Sitting of 9 March 1989

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL (By Order)
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL (By Order)
BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 16 March.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
(CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL ( By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 14 March at 7 o'clock.
HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON)
WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order)
INTERNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL (By Order)
Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ISLE OF WIGHT BILL (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Nurses (Regrading)
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether a comparative study has been carried out into the grades awarded to nurses in each health board area in Northern Ireland; and how many nurses have been regraded upwards after appeal and formal interview to date.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): Of the 15,400 nurses in Northern Ireland, some 6,000 have requested informal reviews with their nurse managers. The number of reviews that have been completed is 4,280; 682 posts have been upgraded; 2,574 cases are proceeding with formal appeals; and in 26 of those cases, posts have so far been upgraded.
    Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for the information. Hon. Members will note the very large number of nurses who were totally dissatisfied with their initial grading. I can assure the Minister that many of those nurses are quite disgusted with the appeal procedure that they went through. They felt that the procedure was phoney, and they are still not satisfied. Is the Minister aware that these nurses are now making comparisons not only with grades awarded under other boards but between grades allocated to nurses in hospitals within board areas? School nurses also feel that they have been very badly treated, with the low grades awarded to them. Night sisters reckon that no consideration has been given to the special service and back-up that they provide to staff nurses. Young nurses attempting to obtain higher qualifications for the benefit of their profession in general see no recognition for their extra qualifications. What action will the Minister take to remove this overall dissatisfaction and see that nurses in general are given decent pay awards?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are totally unjustified. It was always recognised by both staff and management representatives that such a massive exercise of regrading would lead to variations. For this reason, all staff who were dissatisfied were given the opportunity to request informal reviews with their nurse-managers. The fact is that over two-thirds of nurses were satisfied with their regrading, without any appeal at all.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Minister, who is very conscientious and caring, look at this matter again? Nurses, who deserve the support of the community, feel extremely dissatisfied. Because of their grave dissatisfaction will the Minister look into their complaint?
    Mr. Viggers: Absolutely not. Nurses' pay has increased by more than one third in real terms since 1979, and the average increase this year for nurses was 17·4 per cent. That is a generous settlement which reflects the important work done by the nurses.
    Mr. McGrady: In view of the Minister's reply, will he arrange to meet the senior management of the Down unit of management in order to remove the obvious injustices and anomalies which have arisen from the clinical

    1017
    regrading in that area? In view of the new regime, will he also arrange a meeting with that senior management to ensure that the grading of the various ward nurses is adequate? Great injustices and anomalies have arisen as a result of the regrading and the Minister must intervene to resolve the difficulties.
    Mr. Viggers: I stand firm behind the general principle of the regrading, but if there is a particular problem I shall pass it on to my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) the Under-Secretary of State, who is responsible for health matters, who is currently on a visit overseas.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that this was the most generous settlement ever for the nurses—much more generous than the settlement at the time of the Ulster Unionist-Labour pact of the 1970s? Does he also agree that, looking further ahead at demographic factors, nurses' pay will have to rise significantly over the next decade if we are to have sufficient nurses?
    Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend is right. The agreement reached on regrading was in parity with a similar one reached in the nursing and midwifery joint negotiating council in Great Britain. But in Northern Ireland a further £32 million was made available in order to allow the regrading.
    Ms. Mowlam: Does the Minister agree that the Government's handling of the nurses' pay award has been matched in its incompetency and unpopularity only by their handling of the NHS review? Therefore, will he explain to the House this afternoon why he will not risk a ballot for hospitals that want to opt out? If opting out is about self-government, why is it only he who has a vote?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Lady's remarks are not justified. The criteria recommended by the nurses' pay review body were agreed nationally and accepted in full by the Government. The nationally agreed criteria were implemented by health and social services boards in Northern Ireland following agreement by staff and management representatives on the nurses and midwives joint staff councils, so there has been a broad consensus in the regrading and there is nothing for the Government to regret.

    Short Brothers
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response has been received to the offer by Her Majesty's Government to sell Short Brothers Ltd.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I advised the House last week that six preliminary proposals for the purchase of Shorts had been received, and that two—Bombardier Inc. and GEC/Fokker—were being asked to submit final proposals by 30 April. I also said that I was considering whether a further proposal should be included in the short-list. I can now inform the House that I met MBB yesterday and have agreed to add its name to the short-list.
    Mr. Colvin: It would be wrong to ask my right hon. Friend to state a preference for any of those three bids, but will he note that of the three on the short-list MMB is busy with the takeover by Daimler-Benz? The GEC/Fokker
    1018
    consortium bid looks like a bit of a carve-up of the company, and only Bombardier can meet those requirements set out by the company for privatisation which have been endorsed by his Department. For the record, will my right hon. Friend refresh our memory on those requirements and give an undertaking that he will decide which bid is to be successful without any delay after the deadline date in order to remove the uncertainty hanging over the company.
    Mr. King: To avoid any misunderstanding, it is MBB, not MMB, that is bidding—in case anyone thinks that the Milk Marketing Board is indulging in a rather unusual diversification.
    My hon. Friend rightly said that I should not indulge in any advance speculation, and then he took the opportunity to do so. I do not intend to prejudge the matter. I invited each of those companies to put forward final proposals by 30 April because I judged each of them to be of substance and with an involvement in the industry to be able to make a substantial contribution to our objective—which is to see Shorts go into the private sector on a basis that offers the greatest benefit to the Northern Ireland economy and the best possible future for the people who work in the company.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State will recall that, when giving evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, he paid particular attention to the importance of the three divisions of the company remaining intact. Do any or all of the three bidders envisage keeping together the company's three divisions, and do any or all of the three bidders intend to proceed with the FJX project?
    Mr. King: Short Brothers plc does not yet know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question and has not put forward any proposals. It wishes to go forward with the FJX. Everyone who has expressed an interest is absolutely aware that our preferred course is to return the company, as a single unit, to the private sector. These matters are being considered and as—the hon. Gentleman knows—each of the groups of companies that I described knows Short Brothers extremely well. Some are already partners with Shorts in different activities, and are well aware of the different divisions of Shorts and the way in which they contribute to the total enterprise.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Following the submission of the three proposals in April, how long does the Secretary of State require before he reaches his final decision?
    Mr. King: I cannot give a specific answer, but I am anxious to reach the earliest possible decision and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will support me in that. It is clearly desirable to bring this period of uncertainty to an end and I am hopeful—from what I have already heard and discussions that I have had with the three groups concerned, and because there is also now an upturn in airliner activity and a considerable demand for aeroplanes—that there is a good opportunity for us to do so. I can certainly confirm that the Government are determined to do all that they can to bring the matter to a speedy and successful conclusion.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: We appreciate that the Secretary of State has difficult decisions to make on this matter. However, I must press him further on the three bids. Will

    1019
    he give an assurance that, when considering the bids, he will favour the one that offers the best prospects for the survival of the three component parts of the present company when it is privatised?
    Mr. King: I have made clear our preferred option, and that is the basis on which we invited bids. I must also make clear my determination to achieve the best possible outcome. This is one matter over which there is no doubt, and which nobody seriously challenges. I am grateful for the support of the Select Committee, composed of hon. Members from both sides of the House, on this. It is of the greatest importance to end public ownership of Shorts as soon as possible so that it can move into the private sector. Public ownership has not been a good friend of Short Brothers plc and the sooner it ends the better.

    Republic of Ireland
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will next meet representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland; and what matters he will discuss.
    Mr. Tom King: I shall meet representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland at the next meeting of the intergovernmental conference. I expect this to take place shortly, but no date has yet been set. The agenda for the meeting has not yet been drawn up.
    Mr. Hunter: What discussions about 1992 does my right hon. Friend, or his officials, propose to have with Ministers of the Government of the Republic of Ireland? Will the opportunities of 1992 be maximised to the benefit of the economies of the Republic and Northern Ireland?
    Mr. King: We certainly believe that 1992 could have significant benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has already jointly chaired with the industry Minister of the Irish Republic a conference of the Irish Institute of European Affairs at Louvain, to talk about the implications of 1992. Further discussions and decisions will be necessary on harmonisation of tariffs, customs duties, monetary compensatory amounts and a number of other matters which will have considerable implications for the border. It is our ambition to eliminate any distortions and help to stimulate trade and reduce the opportunity for what is euphemistically called the import-export business.
    Mr. William Ross: When the Secretary of State meets the Government of the Irish Republic, will he be perfectly truthful and straightforward with them and tell tham that they do not have a cat's chance of obtaining a power-sharing devolved Government? Will he also tell them that the Government accept that there is a need for an improved system of government in Northern Ireland, and that, as there is not a power-sharing devolved Government, other means must be found?
    Mr. King: I am not sure whether the Irish Government are waiting on the edge of their seat to hear that announcement from me. They have made no proposals to me on such matters. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are at present having discussions and inviting interested parties to let us have their views on what they consider the best way forward. I am glad to say that a number are responding, and I hope that all who care about the
    1020
    situation in the Province will make their contribution to the discussions. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, (Dr. Mawhinney) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—whom I have asked to help me—will be very interested to hear any views that are expressed.
    Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that Irish Ministers will complain to him at the next meeting that whereas the enormous benefits of the community charge are to be heaped on his constituency and mine, they are to be withheld from the people of Northern Ireland, whether they be nationalists or unionists?
    Mr. King: I shall not respond to that question in any way. As I think that the main thrust falls elsewhere, I shall leave it to lie where it falls.
    Mr. Ashdown: While we are on the subject of meeting representatives of the Irish Republic, will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the moves to establish the parliamentary tier of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
    I fully recognise that the Secretary of State does not make decisions about who those representatives should be, but will he join me in hoping that they will be as broadly drawn as possible? In particular, may I ask him to suggest to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there should be a representative of the alliance party in Northern Ireland in the Upper House?
    Mr. King: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I hope that the parliamentary tier will be as broadly based as possible. I hope that every party will take part in the recognition that this is a relationship between the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of the Irish Republic. If, as I understand, some unionists have reservations about taking part, some of us will be left wondering what on earth they are willing to take part in. They have reservations about the North-South relationship. If they have reservations about the east-west relationship as well, where are we?
    Mr. Cash: In the context of the European Economic Community and the question of frontier controls, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in the interests of neither the United Kingdom nor the Republic of Eire for us to abolish such controls, and that there is a good deal of misconception in the European Commission about the need to do so?
    Mr. King: That will clearly require considerable discussion. It has major security implications, and we understand that very well. Indeed, it has a number of implications for important issues that affect both the island of Ireland and Great Britain—such as animal health, to which we all attach importance. There is no doubt that the economic distortions that have existed across the border have led to a significant smuggling industry, which I should like to see substantially reduced.
    Mr. McNamara: Whether or not we see a reduction in the smuggling industry—which I think we would all welcome—it is surely in the greatest interests of the island of Ireland as a whole that the parts of the island that are capable of co-operating on an industrial and economic role should be able to do so, in the interests of both the people of the North and the South and the relationship between the two communities.

    1021
    Does the Secretary of State agree that the greatest thing about the interparliamentary tier is that people come from two sovereign Parliaments, and that those who are prepared to go abroad on Inter-Parliamentary Union delegations should be prepared if necessary to use an IPU umbrella to partake in a relationship between two sovereign Parliaments which will not in any way impinge on the integrity or status of those taking part, but could do a great deal to heal wounds in Ireland and bring a degree of peace to the North?
    Mr. King: I think that that is right. My understanding is that, unless the position has changed, every party in the House is in favour of talks, and of meeting and co-operating on matters in respect of which it is beneficial to do so. That is true of all the democratic parties in Northern Ireland, which have never tried to argue against economic co-operation, contacts and discussion. This proposal—which is separate and is being discussed, under the auspices of the IPU, between the sovereign Parliaments of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—seems to me to be a very sensible one to which all parties should subscribe.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and myself, and all those who have been conducting these talks, which are now in a stage of advanced discussion, are very grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend, Her Majesty's Government and the House? My right hon. Friend should be left in no doubt that whenever we see hon. Members from the Unionist party, they are very welcome.
    Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His leadership in the matter is much appreciated. I recognise the depth of ignorance and misunderstanding that exists between our two countries in so many areas and I welcome the prospect that hon. Members of the House of Commons and hon. Members of the Parliament in the Irish Republic will have opportunities to talk and meet together. We may not agree, but I hope that it will be helpful in clearing up many of the misunderstandings and the distrust that can exist.

    Students (Benefits)
    Mr. Mallon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning full-time students who can not avail themselves of social security benefit because of their full-time status.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): From 1 September 1988 to 28 February 1989, 12 representations had been received, mainly from hon. Members of this House.
    Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister aware of the growing number of young people who are students who have no visible means of support because they do not qualify for educational maintenance allowance or income support and if, in addition, their parents are on income support, those parents will lose the dependent child premium? The problem is made worse by the fact that many colleges deem people to be full-time students when, in effect, they are part-time students, as a result of which they cannot receive income support. Will the Minister assure the House that
    1022
    his Department and the Department of Social Security will look on the plight of those approximately 2,000 people and see what can be done, as a matter of urgency?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern. It is my understanding that if the students' course is under 21 hours and they satisfy other relevant conditions, income support is then payable. If they are attending for more than 21 hours, they may apply to their local education and library boards for a discretionary award which, if awarded, could cover tuition fees and, subject to means testing, a maintenance grant.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister confirm that most of the concerns that hon. Members have put to him in the communications that he has received refer to the very point raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)? In the light of that, will he look at the question put to him and his answer because he is not quite right in what he said? Will he and the Northern Ireland Office also consider that this question highlights a real problem, in that the only remedy would appear to lie at United Kingdom level, yet we find ourselves having to ask the question of a Minister of the Northern Ireland Office, when it should go to the relevant Minister of the Department of Social Security in the United Kingdom?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I based my answer on the best advice available to me. I recognise that there is concern and I recognise the United Kingdom dimension of that concern. There is, of course. nothing to preclude the hon. Gentleman from drawing his concern to the attention of Ministers at the Department of Social Security as well.

    Drugs
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to dissuade young people in the Province from becoming involved in drug misuse or drug trafficking.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The incidence of drug misuse in Northern Ireland is relatively small compared to the rest of the United Kingdom. Government policy is, therefore, aimed at preventing young people from becoming involved in the drug scene. The main emphasis is placed on health education in schools and on youth organisations.
    Mr. Rathbone: All hon. Members will welcome that beneficial comparison between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, sad though it is for the rest of the United Kingdom. Will my hon. Friend endorse the role of drug education co-ordinators in Northern Ireland and confirm that there will be continued central Government funding for them?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The fact that the incidence of drug misuse in Northern Ireland is lower than in other parts of the United Kingdom is due to a number of factors. However, my hon. Friend correctly highlights the important role of health education and drug education in the schools. We provide extra materials for such courses and we also provide training courses for teachers, to help them in developing teaching about drugs within the health education programme in schools. My

    1023
    hon. Friend will know that under our education reform proposals, health education will become a compulsory cross-curricular theme.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that there could be a tendency to be complacent when comparing the incidence of drug abuse in Northern Ireland with that in the rest of the Kingdom? Is not the lower incidence of drug abuse in Northern Ireland to a large extent due to the success of the drug operations unit of the RUC, which only recently has uncovered drug supplies?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is right on both counts. We are not complacent, and we must guard against any chance of becoming complacent because our incidence of drug misuse is lower than that in the United Kingdom as a whole. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that fact and I endorse his appreciation of the RUC drugs squad, which is very effective and makes a significant contribution to the low incidence of drug misuse in Northern Ireland.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a consultation paper on his review of the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Mr. Tom King: I invited members of the public, political parties, and other interested groups and bodies to submit their views on the working of the intergovernmental conference. A number of representations have been received and these are being carefully considered, together with the most appropriate way to publish our conclusions.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the major shortcomings of the present agreement is that it contains no allowance to enable Northern Ireland politicians to make an input into the meetings of the conference? Does he agree that if the Anglo-Irish Agreement is to be an effective piece of political machinery, it should seek to improve relationships not just between London and Dublin, but between London, Dublin and Belfast?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to explain the position. His first assertion is not true. I want to make it clear that there is every opportunity for input into the conference—for advice and consultation in advance of it and for discussions afterwards about its outcome. Representatives of other parties have come to see me to discuss the conference, and I am always willing to discuss with the parties and with hon. Members ways in which their input might be increased.
    Mr. Duffy: Will the Secretary of State take into account in his review the rejection by the Home Secretary of political solutions on the BBC "Today" programme, as reported in today's edition of the Evening Standard? Do the Home Secretary's remarks represent a shift in Government policy, and did he have discussions with the Secretary of State before he made those remarks?
    Mr. King: I have not seen the newspaper to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I heard the interview. My right hon. Friend was on his way to the conference of the Trevi Ministers, who co-ordinate the response to terrorism
    1024
    across Europe. His comments seem to me to be manifest good sense. I was not aware that my right hon. Friend's remarks contained a startling new announcement of Government policy.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Secretary's words were refreshingly welcome? Will the Government seek again—this time, we hope successfully—the co-operation of the Irish Government in the matter of extradition?
    Mr. King: We have discussed these matters and the Irish Government are aware—we have recently let them have our views on the matter—of the problems that exist under the present extradition system. I shall not comment further because, as my hon. Friend will know, there are at the moment three cases on which judgment is reserved. Everyone knows the importance that the British Government attach to effective extradition arrangements between our two countries.

    Kincora Boys' Home
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what compensation payments have been made to ex-residents of the Kincora boys' home.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): A number of claims for compensation have been received by health and social services boards from ex-residents of Kincora boys' home. To date, settlements in respect of three of the claims, amounting to £22,500 plus costs, have been agreed between the parties.
    Mr. Livingstone: As we now seem to be getting out-of-court settlements shortly before a court case is due to be heard and the matter is, therefore, not being debated in open court, and as the Terry inquiry report has never been published, will the Minister consider an open inquiry into the events at the Kincora boys' home, especially in the light of the disturbing information that five of the key witnesses interviewed by the RUC have met violent deaths—three were murdered and two allegedly died by their own hand? Even by the standards of violence that we have become used to hearing about in Northern Ireland, that is far too much to be a coincidence.
    Mr. Stewart: As others have said to the hon. Gentleman from this Dispatch Box, if he has evidence of wrongdoing I hope that he will put it to the appropriate authorities. The House is not much impressed by those who make allegations but do not substantiate them. Out-of-court settlements are a normal part of compensation claims and it is to the great advantage of all parties concerned if such settlements can be reached.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it really in order for the Minister to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to produce evidence when he has asked for an inquiry—[Interruption.] If you could shut up for a moment and let me say——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not referring to me.
    Mr. Flannery: Thank you for your help, Mr. Speaker.
    I ask the Minister again what my hon. Friend asked him. Will he institute an inquiry into that group of deaths and into the background of what happened at Kincora

    1025
    boys' home? Many of us would like to know the facts but cannot get at them and we have a right as Members of Parliament to know them.
    Mr. Stewart: Thorough inquiries were carried out a few years ago by Sir George Terry and Judge Hughes who found no evidence to suggest that the matter should be taken further or reopened.
    Mr. McNamara: The Minister cannot get away with that reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—[Interruption.] Well, he should not get away with it. It is one thing for the Minister to say offhandedly that inquiries have been held, but it is another for him to admit that £22,000 has been paid in out-of-court compensations. If the Terry and Hughes inquiries have found nothing to be worried about, why have those large sums been paid in compensation? Who is being asked to keep quiet by not going to court?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has got the whole thing wrong. Everybody knows that three staff at the Kincora boys' home were convicted of serious sexual offences in 1981 and were given sentences of several years. Nobody has denied that there was wrongdoing at that time. However, the other allegations relating to claimants or former residents of the Kincora boys' home are not substantiated, and, unless there is some basis on which they can be followed through, I accept the evidence of the investigations that were carried out by an eminent chief constable and an eminent judge a few years ago to establish the position.

    Prison Visits
    Mr. Maginnis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to place further restrictions on visits to prisoners in Northern Ireland's prisons; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: We have no current plans to restrict either the number of visits or their duration in prisons in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister assure me that abolishing Monday visits is not under consideration, or that if it is under consideration, such a decision will not be taken? The Minister must realise that prison officers have a difficult enough job already without his Department creating further disruption in the prisons due to changes in visiting. Will he also tell us why 1·25 million worth of machinery bought from the prison budget for workshops in Maghaberry was transferred, free of charge, to a Scottish Department?
    Mr. Stewart: I require notice of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but on his main point about changes in visiting arrangements, several measures have been under consideration at official level to try to establish better ways of reducing delays for visitors to prisons and to introduce better visiting conditions. No proposals have been put to me about that and discussions are at a purely consultative stage. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no such decisions have been taken.
    Mr. Alton: While the Minister is considering the question of visits to the Maze and other prisons in Northern Ireland, will he say whether he has considered
    1026
    the proposals put to him by the Campaign for Lifers? In particular, will he say whether he will improve ease of access for visits to prisoners in the mixed wings, and look at ways of weaning people away from the paramilitary wings and into the mixed wings of prisons like the Maze?
    Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the regime at Maghaberry prison is designed for exactly that purpose. The life sentence review boards have already established release dates for prisoners in well over 100 cases. The board is working satisfactorily in that respect. I am aware that certain representations have been made for changes, but I am not convinced of their merits under the present circumstances.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Can the Minister explain the background to another type of visit, which was made last Sunday to Maghaberry prison in my constituency and took the form of a march by 150-plus Republicans, led by Mrs. Bernadette McAliskey, complete with the starry plough flag and all the rest of it? Can the Minister say whether the required notice was given to the police and, more important, whether the Northern Ireland Office authorised the use of the prison grounds for the march and the protest meeting at the prison gates?
    Mr. Stewart: I shall investigate the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman and reply as soon as I can.

    Local Government
    Mr. Gow: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has made to provide for the restoration of local government in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. King: I have no current plans for changes to the existing structure of local government in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Gow: What objections does my right hon. Friend have to conferring traditional powers on the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland, and to setting up a regional council for the Province, as promised in our 1979 manifesto?
    Mr. Tom King: I should like to hear the attitude of those who might take part in such an activity. That is why I have asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to work with me on establishing views on this and other approaches, to see which might attract the support of people in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister recall that of the nine causes of civil unrest that were found by the Scarman tribunal, seven were laid at the door of local government in Northern Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the history of local government in Northern Ireland since that time with regard to fair employment and participation of minority parties in local government shows that local government in Northern Ireland has a very long way to go before powers can be restored to it?
    Mr Tom King: Of course I understand that. Some of the behaviour of some councils reinforces what the hon. Gentleman says. At the same time, we have sought to address those areas of grievance, whether in housing or electoral law arrangements. I am sure that my hon. Friend

    1027
    the Under-Secretary would not envisage changes unless they were accompanied by adequate safeguards to ensure that there could not be malpractices.

