, after ("of') insert ("knowing or suspecting them to be terrorist funds").
The noble Lord said: With permission, I shall take Amendment No. 2 with this amendment. I am addressing the Committee on the question of crimes associated with the control of terrorist funds. There is no division in the Committee on the necessity, indeed the wisdom, of dealing with terrorist funds under the Bill with the object of seeing that they are forfeited if they are shown to be terrorist funds. However, an extraordinary position is created by Clause 11, and I refer the Committee to it. It deals with a vital principle of criminal law and turns it on its head. If I limited my arguments to that, the Committee might say that it deserves to be stood on its head because we are dealing with an extraordinary matter. I propose to tell the Committee how in a similar situation fairly recently the Government were persuaded to deal with the matter without turning the law on its head.
I refer the Committee to Clause 11(1). The Committee will read that,
"A person is guilty of an offence if"-
I am reading it as the Bill now stands
"he enters into or is otherwise concerned in an arrangement whereby the retention or control by or on behalf of another person of terrorist funds is facilitated, whether by concealment, removal from the jurisdiction, transfer to nominees or otherwise".
The Committee may conceive that people such as banks can be misled into carrying out one of those things mentioned in Clause 11(1) without the knowledge of guilt.
Where does the onus of proof lie in relation to an offence of that nature? I refer the Committee to subsection (2), which states:
"In proceedings against a person for an offence under this section it is a defence to prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the arrangement related to terrorist funds".
The Committee will see that the onus goes away from the prosecution on to the defence, which has to prove that the defendant did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the arrangement related to terrorist funds. That is an onus that I seek to remove in the proper way, I hope the Committee will agree, by inserting in the first line of subsection (1) after the word "if" the words "knowing or
958
suspecting them to be terrorist funds" and deleting subsection (2).
I said that I hoped I might not need to continue the argument on where the onus ought to lie, though in putting that argument before the Committee 1 am sure there will be sympathetic ears when l say that we must not lightly alter the whole burden of the principles of our criminal law which lie upon the prosecution to prove matters beyond reasonable doubt. We are dealing here with very serious crimes. I said earlier that on a similar matter the Government had been persuaded that this was the wrong formula. The formula that I humbly put before the Committee is the correct one, using the exact words that I have used. That similar matter was on the occasion of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. The Committee may remember that when that Bill was before noble Lords we dealt with the forfeiture of drug moneys and drug profits. With complete unity we decided on all sides of this Chamber, again as we have decided here, that funds should be forfeited. But when we dealt with people who were handling those moneys or assisting we were very careful to see that the onus lay in the proper quarters.
This was not without argument. There was a protest at the original words, which were similar to the words now in this Bill. The protest was made from another place and by other people; namely, a Member of Parliament and the British Bankers Association, which authorised me to say that it too wants this amendment badly. They protested under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act. Then a letter dated 15th May 1986 came from Mr. David Mellor, who was then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. This is what he said in answer to the protest:
"Having reconsidered the matter at length, I came to the conclusion that the objective test could be removed, as you suggest, provided that suspicion is retained as an ingredient of the mens rca. Under this formulation the prosecution will have to prove that the defendant knew or suspected that the person he was assisting was or had been a drug trafficker; it will not be sufficient to show that he ought to have known or suspected".
The Committee will appreciate that this is exactly what the present Bill does. It says that it will be sufficient to show that he ought to have known or suspected.
"Given that we are removing the objective test, I think there is a strong case for retaining suspicion instead of belief as the threshold of criminality: this makes it clear that a person cannot escape conviction by turning a blind eye once his suspicions are aroused. It will remain a defence, of course, for the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities that he did not know or suspect that the transaction related to the proceeds of drug trafficking, or that he did not know or suspect that the effect of the arrangement would be to assist the trafficker to retain the benefit of such proceeds".
Exactly the same argument took place on the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill. The Government then agreed after argument and following representations by the Law Society and by the British Bankers' Association among others that the words should not be as they occur in the Bill now. The amendment was made to comply in exactly the same way with the formula that I have put forward. The same plea comes to the Committee from the British Bankers' Association to adopt the wording of the amendment and from the Law Society and many other people who would otherwise be oppressed by the present wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the face of it seems very reasonable and his explanation of it makes it seem even more reasonable. I understand why he has tabled it. He said that the Bill as drafted turns the law on its head.
There are two issues which we have to consider here: first, what one might call the nature of the mental element which is required in Clause 11; and secondly, whether the burden of proving that mental element should be on the prosecution or on the defence. I shall deal, if I may, with each of these questions separately.
I recognise that the inclusion of the objective test of "having reasonable cause to suspect" departs from the wording in both Section 10(2) of the 1984 Act and Section 24 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and it does so deliberately.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quoted from a letter from Mr. Mellor, a Minister of State at the Home Office some years ago, in defence of his argument, which he was perfectly entitled to do. However, these circumstances are different. Dealing with terrorism is a very particular and special case which requires particular and special methods.
The 1984 Act and the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 contain a subjective test of "knowing or suspecting". It is not without very careful thought that we have concluded that there is a need to go further, if a serious attempt is to be made to tackle the finances of terrorist organisations. The parallel with the laundering of drug money is not entirely apt. I believe that terrorism is different. We have to take account of the special circumstances of Northern Irish terrorism and the climate of fear which terrorism creates and which the terrorists aim to generate. Much of the IRA's fund-raising is open for all to see. We have all heard of the building site extortions but, as I said at Second Reading, there are other forms of racketeering too, some of them equally blatant: the control of pubs and clubs, the pirating of videotapes, the manipulation of estate agencies. It is well known in the Province where the Provisionals' money comes from.
It was against this background that we believed it would be frankly inadequate to allow a person to protest that he did not "know" what was going on or that he did not "suspect" the money was for terrorist use. Someone who is caught up in a financial transaction which is assisting the terrorists will frequently have a very good idea of what is going on. The pressure on him to deny that he knew or suspected anything untoward may be very great.
1 do not for one moment wish to underestimate what it means for the ordinary law-abiding person to go to the enforcement authorities with information. But unless people come forward, the rackets cannot be broken. We must ensure that it is in a person's interest to act where there is reason to do so. Members of the Committee will appreciate that, unless we have a test of "reasonable cause to suspect", it will be all too easy for a person to turn a blind eye, knowing that it would be extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that he actually suspected terrorist involvement. How can you prove what is going on in another person's mind?
960
Those arguments apply to the banks, to solicitors and to other professional people as well as to the wider public. As the Committee knows, the Government have been generally assured of the cooperation of the financial community in London and in Belfast for the measures which we wish to take. My right honourable friend and I are enormously grateful for their positive response. I know that the banks themselves recognise that they have a duty to satisfy themselves about the sorts of people with whom they deal.
If a bank has doubts about a transaction or a particular customer, the police should be informed so that further investigations can be carried out and, if necessary, a restraint order sought against the money or the property concerned, pending the bringing of charges. The test of "having reasonable cause to suspect" in fact reflects in the legislation the standards which the banks have set for themselves. Of course we do not want to see prosecutions in cases of genuine carelessness or ignorance on the part of junior staff. We believe that a person who acts in good faith is adequately protected in Clause 11(2), in which it is a defence:
"that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect".
I believe that that is a reasonable defence.
With regard to the burden of proof, which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, engagingly described as turning the law on its head, I recognise that in Clause 9 the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but the Clause 11 offence is different because it is further removed from the actual terrorist activity for which funds are to be used. The offence here is not that money is being made available to the terrorist, which is outlawed under Clause 9, but that it is being looked after for him. We commonly use the expression laundering to describe this sort of activity. The money is placed where it cannot easily be connected with the criminal activity from which it is derived or for which it will be used. The traces are deliberately and carefully covered up. The money might, for example, be invested in an otherwise perfectly legitimate company—an estate agency, a club or a hotel. This is bound to create difficulties for the prosecution in proving that the defendant knew or that he had reasonable cause to suspect that the arrangement related to terrorist funds. But it will be relatively easy for the defendant, if he is innocent, to show that he had no reason to know or suspect that he was caught up in an arrangement which was benefiting terrorists.
I understand that there are genuine concerns about how these provisions will work in practice. It is, as I have said, not our intention to see law-abiding members of the general public or the financial community prosecuted for inadvertence. But we have had to cast the offence in fairly strong terms in order to ensure that those who knowingly assist the terrorists are not able to hide behind a pretence of ignorance. That is an important provision and I hope that the Committee will see the force of that requirement.
The Earl of Selkirk: I have listened with great care to what my noble friend said and I appreciate the

961
difficulties into which he may have to enter in testing what people do or do not know. Many of us have passed examinations with greater or lesser success and in them we show what we know. However, perhaps I may ask him how one tests what someone does not know.
In subsection (2) one has to prove what one does not know. To me that seems not only impossible but also unreasonable. I ask my noble friend to look carefully at this. Of course we want people to examine closely what they are entitled to do.
This provision applies to banks, to stockbrokers, to accountants and perhaps to lawyers. It applies to a great range of people, any of whom may be subject to examination to find out what he does or does not know. I believe that that is a very unreasonable proposition to put forward. I understand what my noble friend said, but can he not find something rather more sensible to put into that clause instead of trying to test what someone does not know, which is impossible? I find that very difficult to understand. A person has to prove that he did not know something. How is he to do that? I ask my noble friend to think very carefully to see whether he cannot find something in this context which is fairer and easier to work.
Earl Ferrers: Of course I shall take great notice of what my noble friend says. The point about this subsection is that it is a defence for someone to prove that he did not know. If one is accused of something but did not have the slightest idea that what one was doing was having a certain effect, it is a defence to say, "I did not know". This is a distinction from the person who is accused of doing something and has as his defence that he had no reasonable cause to know. If you can say, "I had no reasonable cause to know that", you can get away with things.
The reason why we wish to keep these words is that it is a perfectly legitimate defence for a person accused of, for instance, dealing with money which is going to terrorists to say, "I did not know that that was happening". That is very different from a person being able to say, "I was not aware that that was happening and therefore I am innocent". If you can prove to the court that you did not know at all, that is a reasonable defence. Certainly I will look at my noble friend's point, but I do not see on the face of it that it creates that much of a problem.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As between the two noble Earls, I found myself in agreement with the Minister and I think my noble friend Lord Selkirk, very conscientiously, has somewhat exaggerated the difficulty of proving the lack of knowledge which is required by the subsection. As I understand it, someone who desired to rest on this defence would go into the witness box and say on oath that he did not know. He would then be cross-examined and there would be put to him various circumstances which the prosecution might thick should have made him known or suspect. He would reply and indicate whether he knew of those circumstances or whether he interpreted them differently.
962
This is something that happens very regularly in the courts and it does not seem to give rise to any great difficulty. He would simply have to satisfy the jury that his defence that he did not know was genuine. I hope my noble friend will leave the subsection as it stands. With the enormous difficulty there obviously is in tracing these funds, some such provision as this is necessary.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Very briefly, I was going to make the same point as my noble friend the Minister and to suggest respectfully that he leaves the clause as it stands. But there is one aspect which ought to be brought out. He has to prove that he did not know. All right, that is the burden. But what is the standard of proof? The standard of proof is not that he has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. That is the burden on the Crown. All that the defence has to prove is that on the balance of probabilities, the civil burden, he did not know. As I see it, there are no problems and in the very special circumstances no manifest injustice. For those reasons, I join forces with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in suggesting that there are no serious problems with this clause.
Lord Nathan: May I emphasise, in supporting the amendment, the other words to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, did riot refer and which worry me most? The words are "no reasonable cause to suspect". It is not that he did not suspect. The burden of proof there is the same as the burden of proof relating to not knowing. But this introduction of the words "no reasonable cause" strikes me as an entirely new element.
That leads me to the only other point that I should like to mention. Is it really suggested that there is a suitable distinction between drug trafficking and money derived from it and money derived from terrorism? I listened with great attention to what the noble Earl the Minister said and of course I respect his view with regard to terrorism. But I doubt whether we or the public appreciate a difference of such importance between the provisions of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act and the Bill now before us. The two want to go in parallel and the distinction which the Minister seeks to make between the two I found rather unconvincing.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With the greatest respect to him, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, is wholly misconceived. There is no problem at all. The defence has to prove either that he did not know or that he had no reasonable cause to suspect. In either event, the standard of that proof is that on the balance of probabilities such was the case, and again I respectfully suggest that the clause is proper in the circumstances as drafted.
Viscount Caldecote: Perhaps this is a case where the details should be left to the very eminent legal Members of your Lordships' House. But may I ask the Minister what I might call a common sense question? Is it not a fact that if the Bill remains as it is drafted it gives a greater incentive to financial institutions to inquire in cases where they might be