    Cross-border Security
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he has had recently with the Government of the Irish Republic on cross-border security; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tom King: I discussed security co-operation with members of the Irish Government at a meeting of the intergovernmental conference on 8 February. A copy of the joint statement issued afterwards has been placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although cross-border co-operation is improving the whole time, there is still some way to go? When my right hon. Friend next meets his counterpart in the Irish Republic will he raise the question of hot pursuit across the border by both forces, and look at that issue seriously? Surely it will play a major part in the fight against terrorism?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend may be aware of two events that took place yesterday—first, a substantial find of mortar bombs made by the Garda Siochana and also, sad to say, the tragic murder last night of two soldiers on the edge of Londonderry. I hope that I speak on behalf of the whole House in expressing our deep sympathy to the families of those young soldiers who were brutally murdered. Those two incidents clearly bring home to me the vital importance of co-operation, so that wherever terrorists may be, we can effectively bring the security forces to bear, to bring the terrorists to justice.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As the railway line across the border is now generally closed due to lack of security, has that matter been discussed with the Republic of Ireland Government? As the Northern Ireland authorities are improving security in that region, have the Dublin Government decided on any initiative to improve security on the railway line?
    Mr. King: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, disruption to the railway line was, unfortunately, caused within Northern Ireland. We are certainly concerned. One recognises that the attack by the terrorists, which jeopardises or threatens to jeopardise the jobs of a number of people and disadvantages many local people who depend on the railway line in one sense or another, emphasises the importance of co-operation between us.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and 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 shall be presenting the north-east business man of the year awards.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that my constituents, who are flanked by the two filthiest rivers in Britain—the Don and the Rother—are increasingly worried about their drinking water, and are soon to be saddled with a large-scale, opencast mining operation? They ask me why the Secretary of State for the Environment continues to focus on profits and ownership in basic services such as water and energy instead of addressing growing threats to the quality of their lives.
    The Prime Minister: Drinking water for the hon. Gentleman's constituency is supplied by the Yorkshire water authority's grid system, which takes water from the river Derwent near York that is piped into South Yorkshire. That is a high-quality supply which regularly meets EC drinking water directive standards. As to the rivers that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, they are in that 10 per cent. of rivers that are of neither good nor fair quality, and some are bad. About £25 million will be spent on improving a 63 km stretch of the River Don, so that it will be capable of supporting coarse fish life. Improvements to the remainder of the Rother will be made through the extension of sewage treatment works' capacity, which should enable the Rother to be upgraded to class 2 quality. If no profits were made, there would be no investment in public services. Someone has to make profits, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be very grateful that many private sector businesses make profits, to supply the nationalised industries with the means of improving the quality of water.
    Mr. Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the report of the Environment Select Committee on toxic waste highlights many shortcomings going back over many years, particularly at local level, it fails to emphasise that the Government have brought forward proposals for major legislation that will deal with those matters? May we expect that legislation in the next Session of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is right. In the Select Committee's report. there is a list of waste consultative documents and of the technical proposals that have been made—in particular, a major paper of 1986—and several waste management technical advice papers published since 1986. My right hon. Friend will also be aware that we announced last November proposals on precisely how we would update Labour's Control of Pollution Act 1974 and deal with some of the local authority problems that he rightly highlights. They are autonomous local authorities and are responsible for waste disposal, but the law needs amending. The drafting is well in hand, and I hope that that legislation will come forward in the next parliamentary year.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will be relieved at the discovery of the explosives and weapons in north Yorkshire earlier this week, and also strongly agrees with the decision to make no change in planned programmes? Such changes would be concessions to the kind of beings who caused the atrocities in County Tyrone on Tuesday and who killed the soldiers in Derry last night.
    Will the Prime Minister please tell us who will have to foot the bill for the extra £5 million that must be found for the Channel link?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we shall go ahead with the plans for conferences. We are all immensely grateful to the police and security services which enable the free speech of democracy to go ahead.
    With regard to the British Rail link, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has dropped a couple of noughts somewhere. It is much more likely to be £500 million, but it is Government policy that the users of the new line should pay for the full costs, including environmental costs.
    Mr. Kinnock: I only hope that my errors will have the same effect of increasing finance as did the Prime Minister's errors.
    In view of the confusion that followed BR's statement, and as many people who are directly affected by the rail development are confused and dismayed, exactly what is the Prime Minister's view of what proportions of the extra cost should be found from the public purse?
    The Prime Minister: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would listen to my replies. I made it quite clear that it is Goverment policy that the users of the new line, rather than the generality of taxpayers, should pay the full costs, including environmental costs. The alternative methods, whether they be aircraft or ferries, are not subsidised.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposed National Health Service reforms are not a prelude to privatisation, and will leave the service free for those who need it and give a better service for consumers? In view of the huge extra resources that have been put into the Health Service by this Government, does she agree that the campaign of disinformation and half-truths that has been embarked on by several National Health Service unions and, to a certain extent, even by the British Medical Association, unduly alarms patients and shows scant regard for professional responsibilities?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no question of privatising the National Health Service, nor could there ever be any question of privatising the service. We do not and should not pay for the service at the point of use. It remains a national Health Service. We are anxious that the enormous amount of money that is spent on it should give the best value. After all, the average family of four now spends in taxation about £34 a week on keeping the Health Service going. That is a great deal more than when Labour was in power, because we are a great deal more prosperous now. We therefore have a service which is a great deal better.
    Also, the proposals will give a good deal more choice, including choice for patients to change their doctor more easily if they wish to do so. It will give more choice and more responsibility in hospitals to doctors and nurses.
    Mr. Turner: It has been almost a decade since the Prime Minister stood at the portals of No. 10 and uttered the beautiful words of St. Francis of Assisi. In view of the massive divisions that still exist between the rich and poor and the north and south, and in view of the poverty and
    1030
    hopelessness among our people, will she now concede that her Right-wing ideological experiment with Britain has failed?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is looking very well on it, isn't he? Extremely well. So, indeed, are all the Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the standards of living of people in this country have gone up beyond all recognition, as has the standard of social services everywhere. That is something that he should be very pleased about when he remembers the terrible circumstances and strikes that beset us in 1978–79, which helped to turn out the Labour party and put in the best Government that we have had for many a long year.
    Mr. Curry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Curry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that high-speed rail links are operating or are being built in France, Germany, Italy and Spain and are planned in Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands? What would be the economic cost to Britain of not being part of an integrated high-speed rail service, particularly for those parts of Britain that are not in the south-east and especially in view of the creation of a single market in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend is a great enthusiast, as I am, for the effective operation of the single market, but, as we had only some 24 hours ago the proposals for a single high-speed rail link and as that will have to go through the private Bill procedure, when all representations can then be made, to go further now would be a little premature.
    May I just point out that the railway links from all the main commercial centres into London are already in place and could well carry more freight than they do at present without extra provision?
    Dr. Owen: In view of the urgent need to attract more capital investment in road and rail, particularly private investment, would the Prime Minister consider launching an infrastructure bond with tax concessions to get the investment that is urgently needed?
    The Prime Minister: No. We are already attracting a good deal more private investment, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The Channel tunnel is being built totally by private investment as is the Dartford bridge. What the right hon. Gentleman proposes would be a subsidy, and at the moment we are getting the extra investment without that. There is a good deal more scope for private investment in road and rail.
    Mr. Heath: Reverting to the fast link, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the decision that she has just announced? Is she aware that the extra £500 million that British Rail has now undertaken to spend relates to the protection of the environment, whether in the weald of Kent or in the gardens and homes of people in the London boroughs? As the Government and the Prime Minister herself, in particular, have set the protection of the environment at the top of their objectives, it is right that this should be met out of Treasury funds and not solely by the commuters of Kent. Moreover, is it not true that

    1031
    wherever else the environment is protected, for example on the motorways, it is not the user who pays, as the cost is met from general expenditure on roads? This should, therefore, be a comparable example. I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the whole situation.
    The Prime Minister: I have enunciated correctly the general principle. We do not subsidise the airways to the continent; we do not subsidise the ferries to the continent. One could say, in fact, that motorists perhaps pay more in road tax than is spent on roads. We believe that British Rail will consult the private sector over ways of offsetting the extra cost. At the worst, it is British Rail's view that the extra costs do not render the project unviable.
    Mr. Boateng: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Select Committee on the Environment that more resources should be applied to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution? If so, will she tell the Secretary of State or do we have to wait for another duff briefing?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the report very carefully he will see at the back a whole list of measures that we have been taking for many years and the way in which we have been steadily improving the amount spent on the environment, which is way above what was previously spent. Of course, I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. He knows full well that we have to amend Labour's Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the arrangements made then. That is very much a need. The hon. Gentleman is aware that many of the problems lie with local authorities. We shall consider his suggestion carefully, but I must tell him that most of the legislation is already being prepared and that we hope to bring it to the House next year.
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Squire: At the risk of repetition, I welcome my right hon. Friend's earlier answer on toxic waste. Against the background of improving the standard of our rivers and of air pollution, will my right hon. Friend undertake to look closely at the unanimous report of the Select Committee which details problems going back to 1974, and in particular to adopt all or almost all of the radical solutions contained in that report so that in that area, too, we may set an example to the rest of the Community?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, the quality of our rivers is generally improving. Indeed, 90 per cent. of our rivers are of good or fair quality compared with only 75 per cent. of rivers in the European Community. As my hon. Friend knows, we have major programmes to improve the quality of sewage disposal and major environmental programmes in which a considerable amount of capital is being invested. As my hon. Friend knows, we have announced certain proposals in the House last November, and a major consultation paper came out on 29 January. We will consider everything that has been said because I recognise that the Committee spent a great deal of time on this. I think that my hon. Friend will be the first to compliment the witnesses from the Department of the Environment who gave such excellent evidence to the Committee. We will consider the report and come forward with a detailed reply.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link
3.31 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the announcement by British Rail yesterday on the definitive route for a high-speed rail link across the county of Kent.
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I recognise that since British Rail published proposals last July for a new railway line from the Channel tunnel to London, the matter has been a cause of great concern to a number of right hon. and hon. Members whose constituencies were affected, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold).
I welcome the fact that blight has now been lifted for a large number of people living in Kent and London. I also welcome British Rail's approach to compensation, which will help those most directly affected who could otherwise face difficulty in selling their property. I particularly welcome the emphasis which British Rail has placed on environmental protection. Roughly 23 miles of the route will be in tunnel and 30 miles will follow the existing railways or the line of the M20. British Rail is proposing only 15 miles of new surface route. In drawing up its proposed route, I know that British Rail has sought to follow as closely as possible the criteria established by Kent county council, which has played a notable role in guiding British Rail in the significant changes which it has made to its original proposals.
It is British Rail's intention, after further consultation on the details of the route alignment, to introduce a private Bill in November. It will also be exploring the options for participation in the project by the private sector. In considering whether the Government will be able by then to support the introduction of such a Bill, we shall want to be satisfied that the route has been subjected to a full environmental assessment, so that the Bill may be accompanied by a satisfactory environmental statement, and that any British Rail investment would be likely, within a reasonable time, to earn a proper commercial return. British Rail will be refining the forecasts of traffic, revenues and costs.
The project creates major concerns for those close to the line. It can also offer important benefits to international travellers, Kent commuters and British business.
Mr. Arnold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his report inasmuch as the matter is of considerable concern to people in south-east London and in Kent. While thousands of people on the discarded routes will feel considerable relief this morning, and while thousands on the route, who see the £500 million worth of environmental improvements working in their favour, can also feel relief, there remain thousands of people, notably in north-west Kent, who will still be exposed to environmental damage.
Will the Minister comment especially on the predicament of the people of Istead Rise and New Barn? Last July British Rail issued a document showing that those villages would be protected by the north Downs tunnel which would have been extended to Longfield in the west. In October British Rail brought out a new document that brought that line back to the surface. Yesterday, when
1034
British Rail made its announcement, apparently nothing had been done to help the people in those villages. It was only subsequently—thanks to the courtesy of my hon. Friend the Minister in providing some maps that in turn he had received from British Rail—that we could see the exact line of the route.
On looking at those maps, we found that there has been a small and improved realignment in that area. Will the Minister assure us that British Rail will take considerable pains in the future months to make further adjustments to protect the environment—especially to the vertical alignment of the track—and to provide protective shielding where residential areas would be otherwise exposed?
Mr. Portillo: I certainly recognise my hon. Friend's difficulties with the proposal. I know that British Rail is offering to buy, I think, 37 properties in his constituency. I am glad that he has recognised that the alignment through his constituency is more southerly than the original and that much of it will pass through cuttings. I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue his detailed points with British Rail. I know that he has made arrangements to meet British Rail shortly, and I hope that that meeting will be productive.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I hope that my hon. Friend is aware that yesterday's announcement has brought precious little comfort to the people in my constituency—whether at Lenham Heath, which up to now has not been involved, or at Hollingbourne, which will still be desecrated—or, indeed, to the many villages not directly on the route but whose pattern of traffic will be completely disrupted by the creation of a major Parkway station. Will my hon. Friend confirm that this railway line is only a part of a major realignment of the British Rail network that will need to be capable of taking Berne gauge freight wagons throughout the British Isles? Will my hon. Friend recognise, too, that many people believe that British Rail's obsession with the centre of London is bad news for everybody in the United Kingdom—including the people of London?
Mr. Portillo: I believe that my hon. Friend underplays some of the changes to the realignment. After all, the new line avoids Charing and the central village areas of Hollingbourne, Harrietsham and Lenham, all of which are important to him. The speed of the trains through his constituency, which he feared would be 186 miles per hour, has been reduced to 140 miles per hour. The number of households that British Rail is offering to buy in his constituency is now 86.
I do not believe that my hon. Friend makes a valid point when he says that this is a part of a re-creation of the British Rail network. The cost of converting the whole of British Rail to the Berne gauge would be absolutely prohibitive. My hon. Friend will know that this railway line is designed principally to take passenger traffic, and I feel that his fears are misplaced. The capacity on the existing railway lines for freight is greater than that of the Channel tunnel.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Is my hon. Friend aware that British Rail's proposals for route 2 to be the preferred choice for a fast rail link show massive concessions to London, but do little for most of Kent? Does my hon. Friend agree that British Rail must revise the

1035
environmental protection content of its proposals if it wishes to eliminate the anxieties of the people of north-west Kent? Will my hon. Friend accept that the compensation package so far announced is completely and woefully inadequate to deal with the damage that is being done to people's properties and lives?
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend's constituency is very badly affected, and I have every sympathy with him. I would point out that the speed of trains going through his constituency will be 125 miles per hour, which is much lower than he would have anticipated. My hon. Friend was among the many hon. Members who called for important investment in environmental protection in the project. He, among others, called attention to what the French have done. They are quoted as paying 16 per cent. of the costs of environmental protection. The figure for this line is 30 per cent. However, I recognise that British Rail has offered to purchase about 500 properties in his constituency. I stress that that applies to properties within a 240 m corridor which is much more generous than the equivalent available if a road were being constructed.
Sir John Stanley: As the——
Mr. Bob Cryer: What about hon. Members on the Opposition Benches?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House would agree that those constituencies which are most——
Mr. John Prescott: This is a national issue.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will agree that hon. Members representing the constituencies which are most directly affected should be called first.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called Sir John Stanley.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We understand that some hon. Members have a special interest, but this argument extends to Scotland, and repeated representations have been made to you. We must have fairness.
Mr. Speaker: The line does not go through the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He will be aware that, after the sad rail disaster in Scotland the other day, the Scottish Members directly concerned were called first.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Sir John Stanley: As it has just been confirmed that there will be no public subsidy for the high-speed line, will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not give approval for British Rail to introduce a private Bill in this House unless the commercial viability of the project can be shown?
Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Portillo: The point that I was seeking to make in answer to the private notice question is that a great deal of work must be done on traffic, costs and revenue forecasts. British Rail has no doubt—and I see no reason to doubt it—that the line will be viable at some date. However, the
1036
date when it will be viable has not yet been settled and we need more information before we can reach a conclusion on that.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Prescott: I think that you will recognise, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition maintain that the Channel tunnel is a national project affecting the north and the south of the United Kingdom. I am surprised that the Secretary of State today is not giving his response at the Dispatch Box and appears, yet again, to be avoiding his responsibilities.
Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State whether he is satisfied that such a major investment decision as this should be settled by a private notice question? Will he again consider the possibility of making a full statement to the House so that all hon. Members can give the matter the kind of close questioning that is necessary on a statement which affects all parts of the United Kingdom?
In view of the controversy over the amount of resources that are planned for the route, is the Minister aware that in his announcement yesterday the chairman of British Rail made it clear that while he thought that nearly £0·5 billion extra resources would be required, the figure might be anything up to £1 billion extra? If that is so, and in view of what the Prime Minister said to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, will commuters in north Kent have to pay four or five times as much in fares to travel on the route to London, when the route was advertised as a benefit to the people in north Kent?
Has the Minister considered the idea that I put to the Secretary of State in a letter on 2 February, that the 16 weeks which British Rail is allowing people in the north of England, the south, Kent or anywhere else, to consider the proposal is totally unsatisfactory? British Rail's credibility on this matter leaves a lot to be desired and the only way to deal with the matter is through an independent assessment before the private Bill comes before the House.
Mr. Portillo: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may have felt that he has been monopolising the House this week, having appeared in the Chamber every day so far. On the other hand, we might have been surprised at the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) did not stay for the debate on lorry weights yesterday. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very serious matters; let us get back to them.
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman said this is no way of settling the investment question, but the investment question is not being settled. The whole point is that a route has been announced; there are further consultations to be undertaken; there are further forecasts to be worked out on the revenues; the costs and all the aspects of the line. So no decision is being taken at this stage. The hon. Gentleman says that the costs could be higher. That is true, the costs could be higher, but the costs could also be lower, and the revenues could be higher. All these things have to be settled.
I can say to him quite definitely that it is far too early to reach any decisions about the fares that will be charged on the line, but it must be recognised that if there are faster, more comfortable services, they may well command a premium price.

1037
The hon. Gentleman refers to 16 weeks not being sufficient, but that is merely a portion of the entire consultation. This has been going on since July last year and it is apparent that a great deal of notice has been taken of the points that have been made since then in Kent and elsewhere. There will be an opportunity for further consultation before the private Bill is introduced.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the past, when there have been specific questions about the north-west region and my hon. Friends from that region have been excluded when you have called hon. Gentlemen from outside the region——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has not been excluded. I hope the House will agree that when we are dealing with a matter of great sensitivity concerning individual members' constituencies they should have some priority in putting questions. Nobody has been excluded.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that in successive Scottish questions and answers over the course of this Parliament, there have been many Tory Members from 400 miles away asking questions and taking up time on sensitive Scottish issues. If it applies to Scottish questions, it applies to this.
Mr. Speaker: There is no parallel at all.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: I would like my hon. Friend to be aware of the sense of desolation and despair experienced by my constituents who live in the neighbourhood of Warwick gardens when they learned two days ago that British Rail proposed to construct a sub-surface junction for the Waterloo link. I shall be asking British Rail to reconsider these proposals. I shall be asking my right hon. Friend to ask British Rail to reconsider its proposals to run this link underground. If this were to go ahead there would be 10 or more years of desolation and devastation in the area of Warwick gardens.
Mr. Portillo: If I did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) an injustice a moment ago, I hope he will accept that I was driven to it by the injustice that I felt had been done to my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) has my sympathy because 130 properties are affected in his constituency and it is something that he did not anticipate and that was not on the original route alignment. It is, of course, the intention that Warwick gardens should be restored after the works have been carried out, but I can well understand that my hon. Friend will wish to discuss this very carefully with British Rail to see what arrangements are available for his constituents.
Mr. John Fraser: Is the Minister aware that the route from Warwick gardens to Waterloo cuts a swathe through my constituency? Can he give an undertaking that British Rail will do what it has not done so far and consult my constituents about the effect of the extension and the use of lines upon their lives, homes and businesses? Secondly, will he undertake that compensation and other environmental protection will go to my constituents, notwithstanding the fact that British Rail may choose to use existing lines? Will he recognise that the increased intensity of freight and passenger traffic and
1038
other use of the lines means that the present lines will be used for an entirely different purpose and that it would be quite wrong to let British Rail rest on some kind of legal immunity to deny my constituents compensation and protection?
Mr. Portillo: I understand the hon. Member's concern for his constituents, but the problem of intensification of use is one faced by the constituents of many hon. Members regarding both railway lines and roads. There is no guarantee what the use may be in the future, but I certainly believe that, even though it is on an existing railway line, British Rail will do well to consult the hon. Gentleman and I will certainly urge it to do so.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: May I alert my hon. Friend to the view, widely held in Kent that taxpayers' money should play a part in environmental protection? Does he agree that the reason for this view is that those people appreciate that this is a matter of national concern and that the Government are giving such high priority —rightly, I believe—to ensuring that the line is environmentally acceptable, as well as to current broad policy on environmental matters?
Mr. Portillo: I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the important thing is that he should be satisfied that the environmental protection which is guaranteed under the new plan is sufficient. British Rail has gone a long way in proposing a fair degree of environmental protection, which greatly exceeds anything available in France. The question of how that should be funded is a matter on which it is impossible to take decisions at the moment because there is so much information that we do not yet have. Ports and airports are expected to be environmentally acceptable, yet no Government subsidies are available for that purpose.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the united opposition from the three Southwark MPs—members of three different parties—and all members of Southwark council, which met last night and agreed unanimously, to the idea of an overground route from Peckham to Waterloo? Does he agree also that there is some scepticism as to why the 12 miles of the Greater London route from Swanley to Peckham, all through Tory-controlled areas, are underground, whereas the four and a half or five miles of route through non-Tory areas are above ground? Is not the reality that the Minister and his friends are buying off Tory areas while leaving the people who have the worst environment already with worse still as a result of this policy?
Mr. Portillo: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) would have something to say about that, because his constituency is to bear the brunt of the construction in London. I remind the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the route passes through a number of Conservative constituencies in Kent before reaching London.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is not the first time that Parliament has been concerned with a controversy of this nature? The whole of the British Rail network would never have been constructed had our Victorian predecessors not had the wisdom to adhere to a particular principle in their legislation: that if the individual is required to make a

1039
sacrifice for the benefit of the community as a whole, he should be compensated more than generously. Indeed, compulsory purchase measures provided for market price plus 10 per cent. May I suggest that the legislation adopts the principle of that excellent measure, the Land Compensation Act 1973, whose purpose is to help people whose properties are affected but not acquired. All these provisions should be incorporated in any Bill coming before this House.
Mr. Portillo: I think my hon. Friend will find that British Rail is going further than is necessary under statutory requirements. Indeed, it is not waiting for the private Bill to make compensation available; as from today, it is willing to purchase properties that are within a 240 m corridor. It will pay full market value, plus the fees involved in moving house, plus a disturbance allowance, which will be in line with the statutory compensation scheme.
Mr. Stanley Orme: As this is a national issue, I should like to ask the Minister what effect any increased investment by British Rail in the Kent area will have on the north-west of England, Yorkshire and Scotland. Will it mean a reduction in the investment that is needed so urgently, and who will meet the bill?
Mr. Portillo: Six hundred million pounds is already being invested in improving British Rail's Channel tunnel services, quite apart from this new railway link. Part of the reason for investing that money is to improve the links to the north of England and the other regions. Of the freight that will use the Channel tunnel, 75 per cent. will be coming from or going to points beyond the south-east of England. It is already planned that international freight sites should he established around the country, the first of them at Leeds. It is clear that others will be needed in Strathclyde, Manchester, Birmingham and Teesside, and discussions are well under way concerning others in south Wales and the north-west. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. The anticipated door-to-door rail delivery time from Manchester to Milan, when the Channel tunnel is open, is 36 hours.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the ferry workers of Dover can be confident that there will be no back-door Government subsidy under the proposals, in complete contrast with the Opposition's statements, which would do down the ferry workers of Dover.
Mr. Portillo: I know what great importance my hon. Friend attaches to section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act, which forbids any subsidy to Channel tunnel services and he will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had to say on that.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister confirm that not long ago the Government believed that the Channel tunnel would be viable without a direct, dedicated fast rail link? Why have they changed their mind and when did they do so? Is it because they have discovered that the tunnel will not be viable without it? The Minister has said that he does not know how much traffic there will be or what the cost of the line will be, so how can he tell whether it will be viable? Would in not have been much better, and still be better, for the Government
1040
to have a wide-ranging public inquiry into this route, and the advantages and disadvantages of other routes, before a Bill is introduced in the House?
Mr. Portillo: The question of the Channel tunnel's viability has never been raised in the discussions. The question is what is the capacity of the railway lines for freight and passengers passing through the Channel tunnel. I have said that I do not know when the new railway line will be viable, but it is now the commonly shared opinion of nearly everybody who comments on these matters, including the consultants to Kent county council, that more capacity will be needed, and most people believe that it will be viable sooner or later. However, we do not yet have the information to know at what date it will be viable. It is in the best interests of the people of Kent in particular to get on with this as fast as possible through the private Bill procedure, which is well established, so that all the uncertainty can be resolved.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Is my hon. Friend aware that one particular feature of the new proposal is particularly crucial to people in east Kent? The welcome decision to take the line through Ashford rather than cutting north, ruining the Wye valley, is not only environmentally sound but ensures that north-east Kent's economy is firmly cut into the new line instead of being cut off by it. It should also take some of the pressure off our roads which are vastly more congested than any of the. roads in the constituencies of those Opposition Members who have been complaining.
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. There were strong representations from Ashford that the line should pass through Ashford. I know that my hon. Friend will be cheered to think about journey times from Canterbury to London being reduced from the present 90 minutes to 50 minutes in future. He is also on to a good point in saying that the more capacity that there is on the railway line for freight, the fewer lorries will need to use the roads of Kent, which are congested.
Mr. Peter Shore: Now that differential speed limits are being imposed on different stretches of the proposed line, can the Minister tell us what, in return for the vast expenditure that the new line will entail, is the anticipated saving in time for a passenger going from London to the Channel mouth on the proposed new fast link, and what it is on the existing rail line?
Mr. Portillo: The saving in time is about 30 minutes during the day and more like 44 minutes at peak times when trains would have to use a more complicated route. That brings the journey time down to about 40 minutes as opposed to 70 minutes at off-peak and 84 minutes at peak times at present.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The odd English freight depot at Leeds is no guarantee that British Rail will not withdraw resources from provincial areas and run down rolling stock, track and equipment in order to pour money into this high-speed project. Can the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that British Rail will not do that? The Government have denied assistance for a few short yards of track in Bradford to link two stations, but they seem happy to allow British Rail to pour billions of pounds into this rail link which, after all, only arises as a