963
committing an offence to make sure that they are not gong to commit an offence when a new account is opened or something like that? If the amendment is passed, will it not remove incentives to financial institutions to take great care that they are not involved in an offence and thereby helping terrorists?
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether I might answer that point first. My noble friend Lord Caldecote is quite right. It is an imposition on the banks—inevitably it is—not in order to create difficulties for the banks but in order to be able to get hold of funds which are used for terrorism. In order to do that the Bill places obligations upon the banks greater than they have at the moment. I can understand it if the banks feel that they do not particularly want to accept those obligations—if that is what they do feel. But if the result of this is that banks tighten up their procedures and, as a result of that, terrorists' funds are found, that can only be commendable. That is the reason why my noble friend Lord Caldecote is right.
To come back to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, if you insert the words "knowing or suspecting them to be terrorist funds", anyone can say, "I did not know that they were terrorist funds", and be free of the obligation. I did not wish to imply to my noble friend Lord Selkirk, or indeed to anyone else, that it was my desire to take his advice and change the wording. What I meant to intimate was that I will certainly consider what he said in case I had not understood it correctly. It is my view that the words are correct for the reasons which my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Campbell suggested, because in proceedings against a person for an offence it is a defence to prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect. That ought to be plenty of protection for the innocent person not to be convicted.
My noble friend Lord Nathan said that he did not accept the argument about drug trafficking and terrorism being very different. There is one significant distinction and that is that the Drug Trafficking Offences Act is already in place. What we are seeking to do now is to make the provisions of the Bill stronger than that for the reasons which I have given and because terrorism is particularly offensive due to the fear, the distress and the damage which it causes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: There is much fear and distress as regards drug trafficking too. I agree with the noble Earl in his attitude to the terms of this amendment, but I am bound to say that I agree with the substance of what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said, although I come to a different conclusion.
I very much regretted, and still regret, that the Drug Trafficking Offences Act did not go a great deal further, as some of us advocated at the time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and I attempted to persuade the Government to make that Act more rigorous, but the Government declined, no doubt as a result of advice which they received from the Treasury and the joint stock banks. However, it certainly would not lead me to the conclusion that therefore we should oppose this particular proposition.
964
Let us consider the situation. Someone goes to another person and asks him to look after, keep, harbour—call it what you will—the sum of £10,000 in cash. Subsequently that person is arrested on a charge under this clause of the Bill. It does not seem to me unreasonable, given the problem with which we are confronted in Northern Ireland, to make that defendant prove to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the arrangement related to terrorist funds.
I would be extremely nervous if this amendment were to be carried because I believe that it would weaken the Bill considerably. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will not press the amendment. As I have indicated, speaking for myself I cannot support it.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to draw my noble friend's attention to this point. It is a question of crime. The proof therefore has to be beyond reasonable doubt, not a balance of probability. If the noble Lord made this the balance of probability, that would be more sensible. Perhaps, as the noble Lord said, he will look at this point in due course.
Frankly, it is extremely difficult to prove what someone does not know. There can be an examination but it is extremely hard to prove. The man is guilty until it is shown that he does not know. I believe that that is practically impossible to prove.
Lord Trafford: Surely the argument here is not so much a legal one, which seems to be agreed; namely that there is a difference between the Drug Trafficking Offences Act and this Bill. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that it is a pity that the measure is not in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, for the same reason that it is an equally unpleasant and offensive activity.
Surely, it is a practical matter. It seems to me that if the amendment is carried there is a considerable possibility that certain types of offender will not be brought to justice. For example, I refer to the protection rackets. Under the Bill it may be difficult for a man subjected to a protection racket to say that he did not know, but it might be much easier for him to escape if the burden of proof in those circumstances rests with the prosecution.
I would be the first to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that when one turns the normal principles of criminal law upside down, one should take great care. It is right and proper that Parliament should consider that at great length, which we have been doing and I do not wish to prolong the debate. However, it seems that in two particular categories—there may be others, but drugs in particular and certainly this one—there are groups of people who would escape justice. There are groups of people who would not come forward. There would be groups of people who would be, if you like, acquitted unless the clause as it stands goes through. There would be far too much escaping. The teeth of this part of the Bill would have been drawn; although I understand all the theoretical arguments which have been put forward against it.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may make one short intervention. My noble friend Lord Selkirk again expressed his concern about the defence. He was concerned that the defence has to be beyond reasonable doubt and how could one know; and that this is a criminal law with which we are dealing. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said that the defence was the balance of probabilities.
My advice is that my noble friend is right, and that it is the balance of probabilities as opposed to a defence that it is beyond reasonable doubt. It is an argument for the defence to show that it is the balance of probability.
Lord Mishcon: It is with some sorrow that I rise to answer the debate, especially in regard to the arguments advanced by the Minister. I heard with deep regret—and I say this frankly—the observations of the noble Lord opposite who took the view that it did not seem to matter in regard to criminal law if one reversed the process; that it was perfectly easy and why should a person not go into the witness box and prove his innocence. I wonder how far the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would go with that argument. I ask the noble Lord to believe that I say with sincerity that I was surprised to hear him make those observations with his legal background, of which I am sure he is properly proud.
I said when we were dealing with the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, and I say it now, that I went along with the provisions of that Act, and was happy to do so on behalf of the Opposition. But I said (I used words in 1986 that I have reminded myself of and, indeed, the British Bankers' Association reminded me) that we must be very careful that, in upsetting a principle which is sacred in our law—and—we are dealing with criminals, as has been pointed out-—we do not use it as a precedent.
What we have here is a precedent that was unusual in the Act as it went forward. We are now adding to that precedent in a way which is contrary to our principle that it is the prosecution's job to prove a criminal offence.
The Minister endevoured to differentiate between the two types of vicious funds—I call both vicious funds as I see no difference between the two—and I thought he was trying to prove to the Committee that in regard to terrorist funds everybody jolly well knew the tricks they were up to and the way in which such funds are concealed. I did not understand that in contrast to drug trafficking. The drug traffickers are among the most cunning people imaginable, and a wretched crowd they are. I did not know that terrorists were more subtle than drug traffickers in regard to the funds they collected and administered.
I am thinking not of the shady person dealing as an agent or arranger, or whatever he may be, but of the bank clerks and what the banks and other people are supposed to do. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Harris—I am sure he did not mean it unkindly—to agree with the observation made by the noble Lord opposite, who also made the point with all sincerity, that we should make them all a jolly sight more careful.
966
The banks in this country—I say this from theseBenches—do not consist of criminals; nor do they consist of bank clerks who are as wise as the noble Lord. Many of them are humble folk. What are they supposed to do under the provision that we now have? The view is put forward that they ought to have suspected and that they have to prove they did not know. A perfectly respectable bank clerk is to be told "You go into the witness box. You allowed this arrangement to take place. You prove to the satisfaction of the jury that you did not know or did not have reasonable cause to suspect'''. It is that person I have in mind. It is because of that possibility that our criminal law contains the principle that it does. It is not an academic question but a question of justice. I say this from these Benches-do not consist of criminals; nor do they consist of bank clerks who are as wise as the noble Lord. Many of them are humble folk. What are they supposed to do under the provision that we now have? The view is put forward that they ought to have suspected and that they have to prove they did not know. A perfectly respectable bank clerk is to be told "You go into the witness box. You allowed this arrangement to take place. You prove to the satisfaction of the jury that you did not know or did not have reasonable cause to suspect'''. It is that person I have in mind. It is because of that possibility that our criminal law contains the principle that it does. It is not an academic question but a question of justice.
I cannot understand the Minister's argument when he says that it is so darned obvious—if I may be forgiven that expression—that everybody knows how these people use their funds. If it is so obvious the prosecution will have a very easy task. All it has to say is this. "Look at these facts that we prove. It must have been obvious and it must have been done knowingly". That is the evidence of the prosecution, and those are the circumstances. Surely he must have known". I say in my own positive and subjective statement, "knowing or suspecting them". If all this is so obvious, no judge is going to rule that the defendant has no case to answer. He will have to go into the witness box. But at least the prosecution will have shown that the defendant should have known and suspected with that onus on him.
Once we begin altering the criminal law in that way with one exception after the other—first, drug offences and now an even more severe onus as regards terrorist funds—where will we end up? As I said before, it is not just people whom the Committee would expect to argue on academic grounds. It is not just the Law Society or the Bar. These are associations of bankers who have said that it puts an impossible burden on them. They say, "what are we supposed to do by way of arrangements with all our branches and bank clerks?"
I have already tested once the opinion of the Committee. I do not wish to lose the Committee's patience, when I may have to do it again. I merely ask the Minister to consider what has been said in this debate. Will he also remember what his colleague said, not years ago but only in 1986; namely, why he agreed that the wording had to be altered in the way I have suggested. In his consideration of the matter he may be kind enough to communicate with me on his final decision before the Report stage. I shall then know whether I should put this matter before the Chamber again at the Report stage. In the meantime, with the leave of the Committee, I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Arrest and detention of suspected persons]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 35, leave out ("The Secretary of State") and insert ("A justice of the peace (or in the case of Scotland a justice of the peace or a sheriff) on the application of a constable and on being satisfied that it is proper to do so").
The noble Lord said: We have come to an important amendment and I hope that the Committee will not be impatient at again hearing my voice moving it. At Second Reading we dealt with the problem of what one may call in shorthand the Brogan case. Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee what that was about.
There is a provision in the Bill that after 48 hours, by an executive act someone arrested and not yet charged can be detained up to a further five days. The case of Brogan was looked at by the court that looks after human rights. We are a signatory to that convention. The court recognised the very special circumstances in which we try to operate against terrorism. It did not say that it was wrong in any circumstances that the period of detention should be extended without a charge being brought for that length of time. It said that it should not be by an executive act, but by a judicial act.
There is the right to derogate from the convention in certain circumstances: perhaps I may again use shorthand; I do not believe that it is an inaccurate statement. The right of derogation exists where the member country signing the convention can show that there is a danger to the whole population of the state that signs it. I therefore speak with some hesitation about the desirability of derogation only because it seems to be an announcement to organisations that we rightly hold in absolute hatred that the result of their operations has been to put the whole population of our country in some fear and terror. That does not seem to be a very desirable situation. I can well understand that we may have to derogate.
There is a difficulty as regards this matter and I am the first to understand it. Normally if one goes before a judicial authority the difficulty is that the detaining power (the police) have to give reasons, which are open to the other side, as to why they want the period of detention prolonged without a charge being preferred. I am not saying that I entirely support it, but I can well understand the argument on behalf of the Government that that is an undesirable burden to put on the police as the detaining authority. In giving the reasons for further detention in order to examine somebody, matters may well be revealed which the security of the nation would dictate should not be revealed.
In this amendment I have tried not to go that far. I appreciate that the Brogan decision and the wording of the convention may mean not just that the matter has to go before some judicial authority but that there should be the right of the detainee to go before that authority either himself or through his lawyer and argue the matter, and be given the reasons for the further detention. I am taking it for granted at the Committee stage that that may be right in order to meet all the requirements of the convention.
In order to escape from the morass that that might lead us into by way of debate I decided—it is the creature of my own humble mind—to put an amendment before the Committee so that in view of the unhappy situation we are in because of the Brogan case, all the issues can be properly debated. I have said "Look, before that extension is granted you have to go before a justice of the peace". That would be the case in the United Kingdom except for Scotland where it would be a justice of the peace or a sheriff.
The application will be made by a constable or someone of superior rank and the justice of the peace has to be satisfied on what he learns from the police officer that it is proper to grant the extension applied for. I have said it before, but I realise at once that the answer may be that it does not completely comply with the requirements of the convention. It may not completely satisfy Brogan. But we shall have introduced a judicial process as against an executive one, without the disadvantage of the detainee having the right to go before a justice of the peace or to know the grounds. We shall have introduced a judicial process whereby the justice of the peace must be satisfied that it is a proper thing to do.
If we derogate then from the convention, at least it is shown that we have done our best to comply with the spirit of the convention without walking into the dangers, into which we would have to walk in the special circumstances of Ireland and terrorism generally, of having to divulge to the detainee the grounds on which we have made that application.
The purpose of the amendment is to test the ground and to try to be helpful by making a sensible suggestion which puts us in a proper and justifiable position before the European Court. It may evoke other thoughts which in the course of the proceedings on the Bill may help us to get over Brogan. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: The noble Lord was good enough to say that he put forward the amendment knowing that it would not meet all the requirements which he believes ought to be met. I think he is right on that point. However, before coming to that, I should like to point out that there are two things wrong with the amendment. First, he suggests that the extension order, as it is generally known, should be signed by a justice of the peace rather than by the Secretary of State. I cannot believe that that is a good idea.
My wife is a justice of the peace. She is sitting as a justice at this moment. I do not think that she would consider herself to be the right person to give the executive order to detain someone in these circumstances for five days. I am sure that the same applies to other justices of the peace. They cannot know as much about the police and the counter-terrorist activities of the security forces as the Secretary of State can know. Imagine a justice of the peace being confronted by a constable—I shall come to the constable in a moment—who says, "Please sign this order to let me keep Mr X in custody for another five days". The justice would not know what to do. I am sure that on reflection the noble Lord will agree

969
that a justice of the peace is not the right mechanism for this purpose.
Secondly, I should like to draw his attention to another matter. The amendment refers to "a constable". When it fell to me on occasions to sign extension orders, I would never do so at the request of a constable. If my memory serves me right, I insisted that an application was made by someone of the rank of chief superintendent or above. I am not saying anything against constables—they are fine people—but I do not believe it is right that a constable should make the decision that someone be detained for more than the 48 hours. The constable should seek permission so to do.
The reasoning is quite simple. First, a chief superintendent or higher ranking police officer has a great deal more experience than a constable. Secondly, the Secretary of State—and now I draw on my experience—will know the chief superintendent, the assistant commissioner, the assistant chief constable, the chief constable or whoever it may be, and will be able to judge for himself whether or not that application and the reason given is good. Not all police officers are the same. Some may be more inclined to say, "We have this man. Let's try to keep him in a little longer to see whether we can get something out of him. We shall try to make up some reasons that the Secretary of State will accept". One gets to know that; so one probes more deeply into the reasons. One can send for the man's superiors and ask them to come and argue the case. One cannot do that with a constable, and on reflection I do not believe that the noble Lord will feel that this is precisely the right wording.
Perhaps I may come briefly to the difficulty caused by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. In this respect I confess that I do not know the answer. The Government have said that they need time. My noble friend said this at Second Reading, and it was said in another place. Time continues to go by, and I do not think that they have arrived at a conclusion yet. I am sorry to have to tell the Committee that I cannot advise on what precisely that conclusion ought to be. But the time cannot be allowed to run on indefinitely. We shall find ourselves in considerable difficulty with other countries, let alone with the court itself, if we are not able to bring forward within a reasonable period some compromise—because compromise it must be—which will satisfy all parties.
We have a problem. The Bill, I hope, will become law next month. If it does not, we shall have a gap which we cannot afford to have. From what I have heard so far in the debate we may not have solved the problem within that time. The Bill will become an Act as it is presently drafted. If my noble friend and his colleagues in the Government are not able to produce an alternative form of words to meet this difficulty before the Bill goes on to the statute book, I hope we can be given an undertaking that when they have that form of words they will bring forward amending legislation. If they do not, the wording will remain on the statute book forever because the Bill has no expiry date. It can be renewed only by Order in
970
Council which cannot alter the wording. I hope my noble friend will give an undertaking to bring forward amending legislation as soon as possible. In the meantime, the wording should stay as it is.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The Committee is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for raising the issue. As I and others indicated at Second Reading, the judgment of the European Court is a matter of the highest importance. I agree with everything the noble Lord has just said. I recognise the Government's problems in coming to a decision. There are some formidable difficulties. We are in the unhappy position that we have either to accept or reject the Bill. At the very least I would hope that if the Government cannot give an undertaking that the Secretary of State will come to a decision on the matter before the Bill leaves this Chamber—I suspect the answer to that question will be that he cannot—the noble Earl will be able to give an absolute and categoric assurance that before the Summer Recess the Secretary of State will make a Statement in Parliament to make clear the Government's decision on the matter. That is the least we should ask for.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, has just said. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will recognise that, when one has a bash at trying to get the matter right by means of an amendment of this character, difficult issues are involved. I am doubtful whether, if a police officer arrived on the doorstep of a county magistrate in Wiltshire and asked him for his agreement to extend the detention beyond 48 hours, the justice of the peace would have the faintest idea what to do. While I do not believe the terms of the amendment are right, the issue which the noble Lord has raised is fundamental. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be able to help us in the matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raises a crucial point for discussion. As I happen to agree with everything my noble friend Lord Colnbrook has said, I can be very brief.
First, the amendment raises practical difficulties of implementation which means that in its present form it would not be acceptable for the reasons given by my noble friend. But the principle behind the amendment, as my noble friend pointed out, has to be seized by the Government. Some form of judicial process has to be injected in order that there should be conformity with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights so as to enable Her Majesty's Government to comply with treaty obligations as interpreted by that designated court. It is a delicate problem for this reason. Of all the signatory states to the convention which have ratified, the United Kingdom is the only state that has no written constitution and no administrative court in which misuse or abuse of power on the part of the Executive—the Secretary of State—may be reviewed.
As Members of the Committee will know, the Court of Human Rights will not entertain jurisdiction unless and until all the vested procedures have been exhausted. The reason this is part of a

971
much bigger problem—the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—and the reason there are so many cases before the European Court of Human Rights to which the United Kingdom Government are responding is that there is no administrative court to act as a sieve or a filter. Moreover, the particular case in point, which gives rise to the decision in the amendment, would have been caught in such a filter.
It is not to the point to say that we do not accept the merits of the judgment, or that we are dissatisfied with our domestic regime, because that produces a situation which is wholly unacceptable. Indeed, there are only two options. One is for Her Majesty's Government to refuse to accept the decision and negotiate a protocol of derogation—which must surely be, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Colnbrook will agree, a measure of the last resort which offends against all international comity. The other is to accept the decision and arrange our procedures in conformity with the reasoning of the judgment. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Colnbrook said, it is a matter—clearly it may be difficult to achieve in the drafting of the Bill—which must be done either in this Bill or in some other form of legislative structure, be it an order, a regulation, or whatever.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Fitt: This clause, allied as it is to the Brogan case, has received tremendous publicity in Ireland. It did so because it is of tremendous propaganda value to the men of violence. There are two interested elements in relation to the clause. The first is the civil libertarians. They are people who are genuinely and sincerely concerned about the freedom of the individual. They want to restrict the powers of the Executive in relation to the detention of an individual for a long time. I can quite understand that those people are sincerely motivated in attempting to restrict the Executive's power on the detention of an individual.
However, there is another element which is exploiting the Brogan case both here and in Europe. They are people who are actually engaged in violence. It is obviously in the interests of paramilitary organisations to restrict detention to the bare minimum of time. In fact, if they could get away with it, they would not want any of their members detained for longer than five minutes, because the longer detention goes on the greater is the possibility that the person detained and being questioned will admit to having taken part in a crime.
In the final analysis the people who make the arrest and detention in the first place are the police; in other words, the arresting authorities. A former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that he was faced on occasions with the situation of having to grant a further five days' detention at the end of two days. I do not think that he or any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, given the evidence of the police when they say that they wish to have an extension of five days, would say, "No, you can't have it". I cannot see any Secretary of State saying that to the police.
972
In the same way, I could not see a judge, especially a JP who is not terribly aware of all the provisions contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, when faced with a policeman who has given him the evidence and said, "We have interrogated this individual; we are not quite happy about the response we are getting and we want to have another five days", saying in reply, "No, you can't have it".
Lord Colnbrook: The noble Lord referred to me and said that he could not see me or anyone else, on being faced with a request for an extension, saying, "No, you can't have it". I must tell him that I did.
Lord Fitt: I should like to know on just how many occasions that happens. I am quite certain that in the vast majority of cases the Secretary of State, when faced with the evidence of the arresting authorities, the police, would not want to go against their wishes. Indeed, the wording in the amendment is, "a constable". A constable is part of the arresting authority in this case.
I can see the difficulty the Government are placed in because the IRA and other paramilitary organisations will make the maximum propaganda issue out of this matter. They will shout about the freedom of the individual and the European Court of Human Rights and all the rights which are attached to the individual from international organisations. Yet those same paramilitary organisations are breaking every rule in the book and are contravening every law that was ever made for the protection of the individual.
As I see it, the arresting authority feels justified in making the arrest in the first place which leads to the original two days' detention. I am quite certain, though I do not want to see this clause or the Bill remain for one second longer than necessary, that if the police authorities feel it is necessary to ask the Secretary of State for an extension of five days—irrespective of the hullabaloo and criticisms which will come from those organisations in support of the men of violence—the Government should retain the powers.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the Government will concentrate on getting this Bill right as an instrument for tackling Irish terrorism. Surely that is what we are about. It must be the case, first, that there are occasions when it is necessary to hold a terrorist for more than two days. Secondly, it is surely becoming increasingly plain that you will be putting an impossible task on justices of the peace in asking them to be the authority determining that provision. Therefore I hope that the Government will concentrate on getting the Bill right from a practical and effective point of view and will not allow themselves to be unduly distracted by the gyrations of the European Court of Human Rights.
I think that perhaps some Members of the Committee seem to attach to the European Court of Human Rights a degree of respect and reverence which the great majority of our fellow countrymen do not share. Indeed, to some of us it seems to be operating in rather an unreal vacuum and it appears

973
that it is not composed of people who understand the practical necessities of a government faced with what is in fact a war.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that he would not like us to include a derogation because that would carry with it implications that we were being endangered; but the IRA declared itself to be at war with us. It is a warlike situation. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will recall the old principle silent leges enim inter arma. Inter arma, one hopes optimistically, silent the European Court. That body must appreciate that the British Government face a real and difficult task. It would not help the credit of that court, its reputation or standing, in this country or elsewhere, if it were to appear to get into the position that it did not mind handicapping Her Majesty's Government in the fierce struggle in which they are engaged.
I say with respect to my noble friend the Minister that it is important at this stage not to let ourselves be distracted by those outside matters, but to concentrate on achieving an effective bit of machinery to enable the detention of those who need to be detained on security grounds to be effected.
It is obvious that the Secretary of State is the only proper authority. Only he has the knowledge, sometimes the information derived from security sources, to know whether the person detained is a person who is of serious menace and in respect of whom other matters may be revealed by research. Only the Secretary of State can know that, and I hope that we will leave the Bill as it is.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment touches on a delicate and sensitive area, and one which has been recognised by all Members of the Committee. I am grateful to the Committee for the understanding that it has displayed about the position in which we find ourselves over the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. I shall resist the temptation of following the somewhat untoward remarks made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about the European Court and people's views upon it. If a judgment is made, we wish, as a government, to see that we can accord with that judgment, provided that it also meets the other difficulties in which we find ourselves.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Exactly.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the amendment, as he gently put it, was the product of his humble mind. It was a useful amendment upon which we could discuss this difficult problem. I do not expect that the noble Lord will seek to import the amendment into the Bill. I hope that he will not because it raises all sorts of questions. My noble friend Lord Colnbrook put his finger on the pulse when he asked how a justice of the peace would know about the security service. He said that if a justice of the peace were asked to give such an agreement, he would not know what to do. The point is also raised as to whether the justice of the peace is the right level of judicial officer to be asked to carry out that task.
974
Clearly we want to find a way around the problem. If it requires amending legislation, amending legislation will have to be brought in. That will depend upon our eventual conclusions. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether I could give an assurance that my right honourable friend would make a Statement before the Summer Recess. He would not, of course, expect me to give such an assurance now, but I shall certainly see that my right honourable friend is made aware of the noble Lord's views.
The amendment goes to the heart of the debate on how the Government should respond to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Many Members of the Committee have, understandably, expressed concern about the length of time taken for the Government to come forward with a considered response to that judgment. I understand that concern.
We should have liked to be in a position to bring forward our response during the Bill's passage, preferably in ample time to consider any proposed amendments to the Bill. My right honourable friend said in another place that the matter is extremely complex. He pointed out that our system of criminal justice is different from those in other European countries which are parties to the convention. There is much talk about an examining magistrate, but that is not a concept which we can import simply into our system. In those countries where there is an examining magistrate, he or she is part of the investigative system and operates in a way which is radically different from the way in which our magistrates work.
In the general run of criminal cases in the United Kingdom, detention before charge is authorised by a magistrate. It is only in the exceptional circumstances which surround terrorist crime that the executive authorises continued detention. No other European county faces indigenous terrorism on a scale anywhere approaching that which we have in the United Kingdom. There is a further complication to consider: we have in the United Kingdom not one jurisdiction but three jurisdictions with their own traditions and practices. In one of those jurisdictions, the judiciary is already under severe pressure.
Those difficulties, and the need for appropriate procedures to deal with terrorist suspects, were recognised by the European Court at Strasbourg; but as my right honourable friend has made clear, it is our wish to arrive at a judicial mechanism, if one can be worked out. I can assure the Committee that we are working hard to achieve that end. Any mechanism at which we arrive will have to be tested against two criteria. The first is whether it will be acceptable at Strasbourg. Secondly, and just as important, is whether it will be effective in bringing 'terrorists to justice. The power of arrest and detention under the Bill are central to our attempts to combat terrorism. That is the point which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was concerned that we should not forget.
We should not adopt any procedure which would put at risk the ability of the police to carry out their investigations into terrorist crime. Until we have an opportunity to complete our deliberations and