1041
result of a peccadillo of the Prime Minister's, has nothing to do with transport, but is meant to integrate us further into the wretched Common Market.
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman, concerned as he is about investment in the sectors which are non-commercial and supported by the taxpayer—such as the provincial sector—should be relieved to know that we want this line to be commercially viable so that it does not put pressure on the subsidised section of the railway. In the provincial sector, 80 per cent. of the rolling stock will have been renewed between 1983 and 1991.
Mr. Tony Favell: While northern Members have considerable sympathy with the worries of the constituents of Kent Members, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that northern Members are absolutely convinced that the high-speed link is essential for the region, and that whatever has to be done should be done quickly?
Mr. Portillo: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that British Rail is working hard to introduce a private Bill in November, which will fit his requirements.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: What conclusions will the rest of the country draw from the fact that the Government were prepared to sanction a high-speed link across Kent but not extending to other areas of the country? Will he answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) who asked whether the money that was to be made available by British Rail for the high-speed link would be to the detriment of British Rail's spending elsewhere in the nation?
Mr. Portillo: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if this line is built through Kent, its speeds will be broadly comparable with those already enjoyed by people in other parts of the country. No decision has yet been made as to whether the investment in the Kent railway will be made by British Rail or the private sector. If it is made by British Rail, it will be on commercial terms and I do not see why it should impose a burden on the subsidised section of the railway.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that most people want a transport system that is suitable for the 21st century and not the 20th century? Does he further accept that, while the detail of the announcement is causing concern, many people in the country welcome the fact that it shows a commitment to a more modern transport system, which will bring benefits throughout the country?
Mr. Portillo: I well understand my hon. Friend's point. Any transport project creates difficulties. He and I share parts of the north circular road. In my constituency, 367 houses are being destroyed for the north circular road. Any transport infrastructure presents problems but, my hon. Friend is right to say that these must be balanced with the needs and wishes of the majority of the British travelling public and British business.
Mr. Skinner: Now that it has been established that the Channel tunnel is a national issue—indeed, a north versus south issue—why does not the Minister, instead of
1042
bullying British Rail into providing £500 million, tell it that many people in the north, the midlands and elsewhere in Britain, would like that money to be spent on, for example, midland electrification? Instead of upsetting people in Kent, the Minister would do better to advise his hon. Friends to block up the tunnel and get out of the Common Market. That would satisfy everyone.
Mr. Portillo: The important thing for people in the north of England who are in business is to be able to reduce their journey times to parts of Europe. It is preposterous to pretend that journey times can be improved by electrifying one line north of London if there is a bottleneck in the south-east of Britain which prevents traffic moving smoothly. The project is designed to help every part of Britain, including the north and Kent. Of course, in Kent it presents serious environmental problems.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All hon. Members recognise the problems that you and the occupants of the Chair face when there is a preponderance of hon. Members coming from one or other party who are interested in a particular topic. As you know, there was considerable discontent —particularly among my Scottish and Welsh colleagues —about your refusal on principle to call them in series, without alternating with Tory Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] Generally speaking, it is true. There is considerable concern on the Opposition Benches today about your decision—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are addressed to me.
Mr. Dobson: There is considerable concern about your decision to call a substantial number of Government Members before calling any Opposition Members— [Interruption.] I am sorry if you cannot hear what I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker. I checked on the practice that you followed when there was a statement on the Scottish rail accident. You called no fewer than three English Tory Members before you called some Scottish Members. Therefore, I should be grateful if you could consider what you could do about such incidents, particularly as some Opposition Members have constituents which are as directly affected by these proposals as any of those of Conservative Members. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) had to wait a considerable time before he was called.
Mr. Speaker: I think I should apologise to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), whom I should have called earlier. However the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) should look up the criteria for private notice questions, as opposed to those for a statement. This matter is not party political—it affects some constituents more gravely than others. I hope that the House will think it fair that when an issue affects certain constituencies rather more savagely than others, hon. Members representing them should receive precedence. Nobody was cut out today.
Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the concern expressed by Conservative Members about Scottish questions. This is no criticism of you; I believe that you are doing an extremely difficult job very well. The shadow

1043
Leader of the House suggested that Scottish Members were disadvantaged. May I remind him and other Scottish Members that, during the past two sessions of Scottish Question Time, Scottish Opposition Members asked two thirds of the questions and Conservative Members asked one third
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will show some consideration for those of us in the Chair who have to make extremely difficult decisions on such matters. It is our endeavour to be entirely fair.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—particularly that of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House—is it not a fact, as you pointed out, that with private notice questions different considerations apply? I can well understand that, although a number of Members could conceivably have submitted private notice questions with good reason, you must choose a different form of procedure. Would it not have been better for everyone, including the Chair and the House, if, instead of a private notice question, a statement had been made by the responsible Cabinet Minister, if not the Prime Minister? The Secretary of State for Transport, who has been with us the whole time but who has not been subjected to questioning by Members on either side, certainly should have made a statement. If any difficulty arises, the Government decide not to make a voluntary statement. When difficulties arise, they should land in their lap, not in yours, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Today it was a private notice question on the proposal for a high-speed rail link across Kent.

Business of the House
4.9 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week:?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY I3 MARCH—Motion for the Easter Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No.2) Bill.
TUESDAY 14 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement. European Community documents relevant to the Budget debate will be shown in the Official Report.
Supplemental timetable motion on and consideration of Lords amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY I5 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
THURSDAY I6 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY I7 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 20 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget Statement.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords amendments that may be received.

[Tuesday 14 March

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 8887/88

Annual Economic Report 1988–89;

(b) Unnumbered

Annual Ecomomic Report 1988–89 (as adopted by the Council)

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-iii (1988–89), para 4;

(b) HC 15-xi (1988–89), para

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we will get the long-promised debate on the report of the Fennell inquiry into the fire at King's Cross which was published as long ago as November? Along with other hon. Members, certainly Opposition Members, I have been receiving representations from the relatives of people killed in the fire asking when we will get round to a debate, and I hope that we shall be given some commitment soon.
Next week will see the first anniversary of the publication of the Griffiths report on care in the community. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government will manage to make a statement on it before that anniversary arrives on Thursday?
Will he also tell us when we are likely to get the promised debates on student loans and on the Government's review of the National Health Service?
Finally, will he tell us when the Government will present a Bill to outlaw the buying and selling of human organs? It is almost four years since Health Ministers promised me that they were considering such legislation.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me five questions about next week's business. First he asked me about the Fennell report. I am sorry that the arrangements that we originally made for a debate did not prove

1045
acceptable to the Opposition. There has, however, been discussion through the usual channels with a view to identifying a suitable date for a debate.
As I told the House last week, active consideration is being given to the Griffiths report, and we hope to be in a position to announce our proposals in the near future. We have no plans to publish proposals next week, however, nor can I speculate on a date at this stage.
The White Paper asked for responses on a number of points relating to top-up loans for students. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is considering them. Meanwhile he is preparing for implementation of the Government's plans in the autumn of 1990, and to that end is holding discussions with a variety of financial institutions and other potential agents about the administration of top-up loans. I do not feel that this is the right time to have a debate on the subject.
Reaction to the White Paper "Working for Patients" has been positive. The Government have published a series of working papers outlining some of the key proposals in more detail, and we shall be discussing their implementation with interested parties in the coming weeks. I cannot agree to find time for a debate in the immediate future, but the Opposition may care to consider using one of their days for the purpose.
The Government have given their view on the legislation on the selling of kidneys, and are at present considering the contents of an appropriate Bill.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend find time at an early date for a debate on food and hygiene? Hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that higher standards are desirable, although that does not seem to have percolated through to Opposition Members who signed early-day motion 540, entitled "Directives on Veterinary Checks in Community Meat Trade", which states that there is no need for
"additional veterinary involvement in trade either for the domestic or export market"
or for
"local authorities to employ veterinary surgeons".
Could we have an early debate to enable us to appreciate the finer points of those arguments?
Mr. Wakeham: We have had several debates that have touched, at least in part, on some of those subjects. I think that we have had three in recent weeks. I cannot promise my hon. Friend another debate in the near future, but the Government are determined that measures necessary to achieve the single market should, as far as possible, accommodate the arrangements that have served us so well for many years. The Government are pressing for recognition of the professionalism of environmental health officers, and are seeking to secure a continuing role for them in the supervision of meat production for the domestic market.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that, when the Government's proposals in response to the Griffiths report are produced, a statement will be made in the House of Commons rather than outwith its precincts?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it slightly disgraceful that never—at least in my experience—have we had a debate on the National Health Service in
1046
Government time? Debates on that important subject have always been arranged on Supply or Opposition days. The "Working for Patients" proposals raise more questions than they answer: there is considerable uncertainty, particularly in general practice. Is it not time that we answered some of the questions to which GPs want answers?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure whether that is strictly correct, but there have certainly been a number of debates on the Health Service, and I do not think that I can add anything to my reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
I cannot anticipate whether there will be an oral statement on the Griffiths report until I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but I recognise the strength of the hon. Gentleman's feelings.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend may be aware of the major disruption of postal services in the south-west London area over the Christmas period following unofficial action by the Union of Communication Workers, which caused immense anger and frustration among my constituents. Does he agree that the time has come to examine the Post Office's general record of management and its privileges, with particular reference to the sealing of post boxes on a questionable legal basis? In view of yesterday's report by the Post Office Users National Council, will he consider giving time for us to debate the subject?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend time for a debate, but it has been reported in today's press that after a general ballot members of the Post Office unions have accepted their unions' recommendation that they accept the improved local incentives for better postal services. My hon. Friend is quite right, however: the Post Office's letter monopoly is a privilege, not a right.
Mr. Greville Janner: Can we please have an early debate on the quality of the water in rivers in the midlands, which has deteriorated for four successive years? Last year there were 209 complaints about sewage, compared with only about 70 the year before. Should we not take into account the secret plans revealed by the Leicester Mercury to relax quality controls on sewage discharged into Leicestershire's rivers by the Severn-Trent rivers and regulations division, at the same time as it is planning to spend millions of pounds on a glossy advertising campaign to prepare for privatisation? This scandal ought to be revealed on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether it is because he spends a lot of time reading the Leicester Mercury, but the hon. and learned Gentleman seems sometimes to bring to the House rather a one-sided and biased view. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just said how much the quality of water in a number of our rivers has improved over the years and how much better they are than many rivers on the continent. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who I know likes to be fair, should take that into consideration. He has made his point, however, and I will refer it to my right hon. Friend.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: If we are to have an organ transplant Bill, should it not be rather more

1047
comprehensive than a Bill relating simply to the sale of organs? Could it not include such matters as amending the donor card, and the procedure known as required request?
Mr. Wakeham: I know that those are important issues, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that at this stage in the parliamentary Session to bring in an additional Bill would require us to restrict somewhat the number of subjects that it could cover.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House tomorrow on the accidents on the M6 in which four people were killed this morning and up to 10 injured, some critically? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to instigate an urgent investigation into the use of the motorways by heavy goods vehicles to carry dangerous substances, which is an increasing problem and danger to every motorist?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the whole House would want me to express sympathy and understanding to those who were bereaved or injured in that road accident. It is a serious matter. I extend also our thanks to the emergency services, who rose to the occasion, as on so many previous occasions. We are grateful to them. I shall refer my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the near future for a debate about the activities of an organisation known as the London Food Commission, which has played a prominent role in recent scares concerning infection and additives, such as those concerning salmonella and listeria? The organisation sounds eminently respectable but it was recently described in the BBC programme "Farming Today" as being something of a confidence trick. Apparently, its pedigree goes back only five years, when it was established by the notorious GLC. It was funded by a £1 million grant and subsequently launched several campaigns against the food industry and the Government. Its activities are described in its own remit as being designed——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not an Adjournment debate. Will the hon. Lady ask her question?
Mrs. Gorman: —to further the interests of trade unions in the food industry. It is causing a great deal of despondency and worry among the British public.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right to raise questions about that organisation and to suggest a debate. In the past, I have had occasion to make one or two comments about it at this Dispatch Box. Next Monday, there will be two occasions when my hon. Friend may be provided with an opportunity to make the points she seeks to make more widely known.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a chance this week or in the coming week to discuss with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and with the shadow Cabinet spokesman for Northern Ireland the apparent confusion about the British-Irish parliamentary tier that was obvious in exchanges in the House today? Also, in the interests of future good long-term relationships between the United Kingdom and
1048
Iran, will the Leader of the House use the good offices of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) to establish a British-Iranian parliamentary tier?
Mr. Wakeham: I indicated that discussions are in progress to set up a British-Irish parliamentary tier to increase understanding between Westminster and Dublin, which is something that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House would want to support. In the course of those discussions I have spoken to the Leader of the Opposition and to other party leaders. I shall continue doing so until such time as we are able to make an announcement.
Sir Philip Goodhart: My right hon. Friend will recall that there have been statements this week on two tragic rail accidents that killed a total of seven people. As 14 people are killed on our roads on an average day, may we have a proper debate soon on the North report on road traffic law? Also, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be a major road traffic Bi II in the next Session?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend's second question tempts me, but it is not a matter on which it would be appropriate for me to speculate. I acknowledge that both road traffic law and the North report are important, and I wish that I could find an early date for a debate on them. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion well in mind.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Leader of the House will recognise the concern shown by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House during Prime Minister's Question Time arising from the Select Committee report on toxic waste that was published yesterday. Will the right. hon. Gentleman ensure that the House is given the earliest possible opportunity to discuss that matter, so that the Secretary of State for the Environment may be saved from the fate that he might otherwise suffer under the Prime Minister, who is rapidly changing ever more green? Perhaps I may make a helpful suggestion. Would it not be wise to drop the privatisation aspects of the Water Bill and use the opportunity provided by its Report stage to make the National Rivers Authority an environmental protection agency? That would receive the overwhelming support of the public, who are opposed to water privatisation.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not want to disappoint anyone who wants to be helpful, but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister finds the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment more helpful than the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. The Government will respond to the Select Committee's report in the usual way——
Mr. Dobson: Yes—they will ignore it.
Mr. Wakeham: Many of the report's recommendations for improved control are in line with the Government's comprehensive review of waste legislation, which is now nearing the end of public consultation. Legislation to implement the new policies is being prepared and will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity during the course of this Parliament.
Sir John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the important

1049
subject of immigration, which has not been debated for a long time? That would enable many right hon. and hon. Members to discuss the Salman Rushdie affair and the difficulties that are caused by newcomers to this country, who perhaps do not fully understand our ways—giving rise to difficult questions concerning free speech and suitable behaviour.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I should like to meet his request by arranging a debate, but with the legislation going through as it is, it will be difficult to find a day.
Mr. Max Madden: Can there be an early debate on the plotting by Bradford's Conservative council to transform Bradford into a compassion-free zone? Is the Leader of the House aware that that council's latest act of civic vandalism is that of cutting funding to voluntary organisations that help pensioners, children and the disabled? Will the right hon. Gentleman have urgent discussions with the Conservative Chief Whip with a view to persuading Conservative right hon. and hon. Members not to visit Bradford to support the activities of the Monday Club, which is trying to incite racial tension in the city? Will he also urge the chairman of the Conservative party to agree to a request that I made to him yesterday that the party conducts an urgent inquiry into the infiltration of Right-wing organisations, including the Monday Club, into Bradford Conservative association and the influence they exert on the Conservative council group?
Mr. Wakeham: I have no idea what that matter has to do with next week's business. However, I detect in the hon. Gentleman and in his hon. Friends the Members for Bradford a streak of disagreement and unhappiness at being the losers in Bradford. They had better get used to that, because they will be losers for a very long time.
Mr. Michael Latham: In order to save public money in Budget week and to improve the environmental record, which we all want to do, may we start with ourselves and with the Order Paper? Eight pages of today's Order Paper contain a virtually identical question. Is that not a complete waste of public money? Would it not be better to do without printed questions and to have a Prime Minister's Question Time when Mr. Speaker could simply call speakers from among those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who try to catch his eye?
Mr. Wakeham: I am always tempted by my hon. Friend's suggestions for saving public money. However, if I agree to change the Order Paper simply at his suggestion, we would get into trouble. Changes to the Order Paper must be the subject of discussions and consultations through the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee. The best plan is for my hon. Friend to write to that Committee in the first instance.
Mr. Frank Haynes: When will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity to have a real go at the Executive on the question of air pollution? I have just about had a bellyful of the Prime Minister's starry front about pollution, of her claims about what she is and is not doing about it, and all the flipping rest of it. Is the Leader of the House aware that there has been serious
1050
interference with the manpower structure of air pollution inspectors? If we are going to get, as suggested, a serious reduction, how can they carry out their job properly in the interests of the people in the community? Let us have a debate so that I can have a go at her.
Mr. Wakeham: I thought that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was an attack on free speech itself, but in the end I understood what he wanted. I wish I could meet his requests because I always like to do so, but I cannot offer a debate next week.
Mr. Bowen Wells: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 500?
[That this House joins with all other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth in the observance of Commonwealth Day on Monday 13th March; and recognises the importance of the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which brings together parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth who share a community of interests, respect for the rule of law and a commitment to promote the positive ideals of parliamentary democracy.]
Will my right hon. Friend express on behalf of the whole House our continued support for the ideals of the Commonwealth? Does he agree that it is a potent force for freedom, peace, understanding and friendship in the world? Does he agree that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, by strengthening parliamentary democracy in the Commonwealth, plays a vital role in upholding those ideals?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government wholeheartedly support the statements expressed in the early-day motion. I hope to have a drink with a number of members of the Commonwealth this evening.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how the EC allocates its aid through the structural fund? Is he aware that it was disclosed yesterday that Halifax has, yet again, been left out from receiving any aid in spite of the fact that 95 per cent. of those on our borders gain from this aid? That leads to serious dislocation of industry. Is he further aware that since we submitted our application under objective two, Halifax and Calder Valley have lost almost 1,500 jobs? Can we have an urgent debate on the subject because it is leading to great hardship and is destabilising the local economy?
Mr. Wakeham: I would like to be able to organise the debate, which would give the hon. Lady the chance to explain why her Labour council put up rates last night by 15 per cent.——
Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no Labour council in Halifax or Calder Valley. There is no overall control.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether or not there is a Labour council there is not a matter for me.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many Conservative Members who would welcome yet another debate on transport so that they could express the repugnance of their fair-minded constituents at the behaviour of Opposition spokesmen, who have sought to gain political capital out of the deaths of innocent people in recent rail

1051
accidents and who have wrongly demanded the resignation of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for accidents that have been no fault of his?
Mr. Wakeham: I have many responsibilities, but I certainly do not have responsibility for Opposition spokesmen's conduct and words. However, I do not believe that any fair-minded person would accept the proposition that my right hon. Friend does anything other than conduct himself with the highest possible standards in public life.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we have a debate next week on a specific area of procedure —that is, privilege? Does the Leader of the House care to express a view about whether he believes that a person who feels aggrieved as a result of an abuse of parliamentary privilege should have a right of reply? Does he think that that right of reply should be printed in the Official Report? Can I ask him to reflect at the Dispatch Box on those matters about which he has, historically, shown great concern?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall reflect on that, of course, but the methods of dealing with privilege in the House are laid down by Standing Orders and the rules of the House and I have no plans to change them.
Dr. Keith Hampson: May I draw my right lion. Friend's attention to the importance of early-day motion 521 which is on university examinations and was signed by 50 of our hon. Friends?
[That this House welcomes the recommendation of the Executive of the Association of University Teachers to call off the action on university examinations by seeking arbitration; supports the case for increased funding for universities to enable them to pay an adequate increase in salaries for 1989–90; and believes that university lecturers should receive similar treatment as those covered by the recent Pay Review Bodies reports.]
If the boycott of the examination system by lecturers continues for another two or three weeks, it will jeopardise final examinations. My right hon. Friend knows that I have an interest in these matters. However, over all the years that I have been involved with universities, I have seldom found such strength of feeling on such a matter, if only because there is no understanding why the pay offer has been about 3 per cent., when we are offering school teachers an increase of 6 per cent.
Mr. Wakeham: It is for the university authorities to negotiate the pay of their staff. They have made representations to the Government for extra funds and those are being considered urgently. Representatives met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 8 March to explain their case and my right hon. Friend is meeting them again soon. Meanwhile, university academic staff, as responsible professionals, should surely work normally, as that is in the essential interests of their students.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Is the Leader of the House aware that today a number of hon. Members representing inner-city seats received a letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announcing the closure of a number of task forces? The Leader of the House will recall that the establishment of a task force in Leicester was a plank of the Government's inner-city
1052
policy and that I and other hon. Members pointed out to Ministers that task forces would not be successful unless they had the co-operation of local authorities. I find it difficult to accept that hon. Members should be informed on such a major policy issue by letter rather than by a statement or debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman speak to his right hon. Friend to ensure that we have a statement on this important aspect of policy and a debate about why the task force in Leicester has failed?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that that would be the right way to proceed. The report published today is a progress report announcing developments in existing policies and future priorities. It is not a new policy statement; it is available in the Vote Office and it has been made available generally. I understand that it has also been sent to hon. Members with constituency interests, and that is the right way to proceed.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), will the Leader of the House persuade the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the three accidents this morning on the M6 in which four people died? He will be aware that today's accidents mean that there have been seven accidents in the past five years on that stretch of motorway in which 58 people have died and that all those accidents have involved heavy goods vehicles. Hon. Members need an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for Transport to reconsider his policy of deterring freight on the railways so that it goes on the roads. The danger of the weight of traffic on our roads is now becoming acute. More accidents such as these will happen unless the Government offer positive incentives by subsidising freight on the railways to take it off our roads, as all other European countries do.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of that and I expressed to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend my concern about those accidents. I have said that I shall speak to my right hon. Friend, but perhaps some of the important points he made, which may be controversial, are not matters that are easily dealt with in a statement with questions and answers and are more wide-ranging policy questions. I wish that there was time for a debate on all these issues, but I cannot find time in the immediate future.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House find time to debate the prayer tabled by the three hon. Members from Bradford constituencies against the devolving of powers from the residuary authority to Bradford local authority? We feel strongly that because Bradford is in the hands of the "Conservative and City Mayor party", it is no longer fit and able to carry out such duties, having sacked a number of people in administrative positions as well as attacking community facilities for those most in need in the city, sacking dinner ladies and carrying out the other outrageous actions of the Right-wing clique on Bradford council. It would be handy if we were able to debate the prayer so that we could argue whether the city council is capable of carrying out the duties that the Government seem prepared to devolve on it.
Mr. Wakeham: When I talked about bad losers I knew that the hon. Gentleman would not be long in getting in on

1053
the act. The arrangements that we have for discussions through the usual channels represent the best way of deciding how to deal with Opposition prayers.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House recall that a few weeks ago I referred to the need for a statement from the Government about miners who have been subjected to the restart scheme, even though they have been made redundant under the mineworkers scheme? Is the Leader of the House aware that, although many weeks have elapsed since the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Employment began to discuss the matter, they have still not reached any conclusion? Will he try to impress upon his right hon. Friends the urgent need to resolve this matter next week, if possible, with a statement? If he cannot do this, will he knock their heads together?
Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to say to the hon. Gentleman today, but I recognise his concern about the matter and I shall certainly refer his question to my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is three and a half years since the disaster at Manchester airport, and that the report of the inquiry into that disaster will be published on Monday? Will he tell the House whether the Secretary of State for Transport, who has rightly come before the House—I say this with no disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman—when other disasters have happened, will make a full statement on the findings of that inquiry? It is considered that those findings are likely to be controversial, so it is important that the House should be given an opportunity to discuss them.
Mr. Wakeham: I am not in a position to answer that question. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport thinks it appropriate to make a statement, he will do so, although I do not think that that will necessarily prove to be the right course. I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.

LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
Ordered,
That the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Royal Air Force
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
4.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): I am pleased to have this opportunity to open the first RAF debate since my appointment as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces. In my relatively brief time of acquaintance with the RAF, I have attempted to see as much of the service as possible and to talk to senior colleagues at the Ministry of Defence about the aims and aspirations of the services. During the past three months, I have visited Headquarters RAF Strike Command at High Wycombe and the RAF bases at Coningsby and Leeming.
I have found that the service is in good heart and have been enormously impressed by the professionalism of the men and women serving in it. I believe that the RAF is confident—as it should be—that the Government will continue to accord it the priority that it requires. Since 1979 we have allocated very consierable extra resources to the RAF, amounting to some £9·2 billion, over and above inflation and this demonstrates the Government's commitment to the service.
I intend this afternoon—as is normal on these occasions —to give an account of the role, work and activities of the Royal Air Force, and I will, in addition, address three matters which I know are of special concern to the House —flight safety, low-flying training and manning in the service. I do not propose, however, to attempt to catalogue all the major improvements that have been made in equipment. The details will be set out in the annual statement on the defence estimates to be published in a couple of months' time, and if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement succeeds in catching your eye later this evening, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to deal with any point of interest that may have arisen concerning equipment.
The House is well aware of the vital contribution that the RAF continues to make to our main defence roles in NATO. The RAF contributes to all four roles—nuclear forces, defence of the United Kingdom, forward defence of the European mainland, and maritime forces. I shall not rehearse the details of those roles now as they do not change fundamentally from year to year, but in the past 13 months the outline of the RAF of the future has become clearer. What is certain is that, even with the welcome improvements in East-West relations, it is essential that we maintain a policy of deterrence, which includes the maintenance of a strong Royal Air Force.
The role that most people associate with the RAF is, I imagine, the air defence of the United Kingdom. To this, the RAF contributes interceptor aircraft, of which I will say more in a moment, Bloodhound and Rapier missiles and Skyguard radar-controlled guns.
In the past year the second and third squadrons of the Tornado air defence variant have been declared operational, and a fourth squadron has been formed and will become operational later this year. To sustain the ADV force into the future, we have ordered an additional 15 aircraft for delivery in the early 1990s. As new aircraft

1055
enter the stage, so old ones exit and since our last debate the Lightning has been finally withdrawn after nearly 30 years' service.
For the longer term, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced last April that the Government had decided to proceed with the full development of the European fighter aircraft in collaboration with the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and Spain. EFA will be a major project, costing the United Kingdom about £7 billion, and will provide the RAF with an agile, high performance air defence aircraft. It will replace the Phantom and, using its secondary ground attack role, the Jaguar at the end of their service lives, and will complement the Tornado ADV. As my right hon. Friend said, the specification for EFA has been rigorously and realistically examined in comparison with a number of alternatives. Moreover, its development will benefit from the exacting procurement disciplines which have been introduced over the past few years, and of which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement may speak further, later this evening.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for his obvious interest in the Royal Air Force and for the work that he has been doing. On the subject of EFA, I guess that we are now beginning to approach the crucial decision about the radar sensor system. Can my hon. Friend tell us what progress has been made in that regard? My hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that it appears that MSD 2000 radar sensor system has a slight edge in terms of its putative attributes. Will he tell us the latest state of play and assure us that the crucial choice between the two systems on offer will be made as soon as possible?
Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend will understand if, at this early stage in my late-flowering career, I do not immediately answer him, but direct him instead to the answer given on Tuesday by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who may be able to answer him in more detail later.
We are confident that EFA will benefit from those exacting procurement disciplines, and that EFA will prove the best and most cost-effective option to meet this essential military role.
Behind the scenes, work is progressing well on the seven Boeing E3 airborne early-warning aircraft which the Government have ordered to replace the redoubtable Shackleton from the early 1990s. We should salute the Shackleton on the 40th anniversary of its inaugural flight.
Let us consider the other roles of the RAF. The service contributes strike-attack and offensive support and air transport forces to the defence of the European mainland. The mainstay of our strike-attack forces is the Tornado GR1. Those aircraft would carry out long-range interdiction against enemy airfields and lines of communication to prevent them from applying their full weight to our forces in the central region. To do that, the Tornado would have to penetrate increasingly comprehensive and sophisticated air defences, and it is that requirement which gives rise to the need for low-flying training of which I shall say more later.
I am pleased to tell the House that, subject to the satisfactory resolution of contractual and other issues, we intend to proceed with a mid-life improvement for the Tornado GR1 strike-attack aircraft. The programme will
1056
contain a package of measures to provide the Tornado with an improved night and all-weather capability and so maintain the effectiveness of this highly successful aircraft as we move into the next century. Much of the work done under the programme will be placed in the United Kingdom and so should help sustain procurement opportunities in the United Kingdom aerospace industries.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: On the question of the usefulness of the Tornado, my hon. Friend will be aware of its value in respect of its strike capability and in terms of arms control talks on how far we should reduce our strength in the central region, but can he add anything to the statements that have already been issued about the future of the stand-off missiles that may be equipped in the future for use by the Tornado aircraft?
Mr. Neubert: No, I cannot do so, but perhaps my hon. Friend will turn to that point when he replies to the debate.
To sustain the Tornado GR1 force in the future, we have ordered an additional 26 aircraft for delivery from the early 1990s. After the inevitable delay caused by the unfortunate accident in October 1987, the first squadron of Harrier GR5 offensive support aircraft is now forming and will be declared operational later this year. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement announced last May that we intended to order a further 34 GR5s to sustain the force in the future.
This is a debate about the RAF rather than air systems, but it would be appropriate to record here a further significant milestone in the modernisation of our armed forces, namely the successful launch of the Skynet 4B satellite on 11 December 1988 by an Ariane 4 rocket from Kouron in French Guiana. The satellite is now on station. The first super high frequency channel became operational on 1 February 1989, and we expect the whole satellite to be operational by the end of this month.
Turning to the question of exercises and deployments, I am pleased to tell the House that the RAF consistently earns high marks during the regular exercises held under the direction of the NATO commanders to test the operational readiness and proficiency of our defences. Indeed, the ratings scored by the RAF during those exercises—the so-called "tacevals"—are second to none throughout the Alliance.
Outside the NATO area, I have been impressed to learn about the recent deployment by the RAF in Exercise Golden Eagle, designed to demonstrate the capability of the Royal Air Force to operate worldwide when appropriate. The exercise was mounted by four Tornado F3s—our latest air defence aircraft—with other supporting aircraft including TriStars, a VC10 tanker and a Hercules, with their equipment and personnel. The exercise was designed to enable the Tornados to take part in the five-power defence arrangements—FPDA—air defence exercise under a long-standing agreement with the Government of Malaysia, codenamed Lima Bersatu 88.
I should like to apologise at this point for all the code names, initials and acronyms. I seem to have exchanged the anonymity of the Government Whips Office for the acronymity of the Ministry of Defence.
The exercise provides opportunities for the aircraft to carry out some joint training with other nations in that area.

1057
The deployment encompassed visits to Malaysia; to Thailand to conduct joint training with the Royal Thai air force; and to Singapore where further training was undertaken and where the opportunity was taken to exhibit the aircraft to potential customers. The aircraft then spent 10 days in Australia taking part in the celebrations marking the Australian bicentennial, followed by participation by the Tornados in two air displays in the United States.
That global deployment drew favourable comments from all of the many nations that were involved. It was indicative of some of the attractions still available to the young men choosing a career in the modern Royal Air Force and was a splendid testimony to the safety and reliability of the Tornado F3 aircraft.
That leads me to mention the safety of the aircraft of the RAF, which is a high priority for us, and is an area in which the RAF can be justifiably proud of its record.
It is perhaps all too easy to forget just how recent is man's conquest of the air. The RAF has only just reached its three score years and 10. However, we should never forget that safety in the air, just as at sea, can never be guaranteed even with the most sophisticated of aircraft.
The RAF suffered a number of tragic losses in 1988. Each loss is, of course, investigated thoroughly in an effort to ascertain just what went wrong and to try to prevent a recurrence. Unfortunately, the very nature of military flying means that it is impossible to guarantee that there will never be any accidents. What we can and must do is to ensure that our aircrew are fully trained and our aircraft designed, built and maintained to the highest standards possible. Only then can the risks inherent in military flying be reduced to the minimum possible. I can assure the House that the RAF is taking all these steps, with the full support of the Government.
Progress in flight safety can sometimes seem painfully slow, and when we get down to the current relatively low level of accidents statistical fluctuations from one year to another can assume disproportionate significance. Over the longer term, however, the record can be ascertained more realistically and the trend is clear and encouraging. Thus, in 1957—which was then the best year on record for RAF flight safety—149 lives and 157 RAF aircraft were lost in accidents. Last year, by comparison, 17 aircrew died in 18 accidents, resulting in the loss of 19 aircraft.
Even though the service has reduced in size over the past 30 years, it is clear that the major accident rate has been cut dramatically, so that in recent years it is down to only one aircraft being lost for every 30,000 hours flown. I hope that hon. Members will join me in congratulating the RAF on the outstandingly professional way in which it carries out on our behalf the difficult flying operations that are so essential to our nation's defences.
Mr. Bob Cryer: If it is absolutely essential to lose all those lives and the hundreds of millions pounds-worth of planes, including the 12 Tornado aircraft that fell out of the sky, why does West Germany not adopt the same criteria? Because of its losses, including Tornado aircraft, West Germany has cut its low flying and reviewed the necessity for it. As West Germany is a member of NATO, surely we can follow its example rather than continue with assertions that low flying is absolutely essential when it costs so much money and so many lives.
Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. The amount of low flying in this country is broadly comparable with that in West Germany. The hon. Gentleman knows that this matter is under review at the moment and that no decisions have been taken or announced.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that a great problem facing us today in Europe is that the morale of the West German air force, especially its aircrew and specifically its pilots, is low because they are aware that they cannot carry out the tasks that they have been assigned because they do not train properly or effectively enough to do so?
Mr. Julian Brazier: West Germany has too many men like the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in its Parliament.
Mr. Neubert: The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) must be one of the most important factors to be taken into account.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House give way on that point?
Mr. Neubert: Well, I am not yet the Leader of the House, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps the Minister will point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that Conservatives in the West German Government have also complained strenuously about such matters.
Will the Minister tell me why, when I have three witnesses, each half a mile apart, who reported a near-miss on the boundary of Keswick a few months ago and when I submitted all the evidence from those independent persons to him in written statements, he has refused to accept that there was such a near-collision?
Why was he willing to accept the statements of the pilots who had not even reported the fact that a near-miss had taken place? Does he not understand that pilots have an interest in telling lies—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Oh yes, they have an interest in telling lies, not the truth —when they know that they have been involved in near-misses such as the one that was reported by my three independent witnesses?
Mr. Neubert: I refute that assertion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, every pilot in the air has a direct and personal interest in the matter of air misses——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: They have been telling lies.
Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman has no evidence for his assertion. He will have to contain himself until we reach a more appropriate point for deaing with his concerns.
While on the subject of flight safety, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have now conducted a thorough review of our arrangements for military participation in flying displays and for air shows held at military establishments. Full account has been taken of the Civil Aviation Authority's recently announced guidelines for civil aircraft and displays. I am pleased to observe that the review confirmed that existing MOD regulations were generally very satisfactory. A number of relatively minor modifications are, however, being introduced and these should improve safety still further.

1059
Particular attention was, of course, paid to the Red Arrows, the nation's premier flying display team. Changes are being made to the Red Arrows' routine, primarily to eliminate formation changes while aircraft are pointing towards spectators. To allow the team to be seen properly by spectators, a few over-flights of crowds will still be permitted. However, these will be at a minimum height of 1,000 ft rather than 500 ft as previously. In addition, no aerobatics or manoeuvres will be performed above crowds.
The chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority will accept Ministry of Defence assurances as to the safety of performances by the Red Arrows at any United Kingdom civil displays to which the team may be invited. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence review, together with the steps taken by the Department of Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, will lead to a successful 1989 flying display season, with millions of spectators being entertained safely and professionally.
I know that low-flying training is of particular interest to hon. Members. The letters that I receive leave me in no doubt that some people question this intrusion into their daily lives. I can assure them that the Government and the Royal Air Force recognise the inconvenience that this training can cause and are keenly aware of the need to minimise it.
To maintain a credible capability to penetrate today's sophisticated enemy radar and defensive systems, our pilots must be able to fly as close to the ground and as fast as possible, using the terrain to screen their aircraft. Such a capability can be maintained only by realistic training and practice in peacetime. The procurement of modern and capable aircraft is not sufficient on is own.
Since assuming my appointment, I have taken a close interest in low-flying training and its effect on those on the ground. The sudden noise of a low-flying aircraft can be alarming. The recent air accidents, even if unconnected with military low-flying training, have heightened public awareness of all air activities.
It is 10 years since a restructured system was introduced in 1979. Previously, the United Kingdom had some small areas for low flying that were linked by connecting routes. But they were inadequate. As the then Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force in the previous Labour Government explained to the House at the time, the old system channelled flying into particular areas, impeded training and led to undesirable concentrations of flying in some districts, mainly resulting from the many detailed restrictions that were introduced in an attempt to minimise the disturbance to particular places. But those restrictions simply aggravated problems elsewhere.
The new system was designed to distribute flying training over a wide geographic area, spreading the burden more equitably across the country as a whole. Aircrew plan their sorties to give them the widest practice and experience of flying, and to reduce routine patterns of activity. Unfortunately, the distribution is not perfect for everyone. The location of operating bases and weapons ranges produces limitations.
I recognise that, in some areas, the need to avoid major conurbations, controlled air space and other features such as nuclear power stations can still cause some concentration of traffic, but within these constraints we make every effort in our management of the system to achieve the original aim of spreading the training more fairly.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Allan Rogers: Could the Minister define what he means by "major conurbations"?
Mr. Michael Mates: Towns.
Mr. Neubert: Yes, that is the simplest answer to give the hon. Gentleman. Major conurbations are dense concentrations of the population. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a result of that change in training 10 years ago to spread low flying throughout the country, areas such as Cumbria have a smaller percentage of low flying over them than in the years to 1979 and that hon. Members with constituencies in such areas should be very pleased at the change?
Mr. Neubert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I welcome the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) to his new, dual-capable role. As I believe that he will open and close the debate for the Opposition, I shall ensure that he receives the reply that he seeks during the course of one of his speeches.
Mr. Rogers: I shall not congratulate the Minister yet on his appointment. But to stay with the point about major conurbations, would he consider that the city of Swansea was a "major conurbation"?
Mr. Neubert: Of course it is a major conurbation. That is why the greatest care is taken when over-flying that particular area, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Mr. Rogers: Then can the Minister tell me why RAF' planes over-fly the city of Swansea, and will he now define what he means by "major conurbations" instead of listening to the inane cackling of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence?
Mr. Neubert: I suspect that further discussion now would be sterile. The incident to which the hon. Member for Rhondda may well be referring was an operation over Swansea airfield. That is a different matter altogether from over-flying the city itself.
I ask hon. Members to bear in mind what I have said about spreading training more fairly when they consider concerns within their constituencies. Each restriction on the system merely forces training into somebody else's backyard. Our objective is to balance individual concerns against the wider impact on the population as a whole.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister heard of a Soviet missile called the SA-10B? If he has heard of that missile, to what extent does he believe that it prevents those pilots who have been trained in low-flying exercises from penetrating Soviet air space? Has the hon. Gentleman been influenced in his judgment about the value of the whole programme by the existence of that missile system?
Mr. Neubert: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to question the whole principle of our forward defences, he is entitled to do so, but I do not believe that he will carry many people with him in such a suggestion.
Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Neubert: My predecessor in this role last year gave way 22 times, and I do not seek to challenge that record.

1061
The need to reduce disturbance to the public is also taken into account in other ways. The techniques of low flying over land demand particular skills, which cannot be developed by low flying over sea or by training at higher levels. In war, aircraft would need to fly below 100 ft and at speeds of over 600 knots. In peacetime, to minimise the nuisance caused by noise, most low-flying training in the United Kingdom is carried out at speeds under 450 knots and not below 250 ft.
Training in operational low flying at lower altitudes is mainly carried out overseas, in parts of the United States and Canada that are virtually unpopulated, apart from the occasional moose. Only very little operational low flying is undertaken in the United Kingdom, in three sparsely populated areas in Northern Scotland, in the Scottish borders and in central Wales. Such flying is infrequent and represents less than 1 per cent. of the total of low-flying activity in the United Kingdom. As hon. Members will be aware, special efforts are made to keep them informed of this activity.
Night and weekend flying is kept to a minimum. I am particularly conscious of the disturbance that is caused by night flying, but pilots must be capable of operating after dark, so strictly limited night flying is needed. No more activity is authorised than is absolutely necessary. We end flying at 11 pm whenever possible.
One of the questions raised with me by hon. Members is the possibility of carrying out more training abroad. While there is no substitute for training in Europe, across terrain that the aircrew would fly over in the event of conflict, we will certainly continue to look at opportunities for training abroad. But there are limits to the extent to which such training makes sense. It is expensive in resources which have to be found or deployed away from where they are needed operationally, and it is expensive in wasteful transit flying. But such deployments provide valuable training at very low levels which cannot be provided in Europe.
Some Members of the public suspect that pilots are irresponsible in carrying out their flying training. The image of the Spitfire pilot doing a victory roll over the aerodrome lingers, and it may mislead. It is a far cry from the professional, disciplined approach of today's RAF and from that required to fly a modern high-speed jet aircraft at low level. Pilots are fully aware of their responsibilities to the general public, and they plan and conduct their sorties as considerately as possible. As hon. Members are aware, the RAF police carry out surveys from time to time to establish whether height and other rules are being observed, and those surveys clearly show that there is a healthy respect for the regulations.
I have been very impressed with the thorough nature of investigations of individual complaints associated with low flying. I have been impressed also with the work of the RAF police. I can assure the House that any pilot found to be disregarding regulations will be severely dealt with.
Hon. Members should be aware also that, as a means of augmenting the existing system, we have been considering the use of a Skyguard fire control radar system to monitor the heights of low-flying aircraft. The system has been subjected to a series of trials, and I am pleased to announce that we have decided to deploy the system in this role. Although further work will be required before it is
1062
fully operational, in the meantime it will give us a limited capability to monitor low-flying training activities. This will provide a very valuable aid and, I hope, will be seen as an indication of our concern to ensure that the highest standards are maintained. I am confident that the results shown by the system will be yet further evidence of the service's professionalism.
The past 10 years have seen an increase in the level of low-flying activity in the United Kingdom, largely because of the introduction into service of the Tornado GRI aircraft. The level of activity has reached a plateau in recent years, and we expect that it will remain fairly constant in the future. The new low-flying system has proved itself successful in accommodating this increase, in providing enhanced training value and in distributing this training more equitably.
I am satisfied that the basic structure of the system is correct, although there will always be a need to monitor its operation and adapt it as necessary to changing circumstances. The last thing that the RAF wants to do is to antagonise the people on whose support and forbearance it relies. Within the current system, I can assure hon. Members that it will continue to do all in its power to ensure that this essential training produces the minimum disturbance to those on the ground.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend has referred to low flying by fixed-wing aircraft. Do the restrictions to which he has referred relate in any way to helicopters operated by the Royal Air Force? Helicopters often fly at low altitudes in my constituency, and one wonders why they find that piece of terrain so attractive.
Mr. Neubert: There are different provisions for helicopter low-flying, but the principles remain the same as those for fixed-wing aircraft.
So far, I have spoken about the role of the RAF and some of its recent achievements. None would have been possible without the dedicated and professional personnel who make up the service. The trained strength of the RAF over the past year has been maintained at a level which has enabled it fully to discharge its operational commitments. There are some shortfalls in the officer branches and in ground engineering and support trades, but they are containable.
Interest in RAF manning generally centres on the aircrew branch and, in particular, on pilots. Manning strengths in this branch are broadly in line with requirements, although some ground and flying appointments are vacant. Both recruiting and retention have become more difficult over the past 12 months, largely because of increased competition from civil airlines, but I would not wish to over-estimate those difficulties, and I can confirm that it is forecast that the aircrew branch will continue to see strengths and requirements broadly in balance over the next 10 years, although there may be a shortage of junior officer pilots in the shorter term.
Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend has already given way a few times, and I thank him for doing so again. The RAF involves not only pilots, aircraft and flying but physical buildings, sites and bases. My hon. Friend will know of our strong RAF presence, of which we are intensely proud, in the borough of Harrow, and the putative longer-term plans for the eventual closure of RAF Stanmore Park,

1063
near RAF Bentley Priory. Incidentally, the local borough council will shortly be offering the freedom of the borough to the Royal Air Force.
If my hon. Friend cannot answer my question now, will he add it to the growing list of answers which our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give when replying to the debate? What is the latest outlook for the proposed eventual closure of RAF Stanmore Park? Although we are deeply proud of the role which that station has played over many years for the Royal Air Force and the defence of this country in its particular specialist requirements, we know that it is now becoming gradually superfluous to present and future activities. Although the next matter is not directly within my hon. Friend's province, Stanmore Park would therefore be a useful area for the future development of housing in the borough of Harrow. What is the latest state of play on RAF Stanmore Park and its proposed future programme?
Mr. Neubert: I am happy to answer what must be the last intervention. We are currently considering the position at Stanmore Park. I assure my hon. Friend that, should there be any proposals, we shall consult closely with the local authority, the London borough of Harrow.
The RAF is adopting several measures to improve current recruitment and retention. The training of fast jet pilots is particularly lengthy, rigorous and costly, and the service seeks constantly to improve the efficiency and economy of the training given, while preserving the high standards required. It is for that reason that retention of aircrew, especially pilots, remains of great importance. The RAF continues to encourage our trained and experienced aircrew to remain in service, through measures such as those aimed at reducing the turbulence to their home lives which can be sometimes caused by their service, and through improvements to terms and conditions. Moreover, the RAF is alert to the future demographic trend and, in addition to seeking better retention rates, is considering a wide range of measures, including the possibility of widening opportunities for the employment of women as aircrew, and attracting more members of ethnic minorities into the service than we have been able to do so far. There will also be a higher profile campaign of recruiting for the RAF.
The role of women is currently under review in each of the services. We are examining the scope for increasing employment opportunities for them. Within our agreed policy, which I reaffirm, that women should not undertake direct combatant duties, women are already employed, unless physical limitations dictate otherwise, in the full range of officer specialisations and ground trades. In addition, it is planned that female fighter controllers will fly as aircrew in the Sentry AEW aircraft in 1991. I hope that wider opportunities for women will result from the present study, although I would not wish to pre-judge its outcome.
On the ground, the RAF has decided to increase the number of ground airwomen over the next five years from 5,000 to 7,000 personnel, some 10 per cent. of the ground trades' trained strength.
Hon. Members will be aware of the results of the first year of the exercise to monitor the ethnic origin of applicants and recruits to the armed forces. They have shown that only 1·5 per cent. of applicants for service in the RAF are black or Asian, and this is a disappointing
1064
figure, given that it compares with 5·7 per cent. of blacks and Asians aged 15 to 24 in the United Kingdom as a whole.
We would like to attract more recruits from these groups, and, on a tri-service basis, we are considering a number of measures to achieve this aim. As a first step, we have commissioned from independent consultants a study to investigate the reasons for the current low rate of application and to consider how we can best attract more young blacks and Asians into the armed forces.
Given the demographic trends over the next few years, it will be particularly important that we make life in the RAF attractive to all young men and women entering the employment market. In this connection, I am pleased to say that the armed services youth training scheme continues to receive full support from the RAF; 750 training places have again been allocated for the coming financial year. So far this year, 73 per cent. of the overall vacancies have been filled or booked. Over 70 per cent. of the young people who enter the RAF subsequently transfer to a regular engagement.
In addition to this, the Air Training Corps is a thriving youth organisation which enjoys widespread support both within the Ministry of Defence and in the community. There are some 38,500 cadets, including around 7,500 girls, in a total of 920 squadrons throughout the United Kingdom. The corps provides a large number of recruits to the Royal Air Force and aims to develop worthwhile interests and the values of good citizenship in the cadets.
My review of the manning scene would be incomplete without reference to the RAF Reserve. The regular Reserve which comprises former officers and airmen, together with RAF pensioners, continues to grow in strength. So too do the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the RAF Volunteer Reserve, for which there is no shortage of recruits at the moment; their strengths have increased over the past year despite a higher turnover of airmen than we would have wished.
Royal Auxiliary Air Force and RAF volunteer reservists are highly motivated. highly trained and, should the need arise, are ready to take their places alongside the regular forces in a variety of roles, often in the front line. I pay tribute to their competence and commitment which are second to none. It is wholly appropriate that later this year the Royal Auxiliary Air Force will be honoured by the presentation of a royal colour by Her Majesty the Queen.
We will continue to consider the roles which our reserve forces play, and trials of reservists in certain flying roles are continuing. In addition, the trial of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force support force has demonstrated the viability of the concept and it is planned to become a permanent and expanding part of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
I am grateful to have had the chance to speak about a service which is so well equipped and well motivated. The RAF, through its dedication, skill and courage, performs a vital task in the defence of the realm; we should all be thankful for that. It also provides the chance for young men and women to build a career which offers unique challenges and opportunities, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. I shall be doing all I can over the coming months to ensure that that message is heard in the House and in the wider world.
5.21 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: May I first congratulate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on his appointment? It is a pleasure to see his non-mute status.
Opposition Members wish to express our sincere appreciation to all the service men and women who have given such dedicated commitment to the defence of our country. This dedication has, alas, meant, as the Minister said, 17 Royal Air Force personnel giving their lives in the past year. We convey our sympathy and support to the bereaved families. I am sure that the Minister is giving them all the support they need in the very difficult circumstances of a young life being taken away from a family, especially when, as is often the case in the services, it is the life of the only breadwinner. The dedication and unselfish attitude of RAF personnel is an example to us all.
While I hesitate to pick out one individual, I should like to mention Squadron Leader Stephen Fox who was awarded the Air Force Cross last year. Squadron Leader Fox successfully landed a severely damaged Harrier in West Germany. The citation praised his high degree of courage, professionalism and coolness in deciding to remain with his aircraft when the simplest option would have been to eject and possibly risk many civilian lives. Squadron Leader Fox is a brave man and certainly deserves the highest decoration that can be awarded in peacetime.
I also congratulate Air Chief Marshal Sir David Craig on his assumption of the post of Chief of the Defence Staff. He is a person of great integrity, and I am sure that he will be outstanding in his new role. I am also sure of his political impartiality and I know that my hon. Friends are looking forward to working with him in the early 1990s when we assume government.
Mr. Mates: I just saw a pig fly by.
Mr. Rogers: And I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will still be Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence.
I am not happy, however, about the Government's politicisation of the post in the new system of appointing. Sir David Craig's appointment confirms the end of the old informal system of appointing chiefs of the defence staff from each service in rotation. There is now no discernible system in operation and it has been reported—I am sure that there is no truth in it—that Sir Nigel Bagnell was passed over because his views were embarrassing to the Government. I trust that that is not the case, but I should welcome before the debate is over an explanation from the Minister of why the old system of rotating appointments has been abandoned.
It is always difficult to speak from the Opposition Benches in a service debate. Criticism of the Government is always distorted by them and their Back Benchers into the idea that the Opposition are not supportive of the armed forces.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Hear, hear.
Mr. Rogers: The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary says, "Hear, hear." That shows his complete ignorance of the matter. It is patent nonsense to imply that we do not support the armed forces. The Labour party is committed to the defence of this country, and its record in government since the war shows that this is so. There may be individual Opposition Members who do not support all
1066
the policies of the Labour party. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] A substantial number of hon. Members who were on the Government Benches did not support Mr. Churchill in the 1930s and spent their holidays with the Nazis in Germany and with the Fascists in Italy. But never mind about that. We accept that sometimes, when a Conservative Government are in power, there may be some Tory Members who will not agree with them. But what was pretty awful about that period was that there were Ministers who were happy to consort with the fascists of Europe.
Mr. Barry Field: The hon. Member suggests that there may be Labour Members who do not agree with the Labour party's policy. But surely three unilateralists out of five Labour Members present is a 60 per cent. record. That is an overall majority who do not agree with Labour party policy.
Mr. Rogers: That is absolutely right. It is just that my colleagues reckon that I can manage and do not need much support.
It is important to remember in this debate that all of us in the Labour party represent constituents who come, in the main, from working-class backgrounds. We live in our constituencies. Our homes, our jobs, our savings and our future are in this country. We have no other place to go, unlike many Conservative Members who belong to and sometimes work as consultants for companies who have been expatriating their funds over recent years and may well expatriate themselves in times of difficulty. We on the Opposition side have nowhere to go. We and our families have nowhere to go and that is why we are completely dedicated to the defence of our traditions and our values. I find it gratuitously insulting for Conservative Members to suggest otherwise.
I say that at the outset simply to emphasise that we are committed to the defence of this country and that any Tory Member who suggests otherwise is wrong. My right hon. and hon. Friends do not need lessons in patriotism from anyone on the Government Benches.
In three successive debates I have referred to the Government's mismanagement of the defence economy. This Government of big business have shown themselves to be just that. At the same time, however, they have also shown themselves to be incompetent or unwilling to manage defence procurement for the benefit of the nation. The Under-Secretary said that he would leave procurement issues to his hon. Friend who will wind up the debate. That is a great pity, because I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would have liked to put some questions to the Under-Secretary. The sorry saga of defence procurement is one of delays and overruns of time, with an accompanying and staggering escalation of costs reaching into billions of dollars.
Two notable events took place last week. One was the throwing out from GCHQ of Mr. Gareth Morris, the last trade unionist there. The other was the charging by the Director of Public Prosecutions of Major-General Sturge, who until recently was head of military communications responsible for GCHQ. He was charged with fraud, theft, deception and false accounting. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will not allow me to comment on that case because it is sub judice, but it is interesting to note the manner in which people leave Government service and