975
consultations, it would be premature for me to offer a considered view on the scheme proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Miscon. I hope that he will understand the reasons for that. The debate has illustrated the difficulties which face the Government in trying to find a judicial solution to the problem of extended detention. It has been instructive to hear the Committee's views. I assure the Committee that they will be carefully noted before any decision is reached.
Until we have reached a final view, it would not be right to change the procedures in the Bill for extending detention. Any proposals which we make may differ a little, a great deal, or not at all, from those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. That is not the point. The point is that the Committee should not take a final view on any judicial scheme for extending detention until it has heard the Government's considered response to the Brogan judgment. The judgment raises serious and difficult questions. We are addressing them as quickly as we reasonably can. I hope that the Committee will agree that it would be best not to make a premature decision, which circumstances might later lead us to regret, but to await a considered view.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was concerned that if we did not make up our minds fairly soon, it would be necessary to have a derogation. In fact one was made on 23rd December, and of course it lasts until the conditions change.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: When I said that this amendment was a product of my humble mind, I ought really to have quoted the favourite phrase of a noble and learned friend of mine, a much respected Member of your Lordships' House. I should have said that it was a product of what I am pleased to call my mind. It was done deliberately in order that Brogan could be discussed. It was right that we should discuss it; perhaps we ought to discuss it at further stages of the Bill.
As the Minister will recollect, his right honourable friend on Second Reading in another place said that the situation would be dealt with before the Bill left the other place. It was only in the final stages of the Committee proceedings in the other place, I believe, that that view was altered. It was decided that this could not be done before the Bill left the other place.
We must give consideration to the subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, rightly said. It is a matter which is being used for propaganda purposes to rather distressing effect in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and we must deal with it. However, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I do not think we can deal with it in quite the "flippant"—if I may use that word—way in which he dealt with the judgments of the European Court. We have a habit in this country, as I understand it, that when we agree to be bound by what a referee decides—whether it is on the football ground or in a court of justice—we accept the judgment that is given. I shall give way to the noble Lord, I promise, in a moment when I have finished the sentence. I think that the noble Lord will, in his usual gracious manner, concede that when the court dealt with the
976
matter of Brogan it said quite specifically that it realised the grave problems that faced the United Kingdom. I said in my opening speech that the court made it abundantly clear that it was not in any way censuring the United Kingdom for having this power and that power. However it reminded the United Kingdom of the judicial process which had to be exercised. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He referred to the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights—
Lord Mishcon: Court of Justice.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter:—or the Court of Justice as the referee and said that it was wrong to be "flippant" about it. However, the noble Lord must face the fact that that court has not had a very successful record. There are many serious-minded people in this country who are very disappointed with it.
Lord Mishcon: It may be perfectly all right for the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to differ from me on these matters. That is obviously his right. I would warn him however that he also differed from his noble friend Lord Colnbrook. I was castigated by the noble Lord for talking about joining hands with the Government in the war against terrorism. I was told that I dare not use the word "war"; that it was a dreadful word to use; and that we were not at war with the IRA. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, must have heard the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook call this a war in which we were engaged.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I specifically said that the IRA claimed to be at war with us.
Lord Mishcon: If the noble Lord will read Hansard tomorrow he will find, with his usual fairness, that he talked about our being "at war" with them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not wish to continue the discussion with the noble Lord. If people say that they are at war with you, then you are at war with them. We cannot have two completely different views on the subject. The noble Lord is for once in his life on a thoroughly bad point.
Lord Mishcon: If I am on a bad point, will the noble Lord kindly tell his noble friend Lord Colnbrook not to rebuke me in future for saying that because they were at war with us, we were at war with them. I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, with all his experience as a previous Secretary of State dealing with these matters, that I must not say that. If I accept the rebuke from the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, then I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, ought to accept the rebuke in the same gracious way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the noble Lord will for once be happy with the fact that he and I agree. I do not know what is worrying him.
Lord Mishcon: I always worry when I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am convinced that I must be on a bad point. To be serious—and this is a very serious matter—I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about the need to try to clarify the matter from the point of view of our national reputation and how we stand in Northern Ireland and generally. We must solve the problem. I know that the Minister will pass on the comments made in this debate to his right honourable friend, with a view to seeing whether at least a government proposal in regard to these matters can be properly debated before the Bill leaves the House.
It is on that basis and without in any way regretting that the amendment has come before the Committee, because it is vital that these matters should be discussed, that I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Investigation of terrorist activities]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page I I, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in subsection (2)(a) above shall preclude a lawyer from making a disclosure for the purpose of seeking his client's instructions or giving him legal advice.").
The noble Lord said: I shall endeavour to be as brief as I possibly can. The amendment provides, as the Committee will see, that a lawyer, when making a disclosure solely for the purpose of seeking his client's instructions or giving him legal advice, does not fall foul of Clause 17 which makes it a crime if someone;
"knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that the investigation is taking place, makes any disclosure which is likely to prejudice the investigation."
One can easily see the difficulties of a lawyer in regard to advising his client in these circumstances. The same doubt was expressed about whether or not it would be a reasonable excuse for a solicitor to advance that he was taking his client's instructions when Section 31 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act was examined. The matter came before the court in the case of Regina v. Central Criminal Court ex parte Francis and Francis. There Mr. Justice Webster observed:
"A solicitor-client relationship must constitute a reasonable excuse, I would have thought."
As long as a judge says he would have thought something, there must be some little doubt about it. The amendment makes the position abundantly clear. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: This is quite a difficult question to resolve. I understand the concern the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has about the special relationship of confidentiality and trust which rightly exists between a solicitor and his client. I am conscious of the need to protect the traditional character of that relationship. It would of course be undesirable if a solicitor were unable to represent his client's interests
978
effectively, or if people as a result were reluctant to seek legal advice. At the same time we have to weigh the consequences for the machinery of justice. We must ensure that the criminal law can be properly enforced in the way in which Parliament intended. So there are two important principles we need to keep in mind. But I do not think that they are necessarily in contradiction in this case.
The amendment would have the effect that if a solicitor made a disclosure likely to prejudice a terrorist investigation he would not be committing an offence if the disclosure were for the purpose of seeking his client's instructions or giving him advice. The circumstances would typically be where for instance a warrant or order had been issued under Schedule 7 in relation to documents held by the solicitor and he wished to take his client's instructions on whether the order should be contested.
It is not self-evident that the client would always need to be consulted. The documents are held by the solicitor and the production order relates to him, not to his client. Therefore, he has a duty to contest it, if he believes it conflicts with his client's legal privilege. But he may well be able to determine for himself, from his knowledge of the documents and his previous dealings with his client in relation to them, whether the documents are in fact privileged.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the case of Francis and Francis. In that case the solicitor proceeded to challenge the production order without first seeking the client's instructions. Perhaps that is what one would expect in relation to documents which are prima facie legally privileged. I do not say that there will not be cases where it is perfectly reasonable for the solicitor to consult his client. But, if that is so, the solicitor would have available to him the defence of reasonable excuse, as stated in Clause 17(3)(b). In the Francis case, once it reached your Lordships' House for decision—after all, that is the highest court in the land—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, noted that the Law Society had expressed anxiety about potential difficulties for solicitors under the similar provisions in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. He agreed with the view that was taken in the case by Mr. Justice Webster in the Divisional Court, that a solicitor-client relationship must constitute reasonable excuse in proceedings for the disclosure offence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, said that he did not therefore think that the honest solicitor should have any cause for concern.
I know what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will now say. He will question why, if the defence of reasonable excuse were available, we should not go the whole hog and exempt solicitors from the provisions altogether in the way he has proposed. The reasons for not following that course are the following. In the first place, I do not think that measure is necessary. Secondly, if solicitors, as a matter of course, consult their clients, terrorists would be alerted and investigations could be seriously frustrated. Where the client was indeed a terrorist, or closely connected with a terrorist, it would give him time to cover his tracks before the police could effectively move in. Vital documentary

979
evidence could very easily disappear and potential prosecutions for serious offences would be lost.
The consequences for the new initiative against terrorist finances could be particularly serious because documentary evidence will be so crucial in these cases. Therefore, I do not believe it would be right to allow a solicitor to make what could well be a damaging disclosure without first asking himself whether he has a very good reason for doing so. As I have said, if such a reason exists, it seems sufficiently clear from the Francis case that a solicitor could rely on the defence of reasonable excuse. It can safely be left to the courts to decide whether, in all the circumstances of a particular case, the defence is made out.
This is a somewhat complicated question. I am sorry to have replied at some length. I understand the intentions which lie behind the amendment, but I believe it could do a surprising amount of mischief. In our view the Bill already gives sufficient protection to the solicitor who acts reasonably and in good faith. I hope that the Committee will agree that the Bill is best left as it is.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. I should make one thing quite clear: when the case of Francis and Francis came to the House of Lords, and to this Chamber when it was sitting in a judicial capacity, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, was the only one to comment on the effect of Section 31. Therefore, it was not a judgment of the court. He merely commented on it and he was the only judge who did so. Therefore, there is no authoritative judgment of this Chamber. That is why the Law Society is rather keen to have this matter cleared up.
I shall read with great care, as they deserve to be read, the remarks made by the Minister. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 18 [Information about acts of terrorism]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 12, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) A person shall not under this section be required to disclose any information which he would be entitled to refuse to disclose on grounds of legal professional privilege in proceedings in the High Court.").
The noble Lord said: On a somewhat similar basis, I put this amendment before the Committee. It seeks to ensure that a solicitor is not obliged to disclose privileged information. That is terribly important because the clause we are considering—Clause 18—makes it an offence to fail to provide information about acts of terrorism "without reasonable excuse". Again the words "without reasonable excuse" are used.
The issue which arises is that the right of an alleged terrorist to seek legal advice might be rendered of no effect if a solicitor was under a duty to disclose under Clause 18. The alleged terrorist would be reluctant to
980
seek legal advice if he knew that his solicitor was obliged to disclose relevant information.
The Law Society believes that a solicitor should not be obliged by Clause 18 to disclose privileged information. I am not quite sure whether the Minister informed the society in another place or by correspondence of the following fact. He told the society that he thinks it is right that no criminal penalty should attach to a failure to disclose information which is legally privileged. But he took the view that it was not necessary to amend the clause, as it already achieves the desired effect by reason of the reasonable excuse provision. The noble Earl referred to that matter when I moved the previous amendment. On the contrary the Law Society, after a lot of consideration, believes that the matter should be put beyond doubt by the adoption of the proposed amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: We are once again in this difficult and technical area of legal privilege and the relationship between a solicitor and his client. But I think the issue is rather different from the one we discussed in relation to Clause 17. It must be considered quite separately and on its own merits.
The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, moves seeks to protect from disclosure, under the clause, any information which is legally privileged and would not therefore have to be disclosed in "proceedings in the High Court." A solicitor would not, therefore, be committing the offence if he withheld from the police any information about Northern Irish terrorism which he had acquired in the course of communications with his client. It may be helpful to the Committee to distinguish the two types of information which are covered by this clause. First, there is information which may prevent acts of terrorism. Secondly, there is information which may help bring a terrorist to justice. I believe different considerations arise in each case.
If a solicitor is consulted by his client about his plans to carry out a terrorist attack, it must be right for that information to be passed on to the authorities. It could very well save lives. But information of that kind would not be legally privileged. It would lose its privilege by virtue of the client's criminal purpose. That has long been an important element of the rules on legal privilege. It is reflected in the definition of the term in Section 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Let us now look at the second class of information—information which may secure the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person for terrorist offences. That is the kind of information which a solicitor working in the criminal law cannot avoid acquiring. We rightly value the cardinal privilege of our system of law that any accused person has a right to legal advice and representation, whether he is innocent or guilty. Frankly that right would not be worth very much if a solicitor was required to pass any incriminating information which he may have on to the other side. That is why the rules on legal privilege have evolved in the way they have. There is now very considerable protection in both common law and statute law to ensure that such

981
information does not have to be made available to the police or be produced in court. I do not believe that a person accused of a terrorist offence, no matter how serious, should be denied that protection. I do not think that there is very much difference of principle between what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seeks to achieve and what we have in mind.
I do not believe that the clause requires amendment in the way that the noble Lord suggests. The clause provides that an offence is committed where a person fails to disclose information without reasonable excuse. In my view, a solicitor would have reasonable excuse for not disclosing legally privileged information. The consent of the Attorney-General would be needed before proceedings were instituted. I cannot believe that solicitors need have any fear of being prosecuted where privileged information is concerned. I hope that that will satisfy the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Mishcon: I know that the noble Earl has given consideration to the matter. He has largely repeated what I said the Minister told the Law Society. This is an important matter for solicitors. Once again, I should like to consider what the noble Earl has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Restricted remission for persons sentenced for scheduled offences]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 15, line 32, at end insert—
("(7) A person who has been subject to reduced remission under this section shall be eligible for release on parole under section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, as amended by Schedule 8 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I shall endeavour to be brief. With the permission of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 6 I propose to speak also to Amendment No. 34. Having said that I intend to be brief, I ought to say that this is a very important amendment which incorporates a principle which I hope will commend itself to the Committee.
In his Second Reading speech the noble Earl dealt with the question of bringing the period of remission for good behaviour in Northern Ireland in line with that in England and Wales. He said that remission of 30 per cent. applied in England and Wales while 50 per cent. applied in Northern Ireland and that he thought it would be agreed that it was right the situation should be equalised and that 30 per cent. remission should also apply in Northern Ireland.
It so happens that on 14th April 1986 I put down a Question for Written Answer in your Lordships' House to ask Her Majesty's Government:
"Why prisoners in England and Wales receive 30 per cent. remission of sentence for good behaviour whereas prisoners in Northern Ireland, convicted of identical offences, receive 50 per cent. remission of sentence".
The Minister at that time, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, replied as follows:
982
"The difference between the rate of remission for industry and good conduct in Northern Ireland and the rate in England and Wales reflects the separate criminal justice systems within the constituent parts of the United Kingdom and the absence of a parole scheme in Northern Ireland". —[Official Report, 22/4/86; Col. 1147.]
At that time I put down the Question for Written Answer on the basis that we could perhaps solve some of the problems of our crowded prisons by having the same percentage in England and Wales—namely 50 per cent.—as in Northern Ireland. The Answer made it clear that remission was greater in Northern Ireland because there was no parole system there. My amendment proposes that since we are equalising the situation in Northern Ireland and England and Wales, which is perfectly acceptable and just, we must also introduce a parole system into Northern Ireland, even for scheduled offences. Amendments Nos. 6 and 34 set up a parole system identical to the one that we have in this country. That would provide equality and justice.
I do not believe that a long speech will make that issue any clearer. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has set out his case with great clarity and, as he promised, with commendable brevity. I admit that I was not aware of his Question for Written Answer of April 1986. I was somewhat apprehensive that I might have replied, but I did not recall that such a Question had crossed my desk. I was therefore delighted when the noble Lord confirmed that that was a matter dealt with by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur.
I am sure that the Committee will be interested in the two amendments proposing a parole system for Northern Ireland in all respects identical to that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord's right honourable friend moved an almost identical amendment in another place. However, I must stress that there are one or two major difficulties with the principle of parole as well as in relation to the special and difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland. That combination of factors makes it impractical to institute a system of parole for the time being, certainly on the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Until parole was introduced in England and Wales in 1967 Northern Ireland had the same remission arrangements as England and Wales. Perhaps the noble Lord will not quibble about 3 per cent., but I understand that the figure is one-third. By the time parole was set up in Great Britain, civil unrest and terrorism had intervened in Northern Ireland.
In the 1970s there was great concern about the lack of opportunities for parole in Northern Ireland. I should like to refer to a speech that was made from this Dispatch Box on 17th February 1976, introducing the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, commented:
"The parole scheme, as it operates in Great Britain, would not be appropriate for Northern Ireland, for many practical reasons. The essential features of the Great Britain scheme—indeterminate release dates, detailed reporting, decisions by the Executive on the recommendation of an independent board, and in particular, statutory supervision on release—are impractical in current circumstances in Northern Ireland".—
[Official Report, 17/2/76; col. 355.]