1067
GCHQ, what happens to them afterwards and the double standards that Tory Members are presumably happy to support.
Mr. Morris, a trade unionist, was deemed to be unworthy of his nation's trust because of his membership of a trade union. That is a shabby and baseless judgment by a shabby and baseless Government who are prepared to allow the country to be ripped off through gargantuan frauds at the same time as they persecute the civil liberties of individuals. The Government victimise people for combining in trade unions. At the same time they are happy to allow another combination to be rampant—a freemasonry of generals, civil servants, industrialists and Tory politicians. [Interruption.] I can see that Tory Members are getting agitated. I understand why; they are hearing some of the truth.
Mr. Bill Walke rose——
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is wearing his RAF kilt for the debate. I will give way to him so that he can display his all to the House.
Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman who, in his usual courteous fashion, has given way. Is he aware that nearly 30 years ago I represented GCHQ as a trade unionist? I was responsible for negotiations for the largest group of members. At that time we all knew that if ever the individuals working at GCHQ, or the Air Ministry where I worked at that time, became involved in industrial action, the Government of the day—the Government then were Labour—would change the rules. There was an unwritten agreement. That agreement was broken, and the fact was promoted and advertised.
Mr. Rogers: It is nice to know that the hon. Gentleman represented trade unionists 30 years ago. He has gone downhill since and is still going downhill.
The hon. Gentleman forgets that when the country has been involved in conflict we have had Labour Governments, but we never had the trouble that he suggested. He knows as well as I do that the reason the trade unions were kicked out of GCHQ was that the Americans said that they had to go. It was a shabby act, with the Prime Minister being pushed around by the former President of the United States. This hurts Tory Members, and I can understand them being agitated. As I was saying, they are happy to allow another combination to go rampant—a freemasonry of generals, civil servants, industrialists, Tory politicians and even failed lieutenants-colonel. In 1983, at about the same time as the retired General Sturge became managing director of Meccano, sorry, Marconi secure radio systems—it is a bit like Meccano these days—Sir Brian Tovey, former head of GCHQ, became a consultant to Plessey, the manufacturer of electronic equipment for GCHQ, and General Sir Henry Tuzo, an ex-deputy commander of NATO, became chairman of Marconi space and defence systems.
Mr. Mates: That has nothing to do with the RAF.
Mr. Rogers: The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence says that that has nothing to do with the RAF. We all know that the companies are not buying in the generals for their ability to shoot straight, or the civil servants for their ability to write memos. These people are bought in because of their contacts in the Ministry of Defence and because they are in the know.
1068
The revolving door syndrome is well known to the Government. It has been brought to their attention on many occasions, perhaps most forcibly in 1984 by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which urged them to tighten the rules for civil servants leaving to take up jobs with companies that were in receipt of Government contracts. The Select Committee said:
"The traditional independence … of the civil service is in danger of becoming eroded or compromised in the eyes of the public."
The Select Committee suggested that there should be a time lapse between Government employment and related industrial employment—a recommendation which the Government seemed strangely reluctant to implement and operate.
Perhaps the truth lies in what was said by Sir Frank Cooper, ex-Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence—we cannot go higher and he can hardly be called a raving lefty—who also travelled the golden road 10 Westland:
"Why criticise the civil servants—look at James Prior arid other politicians."
Indeed, let us look at the Tory politicians. What about Lord Prior, ex-Cabinet Minister, now managing director of GEC?
Mr. Mates: Chairman.
Mr. Rogers: Chairman or managing director, whatever he is. GEC has contracts from the Government worth almost £1,000 million. Lord Prior stepped out of the Government into that job.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not significant that Lord Prior was appointed just some months before the Secretary of State for Defence had to take a decision on Nimrod? Many hon. Members believe that Weinstock appointed him only to ensure influence among his former Cabinet colleagues. [HoN. MEMBERS: "It did not work."] I said "former" Cabinet colleagues.
Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is right. As Tory Members, who are far more in the know, say, it did not do the company much good. Those of us who were here when Lord Prior was in the Cabinet know that he did not have much influence with the Government then either.
Some other Tory Members are also involved. I had the courtesy to let them know that I would mention their names in the debate. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) is a parliamentary adviser to British Aerospace which received Government contracts in the past year worth £930 million.
Mr. Barry Field: He has done well.
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman says that he has done well. That is how Tory Members measure their value as Members of Parliament; they wonder how they can represent big business in the House. The Conservative party is the party of big business. If we look at the Register of Members' Interests, we see that it is riddled with the industrial connections of Tory Members with companies that receive Government contracts. The hon. Gentleman had better be careful because he is stepping into a rather dangerous minefield, even for him.
The right hon.Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), another ex-Cabinet Minister, has a most peculiar entry in the Register of Members' Interests. He is the honorary adviser to the chairman of British Aerospace—not to the

1069
company but to the chairman. As he is called an honorary adviser presumably he does not receive payment. If he does not receive payment, why is he declaring the interest? He does not have to declare it unless there is financial benefit, so it would be interesting to find out what his connection is with British Aerospace. As I have already said, the contracts received by British Aerospace from the Government in the last year are worth £930 million.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) is a consultatant to GEC, which had contracts worth £850 million from the Government in the last year. There is no point in mentioning the many others who are in the pay of defence companies, but it makes interesting reading.
Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman came close to making some insulting remarks about one or two senior officers who have gone into industry. He seems to be implying, first, that there is something intrinsically wrong with that, and, secondly, that the monopoly of people leaving this place to take appointments outside are Conservative Members. I shall reel off the names of six Labour Members who also left the House: Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis, Mr. Bruce Millan, Mr. Edmund Dell, the chairman of a bank, Mr. Brian Walden and Mr. Marquand. I know that my right hon. Friend could tell me some more.
The serious point I wish to make is that, before the hon. Gentleman produces names as distinguished as that of Sir Harry Tuzo, I would point out that he was hired not just because he had contacts with people—every general has those—but because in a 30-year career he has probably had more experience of high-class management than any of his civilian counterparts. That is one of the great assets of life in the services.
Mr. Rogers: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman can reel off what appears to be the European Commission. I was not intending to be insulting but, if I was, I shall not apologise for it. All I was, in fact, doing was reading from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report of 1984. That Committee has a majority of Conservative Members. It says that there should be a time period between people leaving Government employment and taking up related industrial employment.
If the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence feels that that is not so—I am glad that he has put it on record—we shall look at what his Committee does in future years to see whether it is impartial in its approach. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Gentleman say that he was under inquiry or undertaking an inquiry? I would not know.
To show how impartial I am, my next quote will be again from a Conservative Member. I say to Sir Frank Cooper that those examples of right hon. and hon. Members should not be used to justify civil servants taking jobs. It should not be said that civil servants can take such jobs because politicians do. The examples should be used to highlight what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) described as "subliminal corruption". Indeed, the potential for corruption in this revolving door practice is immense. I am sure that the recent arrests of people intimately or recently associated
1070
with Marconi in connection with corruption, fraud and national pilfering on a huge scale are only the tip of the iceberg.
Mr. Cryer: The argument is that Sir Harry Tuzo went into Marconi because of his extraordinarily fine qualities of management, but will my hon. Friend accept that he was a signal failure? When he went to Marconi the costs of the production of Sting Ray torpedoes escalated from under £100 million to more than £1 billion during the reign of the allegedly wonderful Sir Harry even before production had started.
Mr. Mates: Absolutely wrong. He put it right.
Mr. Rogers: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for bringing that to my attention. As the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) knows, the fraud, the pilfering and corruption went on in Marconi under Sir Harry Tuzo. If Sir Harry is such a good manager—such a good friend of the hon. Gentleman—why did he not lay that particular nest of vipers to rest when he was there as chairman?
Mr. Brazier: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's allegation about fraud and Sir Harry Tuzo. The point must be, however, that the bulk of the expansion in the cost of the Sting Ray programme occurred under the last Labour Government. It was a Conservative Government who eventually put it on a fixed priced contract. The hon. Gentleman has now been on his feet for more than a quarter of an hour. It really is time that he touched on the Royal Air Force, as that is the subject of the debate.
Mr. Rogers: I have given way a number of times to Conservative Members. If they were to shut up and take their medicine, we could get through it a lot quicker. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) should not display his ignorance in the Chamber. Before he goes any further, the best thing that he could do would be to go to the Vote Office and obtain a copy of the relatively recent Public Accounts Committee report on torpedoes. He could then speak with some authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South was right. I should have thought that Marconi was the last company that should be used as a symbol of efficiency.
The revolving door syndrome is not confined to this country. Recent events in America have also been quite dramatic. I am sure that the danger of subliminal corruption led to the rejection by the Senate of John Tower's appointment as Secretary of State for Defence. I can hardly imagine Senator Edward Kennedy passing a judgment on other grounds.
The procurement scandals of the Pentagon and Senator Tower's close connections with the defence industry, as a consultant and an adviser, must surely have been a great factor in that decision. Incidentally, those scandals have reached this country through the connection with Lord Chalfont, who the Prime Minister chose to be deputy chairman of IBA. Some of those practices are being investigated. For the sake of the nation, I hope that they will be pursued as assiduously as petty social security dodging.
Incidentally, it might be a gesture of good faith if the Conservative party refused to accept political donations from companies receiving Government contracts during

1071
the period that those companies are under investigation for fraud and corruption—perhaps is should eschew their political donations for good.
If those symbiotic or perhaps parasitic relationships were of benefit to the host body—the nation—one could perhaps justify them, however flimsy, but they are not. No benefit to the nation is to be gained from the relationship between generals, civil servants, Tory politicians and the defence industry.
Procurement irregularities are increasing; procurement fraud is mounting; there are long delays and overruns of time; and staggering escalation of costs amounting to billions of pounds.
The Minister mentioned earlier the question of my having a double header. I can, therefore, save further points on those issues until later.
The European fighter aircraft is potentially the greatest procurement disaster. It is difficult not to make political capital out of the Government's incompetence. However, what the Opposition find difficult to swallow is the fact that our armed forces will not have the right equipment to do the job on time and where and when it is needed. The Government refuse to learn lessons. They believe that, if there is not a quick identifiable return or profit, the project is not worth while. Funds are restricted at the feasibility study and project definition stages, often leading to cost and time overruns at later stages. That is why we want to keep a close eye on the progress of the EFA programme. By choking funds at this stage, as they are doing at the early stages of so many other projects, the Government are in grave danger of prejudicing the entire scheme.
While we welcomed the signing of the development contracts for the EFA last November, we were very much aware of the crisis in the associated radar project. On 10 November 1987 the House was told that a decision would be made on the EFA radar in early 1988. By 17 March 1988 the decision was expected in the summer of that year. The latest position is anyone's guess. Obviously, there are difficulties when there are four Ministries of Defence involved—although I cannot believe that the four are as bad as ours. However, it appears that the Ministry of Defence has not given the project the priority that it deserves.
Many thousands of jobs are involved. If the radar does not work, the plane cannot operate. Unless the Government are to produce planes and put them in storage, in exactly the same way that Tornados are put into storage, the whole project—plane and radar— founders. The Tornado is foundering because Marconi cannot produce the radar in an agreed and proper form.
The choice for EFA radar is either the Ferranti-led,, all-European radar—the ECR90—or the Marconi-led MSD-2000 which will be developed from the American APG-65. [Interruption.] If it is not to be the Marconi-led MSD-2000, will the Minister tell us who is leading the project? Will he tell the managing director and the chairman of Marconi not to bother hon. Members with circulars describing how Marconi is leading the project?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): It might he helpful if the hon. Gentleman got something right in his speech. The German company is leading the alternative radar bid for EFA.
Mr. Rogers: Let us be quite clear. The Germans are leading on the MSD-2000?
Mr. Sainsbury: Yes.
Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister therefore write to Marconi—I will provide a letter later—and tell the company not to print lies and send them to Members of Parliament?
The MSD-2000 is being promoted by Marconi as a low-risk project. If hon. Members received a copy of the Marconi letter this morning, they will know that that is so. It is promoted as a low-risk project which uses old technologies. That seems to be a very sad, if not pathetic, position to be taken by what is supposed to be Britain's leading electronics company which is led by Sir Henry Tuzo, the friend of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence.
Marconi has clearly lost faith in its ability to research, design and develop products. That is not surprising in view of the long list of procurement fiascos in which it has been involved over the past few years. It is alarming to learn that Marconi intends to use components in the MSD-2000 which are used on the upgraded Foxhunter radar. What confidence can we place in the radar equipment to be used in the next generation of fighter aircraft when its components do not even fulfil the requirements for the current generation of fighter aircraft?
Of course the Opposition recognise the technical challenge posed by the development of the ECR90. However, we also recognise that much of the blame falls on the MOD for continually changing specifications throughout the development phase. We should remember that the EFA is intended to operate primarily as an air defence aircraft and that the system must be tailored to that role and not be emasculated to fulfil some vague, grand strategic concept of the MOD.
One lesson that the Government, with their Thatcherite short-term approach, seem incapable of learning is that money cannot be saved by cutting expenditure in the development stages of a project. The long-term result is a botched job costing much more than intended with long time overruns.
If the decision of the EFA radar is postponed much longer, at best we may find ourselves storing planes that might fly with concrete ballast instead of radar. That is the present fate of the Tornado. At worst, the whole project might be cancelled and the defence of this country imperilled.
I want briefly to consider the Foxhunter radar which is another long-running saga. That radar was originally to have been in service in 1983, but it did not enter service until 1985 and then only to an agreed interim standard and after a 63 per cent. increase in development costs. That standard has been so interim that it is not fully or properly in service today.
At the end of last year, 32 Tornado ADV F3 fighters were in store at RAF St. Athan in south Wales. Those sophisticated, new fighters, which cost more than £500 million, were tucked away in hangars at a storage cost of more than £60,000 a year. I wonder who will be surcharged for that. If a Labour council had been responsible, the council members would be slung into gaol. I presume that the Minister will not insult the intelligence of the House by claiming that the planes are in storage for reasons of economy.

1073
Opposition Members are most concerned that the Foxhunter radars now in service with the RAF are not performing to the standards which the RAF requires. I want to quote from a "World in Action" programme——
Mr. Mates: Well, it must be true.
Mr. Rogers: Again, Conservative Members may scoff. However, Sir Keith Williamson, a former Chief of the Air Staff, appeared on that programme. No doubt the public schoolboys on the Conservative Benches will praise Sir Keith Williamson as one of theirs. Let us quote one of "theirs". According to my transcript, the narrator in the "World in Action" programme said:
"One difficulty is this: 'Foxhunter' has to track up to 20 planes simultaneously. It can manage all right when the aircraft are travelling in predictable courses but if they twist and turn, as in dog-fighting air battle, the computer cannot keep tabs on them all. 'The fighter', one senior RAF man told us, 'had a peace-time capability only. It would have difficulties in the extreme conditions of war.'"
I am not sure why those planes are being built, but the ex-Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Keith Williamson, responded:
"And this is really a disastrous situation because, without the radar, the fighter version of the tornado is absolutely useless."
That is the story of Foxhunter and of procurement under this Government. That is why I have devoted so much time to procurement. Conservative Members have said that this is an RAF debate. We may have the bravest men in the world in the RAF—and I accept that, because I am not chauvinistic—but they are no good unless they have the right equipment to do the job. The Government stand indicted on one charge, if only one charge. Procurement fraud, overruns and fiascos are jeopardising the lives and futures of the service men who give so much commitment to this country.
5.57 pm
Mr. John Greenway: Having listened to the catalogue of despicable slurs against my right hon. and hon. Friends which were masquerading as Labour party policy on the Royal Air Force, I want to bring the House back down to earth and consider what is happening in the RAF at the moment, particularly as it affects personnel and training.
This debate marks the culmination of a year's association between myself and the RAF. At the beginning of last year my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) asked me if I would like to take part in a pilot experimental scheme—no pun intended—for the armed forces because I have three RAF stations in my constituency. This scheme was to be similar to the very successful industry and Parliament scheme which benefited many hon. Members. I readily agreed to take part and enjoyed a most fascinating and illuminating year. I was able to participate in many flying exercises, so much so that I have been suffering withdrawal symptoms for some weeks because I am missing my flying experience.
I want to place on record my gratitude for the positive and welcoming reception which I received throughout my tour at several RAF stations. I want to convey my thanks to the RAF and MOD personnel who allowed me to take part in the scheme.
All my many visits were extremely valuable and pointed to matters which we should really consider in this debate,
1074
to some of which my hon. Friend the Minister referred in his opening address, and which I hope to bring out by reflecting on the stations which I visited during my year.
The major theme of my year with the Air Force was the training of officers and aircrew, and we began by visiting the officer and aircrew selection centre at Biggin Hill. From that visit a number of conclusions are possible.
First, my hon. Friend is right to conclude that at the present time recruitment is not a major problem. There appear to be many very capable, eager young men and women who want to join the Royal Air Force. But the demographic change which we all know is coming in the future will cause problems if there continues to be a haemorrhage of trained officer aircrew into civil airlines. Indeed, there is civil airline competition in recruitment at the present time.
The selection procedures are extremely good. There is a very tough assessment lasting two and a half to three days, and to choose someone who will be capable of reacting to the pressure and demands of fast jet flying is not easy in such a short time. The Royal Air Force has an enormous investment in a huge training machine, but the steady flow of a sausage machine of new recruits—that is the only way that one can describe it—is not easy to keep in balance. The Biggin Hill centre is to move to Cranwell. I cannot see from my visit that this will present a problem. There may, indeed, be some benefits of familiarisation of those seeking entry from going to Cranwell, as anyone who visits Cranwell will not escape an immediate impression of the atmosphere of discipline. It was very similar to that which I experienced when I was recruited to the Metropolitan police in 1965, and it was most impressive.
At Cranwell, new officers undertake what is only an 18-week course. It is very intensive, tough, physical and mentally demanding. It is to the credit of the recruits and of the instructors that, after that 18-week course, some three quarters of the recruits leave Cranwell as officers. One has to comment, however, that of late there has been a higher failure rate of some females following a purple patch. I will return to the question of the role of women in the RAF later.
The quality of training of fast jet pilots was first demonstrated at Linton-on-Ouse, which is an officer aircrew training station within my constituency. As is well known, the present Jet Provost is soon to be replaced by the Tucano, and both instructors and students are very much looking forward to flying the new aircraft. The Jet Provost has served the RAF very well for many years and it is something of a tragedy and a cause of great sadness that yesterday, unfortunately, a Jet Provost crashed in my constituency. Obviously, it is too early to say what the outcome of the board of inquiry's investigations will be but, having spoken to the station commander last evening on the telephone, my impression is that the advice given to young trainee officers has been carried out.
The question of how we should instruct young pilots was brought home very forcefully at the Linton visit. A very clear balance between new pilot officers—which hon. Members who have been in the Royal Air Force will know are nicknamed "creamies"—and ex-front line pilots and specialist aircrew seems to work extremely well.
Similarly, the station at Finningley, near Doncaster, like that at Linton-on-Ouse, is very well run, but there is more mixed training. Navigation training particularly appears to be moving forward briskly into the modern era,

1075
and there is a mood of enthusiasm, but resources are needed if we are to train navigators to get used to low flying in the fast jet world of the future.
I particularly recall a training sortie in one of the Dominies which brought home how physically demanding flying, even in such an aged aircraft, can be. There is some sadness that the Dominie cannot be replaced, but with refurbishment and an avionics update, which I think will come in the months ahead, it should be capable of many more years of service.
A question arises between Linton and Finningley about contractorisation. Contractorisation has been very successfully implemented at Linton. There is a suggestion that it be brought in at Finningley, but it is my impression that there will be difficulties in this. This is, first, because of the wide diversity of tasks and types of aircraft used at Finningley, as opposed to the single aircraft use of Provost at Linton, but, secondly, because of the availability of engineers to carry out the contractorisation tasks.
There is contractorisation at Shawbury. My impression was that this was not quite so successful as at Linton. I feel sure that we have the right approach in attempting to contractorise training stations, but there is no formal programme for the training of civilian engineers. Generally the service is good but that is the problem— training civil engineers in the future who are used to these planes. The majority of the staff recruited are, of course, former Air Force personnel.
There is also an increasing problem of loss of flexibility on stations caused by reducing the number of airmen available for such duties as ensuring the security of the station. This is a particular problem at the present time because of the prospect of terrorist attack, and certainly at some RAF stations we have seen this. It is important for us to bear in mind the problems which the reduction in the number of airmen on some of these stations causes for the station commander.
At Shawbury, which is another mixed training station, the number of women being attracted into the officer grade came home very forcefully. particularly in the air traffic section. The training officers have developed a host of desk-top training aids to improve the training of air traffic controllers, but most of the male traffic control officers are not pursuing their first choice and because of this some of the trainees tend to struggle towards the end of their course. The girls seem to make extremely good traffic controllers, but there is a problem here too in that many of them take only a five-year contract and there are potential losses to civilian life and civilian air traffic control in the future.
Before leaving Shawbury, I must also mention the initial helicopter training carried out there. I found a very enthusiastic team. Many of the helicopter pilots are not following their first choice either, yet they seem to have responded very enthusiastically and favourably to helicopter flying. I must say that, of the several hours of flying with the RAF that I was able to enjoy last year, I particularly enjoyed those spent helicopter flying. I will leave for a moment the question of the aircraft we use, except to say that the Wessex is getting old and that the question of replacement will have to be addressed at some stage.
We then moved to Valley in Anglesey, which is a very active station embracing both training and the strike command role. It was at Valley that a number of features of life in the Royal Air Force caine across very strongly.
1076
First, there are the social pressures on officers and airmen serving in such a remote part of the British Isles and on their wives and families. There are problems with housing and schooling. If parents choose to send their children to school off camp, they find that 50 per cent. of the teaching locally is in Welsh. Compared with some of the issues that we have been discussing in this debate, these are minor problems, but they are very important to the personnel, and solving them contributes to morale. At Valley I had an opportunity to fly in the Hawk, which, of course, is the aircraft used by the Red Arrows. This is a much better aeroplane, and by this stage students are beginning to look like real pilots.
That experience brought home to me the other side of the problem of low flying. In addition to the person sitting in the cockpit, there are those on the ground who have to put up with the noise and the experience generally. Low flying is a particular problem in my constituency, as my hon. Friends know. The accident yesterday to which I referred did not involve low flying, yet the immediate reaction locally related to the problem that low flying creates and to the feeling of danger of many local residents. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. He handled the matter with great sensitivity. I hope that his comments about the way in which the Ministry is trying to keep the amount of low flying across these islands to the absolute minimum will be much publicised.
My hon. Friend referred to the low-flying exercises that take place in north America—the red flag and maple flag exercises. Also, there is now increased weapons training in Sardinia and Cyprus, as well as three to four weeks' operational low-flying training—down to 100 ft—at Goose Bay in Canada. I must ask my hon. Friend to do everything he can to ensure that these exercises overseas are exploited to the maximum extent so that we may keep to the absolute minimum the amount of low flying over rural areas in the north of England and over other parts of the United Kingdom.
On flight safety, the fact that for quite some years no civilian has been killed as a result of an RAF accident is significant. However, I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend will be able to refer to that matter. The opportunity of this debate should be taken to show that people's worry about flight safety is not just ignored but that proper attention is being paid to their genuine concern.
I want to move from the fast jet world, which I experienced at Valley, back to the helicopter world. At Valley we have rescue helicopters, and the rescue helicopter training takes place there. I will not go into detail about the excitement that I enjoyed in one of these helicopters. Certainly, any hon. Member visiting RAF Valley and experiencing helicopter flight for the first time would enjoy it. The helicopter rescue service of the RAF provides considerable aid to civilian life, not just in the event of tragedies such as happened at Lockerbie and on the Ml, but also in mountain rescue and sometimes, sadly, in the event of industrial disputes. We ask a lot of the crew concerned, and a debate such as this gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to them for the work that they do.
The main helicopter base is at Odiham, where the Chinooks and Pumas are based. They have a major role in troop support with the British Army of the Rhine. Increasingly, troop movements have to take place at night, and the development of night vision goggles is helping to create a strong tactical capability in helicopter night flying.