983
I have to say to the noble Lord and to the Committee that, regrettably, that must remain our view today. It was the view expressed to the noble Lord's honourable friend Mr Peter Archer in Committee in the other place. Mr Archer admitted that he had been persuaded by the recommendations of the National Association of Probation Officers and the Committee on the Administration of Justice that this method of restoring the symmetry with England and Wales would be inappropriate in Northern Ireland.
Two reasons were given by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in 1976. The first dealt with the difficulties of making assessments of prisoners in the compounds. I shall not weary the Committee with the matter as that particular era has passed. But the second reason given by the noble Lord and the Labour Government in 1976 was the problem for probation officers—it was a major difficulty—of supervising the release of terrorist prisoners. That is still to the fore of our reasons for not being able to adopt this system of parole in Northern Ireland today. As I am sure the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris of Greenwich, and all Committee Members, will recognise, the effectiveness of parole is based on the idea of the supervision of the parolee—that is, the subject of parole—in the community.
The work that the probation service currently does with paramilitary prisoners is based on their voluntary co-operation which I understand usually occurs while they are in detention in the prison. That voluntary co-operation would not necessarily be forthcoming once a prisoner was released. Any probation officer seeking to enforce parole supervision would then be at some considerable risk. Certainly, there would be side risks and serious results for the other work of the probation service if it were drawn into compulsory supervision of parolees. I believe that that aspect is central to our entire principle of parole in Great Britain.
The Government's view is that the problem of compulsory supervision of parolees means that the whole system of parole remains impractical in Northern Ireland for the present. Parole itself may be impractical, but we remain committed to prisoners in Northern Ireland having a broad measure of parity in the opportunities for early release compared with prisoners in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the motivation behind Clause 22. That motivation seeks to bring the treatment of terrorist-type prisoners in Northern Ireland back into line with how they are treated elsewhere for the purposes of remission as well as parole.
I think it wise to remind the Committee that since 1983 it has been the policy of successive Home Secretaries to refuse parole, other than perhaps for a few months at the end of their sentence, to those serving more than five years for crimes of violence or drug trafficking. Crimes of violence clearly include most offences connected with terrorism. A terrorist sentenced for such a crime in Great Britain and receiving a sentence of more than five years would generally be denied parole and would have to serve two-thirds of this sentence in custody. In Northern Ireland, a similar terrorist committing the same crime
984
and receiving the same sentence would, until now, have been required to serve only one half of his sentence in custody.
I think the Committee will agree that such a difference in treatment cannot be right. Far from treating terrorism more harshly than elsewhere, this clause ends the current anomaly by which Northern Ireland treats terrorist prisoners more leniently than elsewhere. We believe that this should improve the deterrent value of imprisonment and make it clear to the terrorist that there is a severe penalty if he is caught. In addition, the public will be provided with much needed extra protection from those who commit terrorist-type crimes.
It is with no small regret that I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that a parole system is still no more practical today in Northern Ireland than it was when his noble friend Lord Donaldson made those comments and introduced the measure almost 13 years ago. But the different rates of remission introduced by Clause 22 bring a necessary, if perhaps broad, differential into the system. There is something called the assessment. The assessment of individual prisoners—
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether the noble Lord will think me—
Lord Lyell: I am just coming to the end; I have two more sentences. The assessment of individual prisoners, together with the supervision of parolees in the community, are at the heart of the parole system. These measures are not practical in Northern Ireland. But we shall now at least reflect the serious view that we and the whole community take of terrorist crime without increasing the severity of imprisonment for other criminals.
Lord Mishcon: I do not know whether the noble Lord has finished his address to the Committee. My only reason for interrupting was to help by saying that what he had advanced so far was sufficient reason for me to ask the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wish to make a few observations on this proposal. A few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that one of the arguments in favour of what he was then putting forward was that it would in some respects put the criminal law in England and Wales and Northern Ireland on a similar basis. But this clause does no such thing. It operates only in relation to people who have been convicted of what are described as "scheduled offences"; it does not apply to anyone else.
In my view there are some serious questions to be asked about that general approach. In future, the sentencing judge will know that if he convicts someone of a scheduled offence, that person will serve

985
a different sentence from a person to whom he gives an equivalent sentence for a non-scheduled offence. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, to justify that approach. A few moments ago he said that successive Home Secretaries had treated a particular category of offences differently from other categories of offence as regards parole. However, I do not think that he indicated by what he said that he was aware of what had been recommended in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and his committee on the parole system of England and Wales. Admittedly, they related their observations to the question of parole, but they could have done so just as easily to the question of remission.
I do not know whether the noble Lord has the report with him. Paragraph 190 states that,
"we are satisfied that the restricted policy for those sentenced to more than 5 years for offences involving sex, drug trafficking, violence or arson is flawed in principle and harmful in practice".
It went on to say that,
"to differentiate in a rigid way between those who receive identical sentences for different types of offence is to our mind unacceptable; if a judge weighing all the relevant circumstances has imposed a particular sentence it is not for the Home Office or the Parole Board to treat it differently depending on what offence it was for".
In terms of remission that is precisely what we are now being asked to do.
I remind the Committee of those on the parole committee of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Apart from other members, the committee included Mr. Justice Popplewell, Sir David West-Russell and Mr. Peter Wright, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and president of the Association of Chief Police Officers—not a committee of liberal minded softies, if I may say so, but a very experienced committee containing among its members some very distinguished lawyers.
I wish to ask this: why the five-year break? On the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, has just said, it appears to me that he is founding his argument on the 1983 approach of Mr. Brittan, an approach which has been specifically rejected unanimously by a Home Office committee of inquiry. I should be very grateful if he would now assist us in this matter and clear up this apparent inconsistency of approach.
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord has asked me to try to clear up an inconsistency. I shall attempt to do so. However, there may be one or two grey and foggy areas as a result of the review, by my noble friend. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will know, this review by my noble friend Lord Carlisle was limited to the remission and parole arrangements in England and Wales. As a Scot, I must take care, but I understand that a similar review is still under way with regard to Scotland. That leaves us with Northern Ireland.
The absence of parole—which I may have spelt out at greater length in my two sentences than perhaps I might have done; and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—means that Northern Ireland has to have a different system from that of the rest of the United Kingdom, though I accept from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that some degree of parity is clearly very desirable. We have the Carlisle review. We have taken it on board. Certainly we shall note
986
very carefully the comments which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is currently receiving in this review. If as a result changes are made in England and Wales, we shall certainly look carefully at their implications for Northern Ireland. However, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will accept that not all these recommendations will necessarily be applicable.
I have already explained at considerable length the introduction of parole and how it will present very serious difficulties for the foreseeable future. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that the Government accept that there is good sense in maintaining a broad parity. Indeed, the proposals today in Clauses 22 and 23 are designed to achieve that. We shall look at any changes in the rest of the United Kingdom—that will include Scotland—in that light. However, I should stress that the committee of my noble friend Lord Carlisle had available information on the current practice in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it recommended aspects of that—which I think the noble Lord will find in the glamorous little red book—for England and Wales.
However, on longer-term offenders—and my noble friend Lord Carlisle called the longer-term offenders those serving more than four years—the review recommended that they should not become eligible for release until one-half of their sentence had been served and automatically released only at two-thirds. Certainly the proposals that I have already set out in Clause 22, and discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in Committee earlier, do not cut across that. They preserve one-half of remission for some long-term offenders but they require the later release of the terrorist.
Perhaps I may amplify that. Our purpose in differentiating between scheduled offences—which I am sure will be familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and to the Committee—and other offences which have merited a sentence of longer than four years (and indeed they are caught by the review of my noble friend) is to direct these measures in the Bill at those who cause a very great threat to society throughout the United Kingdom; and in particular in Northern Ireland at those who are involved in terrorism. We feel that it is wrong for their effect to be wider in these measures than is strictly necessary.
The threat from terrorism, as well as the suffering and grief caused, is such that we are determined that specific measures to deter and punish those involved in terrorism and in crime of that nature are justified. It would not be right for me or any Member of the Committee to propose a reduction in remission for all crimes when our real concern is with the serious terrorist offences. Those are the provisions applied in Clause 22 of the Bill.
However, we shall stand by the principle that once in prison there will be no distinction in the treatment or regime between those convicted of terrorist crimes and those sentenced for non-terrorist crimes. There will be no return to the situation in the 1970s of special categories, because in every respect except remission prisoners will continue to be subject to the same rules, rights and obligations.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Fitt: Yesterday afternoon in Belfast I lost yet another friend. A retired police officer was blown to smithereens in his car at 2 o'clock. I find it very hard to sit here this afternoon, having spoken to the family this morning, and listen to the concern being expressed about prisoners.
I agree with the Minister that any attempt to equate circumstances between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in relation to terrorism, and to the way that prisoners are treated, must be totally fallacious because conditions in Northern Ireland do not lend themselves to any type of parole system. One cannot have a parole system in relation to released terrorists because most of the terrorists in Northern Ireland live in areas which are in the grip of either Republican or Loyalist paramilitaries. There is no question that any probation officer, in any circumstances, could go into, any of those areas—be they Republican or Loyalist—and try to enforce a probation order.
It should have been said that the reason there has been 50 per cent. remission for scheduled offences is that in 1976, a Labour Government—in their attempt to do away with the then paramilitary situation that existed in the prisons with the special category prisoners in the compound system—arrived at a deal. Whether it was done by meetings, by television or the press, the 50 per cent. remission was arrived at in an attempt to make Republican prisoners—as the majority of them were at that time—accept the abolition of special category.
We all know that even after the 50 per cent. concession was made it had no effect on the attitude of the Republican prisoners to acts of terrorism. Leading on from that into 1976, 1977 and 1978, we had the H-block controversy and the blanket strike—the dirty strike, as it was called—leading on to the hunger strike. Therefore the fact that 50 per cent. remission was given by the Labour Government in 1976 did not influence in any way paramilitary thinking in Northern Ireland.
I have said before—and I say it in this Committee—that I am a total opponent of capital punishment. I do not believe in capital punishment whether it be carried out by the judicial system of the country, or by terrorists, as they did yesterday afternoon. However, having taken that stand I believe that the maximum sentence must be inflicted and the least remission given to people who have been convicted of carrying out these awful offences. I certainly support the Government on this matter. I may stand alone even on these Benches, and certainly within places in Northern Ireland. I believe that terrorists in Northern Ireland should be hit with the full penalties that the law can inflict. No mercy should be shown by the Government to terrorists who show absolutely no mercy to their victims.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Yes, but a terrorist convicted in England and Wales is treated in precisely the same way as any other prisoner. That is the issue. We are not now discussing parole. That was the subject of the previous amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We are talking about a
988
totally separate question. I have been asking the Government how they justify their approach on remission in the light of the clear statement of policy of a committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, consisting of a High Court judge, a Crown Court judge and so on, which specifically said—I remind the Committee of one passage—that it would be wrong to differentiate rigidly between those who receive identical sentences for different types of offence. That is the issue.
This seems to me to raise formidable problems. I shall not press the matter today, but as we are to debate the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle—at least I hope we are, if the Government can make arrangements so to do—I felt it right to raise this matter of principle today. I do not believe it is right for us to proceed on this matter without comment when major issues of principle are involved.
Lord Blease: The Minister has given a clear, full and historical analysis. Perhaps, however, he can clear up one matter. I do not think it was intentional, but he said that there was no parole in Northern Ireland. There is an effective probation board in Northern Ireland that does parole work in the normal form as practised throughout England, Scotland and Wales. The parole system cannot be effective in the paramilitary situation. That is the point I should like to have cleared up.
Lord Lyell: If I misled the noble Lord or the Committee in suggesting that there was no parole, perhaps I should say that there is not effective parole for released prisoners who have served a sentence for terrorist and scheduled offences. I should make that clear now. All the fairly lengthy remarks that I directed at the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I am sure will be taken on board.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Conviction of scheduled offence during period of remission]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 16, leave out lines 35 and 36.
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment which tidies up the clause removing from subsection (6) the definition of "enactment". The definition became redundant when the only reference to enactment in the clause fell by a government amendment in Committee in another place. No part of the clause now uses the term "enactment" so the definition is no longer required. For that reason I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Commencement and duration]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 18, line 29, after ("that") insert (", subject to subsection (7)(c) below,").
The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission I take Amendment No. 9 together with Amendment No. 8. I remind the Committee that when we were dealing with exclusion orders there was a division of the Committee on that matter. Therefore, for the time being, that is part of the Bill. The Minister said quite specifically that he regarded it as a special matter. I understood that to mean special in the sense that it was a distinct principle apart from other matters dealt with in the Bill.
Although the words "temporary provisions" appear in the title of the Bill, this is supposed to be an enactment which will not be subject to the previous procedure. It will go on the statute book and remain there subject to annual review by way of a statutory instrument to come before both Houses of Parliament. If that statutory instrument comes before the House as one order there is no possibility of amending it, as we all know. One votes either for it or against it in another place. In this place we have a tradition of not opposing statutory instruments except on special occasions. There have been a few such occasions, but they are very rare.
The amendment suggests that when we have an annual review by statutory instrument there shall be two statutory instruments. One is to deal with the renewal of Part II, if that be the recommendation of the Government, and Part II or a section of it is still extant. We have an opportunity of discussing that and voting accordingly on the issue of exclusion orders. I shall not repeat everything that has been said about exclusion orders by those whose reports I have already quoted to the Committee. Separately from that, there will be a statutory instrument to deal with all the other provisions of the Bill in relation to renewal. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in calling for a separate annual affirmative resolution for a statutory instrument to review, quite separately from the main provisions of the Bill, Part II relating to exclusion. I should like to make clear that I believe the power should be retained for the time being. I voted with the Government on the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. It is not in any way to be inconsistent with my voting that I support the amendment. In the noble Earl's opening speech on Second Reading, he said:
"My noble friend Lord Colville concluded that it"—
that is the power of exclusion
"should be discontinued, but your Lordships will recall that, in the last major review of the legislation, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe recommended that the power should be kept".—[Official Report, 13/2/1989; col. 13.]
He was balancing the views of two of. his noble friends, thus saying what a delicate and difficult question this was to decide.
However, in his report the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made further comments of some significance. If the noble Earl had read on, he would have found that his noble friend Lord Jellicoe had said that there were three recommendations, the third of which was that the possibility of abolishing the power should be kept under regular review without prejudice to the Act's other powers. It is that view to
990
which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee and which I fervently endorse. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, ended that part of his report by saying that the power of exclusion should be one of the first powers in the Act to be repealed. I believe that to be the case. The recommendation of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that Part II should be kept regularly under review in my view can only be effected by means of a separate statutory instrument for the renewal of the powers of Part II subject to affirmative resolution.
It is true that there are already powers in the Bill in Clause 27(6)(b) which enable the Secretary of State to make an order to provide that Part II shall cease to be in force. However, successive Secretaries of State will always be inclined to hang on to powers indefinitely after the real need for them has ceased. I am sure that it is within the memory of many of us that that happened after the last war. After 1945 emergency powers continued unnecessarily for a very long time. I believe that that was partly due to the fact that there was no good opportunity for Parliament to resist their continuance after the emergency was over or the necessity for their continuation ceased. Therefore, on that analogy I regard it as essential that the parliamentary procedure proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, should be inserted in the Bill.
Why are we so anxious about Part II? All the arguments were rehearsed in the debate on Clause 4 stand part. I do not wish to go over them except to emphasise once again that we are particularly concerned about the exclusion powers because they are extra judicial. There is no judicial process and no effective appeal to a court or tribunal. That alone is enough to make those powers especially disagreeable except in the case of dire emergency. I do not disagree that the emergency is dire and that these powers should continue at present.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, these powers are extremely offensive to those who live in Northern Ireland. It may well be true, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, that to his knowledge if those powers had not existed, terrorist crimes would have been committed and lives might have been lost. However, how is one to know that that happy state of affairs has not made the number of terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland greater? I ask the noble Earl that question. The figures for terrorist acts in Northern Ireland are horrific. They may be all the greater because of the exclusion powers. That cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs in Northern Ireland and I believe that that is felt deeply in the Province even by those who are wholly wedded to the powers which the Government are taking in the Bill.
This must be a matter of judgment. I am not in the Northern Ireland Office and I am not a Minister who has access to that sensitive information, and I must respect the views of those who have such access. Even so, this very unpleasant legislation in Part II must be balanced against the public view. If the public view in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom is such that powers of this sort are found to be intolerable, I believe that that factor must be weighed very carefully against the continuation of the powers. I do not put it any higher than that.