1077
It is also worth bearing in mind that the Chinook helicopter is 20 years old. Of course, not all the Chinooks that the Royal Air Force possesses are actually that age, but a number are showing signs of wear, and the cost of keeping them fully serviceable is substantial.
The engineering workshops at Odiham are most impressive. The quality of the work, the painstaking way in which these aircraft are serviced,—the most minor blemishes being put right—is most impressive. The helicopter pilots at Odiham are very much in love with the Chinook as a flexible work horse which is very enjoyable to fly.
The next visit I made was to several of our stations in West Germany. It was at this point that the whole purpose, the whole raison d'etre, of the year came home very strongly. It was important in two major respects: first, it gave a complete picture of what RAF life and training are about; secondly, it changed my perspective of the strategic role of the Royal Air Force in Europe.
Let me turn to the complete picture on training. We invest £3 million or so in every fast jet pilot. The fruits of that investment are clearly visible in the competence, enthusiastic, very dedicated and professional approach of the young officers. The transition from the raw recruits I had seen at Biggin Hill to the pilots in the front line—many of them on their first tour—was quite remarkable. I began to appreciate the RAF's role in providing about one fifth of one of the two Tactical Air Command resources in West Germany, and in providing air support for the Northern Army Group and its defence of the northern half of the Federal Republic.
It is important to remember the United Kingdom's joint role, with France and the United States, in policing West German air space in peacetime—to which, actually, the French no longer contribute actively. These first-tour young officer pilots were fully prepared to meet all the challenges thrown at them. Both mentally and physically, what we ask of them is very demanding, yet what I saw was a very tightly knit, disciplined unit.
What I really want to get across to the House, and place on record, is that, having spent many hours in the air trying to come to terms with the physical demands of fast jet flying, I realised in West Germany that that is only half of the story, that if ever these young officers are required to take part in active warfare they will face the problems of chemical attack. From what I saw there, I believe that we must have the best protective clothing and the best available protection arrangements against chemical warfare of any air force in the western world. It is difficult to describe because of its physically demanding nature, but the thought of having to fly in a cockpit in a rubber suit with one's helmet, "G" kit and all the rest on top is not attractive. However, the way in which the young men have been trained is most commendable, as is their willingness and enthusiasm to fulfil their task.
I detected some elements of public opinion in West Germany that do not completely welcome our presence there. Issues such as national sovereignty, the threat of foreign troops and noisy and dirty activity, particularly that associated with the Tornado, are becoming increasingly unpopular.
In the light of recent statements by President Gorbachev and a clear willingness to take part in serious
1078
discussions about reductions in defence expenditure and capability at all levels, it is far too early for us to think of major changes in our role in the defence of western Europe or, more particularly, scaling down our Air Force operations.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said recently that he did not want any reductions in aircraft at present. Our numbers are not that great and we must ask how far we can depend upon others. We must also bear in mind our other responsibilities throughout the world which can arise at any time, as we saw only a few years ago in the Falklands.
It is vital to maintain the best trained and equipped Air Force. I welcome my hon. Friend's statement today about the European fighter aircraft. Having seen the Phantoms and Jaguars in West Germany, I know how much pilots there will welcome the new aircraft in years to come. New weapons and aircraft have given the RAF a real cutting edge, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's announcement today will help to ensure that that continues to be the case.
One or two other problems were highlighted during my German visit, which may not be referred to in much detail today. First, there are problems for the Rapier squadrons of the air defence regiment. The four-month requirement means that many of those men are having to serve four months out of twelve in the Falklands and that is placing great strain on them and their families. No one has a solution to that, but today's debate provides an opportunity for their voice to be heard.
There is also concern throughout the Air Force at the general gradual erosion of the quality of service life. As the financial quest for efficiency and value for money is pursued, for which clear support exists within the Air Force, morale, motivation and an esprit de corps remain vital. The removal of perceived benefits and the imposition of what appear to be penny-pinching changes, such as a reduction in the number of leave warrants, charging for food on detachments, the abolition of home-to-duty travel allowances, are not popular. It would be regrettable if, in pursuit of efficiency, there was a reduction in effectiveness.
My hon. Friend referred to the future role of women in the RAF. The studies into whether we can have women pilots are extremely worthwhile. I have already mentioned the potential future problem of demographic change. I detected within the officer aircrew a willingness to see women piloting multi-engined aircraft, if not our fast jets.
There has been over 40 years of peace in Europe, the longest period of peace for six centuries. To maintain that peace in the future, we need a properly equipped Air Force as well as other armed forces. We also need young men and women who are committed to their task. My experience of the past year shows that the RAF hierarchy has confidence in its young men and women, many of whom were left to brief me in their own way, without relying on their superiors. That is a tribute to them, their training and their managers.
I place on record my thanks to those who helped me to take part in the year. Any hon. Member who has an opportunity to take part in the scheme should do so. I do not usually find defence matters easy to grasp, but I hope that in my few remarks I have demonstrated the worth of the scheme, and I commend it to other hon. Members.
6.25 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: In a way, the main point that I wanted to make has already been made. Listening to the speeches so far I have heard no reference to the enemy. The debate has been about important questions such as uniforms, allowances and low flying. As an old RAF man I enjoyed the latter very much, but it was dangerous when I learned it. But we must not forget that what we are discussing today is part of a defence budget of nearly £20 billion, which comes out of taxpayers' money. That is £344 per person, and for a family of four more than £1,000 a year. That runs at the rate of £37,000 a minute. During my speech, however brief it is, a substantial sum of public money will be spent. That money must be justified in terms of its absolute necessity.
Strangely enough, my mind goes back 52 years ago this week when, as a boy of 12, I sat in the Gallery and heard the then Mr. Churchill speak on the Service Estimates. I looked it up, and found that he said:
"It is admitted and well known that we are in times of great danger—grievous danger. Our Air Force is far from giving us security; our small Army is more of an Imperial police than a military force; munitions factories are almost in their infancy of reconstruction".—[Official Report, 11 March 1937; Vol. 321, c. 1398]
When I heard that, Winston Churchill was sitting where the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) usually sits. There was a sense of urgency. In Churchill's view—not a view shared by the then Government—those estimates were needed because there was a danger of attack.
Thirty-two years ago this week I made my maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench as the number two Opposition spokesman on the Air Force. I looked up that speech and at that time all the debate was about a Soviet attack—whether there would be one and whether we would use the deterrent. I shall not do as Harold Wilson used to do and quote my own speeches, but I asked the Minister what would happen if there was a Soviet attack with conventional weapons. I asked whether we would use nuclear weapons and whether the deterrent would be used. At that time Duncan Sandys was talking about massive retaliation. I have forgotten the exact phrase that reflected the current view.
Now we have to ask ourselves, how many hon. Members believe that there is a military threat? What is happening? Although the Minister said as an aside that we must keep the deterrent, he did not think it necessary to elaborate. I am not complaining, quite the opposite; I am almost congratulating him for not warning the nation of the military threat.
I speak today not because I claim any special knowledge of the modern Royal Air Force, or anything of the kind, but because what has happened to the public's perception of defence is hardly ever alluded to in the House. People do not believe that there is a Soviet military threat. I know that the Prime Minister says that the Russians have changed because they have decided to adopt her philosophy of market forces and because they are frightened by Polaris.
I never believed—although I must confess that I was struck by the anxiety at the time—the idea that, 40 years ago, the Red army was planning to move into western Europe. It lost 20 million people in the war, and at that time we were allies. If hon. Members want to read powerful speeches in support of the Soviet Union, they
1080
should read Churchill's speeches during the war. At that time we were pouring weapons into Russia, which lost a large number of people. Until the day I die, I shall never forget that the liberties we enjoy today were in part won by Russian blood shed in defence of their own territory.
The Soviet threat is a central question in all defence debates. Of course, if one believes that there is a Soviet threat, one must retain military hardware. During my election campaign in Chesterfield I met a woman who was possibly the only woman who has totally silenced me. She said "I shall vote for you, Mr. Benn, because of your policy on nuclear weapons." I asked her why she felt as she did. She said, "We had to fight the Russians in the last war and we may have to fight them in the next." My God, there has been some successful propaganda if a woman of my age— in her mid-60s—who has been through it all as I have does not know who were our allies and who our enemits in the last war.
I have never followed the details of disarmament negotiations—one would have to be an armchair military expert to do so, and I have never aspired to that—but I tell the House, and hon. Members may read this in the pages of Hansard, that the reason for Gorbachev's credibility is not that he has come up with a few disarmament proposals but that he has said to the world, "I want to disarm to improve the living standards of Russians." People everywhere in the world said, "He is right. That is what we want to do. We do not want to be bankrupted by this enormous defence burden in America or Britain; we want to improve standards of living for our people."
I do not usually go by polls, but it is undoubtedly true that over the years Gorbachev's policies have been much more popular than those of Reagan or Bush because, in a strange way, he speaks for an overwhelming majority of people in the world who want less spent on weapons. They want that first because weapons are dangerous and secondly because more people will die of AIDS, cancer and heart disease in the next few years than from the Red army landing and taking over the Speaker's job.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's eulogy about Mr. Gorbachev, but was it not Mr. Gromyko who said that, although Mr. Gobachev had a kindly face, he had iron teeth? Do not those words mean something?
Mr. Benn: If we are going to look back, we should look at the American eagle which has a bunch of arrows in one claw and an olive branch—the symbol of peace—in the other. Every super-power has armed forces and diplomatic policies, and so have we. However, does the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) believe that there is a Soviet military threat and that, had we not had nuclear weapons, the Red army would have taken over West Germany and Italy, come to Britain, dealt with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), and taken on the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in Northern Ireland? I do not think that people believe that any more.
I do not wish to take too long—although there does not seem to be such a strong sense of military danger that the Benches are crowded with people waiting to speak.
We cannot afford the level of defence expenditure that we are carrying—it is too heavy a burden. For example, Japan's expenditure on defence is 1 or 2 per cent. of its GDP, whereas ours is 5 or 6 per cent. No wonder the

1081
world's shops are full of Japanese videos, cameras and motor bikes. Japan spends its money on civil development, whereas we sell missiles to any sheikh who will buy them and to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war.
The majority of our research and development goes into military weapons, which is damaging to the British economy and explains why we have not been able to keep abreast of other countries. As a percentage of GDP, we spend about six times as much as West Germany on military R and D. That military budget diverts resources from civil to military production. It also diverts resources from the Third world.
We are all much moved by Band Aid and Comic Relief but we should remember that 15 million babies die from diarrhoea every year, which could be cured for the cost of just one day's expenditure of our defence budget. That is not justifiable and it is no wonder that the Churches have begun to come out in a political way. On such a simple moral issue they understand the choice involved.
If we want to deal with super-powers, nuclear weapons are unnecessary. The Vietnamese did not have nuclear weapons but they managed to get the Americans out. The Afghans did not have nuclear weapons but they got the Russians out. It is strange that those countries with nuclear weapons are rendered impotent by them. The Americans could not use them in Korea or Vietnam and the Russians could not use them in Afghanistan. Therefore, the old argument that we must have the bomb and then no one will attack, and that there is no other way to get rid of enemies, is no longer true.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a powerful speech which explored the military and industrial complex. If I read The Observer correctly, 1,400 civil servants moved from Government Ministries into defence industries during the course of five years. I am not suggesting that there was corruption, but I think it is unhealthy that someone can work in a Department with a contractual relationship with a company and then retire into it. He could be tempted to assist the company in the hope that it will later employ him. That is an unhealthy relationship.
The people who continue to persuade us that there is a Soviet military threat are those making a huge profit out of the arms budget. One of the earliest demands of the Labour movement was to nationalise the arms industry because it made a lot of money out of weapons and therefore had a vested interest in maintaining that the threat existed. Of all the contracts for aerospace, 45 per cent. are for the military and 20 per cent. of all electronics business is for defence. Many people would be absolutely lost if sufficient fear of the Soviet Union was not built up to justify the weapons programme.
The same is true of the media. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda referred to Lord Chalfont, who has been appointed to the Independent Broadcasting Authority. He has defence connections.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was the Abingdon Corporation.
Mr. Bean: My hon. Friend is more knowledgeable than me. People in the media—not just defence correspondents —should not have one foot in both camps. Some of the figures that we are given are totally fraudulent. I shall
1082
never forget that, when I was in the Cabinet, one year we were given the balance of forces in the draft defence White Paper by Fred Mulley. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) pointed out that the French were not included, as if we did not know which side, in the event of a war, the French would be on. The defence Department did not want us to include the French and said they were not part of the military wing of NATO. The balance-of-force argument was used to maintain the fear of attacks and thus justify the large defence budget.
The cold war presupposes the presence of permanent American forces in Britain. Mr. Attlee invited the Americans to this country saying that they were on a training mission. He did not inform the House that they were coming on a permanent basis. They live here, for example, at RAF Greenham common, which is not described as an American base but is covered by the RAF.
Has the House ever discussed or considered whether it wants a foreign nation—however friendly—to have permanent bases here? I do not. I am not hostile to the United States—I have many links with it and much admiration for it. However, I do not believe that America should have troops here which are commanded by a President whom we do not elect and cannot remove.
I watched the funny exchanges between Dukakis and Bush during the presidential elections because I knew that one of them would command the biggest assembly of United States nuclear weapons outside the United States— there may be a comparable arsenal maintained in Japan. Do we want that? Would we not rather look forward to the day when Russian troops will move out of eastern Europe, the American troops will move out of Britain, and the British troops will move out of West Germany?
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that we must retain the deterrent, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that she wants to keep nuclear weapons and does not envisage a time when they will be given up. That is particularly relevant and important to the Labour party at present, because we are engaged in a policy review. What attitude should we adopt? I have no inside knowledge and cannot say what will be the outcome, although I read The Guardian to find out what is going on. All that I would say to those who yearn for nuclear weapons is this. It used to be said that they bought a place at the top table, but they do not. That has never been the case at Soviet-American disarmament negotiations. It has been said that nuclear weapons will buy a place on the hot line, but it is not necessary to have a bomb to make a telephone call to the White House or to Red square.
My old permanent secretary—now dead; a kindly man —once said that we might need them if the French had them, as if a nuclear threat might come from some new Napoleon in Paris. But Chernobyl changed everything. Everyone is very slow to take account of what has happened. Chernobyl showed that if we dropped a nuclear weapon on the Soviet Union the radioactive clouds would drift back and damage us. Likewise, if the Soviets dropped nuclear weapons here the cloud would drift back to them.
Nuclear weapons are unusable. If the Labour party said that it wanted to keep them, the next question would be "Are you going to use them?" Saying that we will keep nuclear weapons opens up far more questions than adopting the line of consistent policy on which all Labour Members were elected in the last general election. One of the reasons why there has been such a good response to Gorbachev is that he has said that the Soviets want to get

1083
rid of nuclear weapons by the year 2000. Like it or not, people believe him. I believe him, because it cannot be in anyone's interest to have weapons that would destroy us.
A pro-nuclear defence policy also presupposes the permanent division of Europe. As I said in a recent debate on the Common Market, I have lived through many different types of Europe. I did not live through the period before the first world war, when all the heads of state were related to Queen Victoria, but I remember the inter-war Europe, the wartime Europe and the post-war Europe. Now Europe is changing again, and people want a peaceful Europe. The question that is then posed is what would be the role of the defence forces in such circumstances.
The time has come to open up for public examination a different defence and foreign policy for Britain, I hope without personal animosity or the normal vulgarity of exchange between political parties. I say that because I believe that many people are feeling their way towards such a move. They do not particularly like the argument based on whether, if we have the bomb, we will use it, because they know that we have not really got an independent bomb. No one honestly believes that if the Prime Minister pressed a button the bomb would go anywhere, because they know that it would go nowhere without being guided to its target by the American satellite intelligence system. We have had about nine general elections about whether we should retain what we have never had.
In any serious defence debate that does not consist simply of point-scoring, one of the options on the agenda —which I should like to be an option from our Front Bench when the policy review is over—is a non-nuclear defence policy: a policy wholly committed to the idea that nuclear weapons are unusable, that we cannot afford them, that we do not need them, that others are giving them up and that we should do the same.
Another option is that we should move away from a bloc system towards a more non-aligned policy. I remember raising that at the Labour party national executive some time ago, and I can tell the House that it was not very popular. Then I went to Moscow a year ago and discovered that the Vatican goes to the non-aligned conference. If the Pope can go, I see no reason why we should not at least send an observer. Papandreou, a member of NATO, goes to those conferences as well. I believe that non-alignment is the way forward—a move away from the military blocs in Europe and with all foreign troops removed, including the Russian troops in eastern Europe. I am sure that the eastern countries would like that, and that the Russians will have to do it because they cannot afford to keep their troops there.
We must move towards a European security pact, which would be a better guarantee of peace in Europe than our aircraft doing their low-flying exercises, losing pilots and preparing to fight a war that is inconceivable. We must divert the resources from military to civil use. The Prime Minister has said that she is a Green, and I am not one of those who have laughed at that, because what interests me is not what she says she is but why she feels that she has to say it. She feels that she has to say it because she knows that the majority of opinion in Britain is now taking environmental questions seriously. The pollsters, Bernard Ingham, and everyone who is in touch with real life tell her that she must he a Green, and I consider it central to the
1084
Green argument that we should not have nuclear weapons and should not build on the idea that one day we might use them.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to the debate. I hope that, without a vote or the normal exchanges between the Front Benches and others, we may at least be able to explore the option that I have described. It is no more absurd than any other argument that has been put forward. They laughed at Churchill for saying that Hitler would attack. People have always laughed at those who are that little bit ahead of the argument. The world has changed completely since the days of the formation of NATO and the Warsaw pact, the Berlin airlift, the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet troops going into Hungary. This is a new world, and if we are seriously to justify taxing our constituents such an enormous sum we must explain our assessment of the threat.
I do not believe that a military threat exists. I think that the real threat is different, and is posed by the neglect of our environment, the pressing dangers to the planet and people dying of starvation in the Third world for the lack of simple things that we could easily provide with five minutes' worth of our military budget. That is what we should be discussing in defence debates. The RAF, which flies so many aircraft and carries so many people, is just as capable of conducting relief missions as of carrying nuclear weapons that would lead to the destruction of humanity.
6.46 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. It will not surprise the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to hear that I do not agree with much of what he said. Perhaps my experience as a young airman in the years immediately after the war, when squadrons were instructed by the then Labour Government to fly in combat zones unarmed, taught me lessons that I shall never forget. I did not think that I would live to hear people suggest again that our military should be put into a position in which it could not defend itself.
Having listened to what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, I should declare an interest. I have been a member of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve for many years, and I am also secretary of the Royal Air Force parliamentary group. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Chesterfield wearing his RAF parliamentary group tie.
Let me say for the benefit of the hon. Member for Rhondda that after the squeeze of the Labour Budgets in 1974 and early 1975 I have never taken a penny in pay from the RAF Volunteer Reserve budget. The only remittance that I receive—because I have been unable to stop it—is the cheque sent to me annually for the upkeep of my uniform. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that that compromises me. It is less than £10.
Mr. Rogers: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his military experience. I am sorry that he does not have a pension that extends to buying him a pair of trousers. As another ex-service man, I am extremely concerned about defence, and the hon. Gentleman and I have many interests in common.
Mr. Walker: Let me make it clear at the outset that I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's integrity. I may disagree with him on matters of policy and detail, but I have never doubted the integrity and loyalty of the British working class. Contrary to what is often said by Opposition Members, the working classes are well represented on the Government Benches. We are not all part of the public school, old boy network. One of the great advantages of being in the Royal Air Force is that it recruits from all socio-economic groups. The only requirement is the ability to do the job. That has always been the RAF's great strength.
The kilt I am wearing is not my normal one, but it has a history. RAF Edzell asked a kilt manufacturer in my constituency to design and manufacture a tartan for the Royal Air Force. I am wearing the result. Anyone who has studied the history of the RAF, and particularly of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, knows that just before the 1939 war the then monarch gave the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in Scotland the right to wear the Douglas tartan kilt with their mess kits and as part of the uniform of their pipe bands.
As you, Mr. Speaker, witness the way in which the Scots behave in this House, you will have realised that we are rather sectional, with our clans. Because of the history of the Douglas and other clans, few Scots who are not members of the Douglas clan are willing to wear its tartan. It is to do not with the Douglas clan being one thing or another but with our being tribal in our allegiances. It goes back a long way. If we did not have common hates—and I shall not say what those are—our clans would probably go on hating each other even today. The people of my constituency, for example, think that they have little in common with those living in the west central industrial belt of Scotland.
The idea of a tartan that would not contravene Scotland's historical tartans is a good one. It is interesting to note that the Scotsman who designed the tartan and had it manufactured is himself an ex-wartime RAF pilot—so the tartan has all the right connections. That is why I wear it. I hope that the Royal Air Force will at some future date encourage, if not authorise, those who wish to wear the Air Force tartan to do so.
Much has been said in the debate about low-flying aircraft, and I recall what was said during defence questions on one occasion by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), when he reminded the House that if Reichmarschall Goering, who was in charge of the Luftwaffe, had known about radar and of the advantages of flying low and fast, his Lufftwaffe would never have operated in the way that it did in the Battle of Britain. Its planes assembled in great numbers at high altitudes, where our radar was able to identify them and to position our fighter aircraft at critical points, at critical times. If Goering had known about radar and about the advantages of flying low and fast, the probability is that the Battle of Britain would have ended very differently.
It is also worth remembering the experience of 1940, when the Royal Air Force's bomber squadrons were required to go into battle, having been brought up on the kind of doctrine about which we heard earlier—that the world is peaceful, nobody wants to attack, and that it does not matter if one is not prepared for war. We were most unprepared for war, and our bomber crews went into battle flying Fairey-Battle and Bristol Blenheim aircraft. I remind the House that those gallant young men attacked
1086
heavily defended targets. I emphasise also that the posthumous award of a Victoria Cross is no substitute for the ability to attack and destroy heavily defended targets, survive, and return to one's base. That is why today's air crews, whose responsibility is to strike and attack, are required to fly low and fast.
My constituents are well aware of my views. As long as there is a perceived threat—and I believe that there is—it is essential that our pilots are capable of flying low and fast, so that they will survive in the hostile environment of heavily defended targets. They must reach those targets, take them out, and then return to base.
As I have mentioned during Question Time, on seven occasions the West German Government have asked the Royal Air Force to reduce the number of its low-flying sorties—so much so, I believe, that any further reduction would jeopardise our crews' ability to undertake their allotted tasks. The West Germans may be prepared to accept the reduction in morale and the problems that West Germany's air force currently faces, but I hope that our Government will never accept a similar situation. If the West Germans cannot be reminded of the reasons why the RAF operates in their country, serious consideration should be given to moving those forces elsewhere.
It is also important to emphasise that modern attack aircraft must be capable of attacking targets that are a long distance ahead of them—a stand-off capability. It is important to uprate that capability so that Tornado aircraft, which will be at the forefront of our attack aircraft well into the next century, have the ability to destroy targets yet not have to overfly them. Again, that is important for their survival.
I turn to another area of activity that is linked in an odd way to low flying in my constituency. It is also directly linked to activities in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). It will not surprise Ministers if I talk about search and rescue helicopters. When my constituents complain about noisy or fast jets interrupting their lives, I remind them that the yellow helicopters we welcome to my constituency in most weekends come from the same Air Force, and that they are there to support fast jet operations and other RAF activities. More than 80 per cent. of rescues are of civilians.
We have every reason to be thankful for the presence of those yellow helicopters. I was very pleased to help the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East in battling to retain the Leuchars search and rescue helicopter flight. The courage, professionalism and splendid example shown by the crews of those helicopters does more for RAF public relations than any other activity, and substantially offsets the constituency problems I encounter because of low-flying aircraft. I look forward to the day, in the not-too-distant future, when Wessex helicopters stationed throughout the United Kingdom, which have done a splendid job and are marvellous aircraft, are replaced by Sea Kings, with their greater capability.
Can Ministers tell us about the current position of the Tucano and when we can expect to see it in service at the flying training units? Although the Jet Provost is doing a splendid job, it is getting rather long in the tooth and we need the Tucano as soon as possible. I have no doubt that when it comes into service the Tucano will be welcomed by the pilots and the instructors who have to fly it as well as by the students. It is a fine aeroplane and I have always believed that it was good to train pilots ab initio on propellor-driven aircraft. Hon. Members who are pilots