991
In view of the opinion of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that this power should be one of the first to be repealed, in view of Sir Cyril Philips' report in 1986 in which he very much endorsed most of what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said and made more recommendations of his own to circumscribe the use of this power, and in view of the recommendation of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who came out firmly in favour of the discontinuance of these powers, I should have thought that it is not asking very much of the Government on this occasion to consider with favour this very modest proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, or something very like it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Fitt: In the past when we have discussed this legislation the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has shown a very reasoned, compassionate and sympathetic view to those who would be caught within the ambit of this Bill. He has done so yet again this afternoon. As in the past, I totally agree with him that a means could be found to have a closer look, in isolation from the other parts of the Bill, at that part of the Bill which causes most concern to civil libertarians and those people really concerned about the liberty of the subject both here and in Northern Ireland.
In my earlier remarks I mentioned that I resented the fact that people could be excluded from Britain to Northern Ireland on the grounds that they may be a danger to this country. That was said by a Member of the Committee. However, they are excluded to Northern Ireland where they may be an even greater danger.
As regards something said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, could we have figures—and they must be available—of the number of people excluded from this country who were subsequently convicted of terrorist offences in Northern Ireland? There may be many more. There may be many people who were excluded from Britain, who went to Northern Ireland, engaged in terrorist offences and were never apprehended by the police. However, it might be interesting to find out whether there were people excluded from this part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland who were perhaps subsequently charged with murder—the most serious crime in the criminal calendar.
As regards exclusion orders, I believe that my noble friends Lord Mishcon and Lord Henderson have made a reasonable case to the Government that, without any derogation of duty or any lessening of the impact of this terrorist legislation, they could agree to look at Part II in isolation from the rest of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: The first debate we had this afternoon on Clause 4 stand part demonstrated the sensitivity and importance of the exclusion orders. I believe that all that Members of the Committee have said on this amendment reinforces that view. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, expressed his concern about the effect of the orders and his general dislike of them although he supported them. I cannot give
992
the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, the answer to his question; namely, how many people have been excluded from the United Kingdom and subsequently charged with offences in Northern Ireland. If those figures are available then I shall let him know.
It is right that these exclusion orders should be soundly examined year by year because I accept, as I explained at the beginning, that these are exceptional powers which need to be given careful scrutiny and justification. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seeks to find a way by which Parliament considers and rejects, if it feels necessary, the controversial exclusion powers without voting against the continuation of the rest of the Act.
This is not the first time that the question of renewing the various parts of the Bill separately has been raised. It was thoroughly aired during the debates at Committee and Report stages of the Bill which became the 1984 Act. When the matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, my noble friend Lord Elton, the then Minister, said in response that, unless there were overriding reasons for not doing so, your Lordships would always be given an opportunity to discuss the draft order at least one month before the date of renewal; and that the Home Secretary would then consider very seriously how points made in the debate could be incorporated in a revised order. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said that he was assured by those undertakings and withdrew the amendment.
We have kept to that undertaking to lay in draft the renewal orders in time for debate about one month before the Act is due for renewal. These debates have taken place in each of the years since the 1984 Act came into force and all the temporary provisions have been duly renewed. But on each occasion the need for each of these important powers has been expressly considered. If it had become clear that one particular part of the Act was no longer necessary, then I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would have responded with a revised order.
We have in fact considered what the effect in practice would be of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Being a helpful kind of fellow, I asked my officials whether they could try out their hands to see what would be needed. Being helpful kinds of fellows—or in this case fellowesses—they did their best. It seems to me that we would have two very complicated orders, each of which would have to disentangle those points which are solely concerned with exclusion. This is not just a question of saying "Part II should continue", because Clauses 19 and 20, and Schedules 3 and 5 all contain provisions relevant to exclusion. Each of these would have to be disentangled and appropriate provision made.
In our exercise which we carried out we found that this is the sort of thing that might appear in such a statutory instrument; but the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will realise that this is only a first shot. An order dealing with parts of the Bill other than exclusion would provide something along the lines of the following:

993
"The following provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 shall continue in force for a period of 12 months beginning with 22nd March 1990:
(a) Sections 1 to 3, 9 to 13, 14 (except subsections (I)(c) and (3)), 15 to 18, 19 (except in so far as it applies to offences under section 8 or to orders, notices or directions made or given under sections 5, 6 or 7 or Schedule 2), 20(l) (except in so far as it applies to words 'used in Part 11 or Schedule 2), (2) (except in so far as it applies to powers conferred under or by virtue of Part II or Schedule 2), (3) (except as regards the references to Part II and Schedule 2) and (4) (except in so far as it applies to such references in Part 11 or Schedule 2) and 27(6)(c); and
(b)…".
and so we go on. Then the order would have to deal with each of the schedules in similar fashion.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: May I intervene?
Earl Ferrers: May I just finish? The order dealing with exclusion would proceed similarly.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: It is very kind of the noble Earl to give way. I feel sure it would be within the capacity of a skilful draftsman to express this in a much less complicated way. Perhaps I may ask him to look at subsection (6) of Clause 27 which states:
"The Secretary of State may by order by statutory instrument provide—
(b) that all or any of those provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force".
If that is already in the Bill, and if the Secretary of State wished to take out of the Bill some part of it, then the same complication which the noble Earl has so elaborately expounded would apply in that case. If the Government are prepared to do that as the Bill is already drafted, why should they not be prepared to do it for the exclusion of those parts of the Bill which relate to Part II?
Earl Ferrers: The impatience of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, runs away with him. I was just coming to that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said that he was quite sure that a skilful parliamentary draftsman would make the words much easier. My simple understanding of these things is that when a matter which is quite simple is given to a parliamentary draftsman, he usually makes it very complicated; and to suggest that there shall be, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would say, the law turning itself on its head—in this case the parliamentary draftsman turning himself on his head—and making something which is quite complicated very simple, is a new concept but we live always in hope.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said that if we wished at some time to remove Part II, the Secretary of State has powers to do so. That is perfectly true and that is the point to which I was coming. If it proves necessary that this should be done, then of course we shall have to go through the motions of putting these very complicated orders through. But I really think it is undesirable to go through these difficulties only to continue them.
If it were decided to dispense with some part or parts of the Act, we would have to do this and we would then have to accept a complex order. But I
994
should have thought that your Lordships are not noted for a lack of inventiveness or for rigidity, and if it were your Lordships' wish to deal with a particular part of the Act at renewal in a certain way, I should have thought your Lordships could find a way of doing so.
For example, a resolution could be tabled calling for the deletion of one part of the Act and that could be voted on. It could be debated on the same day as the order and in advance of it. If the resolution were accepted by the House, the Government would have to withdraw the order, consider the position and represent it in a manner which was likely to receive the approval of Parliament. There is nothing new in that. I remember well what your Lordships did—I possibly have the advantage of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in this, which is a curious state of affairs to be in—about the decision not to proceed with plans to site the third London airport at Stansted. That was a debate on the plans which would have been the subject of an affirmative resolution. But it followed a debate on a Motion for Papers in your Lordships' House on 11th December 1967, and it was dropped because your Lordships voted against: it. I should have thought that that was the simplest and the neatest way in which to deal with this quite tricky problem.
Lord Mishcon: I have heard of various reasons expressed in your Lordships' House for not protecting or for protecting vital civil liberties. I have never heard before an explanation given on behalf of the Government that there should be some stoppage upon the ability of the House to deal with a vital question of that kind because it produced some difficulties in draftsmanship.
I know the noble Earl well enough to know that he would not wish to use a complicated statement as to clauses that might have to be amended in a certain way as a device for dealing with a matter of principle of this kind, which he himself has described as one of very vital principle; namely, that of the exclusion orders.
Quite obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, if the Minister wishes to avail himself of the opportunity of ridding the Bill of exclusion orders, I think he can do so under Clause 27 and will do so. I am sure that the question of consideration of the complicated draftsmanship that might be involved, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, would have been in the mind of the original draftsman when he gave the Minister that power.
I cannot see, in the seriousness of this situation and the need to deal separately on the recommendation of all the people we have listened to or whose reports we have heard and which have been quoted, that it is at all right to talk in terms of difficulty of draftsmanship as being a reason why a separate statutory instrument should not be before the House, and indeed I ask the Committee to express a view.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lord puts this amendment to a vote, if he wishes to, with the greatest respect he has not adressed his mind to the fact that your Lordships' House has the ability, as

995
both Houses have, to criticise and say that they do not like one part of the statutory instrument by tabling a Motion and voting on it. That being so, the Government would be bound by that. I suggest to the noble Lord that that is a far more tidy way than the way he suggests.
Lord Mishcon: It is perfectly well known—and the Minister realises it—that tabling a Motion is extremely difficult, especially in this Chamber and if the other place has expressed a view. The noble Earl knows the conventions as well as I do. In the circumstances, while I have listened to what he had to say—I listened with respect but I cannot say that I listened with understanding or sympathy—I now ask the Committee to express a view.
6.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Barnett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Birk, B.

Jay, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Craigavon, V.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Northfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Fitt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.d

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Greenway, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Underhill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

NOT CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Aldenham, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ezra, L.

Arran, E.

Faithfull, B.

Balfour, E.

Falkland, V.

Bauer, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bethell, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Borthwick, L.

Grey, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Grimond, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of

Bramall, L.

Saint Marylebone, L.

Caithness, E.

Hampton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hanworth, V.

Carnock, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Colraine, L.

Henley, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Hives, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hooper, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Dundee, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

996

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Reay, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rees, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Liverpool, E.

Rochdale, V.

Long, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lyell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McNair, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Strathcona and

Mancroft, L.

Mount Royal, L.

Margadale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Marley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Maude of

Swinton, E.

Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Thurlow, L.

Merrivale, L.

Torrington, V.

Mottistone, L.

Trafford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Nelson, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Orkney, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Windlesham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Radnor, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.59 p.m.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Short title and extent]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 19, line 41, after ("(e)") insert ("subject to paragraph (a) above").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on a change to the Bill made on Report in another place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 28, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like very briefly to thank the Government for including the words "Temporary Provisions" in the Short Title of the Bill. I believe that that was against the advice of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and his report and also against the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Though the Act will not last for four or five years but indefinitely, subject to affirmative resolution, I am sure that it is right to include those words to mark its exceptional nature.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Exclusion Orders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 23, line 17, leave out ("knowingly") and insert ("without reasonable excuse").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment. Under Schedule 2 paragraph 6(8) it is an offence for a person to fail knowingly to comply with directions given to him to remove a person who is subject to an exclusion order. We think that "knowingly" is the wrong term to use in connection

997
with failing to comply with directions. In a similar provision under the Immigration Act 1971 the offence is failing "without reasonable excuse" to comply with directions with respect to the removal of a person from the United Kingdom. The amendment puts the offence in this Bill on the same terms as in the Immigration Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Supervision of Detention and Examination Powers
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 25, line 24, leave out from ("be") to ("and") in line 25 and insert ("reviewed by a review officer not later than twelve hours after the beginning of the examination").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 29 and 30, all of which are linked together. Under the Bill as drafted, there is no upper limit on the length of time a person can be examined at a port under Schedule 5, paragraph 2, although after 12 hours the examining officer must of course, under subparagraph (4), have reasonable grounds for suspecting the involvement of the person being examined in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. A person can be detained pending his examination and when this happens he may be detained for up to 48 hours or up to a further five days, if the Secretary of State authorises continued detention, from the time the examination started.
We believe that it should be clear on the face of the Bill that an examination cannot last indefinitely. The amendments limit the period of examination, where a person is not detained, to 24 hours. There are also consequential amendments which, in particular, provide under Schedule 3 for one review only of the examination. Since the examination is to be limited to 24 hours, this seems entirely sensible and is broadly in line with the remaining provisions of Schedule 3 governing frequency of review. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 25, leave out lines 27 to 31.
Qn Question, amendment agreed to. Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 25, line 32, leave out ("On any such review").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 26, line 13, leave out ("has committed an offence consisting of or involving") and insert ("is or has been concerned in").
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17, all of which are linked together. Schedule 3 paragraph 3 contains new provisions for the review by senior police officers of the need for continued detention during the first 48 hours of detention under Clause 14 or Schedule 5. We are here implementing one of the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Colville. We were not
998
satisfied that, as drafted, the Bill fully covered the various reasons why a detention should be allowed to continue. These three amendments put the matter right. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 26, line 25, leave out ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 26, line 29, at end insert ("; or
(d) if he is satisfied as to the matters specified in sub-paragraph (5) below.
(5) The matters referred to in sub-paragraph (4)(d) above are—
(a) that the continued detention of the person in question is necessary—
(i) pending a decision whether to apply to the Secretary of State for an exclusion order to be made in respect of him or for notice of intention to deport under the Immigration Act 1971 to be served on him; or
(ii) pending the making of such an application; and
(b) that consideration of that question is being undertaken, or preparation of the application is being proceeded with, diligently and expeditiously.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment Nos. 18, 19 and 20:
Page 26, line 35, leave out from ("or") to ("paragraph") in line 36 and insert ("in the case of a review under").
Page 26, line 38, leave out ("later") and insert ("other").
Page 26, line 43, leave out ("2(2)") and insert ("2(1)").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 are all consequential on Amendment No. 12, to which the Committee has agreed. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Forfeiture Orders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 33, line 12, after ("it") insert ("(and paragraph 2 above applies accordingly)").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 26 and 2
7 all of which are linked together. These are technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are designed to ensure that the procedures in England and Wales for enforcing a forfeiture order made elsewhere in the United Kingdom or islands operate as if the order had been made in England and Wales. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 make comparable provisions for Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 33, line 14, after ("(5)") insert ("After making any payment required by virtue of paragraph 1(1)(d) or 2 above, the balance or).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 34, line 41, leave out from ("force") to end of line 43 and insert ("so long as an appeal is pending against the order or against the conviction on which it was made; and for this purpose where an

999
appeal is competent but has not been brought it shall be treated as pending until the expiry of a period of 14 days from the date when the order was made.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is necessary to take account of Scots law and practice. There are in Scotland certain forms of appeal which are subject to no time limit. The Bill as drafted could mean that in Scotland a forfeiture order might never come into force. The amendment cures that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 34, line 51, at end insert—
("(6) In this paragraph references to the proceeds of the sale, disposal or realisation of property are references to the proceeds after deduction of the costs of sale, disposal or realisation.").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment to bring the provisions in Scotland into line with those proposed for England and Wales at paragraph 1(6) of the schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 39, line 12, at end insert ("and paragraphs 11(4) to (6) and 12 above apply accordingly.").
The noble Earl said: The Bill as drafted empowers the Court of Session to deal with a forfeiture order made in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, which has been registered in the Court of Session, as if it were an order made in Scotland. This amendment has the same intention as Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 45, line 4, after ("it") insert ("(and paragraph 22 above applies accordingly)").
Page 45, line 7, after ("(5)") insert ("After making any payment required by virtue of paragraph 21(1)(d) or 22 above, the balance of).
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 were taken with Amendment No. 21, to which the Committee agreed. Therefore I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 46, line 15, at end insert—

PART IV INSOLVENCY: UNITED KINGDOM PROVISIONS
Protection of creditors against forfeiture
31.—(1) During the period of six months following the making of a forfeiture order no money which is subject to the order, or which represents any property subject to it, shall be finally disposed of under this Schedule.
(2) If, in a case where any money or other property is subject to a forfeiture order—

(a) the commencement of an insolvency occurs, or has occurred, in the course of any qualifying insolvency proceedings,

(b) any functions in relation to that property would (apart from the forfeiture order) be exercisable by an insolvency practitioner acting in those proceedings, and

(c) during the period of six months following the making of the forfeiture order any such insolvency practitioner gives written notice to the relevant officer of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above,

then sub-paragraph (3) below shall apply in relation to the property in question.
(3) Where this sub-paragraph applies then, subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule, the property in question or, if it has been sold, the proceeds of sale—

(a) shall cease to be subject to the forfeiture order and any ancillary order; and

(b) shall fall to be dealt with in the insolvency proceedings as if the forfeiture order had never been made.

(4) In any case where—

(a) sub-paragraph (3) above would, apart from this subparagraph, apply in relation to any property, but

(b) the relevant officer, or any person acting in pursuance of an ancillary order, has entered into a contract for the sale of that property or has incurred any other obligations in relation to it,

that sub-paragraph shall not take effect in relation to that property, or its proceeds of sale, unless and until those obligations have been discharged.
(5) Where in consequence of sub-paragraph (3) above any money or other property falls to be dealt with in insolvency proceedings, the Secretary of State shall be taken to be a creditor in those proceedings to the amount or value of that property but, notwithstanding any provision contained in or made under any other enactment—

(a) except in sequestration proceedings, his debt shall rank after the debts of all other creditors and shall not be paid until they have been paid in full with interest under section 189(2) or, as the case may be, section 328(4) of the 1986 Act or Article 25 of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980; and

(b) in sequestration proceedings, his debt shall rank after all the debts mentioned in section 51(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 and shall not be paid until they have been paid in full.

(6) Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) above any property ceases to be subject to a forfeiture order in consequence of the making of a bankruptcy order, and the bankruptcy order is subsequently annulled, the property shall again become subject to the forfeiture order and, if applicable, any ancillary orders.
(7) If the property referred to in sub-paragraph (6) above was money, or has been converted into money, the property which is to become subject to the forfeiture order and any ancillary orders shall be any property comprised in the bankrupt's estate to the same amount or value.
(8) In this paragraph—
"the commencement of an insolvency" means—

(a) the making of a bankruptcy order;

(b) the date of sequestration of a person's estate, within the meaning of section 12(4) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985;

(c) in England and Wales, in the case of the insolvent estate of a deceased person, the making of an insolvency administration order;

(d) in the case of a company—

(i) the passing of a resolution for its winding up; or

(ii) the making of an order by the court for the winding up of the company where no such resolution has been passed;

"final disposal under this Schedule", in relation to any money, means—

(a) in England and Wales, its payment to the Secretary of State in accordance with paragraph 1(3) or 9(5) above;

(b) in Scotland, its payment to the proper officer in Exchequer under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975;

(c) In Northern Ireland, its payment into, or its disposal for the benefit of, the Consolidated Fund in accordance with paragraph 21(3) or 29(5) above;

and "finally dispose" shall be construed accordingly.
Expenses incurred in connection with the forfeiture
32.—(1) Where any money or other property would, apart from this paragraph, fall to be dealt with in accordance with paragraph 31(3) above, the relevant officer may—

(a) deduct from that money any allowable forfeiture expenses; or

(b) retain so much of that property as he considers necessary for the purpose of realising it and deducting any such expenses from the proceeds of realisation;

1001
and paragraph 31(3) above shall apply only in relation to any balance remaining after making provision for those expenses.
(2) If any money or other property is delivered up in pursuance of paragraph 31(3) above and provision has not been made for any allowable forfeiture expenses, then—

(a) the person who incurred them shall have a claim to their value in the insolvency proceedings; and

(b) the expenses in question shall be treated for the purposes of the insolvency proceedings as if they were expenses of those proceedings.

(3) In this paragraph "allowable forfeiture expenses"—

(a) means any expenses incurred in relation to property subject to the forfeiture order—

(i) by the relevant officer,

(li) by any receiver, administrator or other person appointed by the relevant officer; or

(li)(1) by an administrator appointed under paragraph 11(1)(b) above; and

(b) includes any amount paid, or required to be paid, under paragraph I(I)(d), 11(1)(c) or 21(1)(d) above.