1087
will understand why I said that. The co-ordination required and the torque one has with propellors means that, at a very early stage, one can sort out those who will become pilots from those who will not make it.
There have been comments about the radar on the Tornado F3, but I do not associate myself with the view that our Tornados, even with their present radar, cannot do their job. Anyone who has had anything to do with service aircraft knows that it is remarkable if one can ever get everything working 100 per cent. I hope that Ministers will be able to tell me that the F3 radar is capable of carrying out the bulk of its duties and activities.
What progress has been made in getting another airborne warning and communications system aircraft? Although we have ordered the minimum number, there is a need for an additional one, if not two, and I should like to think that there has been some budgeting to achieve that. I am pleased that the Harrier GR5 Royal Air Force close ground support aircraft in western Europe is now moving into operational effectiveness, because there is no doubt that that aircraft will improve substantially the capabilities of the squadrons operating Harriers.
I do not take the gloomy view that we have heard from the Opposition about the European fighter aircraft. I am often astonished that we can get agreement among nation states on joint projects because there is no doubt that there is much arm twisting among those with various interests. As we are leading on two of the major components for EFA, I would have been surprised if others had not made an issue of the fact that we also want to lead on radar. That does not mean that I support radar that is not made in the United Kingdom. With Ferranti being in Scotland, it would be astonishing if I were not supporting it. However, I believe that what is more important is that EFA must have the equipment that does the job. That aircraft was designed to fly in a hostile environment where it must be an air superiority aircraft and the last RAF air superiority aircraft was the Hunter. That was a long time ago. We need an air superiority aircraft that can survive in a hostile environment on the western front, if hostilities ever take place there.
I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is an honorary air commodore of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and a former Spitfire pilot in that force, that I would mention his absence and give his apologies. He does not like to miss Royal Air Force debates and, because of his interest, he would like to have been here to defend his Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The air defence units of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force are a credit to the individuals who serve in them and have shown clearly and positively what Conservative Members have always believed, which is that given, the opportunities, there are young men and women who are delighted to offer their services to the nation especially in activities involving the Royal Air Force. I suggest that the comments made about having Volunteer Reserve pilots and aircrew in a much wider range of activities will be welcomed. The Royal Air Force has other activities in the Volunteer Reserve including a public relations flight. I congratulate that flight on the way in which it operates and on the professionalism of the individuals who form the flight. Many are involved in careers in the media, often at a high level, and they do a good job.
It will not surprise Ministers that I want to make some comments about the air cadets. I have been asked by those involved in the air cadets to thank Ministers for their
1088
support. They want me to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) for his interest and support when he was Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, and I have also been asked to thank my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement for his support over many years. Defence Ministers know that the air cadets are an important investment for the nation. Being a member of the air cadets helps young people to take an active interest in demanding and rewarding activities and. more important, it turns them into good citizens and prevents them from becoming involved in activities that we would normally read about in the lurid Sunday papers. The air cadets not only supply the Royal Air Force with recruits, but assist the nation in developing good citizens.
I thank Ministers for the splendid conventional glider fleet that we have. It is the pride of the air cadets and the envy of the world. We look forward to the delivery of the new winches that will make it possible for the conventional glider fleet to operate more effectively and efficiently. We also welcome the introduction of control caravans because it means that we shall have vehicles that can be used effectively on gliding sites.
I cannot, of course, mention gliders without dwelling on the problems of airfields. As the Royal Air Force has shrunk, there have been fewer and fewer airfields from which glider units can operate the volunteer glider schools. This has meant that conventional gliders have fewer airfields out of which they can operate effectively. However, as Ministers know, we also have motor gliders that can operate off hard runways and alongside pilot aircraft, and that has given a flexibility that was missing in the past. The present fleet of motor gliders is over 20 years old and we look forward to the replacements that I have been assured are coming this year. As I have air-tested the preferred option, I can say that we can look forward to many happy years of flying those machines.
The Royal Air Force presentation team does a good job, going round the country telling the general public about the Royal Air Force. We had the good fortune to have it in the House on 15 February and those of us who attended the talk found it instructive and worthwhile. I am planning to bring the team back at a later date so that hon. Members who did not attend the first time will have another opportunity.
One hears much in the media about crowded skies. That is interesting because I have calculated—and this has been confirmed from other sources—that the number of aircraft available to move around United Kingdom skies today is roughly one eighth of the number 30 years ago, so if our skies are crowded today, what were they like 30 years ago? What has happened is that civil aviation has grown because the size of aircraft has grown and they can carry many more passengers. It requires only one accident for many people to be badly hurt or killed. That is why the media talk about crowded skies. Their answer is to control more and more of the airspace. Controlled airspace may be part of the answer, but it is not the whole answer. The more one controls airspace, the more likely one is to increase the hazards for the aircraft in that controlled airspace.
Part of the problem lies in the way in which we run our National Air Traffic Services—as a joint civil and RAF operation. Nothing that I have to say is a criticism of those who operate the service, but effectively it is controlled by

1089
the Civil Aviation Authority which is a regulatory body. That is an odd arrangement, because the regulatory body in effect controls itself.
I should like responsibility for the National Air Traffic Services to be removed from the Civil Aviation Authority. That would leave the CAA free to do its job as a regulatory body well and properly. What I have to say may not be popular with some of my friends in the Royal Air Force, but I think that National Air Traffic Services should be managed and run by the RAF, which is well equipped to do the job. The civil employees could easily be transferred to the Ministery of Defence, and would lose nothing of their present position. We should then have a better managed and better run National Air Traffic Services, which would be to the benefit of all the users.
One of the greatest innovations in the RAF recently has been the way in which financial controls and budgets have been dealt with at station level. We hear much from the Opposition about the misuse of funds, but in recent years massive savings have been achieved because so many of the stations have been given responsibility for their budgets.
The RAF is very dear to my heart. I have worn a light blue uniform for about 43 years. I am proud of the privilege that I have enjoyed. I shall remain as long as the Royal Air Force is prepared to have me, and, as long as I am a Member of the House, I shall certainly defend the interests of the RAF against wholly unfounded attacks.
7.13 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will forgive me for saying that my feelings are always ambivalent when I see him wearing his kilt in the House. I admire his enthusaism for the tartan of the Royal Air Force, but I was brought up in the belief that no gentleman should ever wear a kilt south of Perth. I am also a little concerned to know how far he would seek to promote the wearing of the garment. If it were universally worn, it would give rise to operational difficulties—not least for flying crew called upon to make a rapid response in an emergency.
This is an occasion on which it is customary to acknowledge the dedication of those who serve in the Royal Air Force, to recognise their professionalism and to pay proper and generous tribute to their courage. But general expressions of goodwill are not enough for the dependants of those who die while serving in the Royal Air Force. I have given the Minister advance notice of the case that I mention, which I raise with the permission of my constituent Mrs. Jan Nelson. I do not expect a detailed response this evening, because I propose to write to the Minister in due course, but Mrs. Nelson's case raises a number of issues of general significance and it is proper that the House should consider them on an occasion such as this.
Mrs. Nelson's husband, Squadron Leader David Nelson, died on 9 January this year over the North sea, while piloting a Phantom aircraft from RAF Leuchars. So integrated into the community of north-east Fife are the families of airmen such as Squadron Leader Nelson that such tragedies are felt throughout the whole community. Squadron Leader Nelson was performing a difficult and
1090
demanding task involving split-second judgments and the highest degree of skill. The cause of the accident has not yet been established, but what is certain is that Squadron Leader Nelson worked for long hours, that he was frequently away from home, that he and his family were required to move frequently in response to his postings within the RAF and that he gave 20 years of dedicated, loyal and expert service to the RAF.
I shall not cite specific figures because as far as possible I wish to preserve Mrs. Nelson's privacy. The amount of the gratuity and pension that she and her family will receive depends on a decision as to whether Squadron Leader Nelson's death was attributable to—that is to say arising out of—his service. If his death is deemed attributable, the amounts will be greater. I understand that the question whether a death is attributable can raise difficult issues, and that it is sometimes difficult to reach a firm and valid conclusion. I think that the House will accept that it makes no difference to the requirements of the dependants whether a death is attributable or non-attributable.
I hope that the House and the Minister will respond sympathetically to the proposition that whether a death is attributable or non-attributable the consequences, in terms of the benefits paid to the dependants of the deceased, should be precisely the same.
The pension received by the dependants of Squadron Leader Nelson is based not upon his flying pay—that is to say his total remuneration—but upon his basic pay. Why should that be? If his income included flying pay in recognition of the difficult and demanding tasks that he had to perform, why should not his pension similarly reflect that?
Mrs. Nelson's concern is not for herself but for others. She drew my attention in particular to the position of non-commissioned airmen flying search and rescue operations. If the benefits for Mrs. Nelson and her family are modest, how much less advantageous will be the benefits for the dependants of non-commissioned airmen who may perish?
I hope that the Minister will undertake to reconsider the question of payments in the case of fatalities—the basis on which such payments are made, the amounts that are paid, and particularly the circumstances in which a death may be regarded as attributable or non-attributable.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North mentioned search and rescue operations. As he said, he and I were both engaged, over a fairly lengthy period, in seeking to persuade the Ministry of Defence that the existing search and rescue facilities available at RAF Leuchars should be retained. It should be put on record once again that the success of that campaign owed much to the fact that the community in and around RAF Leuchars—I do not simply mean within the immediate local government boundaries—was completely behind the campaign to retain search and rescue at RAF Leuchars. All the local authorities whose boundaries are adjacent to RAF Leuchars were extremely supportive. The extent of the support within the community had much to do with the decision that was ultimately made.
As we now know the review of search and rescue resulted in the retention at RAF Leuchars—but, from the autumn of this year, only during daylight hours. We know, because the Minister has told us, however, that operations begun in daylight will continue into darkness. It follows therefore that operational training will be required in the

1091
hours of darkness. I ask the Government yet again—I have already asked this in correspondence—if it is necessary to train for operations in darkness when the operations commence in daylight, should not the facility that is available at RAF Leuchars be a 24-hour facility and not be restricted to the daylight hours as is currently proposed?
The unfortunate and unhappy tragedy at Lockerbie has already been referred to. It is a fact that a search and rescue helicopter from RAF Leuchars was summoned in the hours of darkness to fly to Edinburgh to pick up and transport a medical team to Lockerbie to give such assistance as might be appropriate. It is also a fact that the accident involving Squadron Leader Nelson occurred at or about ten past four in the afternoon of 9 January and that the helicopter was scrambled at or about that time. It may or may not have been in darkness, but darkness must have been close at that time on 9 January. When that operation commenced, it must have been clear that it could not be completed in daylight. It was a fortunate operation in that, while Squadron Leader Nelson could not be recovered alive, the navigator of the aircraft was.
Some of us are left with the distinct impression that the redeployment of the search and rescue facilities has more to do with financial considerations than with effective and continuing cover. The Minister still has an opportunity to recant. Confessed sinners are always welcome to return to the bosom of the family. As the hon. Member for Tayside, North pointed out, the contribution made in public relations terms by the operations conducted at RAF Leuchars is absolutely enormous—indeed, it is incalculable. I am referring not only to Fife. North-East but to the whole area in which the aircraft operate. I hope that not only will there be a commitment to maintain the search and rescue facility and that after this autumn it will not be restricted to daylight hours only, but that the nature of the equipment with which the facility is provided will be kept constantly under review so that the brave pilots, navigators and winchmen who operate it will have the best possible and most up-to-date equipment available.
I should like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who is not in his place at present— doubtless for entirely understandable reasons—for his decision to allow a further noise survey in my constituency this spring to meet the concerns of a number of residents of the St. Michaels area. He has done so without prejudice to a further survey that will be carried out after the arrival of the Phantom squadrons next year. I hope that he will ensure that the testing sites will be selected not only in consultation with the environmental health department of the North-East Fife district council, but with some of the residents.
The issues on which I have concentrated thus far are more than parochial—they have a degree of general application, as well as constituency interest. However, I turn now to a matter of possibly broader interest—nuclear modernisation. We know that within the NATO Alliance there is a considerable debate about the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons, and especially about the replacement of Lance. Such modernisation has significance for the Royal Air Force because the replacement of the free-fall nuclear bomb, which is currently carried by the Tornado and Buccaneer aircraft, is under consideration.
There has been some suggestion that the Government have already reached a decision to purchase the SRAM 2 air launch missile to be armed with a new British-designed
1092
warhead and to be carried by Tornado and ultimately by the European fighter aircraft. It is incumbent on all of us —of whatever party—to ask ourselves whether it is justifiable at the moment to proceed with the course upon which the Government appear to have decided to embark.
I ask that question because the seventh report of the Select Committee on Defence, which was ordered to be printed on 28 June 1988, concluded in paragraph 3.28:
"We think it likely, however, that decisions on a stand-off missile will be taken in conjunction with decisions on the other elements of the NATO modernisation package".
Although that conclusion is somewhat Delphic, I associate myself with it because, as I interpret it, if decisions are being taken in relation to other elements of the NATO modernisation package to the effect that it is not necessary to proceed apace with modernisation, decisions of a like nature should be taken on the stand-off missile.
We know that the West German position is increasingly being recognised in NATO and understood both on this side of the Atlantic and the other. We also know—because the Minister of State for the Armed Forces told the House on 10 January 1989 at column 677 of Hansard—that our present free-fall bomb will be effective until the end of the century.
We also know that events are moving with great speed in relation to disarmament. The opening discussions in Vienna this week have been interpreted by The Daily Telegraph today in a leader as demonstrating that:
"Although much hard bargaining clearly lies ahead, it is hard not to agree that a quantum leap has taken place in Soviet Strategic thinking."
In the light of those favourably changing circumstances, we must ask ourselves why we should embark on the modernisation of a particular element of our nuclear capability in that atmosphere. We must also ask ourselves whether the United Kingdom needs to possess a full range of all nuclear options itself. Is it not the case that the range of the stand-off missile, plus the range of the aircraft that will carry it, is similar to the range of weapons eliminated by the INF treaty? Are we not. circumventing the terms of that treaty?
Mention of the European fighter aircraft brings me to the issue of the radar contract for that aircraft, which has already been referred to. Page 24 of the fifth report of the Select Committee on Defence noted that the radar was one of the most important elements of the European fighter aircraft project and one upon which the whole success of the project could depend.
It is clear from some of the speeches that have been made this evening that the delay in placing the contract is causing apprehension to hon. Members of all parties, not least because the development of a radar system necessarily requires a long lead-in time. It appears—I use that phrase because those who are not directly involved can never know the full story—that the United Kingdom's share of the development work will be the same whether the ECR90 or the MSD 2000 is chosen. I confess to a national if not a nationalist bias in favour of the ECR90 because of its location in Edinburgh and because Ferranti is apparently taking the leading part in the project.
The Secretary of State had recently been reported as being in favour of the ECR90. If he is satisfied that it meets the necessary technical criteria, I urge him to press hard for it. It is easy to argue that to have it is the only way of ensuring a continuing European radar technology.
Finally, I turn to the issue of low flying. As a Member of Parliament for a constituency that contains an RAF

1093
base, I accept that low flying is necessary. I do not believe that in the prevailing climate of concern about low flying the Royal Air Force is likely to institute a deliberate or provocative programme of low flying, not least because of the keen interest that the public is taking in the topic and because of the political repercussions.
At the presentation by the Royal Air Force team to which the hon. Member for Tayside, North referred, those of us who attended were given some literature. In a booklet, which curiously does not have an obvious title, there is an article entitled "Low Flying—Case for the Defence." There is no doubt that it makes a persuasive case, but notwithstanding that case great public concern remains. Hon. Members still receive many complaints from members of the public. They cannot all be unfounded and regarded as unreasonable.
The civilian air accident at Lockerbie showed in a stark and possibly alarming way the consequences that may occur in an accident involving an aircraft. I hope that Ministers will accept that there is a duty to ensure that public confidence is maintained.
I hope that the Minister will answer my questions this evening, or at a later stage. I do not expect detailed answers, but these questions will give us a useful point of focus for our consideration of this topic in the debate.
Can the Minister tell us how often in recent years Royal Air Force police have discovered breaches of low-flying regulations? How many Royal Air Force police are engaged in surveillance and what is the allocation of resources for this purpose? What are the consequences for those found to have breached the regulations?
I welcome the deployment of the Skyguard radar system to monitor low flying. I hope that the Minister will tell us precisely when it will be fully operational.
As almost all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have acknowledged, the Royal Air Force plays a difficult and frequently dangerous role in the defence of the United Kingdom and in the fulfilment of our obligations under NATO. There is little doubt that it deserves the support of us all. The debate may highlight differing views of how that role should be fulfilled, but it should also underline that for the most part the House is grateful to the brave men and women who serve in the Royal Air Force. The House salutes them and wishes them well.
7.39 pm
Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) mentioned search and rescue operations carried out by the RAF. Although I wish to endorse all that he said about them, I shall direct the attention of the Minister to the problem of the aging Wessex helicopters. Before I do so, I put on record the admiration of my constituency for the excellent search and rescue work of the privatised service operated by Bristow. There were many critics of the decision of the Fleet Air Arm to move out of Lee-on-Solent and to redeploy at Portland. Many had misgivings about the efficiency of such a service being operated by free enterprise.
In one rescue last summer, the winch man had broken a limb and was in agony but nevertheless carried on to rescue a stricken yachtsman before telling the pilot of the helicopter that he was badly injured. I am sure, from that
1094
case, that the House will realise that the service is being conducted in the highest traditions of search and rescue. Indeed, my local inshore rescue services all tell me that because of the improved technical capability of that service they have a more efficient search and rescue service than was possible with the aging Wessex helicopters.
There have been two examples recently of rescues where the Wessex could not have reached ships and where the Sea King has been deployed. On 22 February, the Secil Angola was in distress 350 milies west of Isla. That was well outside the range of the Wessex helicopter. The Sea King was deployed. On 27 February, in heavy seas, 200 miles off Land's End, a Russian factory ship, the Salantay, had an injured crewman. A helicopter was deployed from RAF Brawdy, as on the previous occasion, to take the injured seaman to hospital in Truro. Those sorties could not have been achieved by a Wessex helicopter. Although more than half the search and rescue helicopters are Sikorsky S 61s or Sea Kings, more than 40 per cent. continue to be Wessex helicopters.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: While I understand the hon. Gentleman's preference for an aircraft other than the Wessex in the circumstances that he has outlined, is he aware that Mr. Hamish McInnes of Glencoe, who is probably responsible for more mountain rescues than anyone else in the United Kingdom, is of the view that the Wessex is to be preferred for certain operations in the mountains, because of its greater manoeuvrability?
Mr. Field: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, as I was not aware of that fact. But I am aware of some technical capabilities of the Sea King, to which I shall be alluding.
Although I do not tend to be technically proficient with regard to helicopters, I know that some of those arguments were considered when the Bristow contract was in the offing for the replacement of the Lee-on-Solent service, in my constituency. The Solent is the busiest stretch of water, and has more problems with pleasure craft in distress than anywhere in the European Community. There have been no operational difficulties. I know that a much larger helicopter has taken over from the Wessex in mountain rescue. That was probably more manoeuvrable for getting near cliffs and working under them. But that problem has not arisen with the Bristow service in the Solent area.
Since the end of the war the responsibility for meeting the United Kingdom's commitment for civil search and rescue has rested variously with the Ministries of Transport, Civil Aviation, Trade, and Trade and Industry, and is now with the Department of Transport. The RAF is responsible for the provision of fixed-wing aircraft, while rotary-winged aircraft are provided by the RAF, the Royal Navy and Her Majesty's Coastguard. These helicopters operate from 12 bases around the United Kingdom. Search and rescue authorities can also rely on support from three helicopters maintained by oil companies on the North sea oilfields, and Norwegian and Belgian Sea Kings, as well as the French navy's Super-Freloms, the Irish army air corps search and rescue helicopters and the United States Air Force's long range HH-55C helicopters, operated from Woodbridge in Suffolk. These helicopters provide support for incidents in the North sea, the strait of Dover and to a lesser extent the south-western approaches to the English channel and the

1095
Irish sea. There is no equivalent support in the north-western approaches and waters of north-west Scotland or in the central English channel.
The report of the civil rescue helicopter coverage working group, which was presented to the United Kingdom search and rescue committee on 1 December 1986, highlighted those areas of helicopter shortfall. Those have been largely overcome by redeployment of helicopters. However, other weaknesses include the reduced capability of the Wessex at night or in low visibility. In addition to this shortcoming, the aging Wessex has other deficiencies when compared with the Sea King, in a lack of automatic flying control systems that are capable of providing an automatic let-down, to bring the aircraft to hover at a safe height. This practice could be dangerous because of variable weather. The Sea King has a fully automatic let-down capability that can put the aircraft to hover safely over a known point without any visual reference by the pilot.
The Wessex has no radar and must rely on another aircraft to detect targets, whereas the Sea King can act autonomously. The endurance of the Wessex is less than half that of the Sea King. The Wessex hull is not designed for water landings, whereas the Sea King has a hull-type lower fuselage. The Sea King could take on board twice as many survivors as the Wessex, and the Wessex is more vulnerable than the Sea King to effects of icing. About 12 Wessex helicopters are currently associated with the search and rescue wing. In view of their age and shortcomings, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at their replacement as soon as possible.
In my opening remarks, I mentioned the private search and rescue service operating in my constituency. I hope that nothing that I have said will detract from the bravery and courage of the men who operate our search and rescue service in the RAF. They fly in some of the most arduous and difficult conditions. Both rescues that I mentioned were at the limits of the helicopters' endurance. They took considerable determination and skill, particularly when the men knew that they had just minutes to return before running out of fuel. Having flown to the northernmost part of the Brent Delta oilfield in a helicopter in a full gale, I know just how unpleasant the experience can be.
I conclude my first contribution to an RAF debate by mentioning an organisation which, although perhaps not specifically under ministerial control or in the jurisdiction of my hon. Friend, does sterling work on behalf of those who have served our country well. I refer to the Royal Air Force Association. As a councillor, I had the pleasure and the privilege of representing Sussex down. I was delighted that, every year, the Dutch air force bombed it with Gouda cheese, in commemoration of the Battle of Britain and getting RAF pilots back to this country.
I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that we have a most active association branch in the Isle of Wight. We have many historical connections with the RAF, and that is a great pleasure to me. I wrote to the Minister's predecessor, asking whether we could have one of the defunct aircraft, which stand outside RAF establishments in this country and are gradually being withdrawn, for display on the Isle of Wight. I hope that, in due course, he will be able to accede to our request.
7.42 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about nuclear weapons deployment. He made the important point that the justification that is traditionally used, certainly by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, that by retaining nuclear weapons we would remain at the international arms negotiation table is hollow. I wholeheartedly accept what he said.
If I am not mistaken, it is now about 26 or 27 years since Britain sat in on international arms negotiations on the deployment of, at that time, atomic weapons. Those negotiations led to the test ban treaty of 1961. Since that time, we have never been involved in negotiations on nuclear weapons. We were not even present at Reykjavik. It was only when former President Reagan decided to take on himself responsibility, in effect, to negotiate away the commitment of western Europe and America to the Trident programme that the Prime Minister hurried to Washington to rectify the position and make her representations. That can never be a justification.
I also share my right hon. Friend's view that the Chernobyl incident has transformed western public opinion on the deployment of nuclear weapons. I would go further and I believe that there is much evidence to prove my case. Within the Labour electorate there may be those who feel strongly about the need to retain nuclear weapons and yet still retain their commitment to the Labour party at election times, but there is a strong unilateralist streak within Conservative Britain. Many people—I am sure that it is millions—who vote not Labour but Conservative have severe reservations about Britain being a nuclear weapons power. They may not express that view publicly, but they certainly express it privately. Many people whom I know socially and who are not of my political persuasion often say that to me. My view is that it would be a grave mistake for my party to change its position on nuclear weapons, if only because of my belief that, in Conservative Britain, there is strong support for the position that the Labour party has historically taken.
I now refer more specifically to matters relating to the RAF procurement and the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about Marconi. Through my membership of the Public Accounts Committee over the past two and a half or three years, I have been most persistent in pressing for investigations to be made by Ministry of Defence police, and certainly by the National Audit Office, into aspects of Marconi's activities relating to RAF, naval and Army procurement. I have tabled innumerable motions drawing attention to leaks that I have received from former and, surprisingly, present employees of Marconi about irregularities in the way that that company handles defence contracts. Over that time, I have tabled innumerable questions, both written and oral, to the Under-Secretary of State about fraud in that company. I know that I cannot breach our Standing Orders by discussing sub judice matters, but the four persons who were arrested last week were but the tip of the iceberg in that company. There will inevitably be more arrests. Other contracts are under investigation by Ministry of Defence police, and other authorities will inevitably become involved. On several occasions, I have drawn the attention of the National Audit Office to irregularities in other contracts, over and above those