33.—(1) In any case where—

(a) an insolvency practitioner seizes or disposes of any property in relation to which his functions are not exercisable because it is for the time being subject to a forfeiture or restraint order, and

(b) at the time of the seizure or disposal he believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that he is entitled (whether in pursuance of a court order or otherwise) to seize or dispose of that property,

he shall not be liable to any person in respect of any loss or damage resulting from the seizure or disposal except in so far as the loss or damage is caused by his negligence in so acting.
(2) An insolvency practitioner shall have a lien on the property mentioned in sub-paragraph (I) above or the proceeds of its sale—

(a) for such of his expenses as were incurred in connection with insolvency proceedings in relation to which the seizure or disposal purported to take place; and

(b) for so much of his remuneration as may reasonably be assigned for his acting in connection with those proceedings.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above are without prejudice to the generality of any provision contained in the 1986 Act or the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 or any other Act or the Bankruptcy Acts (Northern Ireland) 1857 to 1980 or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
(4) In this section "insolvency practitioner", in any part of the United Kingdom, means a person acting as an insolvency practitioner in that or any other part of the United Kingdom; and for this purpose—

(a) any question whether a person is acting as an insolvency practitioner in England and Wales or in Scotland shall be determined in accordance with section 388 of the Insolvency Act 1986, except that—

(i) the reference in subsection (2)(a) to a permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration shall be taken to include a reference to a trustee in sequestration;

(ii) subsection (5) shall be disregarded; and

(iii) the expression shall also include the Official Receiver acting as receiver or manager of property; and

(b) a person acts as an insolvency practitioner in Northern Ireland if he acts as an Official Assignee, trustee, liquidator, receiver or manager of a company, provisional liquidator or a receiver or manager under section 68 of the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act 1872.

Interpretation of Part IV
34.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule—
"the 1986 Act" means the Insolvency Act 1986;
"ancillary order" means any order made in connection with the forfeiture in question, other than the forfeiture order;
"forfeiture or restraint order" means a forfeiture or restraint order, as the case may be, of any of the descriptions referred to in Parts I to III of this Schedule;
"insolvency practitioner", except in paragraph 33 above, means a person acting in any qualifying insolvency proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom as—
1002

(a) a liquidator of a company or partnership;

(b) a trustee in bankruptcy;

(c) an interim or permanent trustee in sequestration;

(d) an administrator of the insolvent estate of a deceased person;

(e) a receiver or manager of any property;

"qualifying insolvency proceedings" means—

(a) any proceedings under the 1986 Act or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 for the winding up of a company or an unregistered company and includes any voluntary winding up of a company under Part IV of that Act or Part XX of that Order;

(b) any proceedings in England and Wales under or by virtue of section 420 of the 1986 Act for the winding up of an insolvent partnership;

(c) any proceedings in bankruptcy or, in Scotland, any sequestration proceedings;

(d) any proceedings in England and Wales under or by virtue of section 421 of the 1986 Act in relation to the insolvent estate of a deceased person;

"the relevant officer" means—

(a) in Scotland—

(i) where the forfeiture order in quest:ion is made by a court in Scotland, the clerk of that court;

(ii) in any other case, the Principal Clerk of Session and Justiciary;

(b) in any other part of the United Kingdom—

(i) where the forfeiture order in question is made by a court in that part, the proper officer within the meaning of paragraph I or, as the case may be, paragraph 21 above;

(ii) in any other case, the appropriate officer of the High Court.

(2) Any reference in this Part of this Schedule to the proceeds of the sale or realisation of any property are references to those proceeds after deduction of the costs of sale or realisation.").
The noble Earl said: I apologise for the length of this amendment. It is a complex and technical amendment which is intended to give increased protection to creditors after a forfeiture order has been made under the Bill. Both the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 contain provisions to deal with the situation in which the defendant, or any other person holding realisable property, is the subject of restraint or confiscation procedures under the Act, and also of insolvency proceedings. We believe that the Prevention of Terrorism Bill should have equivalent provisions.
The Committee may find it helpful if I give an example of the kind of case in which we believe some provision is needed. A building contractor pays his employees and sub-contractors, but does not pay tax or VAT, and obtains his supplies of material on credit. When the contractor receives funds, they are diverted to terrorist purposes, and the contractor covers himself with bogus invoices, loans to associated companies, or excessive wage payments. If the offences are detected, and a restraint order is made, the main contractor will be prevented from making payment for the work done. If there is subsequently a conviction and a forfeiture order, under the Bill as it stands there may be no assets from which the creditors of the company would recover their debt, because any cash or assets might have been forfeited and paid to the Secretary of State. This is obviously unfair to those creditors who have themselves done no wrong. This amendment seeks to put this right.
The Committee will appreciate from this example that this is a technical area; and in this Bill, unlike the

1003
other two Acts, we are dealing with the whole of the United Kingdom in a single Bill. Forfeiture is not the same as confiscation, and it has therefore not been a matter simply of lifting the provisions from the Acts and inserting the words "terrorists funds". We have had to take a different approach. Where insolvency proceedings are begun within six months of the making of the forfeiture order under the Bill, the insolvency practitioner who is acting in those proceedings gives notice to the court which made the forfeiture order. The forfeiture order will then cease to have effect in relation to any property which would have been dealt with in the insolvency proceedings had there been no forfeiture order. The insolvency practitioner will then be able to realise assets to distribute to creditors from the property which is subject to the forfeiture order. The amendment also protects insolvency practitioners who unwittingly deal with assets which are subject to a restraint or forfeiture order.
I have tried to be brief in moving the amendment. I hope I have done so in a sufficiently clear and acceptable way. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: Before the Committee leaves this matter, we may wish to have an assurance from the Minister, if he can give one, that these insolvency provisions do not cover somebody who is in receipt of funds which he holds as agent or trustee for a terrorist organisation, the benefit of which funds, instead of being forfeited, are going for the benefit of creditors.
One can well understand people in the business community being misled by somebody who carries on a business which he thinks is an honourable one but which is drug trafficking or getting proceeds from his own crime and investing himself with those proceeds. The creditors in those circumstances should be protected. But I hope that creditors in the case of somebody holding funds as agent or trustee for a terrorist organisation—they may be genuine or non-genuine creditors as the case may be: they may even be relatives who claim some form of loan or goodness knows what—will have no protection at all.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord raises an important point. I am fairly convinced that I can give him the assurance that he requires. However, it is an important point and I would rather take advice on it and write to him.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the noble Earl. That is the best way to deal with the matter. If we find any problem it can be dealt with at Report stage. I know that he will be anxious to look into the matter.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall certainly look into the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Port and Border Control]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 47, line 17, leave out ("twelve hours but, if an examining officer") and insert ("twenty-four hours unless he is detained under
1004
paragraph 6 below, and may only exceed twelve hours if an examining officer—
(a)").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 30. These amendments follow on from Amendment No. 12 to which the Committee has agreed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 47, line 20, leave out ("he may by a notice in writing require") and insert ("; and
(b) gives him a notice in writing requiring").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Terrorist Investigations]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 53, line 31, after ("items") insert ("prima facie").
The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission, I shall also deal with Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. The amendments deal with an important question of privilege about which the Law Society is quite concerned. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 is analogous to Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Both provisions enable a constable to apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, but the magistrate cannot issue a warrant unless he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material involved does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege.
Paragraphs 3 to 5 of Schedule 7 are analogous to Section 9 and Schedule 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Both provisions enable a constable to apply (this time) to a circuit judge in order to compel production of or obtain a search warrant in respect of certain kinds of material. Both provisions exclude from their ambits items subject to legal privilege. In the case of Regina v. Guildhall Magistrates' Court ex parte Primlaks in the Queen's Bench Division, the court held that if the police wish to compel production of papers held by a solicitor they must apply to a circuit judge under Section 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They cannot obtain a warrant from a magistrate under Section 8 of the Act. The questions as to whether a particular item is privileged, or whether it has lost its privilege because it is allegedly held with a criminal intention, are complex. The principle underling the Primlaks judgment is that the clear parliamentary intention in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is that these questions should be considered by a circuit judge and not by a magistrate. The court took the view that the purpose of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act requires that the words "prima facie" should be treated as inserted in the appropriate places in Section 8.
These amendments which have been suggested by the Law Society would reflect the court's decision by inserting the words "prima facie" in those provisions where a person other than a circuit judge may be faced with a question of privilege. The suggested

1005
words would make it clear that as long as material was prima facie privileged it was excluded from the provisions in question and it was not for persons other than a circuit judge to consider any question as to whether privilege had been lost. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I understand why the noble Lord has moved these amendments and we have considered them carefully. However, we do not believe they are necessary to achieve his purpose. As the noble Lord said, this point arose in the case of Primlaks last December. It was held in the case that where the police seek a search warrant under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in respect of material at a solicitor's office which appears to have the benefit of legal privilege, they should apply to a circuit judge rather than to a magistrate. In reaching this view, Lord Justice Parker said that the purpose of Parliament required that the words "prima facie" should be treated as inserted into the relevant section of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
The judgment in the Primlaks case has clarified the law on this point. The powers of investigation in Schedule 7 to the Bill are cast in a similar way to those in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We see no reason why a court would not interpret both the Act and this Bill as if the safeguard implicit in the words "prima facie" were incorporated. It seems unnecessary to amend the Bill to put this beyond doubt; the precedent in Primlaks is clear enough. Moreover, it could be very confusing if Parliament were to accept the noble Lord's amendments without making equivalent provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. That would leave us with different language in two statutes which provide for essentially similar powers. I think that that would cause unnecessary confusion.
However, there is a further reason why I think that we should not amend the Bill in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If we did so, we could in certain circumstances be preventing the police from seizing material which may be prima facie legally privileged but in fact is not and should therefore be able to be seized. Material can appear to be legally privileged—such as, for example, a letter to a solicitor—but the contents of it, when examined, may show that it is not.
Perhaps 1 may explain the background. The Primlaks case dealt with a situation involving solicitors. If material which was at their premises was not in fact legally privileged, it was quite likely to have included material which was classed as special procedure material. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 makes special provision for access to such material, and the effect of the Primlaks judgment is to require the police to seek material at solicitors' premises— which could therefore be special procedure material—through that procedure. In comparable circumstances, the Bill would be interpreted by the courts similarly.
However, if we take a case where the material which the police seek is not on solicitors' premises and is not material which is special procedure material or excluded material, we should find the
1006
following situation. The amendments would prevent a justice of the peace from issuing a warrant if the material included items which are prima facie subject to legal privilege. They would therefore prevent the police from seizing that kind of material. But because the material is not special procedure material or excluded material, there is no other mechanism available to the police to sort out whether they should have access to it. So we should end up with the position that documents which on the face of it are subject to legal privilege but which are not special procedure or excluded material could never be obtained by the police, even though the documents were not in fact legally privileged. I do not believe that this would be right.
As the Bill stands the police can be challenged if they seek to search for, or to seize, documents which are subject to legal privilege. If the material is special procedure or excluded material the police will—as a result of Primlaks—have to go to a circuit judge, and not to a justice of the peace, for the necessary authority.
It is a complicated matter and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will wish to consider what I said. I have no doubt that he is fully aware of what I said, but, nonetheless, even he may have found it a trifle complicated. Therefore if he wishes to study my remarks he is certainly at liberty to do so.
Lord Mishcon: I thought it was quite complicated and I shall take advantage of the opportunity the noble Earl mentioned. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [H.L.]
7.24 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Heathrow is by some margin the busiest international airport in the world. It so happens that in the past few months I have used the surface rail link that links the centre of Paris with Charles De Gaulle airport. I have also used the rail link which links Tokyo with Narita airport. As many noble Lords will know, a high speed rail link serves Brussels airport and here, much nearer home, we have now a very satisfactory high speed rail link between Victoria and Gatwick. Moreover, a rail service from Liverpool Street to Stansted airport is currently under construction.

1007
It is true that a few years ago the Piccadilly Line was extended to Heathrow. However, stopping at every intermediate station, that service cannot begin to compare with a fast non-stop surface rail link. The lack of a surface rail link to Heathrow was sharply criticised at the airports inquiries held between 1981 and 1983. The inspector, Mr. Graham Eyre, reported that,
"a direct and dedicated BRB rail link should be provided in any event".
The Government therefore initiated the Heathrow Surface Access Study which canvassed a number of alternative proposals for providing such a link. That which attracted the most support from the various parties involved is embodied in the Bill now before your Lordships' House. This was announced by my right honourable friend Mr. Paul Channon in July 1988 when he approved in principle British Rail's participation in a joint venture with BAA and invited them to work up detailed proposals. That has now been done and a joint venture has been concluded. The Bill before the House—to provide a surface high speed rail link from Paddington to Heathrow—is promoted jointly by a company called Heathrow Airport Limited—a wholly-owned subsidiary of BAA plc—and by the British Railways Board.
I do not think I need to go into great detail about the proposals. As noble Lords are aware, there is a mass of information contained in the plans and other documents which have been deposited by the Bill's promoters. Suffice it to say that trains serving Heathrow will start from Paddington station and will share the fast Western Region main line to a point just west of Hayes and Harlington station. From there a spur will be constructed south towards the airport. This will rise on to an embankment, crossing the M.4 motorway on a viaduct before descending into a tunnel just north of the A.4 and running underground, first to a station beneath the central terminal area, where it will serve Terminals 1, 2 and 3, and continuing to a second station serving Terminal 4. The stations will be served by lift and escalator connections direct to the terminal concourses.
The entire route will be electrified and British Rail will be responsible for providing power, signalling, and for driving the trains. New dedicated rolling stock will be provided by Heathrow Airport Limited, which will also provide customer service staff at the airport stations and on the trains. It is envisaged that trains will run non-stop every 15 minutes in each direction between 5 a.m. and half past eleven at night. The journey will take about 16 minutes to Terminals 1, 2 and 3, and 20 minutes to Terminal 4.
Subject to obtaining the necessary powers from Parliament, it is the promoters' intention that the service will come into operation in around four years' time. They estimate that some 5·5 million air passengers will use the service, and perhaps another 1·5 million journeys will be made by airport workers and others with business at the airport. The top speed of the trains will be about 100 miles an hour and it is thought that the fare may be about the same, or perhaps a little more, as that for the journey between Victoria and Gatwick.
1008
Perhaps I may turn now to the Bill. Part I incorporates all the usual general legislation for a Bill of this nature. Part II specifies the works which will be done. Part III refers to the acquisition of land; that is, for both permanent use and temporary use during construction. It also provides for the extinction or suspension of private rights of way. Part IV covers interference with roads and the protection of statutory undertakers. Part V contains a number of miscellaneous provisions.
Although the project does not approach, in scale or controversy, the rail link with the Channel Tunnel, it too has attracted some comment and criticism. A number of petitions objecting to some of the Bill's provisions have been deposited.
I shall start at the beginning—at Paddington. I am sure your Lordships will not be in the least surprised to learn that what is seen as the attraction of substantial additional traffic to Paddington station has aroused some concern in that area. It has been the subject of much careful study and some negotiation with the local authority. I am glad to see my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes in her place. She may well have something to say about that aspect of the matter.
The House should know that proposals have been made, no doubt to be outlined in greater detail when the Bill goes to the Select Committee, for redirecting taxi traffic, in particular, so as to minimise and even perhaps reduce the existing disturbance to residential areas to the south and south-west of Paddington station. It is there that the anxieties are most especially felt. Moreover, there will be special platforms for the Heathrow Express serving only that service. Transfers from road transport and the Underground will be made as easy as possible. We shall listen to what my noble friend has to say on that aspect of the matter.
Yesterday at Question Time mention was made of the Central London Rail Study which was published by my noble friend's department last month. If the proposals contained in that study come to fruition, then onward connections from Paddington will be considerably improved and Heathrow trains could continue in a tunnel linking Paddington with Liverpool Street station and stopping at three intermediate stations. I make that point to show that in the longer term, Paddington will not necessarily bear the whole brunt of the Heathrow traffic. However, that matter is not contained in the Bill. I mention it merely to give some indication that the proposals with which we are concerned are not by any means the last word.
Objections have also been voiced on the grounds that the new service could serve communities living and working between Paddington and Heathrow if the trains, or some of them, were to stop at intermediate stations. I am sure that your Lordships will readily understand that prima facie that would detract materially from the benefits of a fast non-stop service. However, I am instructed that studies are in hand and if, especially during off-peak hours, there is a demand from intermediate stations—Ealing is one that has been mentioned in that context—thenadditional trains could well be run which would serve those stations. That will depend upon there being

1009
sufficient demand to justify the extra expense; but the extra expense need be only the marginal expense of running the extra trains.
I see that my noble friend Lord Bethell is in his place. He has indicated that he will be following me. He is, if I may say so, not only well qualified as a frequent user of Heathrow and a scourge of airline companies; he represents the Euro-constituency of London North West, which includes Hillingdon through which the Heathrow Express will pass. I know that the House will wish to listen carefully to what he has to say. He may speak in favour of some variation of the route perhaps to avoid the necessity for a viaduct flyover of the M.4 motorway.
I am advised that the promoters are ready to consider any reasonable alternative proposal which my noble friend or any of the objectors put up. However, there are some formidable difficulties in the way of any significant deviation from the proposed route. Any significantly longer tunnel would obviously considerably add to the expense. On certain alternative alignments there is the possible risk of methane seepage into the tunnel with potentially lethal consequences.
In regard to the environment, a number of measures are to be embodied in the proposals to minimise visual intrusion, noise nuisance and other environmental consequences. It may be better if I were to listen to the debate before I say anything more about those matters. I would only say by way of personal testament that a few weeks after I became the Member of Parliament for Wanstead and Woodford, the Department of Transport announced the prefered route for the M.11 motorway. It was slap through the middle of my constituency, dividing it from north to south. Throughout the 23 years-plus that I represented the constituency my postbag was filled with mail, first, expressing apprehension about the proposed motorway; secondly, about its construction; and thirdly, about the consequential disturbance once the motorway was opened. I well understand and have every sympathy with my noble friend Lord Bethell when he finds that his constituency will be affected by the railway. However, I am sure that the House will agree that it is time that Heathrow, like other major European airports, was served by a fast, dedicated, non-stop rail service thus relieving the Underground and the road system of what is, for many hours of almost every day, intolerable and time-wasting congestion.
I suppose that the only surprise is that the Bill comes before the House in 1989 rather 1979, 1969, or even conceivably 1959. That makes it all the more important that the Bill is given a fair wind tonight so that the Select Committee can give to the promoters and the objectors the detailed and fair scrutiny which our procedures provide. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
7.38 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am extremly grateful to my noble friend for the courteous and lucid way in which he has introduced this Private Bill. I should say at the outset that I agree 100 per cent. with the
1010>
principle behind it. He has explained, and few people could possibly disagree with him, the absolute necessity for establishing a high speed link between Paddington and Heathrow airport. It is high time that the matter was dealt with as one of urgency.
I should declare my interest in the matter. First, I live five minutes' walk from Paddington station and therefore as a frequent air traveller from Heathrow, I shall find the new link extremely useful. Secondly, as my noble friend pointed out, I represent in the European Parliament the Borough of Hillingdon which forms part of the London North-West EuroConstituency. He and I are at one on the principle of the link, and I should like to give it my support.
However, as my noble friend anticipated, there are some problems between us over the route which the promoters have recommended to your Lordships. The route would follow mainline train travel almost to Hayes station and would then turn southwards towards Terminal I at Heathrow. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen a map of the route; but those of your Lordships who look at it will not fail to be struck by the sharp turn that trains will be required to make as they cross the M.4 motorway. It is a knuckle bend which will be accomplished on an overhead carriageway. It will reduce the speed of the train from the 100 miles per hour suggested by my noble friend to much less than half. A very large number of people living in or near the town of Hayes are extremely concerned at the prospect of a train travelling through built-up areas at above the normal level of the traffic for a considerable length of time. It will then turn onto a viaduct or an elevated platform across an already crowded means of transport.
The green land which the train would then cross on the elevated platform would be farmland, protected as part of the green belt. It would mean the abolition or removal of at least one lake in the vicinity which is used for recreation, including angling, and the removal of a number of allotments used by the local people in Hayes and Harlington. It would be a great eyesore not only for the local residents but also for those who travel along the M.4 into and out of London. It would be an added nuisance to those people in the vicinity who already have to put up with a considerable amount of noise pollution from Heathrow airport and the M.4 motorway. Anyone who lives in the area must think that surely they have enough problems on their hands with noise without having to deal with a train coming at high speed through their built-up area.
My noble friend mentioned methane and deposits of methane gas which would accumulate as a result of the rubbish being used to build up the land south of the motorway. I do not believe that the proposal put forward by the promoters entirely solves the problem. While it is correct that an overhead railway would be less dangerous in terms of a possible explosion than a tunnel through methane-bearing ground, one has to bear in mind that there will be considerable excavation while the viaduct is being built. The methane gas may well be released during the three or four years that it takes to carry out this work and there may be some danger to the public in a place where very heavy traffic already exists. Even if there is no danger, there will be an unpleasant smell

1011
as a result of the release of methane gas. That gives an entirely new dimension to the slogan as one approaches the sign, "Welcome to Britain" when arriving at Heathrow airport. The welcome to Britain as one passes through the present tunnel is likely to be extremely malodorous for those driving by car.
The other main problem with the route suggested is the time it will take the trains at the reduced speed brought about by the very sharp bend and the need to travel over the viaduct. While 16 or 17 minutes may seem very short as a traveltime, it would be advisable for this to be reduced to 13 or 14 minutes. That is precisely what would be accomplished if one adopted the alternative route put forward by the borough of Hillingdon, based on the suggestions of Dobbie and Company, their engineers.
I suggest to your Lordships and to my noble friend that he should examine very carefully what is known as the Dobbie route. As I understand it, he has already indicated that the minds of British Rail and the British Airports Authority are not closed on this matter. They have proposed a certain route but their minds are not closed to an alternative and I suggest that the Dobbie route is the one on which they should concentrate. It would leave the main line at Southall and turn diagonally south-west in a direct line towards Terminal 1. The railway would then cover the route more quickly; it would be the shortest distance between two points—Southall and Terminal 1; one side of a triangle instead of two sides of a triangle. It would cut the travelling time from 16 minutes to 13 minutes, which I suggest is a considerable saving, both in terms of finance and other considerations. My noble friend has said that this route would be expensive. Indeed it would.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would give way? Can he explain whether the Dobbie route implies that the whole of the section between the main line railway and Terminal 1 should be in a tunnel?
Lord Bethell: Yes, my Lords, I understand that Dobbie and Company have proposed that the railway should go underground very shortly after leaving the main line at Southall. It should travel underground through agricultural land. I am advised that the extra cost of adopting this route would be in the region of £20 million or 10 per cent. of the total cost. However, I believe that the extra cost would be mitigated—and perhaps my noble friend will care to comment on this later in the debate—by the fact that there would be far less necessity compulsorily to purchase property in building this enterprise. The tunnelling would be a major undertaking while the railway is being built but it would not require the compulsory acquisition of very much property. Perhaps my noble friend would care to indicate whether the compensation to be paid to owners of property and others who will suffer the loss of their amenities has been included in the estimates put forward.
A further consideration is that the route I propose would allow more than one service to leave Paddington for the airport. It would enable a train,
1012
for instance, to travel on the route for Terminal 1 and a second train, leaving almost simultaneously, to be aimed at Terminal 4. In the future it could perhaps also go to Terminal 5. We must not forget that we are thinking not so much of what will happen in 1993 when the service begins but of what may happen in the next century, the next millennium. We are considering a project that will last well into the future. It will make Heathrow airport a much more comfortable place from which to travel as well as being the largest international airport in the world.
I wish to mention two points of detail in conclusion. First, my noble friend commented on something that surprised me: that the fare which British Rail would probably charge would be in excess of the fare being charged at present on the Victoria to Gatwick route. I wonder why that is the case, bearing in mind that Victoria-Gatwick is a much longer journey than Paddington-Heathrow.
Secondly, I very much hope that when this train service opens there will be facilities for the payment of the fare on board the train, as is the case for instance, at Brussels airport. On arriving at Gatwick airport, as I frequently do and using the train service to Waterloo, my journey is often ruined by the necessity to stand in line for five or 10 minutes with luggage, in order to buy a ticket. The staff at Gatwick Airport will not let passengers board the train until they have acquired their tickets. This adds many precious minutes to what is meant to be a fast journey. This may seem a whole list of objections to what my noble friend has proposed, but I was encouraged by the flexibility which he showed in his remarks to believe that many of these objections can be overcome and that the promoters are ready to discuss them in the Select Committee.
I can only reiterate my very strong support for the principle of the Paddington-Heathrow fast train, and I hope that it can be brought to fruition in the way suggested by me, and in accordance with the wishes of the people who live in the borough of Hillingdon.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too wish to express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for introducing so clearly this important measure. He is absolutely right when he says that for many years now we should have had a fast rail connection to our largest airport. At any rate this is now proposed.
The way it is to be done as a joint enterprise between BAA and British Rail is absolutely right. The noble Lord mentioned Narita airport in Tokyo which has a fast rail connection to the centre of Tokyo. Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and all the major airports have fast rail connections. Indeed, we have one at Gatwick also. So this is a gap which needs to be filled.
I must say that I am entirely in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Bethel!, has just said. If we are to do this thing, it must be done right. We must make sure that the route is absolutely right, not only for the present but also for the future. Railway lines cannot easily be altered. Once they are laid down they will be there for decades, if not centuries. So it is very

1013
important that the environmental aspects and the technical aspects of this should be looked at very carefully.
One of the boroughs which has submitted its case is Hillingdon. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to that borough. I have studied its case with great care, and I think it is extremely well argued. The proposition which Hillingdon puts forward has substantial advantages. The fact that it will cost some more—£20 million on £190 million—is of course a consideration. But it will bring a greater capacity and a faster speed. Above all, it will avoid the environmental problems which arise from the first part of the proposed spur line which runs overground. So I very much hope that the Select Committee will examine with the greatest care the petition put forward by the borough of Hillingdon. That borough is a strong supporter of the proposition as a whole, but it is justifiably putting forward its views, as the local council responsible for the environment and planning in that particular area, as to how this could be carried out more effectively. I wish to add the following point. If for any reason it is decided not to go along with the Hillingdon proposition, at the very least the proposals now before us in the Bill should be so modified that the line can go in tunnel all the way from the main line. That is very important. The extra cost should be borne in the interests of improved environmental considerations.
I have another aspect I wish to raise. Another petitioner is the borough of Hounslow. That is the borough in which the airport lies. That borough has also made a very important point. The point it has made is something that we have mentioned on many occasions in this House recently when we have debated transport issues. We have said that on the whole there is too much of a tendency to deal with transport issues in themselves without linking them up with a wider consideration and a more strategic view. There is the opportunity here of extending this line to the south and of linking it with the southern network so that one can then have a linkage on the main western route and a linkage on the southern network with the Windsor line in the Feltham area, as has been suggested.
That of course means that one gets a linkage with the whole Channel Tunnel network. It means that one can approach Heathrow from a variety of departing points from London. It closes the gap. It seems an awful pity to my mind that if one looks at the map one sees this magnificent high-speed line going into Heathrow and just stopping there. Why not go a few miles south and link in with the whole southern network and ease the strain on the transport situation?
To sum up my brief remarks, I would say that it is absolutely vital we get ahead with this project. But it is equally vital that we do it correctly; and that we take account of the long-term environmental considerations; and that we take a more strategic view of the matter than has been taken in the Bill. I very much hope as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, that the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, represent the attitude of the promoters
1014
and that they will take into account very seriously the constructive proposals that have been made.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for having referred to the fact that Westminster City Council has views on this matter. I have been asked to speak on this Bill by two petitioners—Westminster City Council and the Paddington Residents Active Concern in Transport, known as PRACT.
As this Bill has been promoted by BAA, I do not know whether as I bought my 100 or so shares in BAA as one typically does in a privatisation, I should declare an interest. But, as I intend to be speaking on the other side in this matter, perhaps that is not so important.
The council, and indeed the residents, are not opposed to the idea of a high-speed rail link; in fact they welcome it. I myself think that the extension to the Piccadilly line was done on the cheap. I was very much involved in the Greater London Council when that extension was made. It was done on the cheap so as to produce something fairly inexpensively and to provide at least some direct rail linkage. But it is not satisfactory. There is no room for luggage. The line is very slow as it stops in so many places. I wish to place on record now in relation to this Bill the other factor which I think is very much against that line, and that is that there is no real access for wheels, whether they are suitcase wheels, trolley wheels or wheels on a wheelchair. There is no way one can get on and off the present Heathrow link without encountering steps. I have spoken in this House on that point before.
At a time when a new line is being developed, surely proper provision can he made for access not only for the disabled but also for travellers with luggage. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, recalls that I spoke on this matter before and that I said there was no way one could get on and off the line at Heathrow with luggage. I put that point to London Transport but was told that one should not have luggage if one is using the Tube. But really people want to be able to travel with luggage and use a fast train link in. That is a separate point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that 5 million people a day used the link. Did he mean that 5 million people used it per day or per year, because according to Westminster Council—
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, 1 did not say that that occurred in one day; I was implying it occurred in a year.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I see. The council's figures show a much lower number. But it has worked out that at the peak time 2,200 people need to be moved from Paddington Station. That is on top of the number of people who are already moving in that area. The normal traffic already has problems in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said he lived within a few minutes' walk of the station. He is one of the lucky ones because the only way one can get anywhere from that station is by walking, as the

1015
traffic is absolutely jammed solid. Unless due thought is given to how people are to be moved away from the station, instead of the link being a helpful introduction to a person's visit to Britain which results in a rapid arrival in London and a pleasant trip to his hotel, he will arrive rapidly at Paddington and then just be stuck in a bus or a taxi, or be crowded with other people on to an Underground line. Thought has to be given to how to disperse that traffic.
There used to be an excellent parking area at Paddington Station. I notice that that is no longer available; it seems to have been taken over by Red Star or a delivery service. What provision will be made for parking? People go to see others off on trains. The present space available for cars to pull up at the station is so limited that the additional passengers we are considering could not possibly be accommodated.
The local residents are very concerned about the environmental effects of the proposal. As a councillor, I represented Hyde Park ward on Westminster Council for 10 years. Therefore I know the area particularly well. There is no way for traffic to get away from the station at present.
As I entered the House this evening I was given a brief prepared by BAA. It is very helpful and very clear. It says that:
"A consultation exercise was then undertaken during which BAA and British Rail submitted a proposal to the Government".
They may have consulted some bodies but they have not consulted the local traffic authority or the local authority responsible for planning in that area.
The Bill would authorise compulsory acquisition of land belonging to Westminster Council. The Council objects to that. It wants to see improved access to the centre of London from the country's major airport, but that could result in an unacceptable increase in traffic congestion or environmental intrusion on roads in the City. That would produce a deterioration in the quality of life for local residents. It might also mean that local ratepayers—or community charge payers as they will be by then—will have to pay for necessary consequential highway measures to remedy the situation. That seems very unfair to local people.
We understand that the railway will operate 18 hours a day and that in the summer months 21,000 passengers will use the railway daily. The investigations that have been carried out by the promoters have been very limited indeed, and the scope of the studies has not been sufficiently wide. The results have been produced so late that the petitioners and others have not had an opportunity to examine them properly. As I have said, problems already exist in the area. To more than double existing travel would make life very difficult indeed.
The Council does not wish to be obstructive. However, it suggests in its petition that it might be better if the Bill were dropped from this Session of Parliament and brought back at a later Session. I have mixed views on that point because I think that the link would be very valuable to the country and I should not like to seeit delayed. I should like to see
1016
due consultation between the proposers of the Bill and the petitioners so that all aspects can be considered in detail. I know that when the Bill goes to Committee there will be an opportunity for such consideration. From the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in opening the debate, I hope that it will be possible to reach a satisfactory compromise.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, when we discussed whether Stansted airport should be developed, I argued that it should but there would have to be decent rail access. I suspect that in a year's time I shall be arguing in favour of decent rail access by the Tyne-Wear Metro from the city of Newcastle to Woolsington Airport. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords that I believe both the Bill and the Heathrow Express concept are very attractive indeed. I could argue about the success of the Gatwick Express but I do not believe that that point needs to be aired further.
I believe that the Bill before us tonight, and its underlying concept, is attractive for three reasons. It poses a number of problems, however. There is an additional problem I should like to discuss which follows on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said. I shall approach it from a different, perhaps a subterranean angle. However, problems for some people are opportunities for others, and I urge your Lordships to support the Bill.
My first reason for supporting the Bill is that I live in the borough of Westminster. On the Underground it is a long haul to Heathrow using the traditional links—the Metropolitan Line to Hammersmith and changing to the Piccadilly Line. It takes 45 minutes from Piccadilly if the wind is behind the train, or an hour and a half if one is unlucky. I work between the Piccadilly Line and the Hammersmith flyover. This afternoon at 5 o'clock one could look out of the window and see the Hammersmith flyover choked with traffic. Road access had not failed; it was oversubscribed. The Piccadilly Line was also having a bad evening: one could see the trains standing still for three or four minutes. If this concept diverts any traffic from the Piccadilly Line or the M.4 route, that is a very strong point in its favour.
I feel that the Bill has merits from the point of view of the British Rail consumer because British Rail is obtaining electrification on the cheap. We talk of privatisation in terms of selling off a whole business: tell Sid, and away you go. However, this is what I christened in a previous debate in this House privatisation with a small "p". It maximises investment in British Rail by the private sector. British Rail get electrification on the cheap, out to Hayes and Harlington if one follows the proposals in the Bill. That does not work so well if one follows the Dobbie proposals, and that in my view is a weakness in the proposals. There is a corridor beyond Southall which would bring a lot of people into London if one could obtain electrification on the cheap. After all, British Rail has not been able to make a satisfactory case for electrification of the surburban services out of Paddington. I am sure that they have considered the matter several times but they have not put a case forward.

1017
Although electrification will cost £180 million British Rail will put up only 20 per cent. of that sum. It will have the opportunity to run an inner city suburban service from Paddington to Ealing, Southall, Hayes and Harlington. There is a further opportunity. I am told by the promoters of the Bill that once the railway exists, if there is capacity and the commercial conditions are right, they will welcome—or will not unilaterally dismiss—the prospect of British Rail running an inner city suburban service not to Hayes and Harlington but to the airport itself. That would tap the suburban potential and the potential of those who work at the airport and live in places like Ruislip.
If Hayes and Harlington were made an InterCity stop, one could tap the whole of the West Country served by InterCity out of Paddington—Bristol, Cardiff and South Wales. The citizens of South Wales have talked quite a lot about the Bill and say that they want either a service into Heathrow or a connecting service. Like the rest of us, the citizens of South Wales are rather ambiguous. If they demand a service into Heathrow from South Wales it seems to be that they would be stabbing Cardiff international airport in the back.
If the Bill is passed, and I sincerely hope that it will be, there are enormous opportunities for British Rail to develop its business. I hope that both the InterCity sector and Network SouthEast, which is the British Rail sector sponsoring the rail development, will look long and hard at those opportunities.
I have mentioned privatisation with a small "p" and more private sector investment in British Rail. I think that one must pay tribute to the Government because 15 years ago we could not have had a debate discussing a 20 per cent.— 80 per cent. deal between British Rail and the private sector. Now we have the Docklands airport, the Channel Tunnel, and we shall have the rail access through Kent in the fullness of time which I hope will involve a similar deal. That would make the most of British Rail's ability to run a railway and of private sector investment. That was perhaps brought out in the department's press release in which the project was blessed.
There is a constraint. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, approached it one way; I shall approach it another. That is the flow of passengers into and out of Paddington and how it is to be handled. The noble Baroness mentioned the Underground just once—perhaps twice. She addressed herself principally to traffic constraints. I do not believe that surface traffic will be the problem; I believe that the problem will be the Underground.
If the proverbial man from Mars picked up a tourist map before arriving in London, he would say, "Ah, Paddington is served by four different Underground routes. It must be good." However, in practice, if we look at those Underground routes—and the promoters of the Bill have looked at them—we realise that, although the brief says rather blandly that Paddington is served by four routes, there are shortcomings.
Next month's edition of Modern Railways quotes at some length Paul le Blond who is the project
1018
manager for the venture. The article states that the weakness of the Circle Line is that it does not go in the directions from Paddington that people wish to go. The District Line is simply an add on. The Hammersmith and City Line is useless to people going anywhere but eastbound. According to the Central London Rail Study, the problem with that line and the eastbound Circle Line is that there is already congestion along the north side of the Circle Line. I am quite surprised that London Transport regards the Bakerloo Line as average in the performance league. I think that that is flattering to the Bakerloo Line in much the same way as some of the remarks made about the Circle Line in the context of the Question of the noble Lord, Lo rd Gainford, yesterday were extremely flattering. I hesitate to use the word "diabolical"; that would be really verballing it up.
However if that is the problem, we must take a leaf from the book of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who, we are told, never sees problems but opportunities. I believe that the Underground is a problem, and an infinitely greater problem than the traffic problems mentioned by the noble Baroness. But, if the Bill is passed and we have the railway, it seems to me that it will be a massive plank in the Central London Rail Study's proposals for a Paddington to Liverpool Street main-line standard underground railway. I believe that that will solve many of the problems that arise from the existing Underground infrastructure. I dearly want to see that cross-rail link built. How it should be paid for will be debated on another evening. I want it to be built and I believe that we must build it.
We are all agreed, although we may disagree on the details, that Heathrow Express is an attractive proposal. I am utterly contented with this Bill and hope that it succeeds. If and when it does, I hope that we shall not overlook the opportunities that it also offers.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill. The prospect of getting to Heathrow quickly, comfortably and with some chance of being sure of the time of arrival is a powerful argument in favour of the Bill. However, my congratulations, which I also tender to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, are slightly tinged with regret that the promoters of the Bill do not appear to have given him the fullest information about the interests of others and the concern that the proposals in their present form have aroused.
At this point, I should declare an interest. Like others in this House, I am a member of the Trusthouse Forte Council. The duties of that body are not particularly onerous these days and its aims are largely charitable. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, will endorse that comment.
Trusthouse Forte has become a petitioner to the Bill because, as owners of the Excelsior Hotel, it feels that its rights and legitimate interests have been largely disregarded. It is quite an extensive four-star hotel with full facilities. It has nearly 600 bedrooms with another 250 to be added shortly. One wing of that hotel is permanently set aside for use 24 hours a

1019
day for resting by air crew. Trusthouse Forte has no wish whatever to obstruct the Bill, but feels forced to use this opportunity to call the House's attention to the fact that, as yet, no detailed plans are available. So far as it is aware, there have been no trial drillings nor any detailed, careful soil investigation. No assessment has apparently been made of the impact of the project either by sound or vibration, during the construction or operation of the rail link. I am informed that there has not been any serious discussion or anything that could resemble consultation.
I echo the words on this theme that were used by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. When any large construction project is under way, it goes without saying that noise, debris and congestion will result. In the case of this hotel, the nuisance will be considerably enhanced by the fact that the promoters have chosen to place the work site in an area immediately adjacent to the wing of the hotel used by air crew for rest purposes.
The promoters have so far shown themselves unwilling or unable to set limits on the use that they intend to make of the land, either their own or that to be acquired from other people. They ask for wide powers for compulsory purchase of surface land as well as underground rights without saying what they need or why they need it. They are taking what the petitioners regard as unnecessarily generous limits for deviation both in depth and sideways.
I do not wish to detain the House for any length of time. Perhaps I may sum up by saying that, in the view of Trusthouse Forte—the petitioner—the plans put forward by the promoters, in so far as they bear upon this large hotel, are as yet incomplete and vague. The promoters have failed as yet to give any evidence of real concern as to the impact that their plans will have on the legitimate interests of others. I suggest to noble Lords that those people who come to Parliament seeking unusual and special rights should be the first to show special and unusual concern for the rights of others. I very much hope that the promoters will be powerfully persuaded in that direction by the Select Committee. I very much hope also that my noble friend Lord Jenkin, when he replies, will be able to make some encouraging remarks to the effect that the promoters are not entirely disregarding of the points that I have made.
The Earl of Gainsborough: My Lords, I understand that it may not be too inconvenient if I intervene in this debate for a few minutes. I must declare the same interest as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I should like to say, as someone who uses Heathrow a great deal, that when this railway line is constructed, it will undoubtedly be of great benefit. As someone who also uses Paddington station, I very much share the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, because it is already pretty chaotic there at times. Given the extra number of people who will use the station, the position will have to be examined carefully by the local authorities, British Rail and the other people concerned.
My concern is that, as a member of a local authority, having struggled in other fields where
1020
Private Bills have been promoted, I know that promoters always ask for much wider powers than they in fact need. They have probably done so in this case. They have set the limits of deviation quite widely. I hope that there will be room for negotiation on this between the promoters and the petitioners. I understand that the petitioners, Trusthouse Forte, have not had any satisfactory negotiation with the promoters of the Bill. They have not received any satisfaction on the queries and questions that they wish to raise. The promoters appear to take the view that the Bill will go through anyway and that the wide powers that they are seeking will be agreed to by Parliament. That may very well be the case, but it is within the spirit of your Lordships' House and of Parliament that that should not be taken for granted and that the petitioners should be listened to. They wish to see the venture a success without it being highly detrimental not only to the business carried on by Trusthouse Forte but to many other businesses in the area of Heathrow Airport.
I very much endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I am sure that the matter will be gone into carefully by the Select Committee. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who has put the case for the Bill very clearly, will pass these points on to the Select Committee when it deals with the matter.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, at the outset perhaps I may make it perfectly clear that although I speak from this Dispatch Box I do so in a personal capacity and in no way can I pledge my party. Having said that, I am one who has been heartily in favour of a direct rail link to Heathrow for quite a long time. I am certain that the great majority of my noble friends would likewise support such a venture. I need hardly stress the need for this, not only for the assistance to air passengers but the relief that it will give to road congestion, in particular the A.4 and the M.4, and the Underground. I dare say that other noble Lords have suffered as I have, and have given up, preferring to hire a car from my home to take me to Heathrow, rather than get on the Piccadilly Line in the rush hour with a few suitcases when other family groups are trying to do likewise.
Strangely enough, this is one Private Bill on which I am very pleased to say no one has briefed me or sent me any brief. However, I have had the pleasure—and I say the "pleasure"—of reading the report on the response to the Heathrow Surface Access Study which I found to be very illuminating. It was published in June last year. It is clear that of the 100 responses that were received to the consultation document issued 12 months earlier, virtually all were in favour of a direct rail link. The overwhelming majority supported the BAA/BR project.
Having said that, I am aware that the rail unions are very concerned about aspects of this Bill. They need to be assured that the link is to be an integral part of the BR network with the trains, track, signalling, maintenance and safety procedures all operated by BR staff working to the established codes of practice on operation and safety. I share that concern in particular when I see references to powers

1021
given to "the Company" in the Bill and to the Company's railway in Clauses 7, 12 and 40 of the Bill. The company referred to is Heathrow Airport Limited. I hope that concern of the unions and the concern that I have expressed can be allayed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, when he sums up. I am delighted that he introduced the Bill in the very clear and conciliatory way that he did.
The analysis of the responses in the appendix are not only almost unanimous for a rail based option but the overwhelming option is for Paddington. I noticed that one of the strong critics was the CBI. It considered that Paddington was not sufficiently close to central London. What station it believes could be closer to central London without massive congestion to the roads, I fail to see.
Another interesting factor is that the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association both give full support to the principle in the Bill. Seven London boroughs are listed as primarily affected by this proposal. Six support the rail link; one feels that there ought to be wider consideration given in the context of a London audit. I noted that four of the six favour Paddington. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I notice that Westminster said that whatever happens the terminus must not be Victoria. However, it expresses concern over what might be the possible effect of the proposed coach station at Paddington. Although this is not part of the Bill, it must be a factor which must be taken into consideration.
I support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the case put forward by Hounslow Borough in particular with a view to the diversion in to the South-East network. That might be of great assistance when consideration is given to the rail link to the Channel Tunnel over which there is such massive concern at the moment. It might be a helpful factor.
A third of the responses in this document urge a wider study of transport needs surrounding the Heathrow area before final decisions are taken. Frankly, I found that a little mystifying. Undoubtedly there will still be people who will travel by other than the rail link from Paddington to Heathrow and there may be some need for some road improvements. But that is not a factor that ought greatly to affect the position of this Bill.
Some concern is expressed in the study responses about road problems in Paddington. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, made reference to this. In paragraph 5.3 of the document British Rail confirm that the Heathrow express service will increase the throughput of Paddington Station by some 50 per cent. It also states that priority will be given to the service in order to ensure maximum accessibility to taxi ranks and to the London Underground platforms. There will be of course other rail passengers still using Paddington. That is a factor which must be considered. Great consideration will also need to be given to road traffic management in the area. Traffic is already a sufficient problem and if there is to be special direction given to taxis then one can see that there will be considerable need for traffic
1022
management to be given the most detailed consideration.
I support the Bill. I believe that this debate and the points that have been made will be extremely helpful to the Select Committee, and when it considers the petitions. In the light of the conciliatory remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made when introducing the Bill I believe that some of these concerns may be overcome even before the petitions are presented for consideration.
8.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, it might be convenient at this point to outline the views of the Government on this Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has said, Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport, and last year was used by over 37 million passengers. The lack of a fast, dedicated rail link to Europe's premier airport is a source of regret to many, and indeed many noble Lords this evening have expressed that view. Following publication of the White Paper on Airports Policy in 1996, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport commissioned the Heathrow Surface Access Study to look at potential demands for surface movement between Heathrow and central London and to examine the means by which it might best be met. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said that that exercise found virtually unanimous support for a rail based option and the route proposed in this Bill was not only given the most specific support from interested parties but turned out to be the most economically worthwhile. In the light of this, my right honourable friend gave his approval in principle to British Rail's participation with BAA on a joint venture to work up detailed plans for the construction and operation of an express rail link between Paddington and Heathrow.
The Government are particularly pleased that the private sector has seen, and taken, the commercial opportunity for providing what is intended to be a high-quality premium service. The Government believe that the project will bring significant benefits. It will relieve road congestion around Heathrow, and will ensure that Heathrow has passenger transport links with central London fit for the 21st century. We also hope that this example will further encourage private sector involvement in transport infrastructure projects, meeting public demand with private enterprise. We therefore fully support the principle of the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House.
As with any new construction, there are legitimate concerns about the impact of the rail link on the enviroment. The Government share these concerns and we are keen to see measures which alleviate potential environmental problems as far as is practicable. I understand that the promoters are in fact proposing measures to minimise the environmental impact of the link and that they are discussing these measures with the local authorities concerned. The details are for them to put forward and there will be an opportunity to consider them at a later stage.

1023
Likewise, the details of the route outlined by my noble friend are matters for your Lordships' Select Committee's consideration with the operators. I am sure that the points made by my noble friend Lord Bethell, representing Hillingdon, and by other noble Lords will be taken into account. The Government's direct responsibility has been with safety—not only of the link, but also of M.4 road users. To this end, discussions with Heathrow Airport Limited have produced a route which is safe and does not preclude further development of the motorway. I shall leave the wider aspects to your Lordships' judgment, noting that there have been 13 petitions against the Bill. I hope your Lordships will give the Heathrow Express Railway Bill a Second Reading. The Committee stage can provide a forum for more detailed matters to be aired and resolved.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I begin by expressing my warm thanks to all those who have spoken in the debate for their broad support for the Bill. I do not believe that there has been a single speaker who has not thoroughly applauded the proposal that there should be a high-speed rail link. That will be a considerable encouragement to the promoters.
A second point raised by a number of noble Lords who have spoken—I shall refer briefly to some of the particular concerns in a moment—is the suggestion that the promoters have evinced a lack of concern for those whose interests are likely to be challenged by the proposed development. My noble friend Lord Peyton expressed himself most strongly in that regard. I should like to assure the House that the promoters fully intend to discuss, where they have not done so already (and in many cases they have), the objections that have been voiced not only in this House tonight but by the petitioners whose anxieties have not found expression in your Lordships' debate.
I assure my noble friend Lord Peyton that I was very well aware of the anxieties of Trust House Forte. It would be quite wrong to say that I was not informed of that. I was fully informed. I was waiting to hear what my noble friend would say. Clearly, there are some practical difficulties which will need to be ironed out. I hope very much that those for whom my noble friend spoke will be able to respond quickly to the overtures that will be made by the promoters, who, I am instructed, are well aware of the problems that their development will present for the Excelsior Hotel.
I come next to the problems of Westminster. I have to say and put on record that there have been lengthy negotiations with Westminster City Council. Perhaps I misunderstood my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes when I thought she suggested that there had not been negotiations. On the contrary, there have. Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners have produced traffic management schemes which have been discussed at length both with Westminister council and, in more general terms, with PRACT, the organisation for which my noble friend was also speaking. There was a meeting only a few days ago with representatives of PRACT. There are problems which will need to be dealt with.
1024
The figures that were given during the debate for the likely number of passengers adding to the already heavy traffic at peak hours at Paddington will give rise to problems. The promoters are well aware of that and are prepared to continue discussions in the hope that they will be able to reach a solution which is satisfactory to everybody. Indeed, the suggestion that was put to me was that if there is a traffic management scheme which will divert taxis to chosen points of set down and pick up it could have the effect of reducing the present disturbance to residents in the areas which formerly were represented on the local authority by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. That, at least, is the promoters' hope.
My noble friend Lord Bethell made a speech with which I am sure everyone in the House will have much sympathy. He is very properly representing the views of the constituents whom he represents in the European Parliament. He may have painted a mildly overgenerous picture of the amenities of the land surrounding Heathrow Airport. It is not the world's most beautiful place. True, there is some agriculture and the land is designated green belt, but it is the view of the promoters that a satisfactory development of the kind we have here may enhance the character of the area, much of which is not of first-class amenity value.
The promoters have already discussed the measures to be taken with the Royal Fine Art Commission, and have put their designs for the flyover to that commission. The commission has recognised that there will be considerable interference from a visual standpoint with local people. The commission therefore called for environmental enhancement of a high order. The promoters have already instructed consultants to produce proposals that they hope will go a long way towards satisfying not only the Royal Fine Art Commission but also my noble friend's constituents.
More difficult is what my noble friend described as the Dobbie route. As he acknowledged, it is quite considerably more expensive: £20 million on a project which is already to cost about £190 million. Although it is a shorter distance and therefore there are savings, that is the net figure because it requires some three miles of additional tunnel underground. That is expensive. There are attractions in the Dobbie route, including the less sharp bend and the lesser impact from noise and other disturbance. But £20 million is a lot of money for a project that is being financed jointly, indeed mostly, by the private sector. This will need to be looked at extremely carefully.
Slightly less ambitious is what is called the Hillingdon B route, which would be a gentler bend from the same position as the promoters' scheme but would go underground instead of over the top. That might cost an additional £15 million.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, will my noble friend therefore reassure me—I think I understood him correctly—that the promoters of the Bill have not wholly ruled out the Dobbie route?
Lord Jenkin of Boding: My Lords, I do not believe that I could possibly say that. The promoters will obviously wish to listen very carefully to the

1025
arguments. I believe that there is a technical problem about the Dobbie route. I am advised that it would represent such a major deviation from the proposal embodied in the Bill now before your Lordships' House that it must be at least doubtful as to whether this Bill could be a vehicle for such a major change. It may be that the Bill would have to be withdrawn—if that was the decision of your Lordships' House—and a new Bill submitted in the new Session of Parliament. Everybody who has spoken has urged the necessity for getting on quickly, and I believe that that would be something which would need to be taken very seriously into account.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, do we understand the noble Lord to say that the B route could be considered within the ambit of the Bill, that it would have the advantage of a less acute bend and that it would go underground earlier?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, with respect I do not believe that I can give a categorical yea or nay to the noble Lord's question. It is substantially less of a deviation from the promoters' route than Hillingdon A, although not one advocated by my noble friend Lord Bethell. That would cost £15 million more, but it may have a greater chance within the rules of procedure of being embodied within this Bill as an amendment rather than requiring new legislation.
My noble friend Lord Bethell also asked whether compensation is included in the estimates. I believe that it is included. He raised two points of detail. Of course the fare is higher per mile because the cost of providing the dedicated line is much higher. Very few changes needed to be made for the Gatwick Express and, therefore, the fare is relatively lower. This proposal will acquire a substantial additional spur, much of it in a tunnel with two entirely new stations to be built under the terminus. That cost has to be recovered. Therefore, although it is a shorter distance the fare will be about the same or perhaps a little higher. Perhaps I may speak personally. I have every sympathy with the idea of wishing to pay on the train; I have no doubt that the promoters will take account of what the noble Lord said.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked about the Hounslow proposal for a link with the Southern network. There is nothing in the Bill which rules that out at a later stage. It is not in the Bill at present, but nothing prevents it happening at a future date.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, made some interesting and important points. I believe there is a
1026
problem about a service from South Wales. It must be questionable whether there would be enough traffic to warrant a separate turning from the main line to serve Heathrow. It would also create very considerable engineering problems. However, I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord said about the problems on the Underground. I endorse entirely—as I am sure the promoters would—the view that the importance of the west-east cross rail service is enhanced by the fact that it is the only service in the whole of the Central London Rail Study which figures in all the possible preferred alternatives. It would spread out the impact of the arrival and departure of Heathrow passengers in central London. It seems to me that the noble Lord has made a very important point.
Perhaps I may point out to the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, that the promoters are ready to negotiate and to consult fully and meaningfully with those who object.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill—and this was echoed by my noble friend on the Front Bench— was concerned about safety. If I did not say so earlier, then I should say now that the operation of the railway will be the responsibility of British Rail. It will be responsible for the signalling, the supply of power and the driving of the trains. That will not be handed over to Heathrow Airport, which will provide some staff and the station services at Heathrow but will not be responsible for the driving of the trains.
I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. It is encouraging to the promoters that the Government fully support the principle of the Bill. The promoters will have taken careful note of the Government's equal anxiety, along with others, concerning the environmental impact: and other matters which my noble friend mentioned.
Of course, a Second Reading of a Private Bill does not commit the House to all the details the measure contains. The Bill will go to a Select Committee whose procedure is designed to ensure a very fair and full examination of the promoters' proposals and the petitioners' objections. Therefore, I hope that the House will be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING STATISTICS
  MERCHANT SHIPPING STATISTICS
  TAXATION DATA
  TAXATION DATA
  RETIRED CROWN SERVANTS: OUTSIDE APPOINTMENTS
  RETIRED CROWN SERVANTS: OUTSIDE APPOINTMENTS
  VETERINARY EDUCATION: RILEY REPORT
  VETERINARY EDUCATION: RILEY REPORT
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS
  BSE: SOUTHWOOD REPORT
  BSE: SOUTHWOOD REPORT
  BSE: RESEARCH COMMITTEE
  BSE: RESEARCH COMMITTEE
  PRISONS: STAFFING LEVELS
  PRISONS: STAFFING LEVELS