1097
which were referred to in the details of prosecution, as set out in the statement made by the authorities last week. Other prosecutions are utterly inevitable.
Mr. Sainsbury: On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will realise that he should be talking about alleged irregularities and alleged fraud.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman may make that statement about those persons who have been charged. It would be only for the courts to decide whether irregularities have taken place in those cases. I am saying what the hon. Gentleman knows to be true, which is that there are irregularities and there have been irregularities in aspects of Marconi's activities. We are not able to say whether those matters have yet resulted in persons being arrested or brought before the courts.
Mr. Rogers: The Minister is absolutely right to say that they are alleged frauds and irregularities. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember that, when we both were members of the Public Accounts Committee, it found that frauds and irregularities were going on, and they were specifically referred to. They were not alleged; they were picked up by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I cannot quite go down the road that my hon. Friend takes, though he is absolutely right. In the appendices to our most recent report on procurement, we drew the attention of the House of Commons and those who read our reports to 21 cases detailing allegations of fraud and, indeed, of company prosecutions that have taken place, only four of which were identified in our report and which have been the subject of Ministry of Defence police or National Audit Office investigations.
One of those items listed in our Public Accounts Committee report was the Dowty Rotol case. Dowty Rotol committed a fraud. Everyone who knows the detail of that case knows that it happened. Mr. Burgess Cooper, the whistleblower, has never been recompensed. The company paid back £400,000 to the Ministry of Defence. That fact is published in the appendices of our last report on defence procurement. Yet the authorities have chosen not to bring an action against that company.
When Ministers finally decided to release that information to me—the Attorney-General informed me in a written reply—I felt so angry about it that I contemplated going outside the House and libelling the company so that it would bring a legal action against me and therefore enable me to test my case in the courts. But I was not given the opportunity to do so as it might have endangered the financial position of whatever medium I chose to publish my remarks. I repeat that Dowty Rotol committed a fraud and should be prosecuted. Everybody who works in the factory in Cheltenham knows it. It is talked about on the shop floor. I will not rest until that company is brought before the courts.
I want to deal in greater depth with Britain's low-flying programme. I have never been against low flying despite my persistent attacks on the Royal Air Force, accusing it of all sorts of irresponsible activities in this regard. I accept the need for a low-flying programme. I have always accepted the need for a greater part of the programme to
1098
take place in the United Kingdom. I have always accepted that there would be low-flying training over my constituency, over Keswick and my own home, where it currently takes place. If ever there was a witness to irregularities in low flying, it is I, when I stand in my garden and watch these people breaking the regulations. When I had a witness to it some 12 or 18 months ago—my secretary—and I reported it to the MOD, I had the usual officer who attends. He gives one the bumf and the glossies that one has grown to expect and nothing happens because these matters are all covered over.
The Minister may suggest that these people are disciplined, but when I tabled a question about that some 18 months ago I found that of thousands of cases of alleged irregularity—pilots who had breached RAF flying regulations—only a handful of people had been disciplined. There may have been one prosecution. I cannot quite remember the figure, but I recall that the very few who were disciplined received a slap on the back of the hand, were told not to do it again and that was the end of the matter.
Most RAF pilots act responsibly in the air. They are doing their job and I accept that they have responsibilities placed on them which they invariably carry out properly. What I do not like is when they tell lies, as they did about the incident outside Keswick last year. Three separate persons, approximately a quarter of a mile apart, witnessed the same incident when two RAF Tornados were flying at right angles to each other and took evasive action. Two of those persons rang me within hours at my office in Keswick and I located and interviewed the third. They all submitted statements. They were in no way connected: they did not even know each other. Yet when I put the matter to a Minister in an attempt to secure an inquiry to find out what happened—if those planes had met, there would have been a major disaster over the town of Keswick with the loss of hundreds of lives—and when it was then put to the authorities I was informed that it had not been reported. We cannot go on like that. They told lies—and those pilots know exactly what I am talking about. They know what happened on that day. The problem is that Ministers believe pilots, not witnesses. In those circumstances, we will never get to the truth.
Many incidents have been reported to me. My office has become a clearing house for people who write to me by the hundred from all over the country, objecting to what is happening in their area. I invariably tell them to write to their own Members of Parliament and ask them to make representations to the Ministry and to Ministers. I hope that most of them do, but I know that before I even advise them to do so that they will get the same old glossies back, justifying the programme and paying no attention to the complaints.
The effect of all this shows up in the statistics. When we ask about the number of people who have made complaints, we find that in certain conditions the number will decrease because if people realise that it is futile to complain they will not report incidents. In my constituency, people have concluded that nothing will happen if they report an incident. Visitors come in the tourist season to the Lake District. They ring my home and speak in anger to my wife about incidents that they have witnessed. My wife has to advise them to report the incidents to their own Member of Parliament or to the MOD. Very often they write later and say that it is a waste of time to report incidents because it means only that some

1099
man will come out from an airbase to interview them and nothing more will happen. People are beginning to lose faith. They feel that complaints are not properly addressed by those who are in a position to deal with them.
For fear that there are those who may think that the Labour party equivocates on these matters and may want to undennine the low-flying programme, I make it clear that I have assurances, and I know, that the next Labour Government will maintain a proper programme, but it will address the real needs of the nation, not the exaggerated requirements of pilots who demand to go in the air with the threat that if they are not given the opportunity to do so they will go to the civil airline companies who are always seeking pilots.
Last year, the whole matter of low-flying took a turn of which many people—certainly those who write to their Member of Parliament—are unaware. One of the things that has struck me, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee and as I have taken a greater interest in low flying, is that while Ministers have been quick after a crash to go on television and refer to the loss of pilot lives, they have never been willing to address the cost to the Exchequer of the loss of a military aircraft. We are not talking about tens of thousands of pounds or even a few millions. When a Tornado goes down we are talking about anything between £16 million and £21 million, depending on how well equipped the aircraft is.
I made representations to the National Audit Office for an inquiry into the cost-effectiveness of the low-flying programme on the basis of information given to me by researchers outside the House which showed that over a period of years we have lost not a few dozen aircraft but hundreds. Much of that information had not come into the public domain. The research evidence that I provided to the National Audit Office subsequently formed the basis on which the NAO decided to carry out an inquiry. The inquiry, announced last year, is still going on. I look forward to the report from that office setting out its views on the programme.
We want to know whether economies can be made, whether the programme is too large and whether it can be done more cheaply with simulators. The public want answers to many questions and they need to know, because it is their money that is being spent. Every time an aircraft goes down it costs the Exchequer money.
In addition to the loss of pilot lives, every time a Tornado drops out of the sky it costs every man, woman and child in Britain 40p. Very high and increasing losses over the last 10 years resulting from low flying have at last become the subject of a full-scale inquiry and investigation by the National Audit Office.
The cost of the losses is staggering. In 10 years in excess of £1,000 million worth of equipment has been lost. Perhaps the Minister will question my figures; I would welcome an intervention. That £1,000 million is the equivalent of £20 per man, woman and child in Britain over the last 10 years.
Within just a 25-mile radius of my home in the Lake District, over £60 million worth of equipment has been lost in the last 19 months. That is a staggering figure. Judging from the response of Ministers, it seems that they are most embarrassed.
Mr. Rogers: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the matter. I am not sure whether he knows it, but at the end of December Jane's Defence Weekly carried a small article which said:
"The cost of air crashes to NATO is illustrated by recent UK Ministry of Defence orders, for 41 additional Tornados to cover Royal Air Force attrition losses. The cost of the purchase totalled £740 million, the equivalent of five new type 23 frigates."
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That intervention will indicate to those who follow our proceedings the amount of taxpayers' money that is being squandered on the present programme.
There was an interesting article in the RAF air safety journal Air Clues last September. I want to read it because in many ways it addresses the point that was made by the Minister. It said:
"On too many occasions recently, aircraft have been lost due to some sort of distraction or loss of concentration near the ground. More importantly., these accidents cause tragic losses of life because it appears the crews were unaware of their predicament".
That suggests to me that pilot error near the ground has been much responsible for the losses that have been experienced by the RAF recently. I understand that that comment was made by a journalist who had interviewed a number of pilots, and that he was reflecting their views.
We hear a lot from the MOD about spreading the load of low flying by opening up new areas for training. The Minister alluded to that when he talked about how the programme was being dispersed throughout the United Kingdom to reduce concentration on areas such as mine. However, in December 1987, again in Air Clues, the head of RAF public relations, who, I presume, is within the precincts of the House tonight, wrote:
"We make great play of the fact that low flying is spread evenly throughout all the available air space in the country. But I really wonder if that is so in practice. I live in Area 12 and it does not take long for the onlooker to realise that there are well trodden paths in the skies above Northumberland."
There the RAF public relations head is telling us that he doubts what the Minister is saying at the Dispatch Box. His experience may be no different from mine. It seems that there are areas of heavy concentration. It might only derive from the fact that while the Minister was talking about a programme of dispersal, at the same time he was doubling the number of sorties. In answers to questions the former Minister, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), admitted that the programme had doubled since 1979. From memory, I think it went up from 75,000 to 160,000 sorties a year. In my language that means that the programme doubled. I understand that that is justified because of the need to prepare a greater number of pilots to use Tornados. One can never justify a dispersal policy if, at the same time, the number of sorties is doubled, especially when the chief RAF public relations officer is making statements such as I have read out.
Let us examine the figures. Despite the fact that I have computer runs a couple of metres long detailing every reported accident since 1980, I believe that many accidents are not reported. With the help of researchers outside the House I have submitted to the National Audit Office information about unreported accidents. All major accidents to aircraft of the three services are supposed to be listed in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" each year. The official definition of a major accident to a. military aircraft is that

1101
"the damage is not repairable on site. The aircraft must be removed to an established depot or civilian repair organisation"
or
"the aircraft is damaged beyond repair or is missing, or, in accordance with current Ministry of Defence policy, is not worth repairing."—[Official Report, 23 May 1988; Vol. 134, c. 39.]
I have details of 31 accidents since 1980 that were not listed in the relevant edition of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", despite evidence that they were not repairable on site and-or were scrapped, or were removed to repair depots or returned to the manufacturers.
What is the current policy of the Ministry of Defence on defining what level of damage is not worth repairing? I give two examples. An RAF Lightning, which crashed on 27 March 1981, took three years to rebuild; a Tornado which crashed on 8 November 1983 was under repair at RAF Honington for four years before it was sent back to the manufacturers. How much did those repairs cost? What level of damage does the MOD regard as uneconomic to repair? An aircraft might cost £5 million, £10 million or £12 million to repair. Who knows what the costs are?
What about accidents to MOD Procurement Executive aircraft? They are not listed in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". The MOD always says that the RAF accident rate is falling but it refuses to give an accident rate for low flying, saying that it cannot be calculated. In reply to a written question the Minister said:
"Time spent at low level is not recorded precisely: it is not, therefore, possible to state the major accident rate for fast jets operating at low level."—[Official Report, 22 December 1988; Vol. 144, c.372.]
On 26 January 1989 the Minister said that the average duration of a low-flying sortie in the United Kingdom— which the MOD has said is 42 minutes—was calculated from statistics on the use of the low flying system. In other words, the Ministry knows how long aircraft fly in the low flying system. If it can calculate an average, it stands to reason that it must know the total number of hours spent at low level; how else are averages calculated? Why, then, can the Ministry not publish an accident rate?
I want to go through the list of aircraft accidents that have not been reported in the annual defence estimates. On 17 April 1980 an RAF Bulldog was involved in a landing accident in Northern Ireland and it went back to the manufacturers for repair. On 18 August 1980 an RAF Hunter was damaged at Laarbruch in the Federal Republic of Germany. It was later written off. On 13 October 1980 a Navy Sea King helicopter was ditched off Falmouth. It was rebuilt at Culdrose. In October 1981 an RAF Buccaneer was damaged and was repaired at St. Athan. In November 1981 an RAF Buccaneer was damaged at Nevada in the United States of America. It was taken back to the United Kingdom and repairs took six months. On 13 November 1981 an RAF Vulcan was damaged at Goose Bay in Canada and was not repaired. On 30 November an RAF Canberra was damaged on landing at Bedford and it was not repaired. On 8 March 1982 an RAF Buccaneer made an emergency landing at Hopsten in the Federal Republic of Germany after an in flight fire. It was never flown again. In 1982 another RAF Bulldog was taken to RAF St. Athan for repair after a heavy landing in the east midlands. On 19 August 1982 a Navy Hunter was taken to Abingdon for repair after a
1102
landing accident at Yeovilton. On 24 October 1982 an RAF Phantom was damaged on landing at Port Stanley, but was shipped back to the RAF St. Athan for repair.
Why were those accidents not published in the annual defence estimates? The Minister has not come to the Dispatch Box with an explanation, so I shall continue my list.
Those accidents cost the taxpayers million of pounds. All we are trying to discover is why the public are not told about what has happened. On 18 January 1983 an Army Scout crashed in Hong Kong. It was repaired by a civilian repair depot. On 20 June 1983 a Navy Sea King was rebuilt at Culdrose after ditching near Portland. On 8 November 1983 an RAF Tornado was damaged on landing at Honington. It was under repair there for nearly four years and then returned to the manufacturers. On 29 February 1984 a Navy Sea King hit wires near Bardufoss in Norway. It was taken back to the United Kingdom for a two-year rebuild. On 5 July 1984 an RAF Jet Provost was damaged on landing at Leeming, but it was not repaired. On 14 September 1984 an RAF Jaguar—an expensive plane costing, I believe, between £12 million and £15 million— hit a tower while low flying. It made an emergency landing at Bedford and was taken from there by road to Shawbury for storage. It has not flown since. Why is that not in the annual defence estimates?
On 26 September 1984 a Navy Sea King was ditched off Falmouth and rebuilt at Fleetlands. In November 1984 an RAF Puma was in an accident at Gutersloh in the Federal Republic of Germany. It was rebuilt by the manufacturers. In July 1985 an RAF Phantom was withdrawn from use after a landing accident at Leuchars. On 14 October 1985 a Navy Sea King ditched off Portugal. It was rebuilt at Fleetlands. On 6 December 1985 an RAF Jet Provost was damaged on landing at Dishforth, but was not repaired. On 2 April 1986 an RAF Harrier was damaged on landing at Wittering and it was not repaired. I presume that it was written off. Those aircraft were paid for with taxpayers' money, so surely we are entitled to know what has happened to them. In order to evaluate the value of the low-flying programme in the United Kingdom the public should be aware of the number of air losses.
On 10 May 1986 a Navy Sea Harrier was damaged on landing in Florida. It was under repair at Yeovilton for a year and was then sent to St. Athan. On 15 July 1986 an RAF Harrier was damaged at Bergenhohne in the Federal Republic of Germany and went to Laarbruch for repair. In the autumn of 1986 a Navy Sea King helicopter was damaged on HMS Illustrious and it went to Fleetlands for repair. On 30 November 1986 a Navy Sea King had a fatal low-level crash in Oman. On 14 April 1987 an RAF Tornado—we are getting into big money now, it costs £16 million to £20 million—was damaged on landing at Wildenrath. After five months it was removed by road for repair. On 8 September 1987 an RAF Phantom was withdrawn from use after a landing accident. In late 1987 another RAF Bulldog went to St. Athan by road for repair after being overstressed during aerobatics. On 11 November 1987 an RAF Harrier was involved in a landing accident at Wittering and was not repaired.
Those are but some of the aircraft that we have been able to identify as being involved in accidents. They have cost the British taxpayer a lot of money but they have not appeared in the annual defence estimates. The public are entitled to know annually, first, how much money has been spent on repairing aircraft, secondly, what aircraft have

1103
been written off, and, thirdly, the total number of aircraft losses. We do not want to know of just the losses of aircraft in the United Kingdom but also those that have occurred abroad. I have received some interesting answers over the years that show that the Department always wants to narrow the information that it makes available on the number of admitted aircraft losses.
Is the programme really worth it? I intervened during the Minister's speech to refer to a particular Soviet missile system. There is now a whole new dimension to the low-flying debate that so far has not been considered. The rationale behind the low-flying programme is that it will teach pilots to fly fast and low, below enemy radar, deep into hostile territory to reach designated targets or stand-off launch sites. I understand that radical new developments in Soviet air defences seriously call into question whether they will be able to carry out that function effectively or at all.
I was recently tipped off by a leading defence analyst about the most recent deployment of a radically improved and highly sophisticated Soviet surface-to-air missile—the SA-10B that the Minister was unaware of when I intervened. I accept that the Minister is new to the job. I am sure that he is tackling his responsibility with great vigour and learning very fast, so perhaps it was unfair of me to draw attention to that fact.
That missile has been codenamed by NATO "Grumble". Perhaps now the Minister has heard of it. I was told that it is a mobile truck-launched system with its own co-located radar that operates as part of its highly sophisticated guidance system. I was informed that it was capable of destroying fast aircraft flying as low as 100 ft at a range of up to 60 miles. Further, being a mobile system, it is extremely difficult to detect and counter.
Recently I asked for confirmation of that system from the Ministry of Defence—admittedly before the Minister's time—because of the obvious and serious implications for the viability of the present low-flying programme. The Minister must have understood the implications because his reply was uncharacteristically detailed. In confirming the missile's deployment, he said:
"the SA-10B is not capable of tracking aircraft flying at a height of 100 feet for up to 60 miles."
When we discuss these matters we are at the heart of the debate on the low-flying programme.
Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that missile only has a limited head-on capability and has the sort of range that he has mentioned only when there is no terrain in between? That missile's radar actually has a poor response over rough terrain. In other words, a very large ground return is associated with it. On that basis, will the hon. Gentleman accept that low flying still has value despite the deployment of this system?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was based on what he believes to be the capabilities of the Soviet system. His views are at variance with those of others who have studied these matters very closely—as, indeed, has the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Mans: It has not a head-on capability. The hon. Gentleman should read what he has there.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of those who have discussed those matters with me and we shall deal with them directly. It is not for me to measure the head-on
1104
capability or necessarily to accept the comments made by the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). I will find out for him. However, everything that I have been told leads me to believe that that missile is quite capable of knocking out low-flying aircraft. It is significant that the hon. Member for Wyre intervened. The missile system has obviously been drawn to his attention and I am surprised that he has not wanted to draw it to the attention of the House.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is my hon. Friend surprised to note that this is one of the few occasions when we have heard the inadequacies of a Soviet missile system described by Conservative Members?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend's intervention is quite interesting. I am sure that it will have registered in the minds of those who read our proceedings.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify this for us? Is this a heat-seeking missile or is it laser-aimed?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that it is a heat-seeking missile—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may want to defend the low-flying programme and destroy the essence of my case in debate. However, the facts are obvious and those who assess these matters have made a different evaluation of the worth of this system from that of Conservative Members. I understand why Conservative Members want to defend the low-flying programme by trying to devalue this missile system.
Mr. Bill Walker: I apologise for not being in the Chamber throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech. but I was having a bite to eat. Does he understand that the objective of flying low and fast is to avoid being hit by less sophisticated missiles than the one he is talking about? If one ceases to fly low and fast, one becomes susceptible to other equipment and the chances of survival become very slim.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. I have been told that this missile will track and destroy aircraft flying at low levels to penetrate Soviet territory. Until it is proven otherwise, I accept that that is the case.
Confirming the missile's deployment, the Minister told me that the SA-10B is not capable of tracking aircraft flying at a height of 100 ft for up to 60 miles. In other words, he accepted that it was capable of tracking low-flying aircraft.
The radius of the curvature of the earth limits the range at which a target can be seen. The Minister explained that the system had a maximum, and then only a theoretical, range of between only 20 and 27 miles. That is an admission which answers many of the interventions today.
I took up this crucial point with an expert in air defence systems from "Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review" who told me that the Minister's reply was entirely misleading. He told me that it was well known to all with any knowledge of air defence systems that surface-to-air missile batteries are designed to operate in an air defence corridor or loop together with other mutually dependent radar systems and missile batteries. We cannot judge a missile battery's effectiveness by trying to assess its stand-alone fighting capability. That would be rather like trying to judge NATO's defensive capability by looking at the effectiveness of each individual soldier fighting alone against a

1105
massed Warsaw pact invasion force. The missile battery's own co-located radar is used together with other independent, but often more sophisticated, radar systems to direct the missile to the projected area of the incoming low-flying aircraft. The missile then flies higher than the target's estimated altitude and uses its formidable on-board look-down capability to pinpoint the target. It then attacks using its heat-seeking devices to lock on to and destroy the target.
It is thought that Grumble would be effective even against cruise missiles and would, therefore, have much less difficulty against larger and slower manned aircraft. I was informed, entirely contrary to what has been suggested by the Minister, that the missile is considered by air defence experts—and I assume hon. Members who have intervened during my speech consider themselves to be experts—to be highly sophisticated. It is thought to be very effective against low-flying aircraft approaching at a height of 100 ft and at a range of up to 60 miles.
I cannot understand the reasons for the Minister's elusive responses. His responses were either naive or symptomatic of the Government's ludicrous policy towards matters of national security. While I appreciate that it is the Minister's duty to safeguard military intelligence, it may be sensible to remind him that Soviet intelligence is already aware of the capability of its own missiles. It also knows that the West is aware of that capability, presumably because information is available in any good bookshop.
The Government should be far more forthcoming about information with regard to the SA-10B missile system. I hope that the Minister will take some soundings on this matter. If he feels as convinced as some defence experts about this matter, he may want to consider the validity of the low-flying programme. In those circumstances he might consider that the programme should be cut quite drastically and the precious defence resources should be allocated to other areas of the defence budget.
The Government are also misleading us about accident rates. Despite the claims that the RAF accident record is second to none, international comparisons do not bear that out. The United States air force, which counts any accident as major if it involves loss of the aircraft, damage costing more than $500,000 to repair or a fatality—a definition at least as wide as that used by the RAF—had rates consistently less than 0·2 per 10,000 flying hours between 1983 and 1987. By comparison, the RAF had accident rates up to twice as high. Its rates only declined to less than 0·3 per 10,000 flying hours in 1987.
Comparisons of similar aircraft types in different air forces do not reflect well on the RAF. In the United States air force the F16 had a major accident rate of 0·44 per 10,000 flying hours in 1986. The Tornado in West German service had a major accident rate of about 0·5 per 10,000 flying hours. Those figures are taken from the aviation newsletter "Milavnews" of which I am sure the Minister is aware. In comparison, RAF Tornados had a major accident rate of 0·7 per 10,000 flying hours and that figure was revealed in a written answer to me on 22 December 1988. Why is our major accident rate so much higher?
With regard to airmisses, now that the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Transport have a policy of publishing airmiss reports involving commercial
1106
aircraft, the public can gain some idea of the nature of the problem and how it is dealt with. Why will the MOD not publish military airmiss reports?
In a written reply to me on 16 February 1989, the Minister said that he would not publish any other airmiss reports, to preserve the confidentiality of the airmiss investigation system. Hon. Members who have listened to my modest contribution will know why these matters must remain confidential. It seems that the more information is published, the more embarrassing the whole matter becomes. That policy does not apply to airmisses involving commercial aircraft, so why does it apply to other types of aircraft? Why does it apply to military aircraft? Why cannot those figures be published? Perhaps the Minister can tell me in his winding-up speech.
The figures given in the written answer on 16 February show that the number of military air missiles involving a definite risk of collision was higher in 1987 than in any previous recorded year since 1979. It also showed that military airmisses accounted for nearly two out of every three airmisses over the United Kingdom and that nearly half of the airmisses involving military aircraft were found to have involved a risk of collision. By contrast, only about 25 per cent. of airmisses involving commercial aircraft were risk-bearing. The total number of military airmisses in 1988—that is, 133—was 20 per cent. higher than in the previous year and higher than in any year since 1982.
The question is how many of those were at low level, such as the incident that took place on the Keswick boundary only last year, which was the subject of my previous comment. How many of the risk-bearing incidents involved civil aircraft, such as the incident that took place at Carlisle airport some year and a half ago when a near miss was reported with a civil aircraft coming in from Heathrow?
I think that Ministers are not being too open about the German experience. An hon. Member endeavoured to prove to the House that the Germans were sympathetic to the whole low-flying programme. That is not my information. The legal position, as I understand it, is determined by article 46 of the 1963 supplementary agreement to the status of forces agreement between West Germany and other NATO members. It establishes a structure for consultation between the allied air forces and the German authorities but leaves the ultimate authority for such matters with SACEUR and NATO bodies. However, it also stipulates that the exercise of the right to conduct training exercises in the air shall be governed by German regulations on the use of airspace. This enables Federal Defence Minister Scholz to claim that the West German Government have the power to authorise exercises under the Air Navigation Act. In practice, the West German Government accept that this is a matter for negotiation with NATO and the individual allies. That sets out the legal framework.
Pending such negotiations, the West German Government took steps last July to reduce low-flying by the Luftwaffe. This was to be done by transferring the particularly noisy F4 Phantom to air defence duties and reducing the total quota of flight training hours allocated to the Luftwaffe. It also called for a NATO decision on transferring some air exercises to Canada or Turkey.
Shortly afterwards there occurred the disaster at Ramstein, where 69 people died as the result of a crash during an aerobatic display. In December, at Remscheid, a United States jet crashed, killing the pilot and five

1107
civilians on the ground. On 13 January a British Tornado crashed and narrowly missed a village school. These successive accidents have brought the issue to a head in Germany and triggered off a public and political outcry. After the Remscheid incident, the Government suspended all low-level flying for three weeks and the NATO allies complied. However, since low-level flying resumed on 3 January this year the matter has acquired a very high political profile.
On 17 January Defence Minister Scholz announced that he would seek a substantial reduction in low-level flying hours in negotiation with NATO. However, he also said that the Government would resist the total ban for which some opposition politicians have called—not I; I have simply called for a reduction down to the level of 1979 in relation to the United Kingdom programme—but would make further efforts to get some training transferred to other countries. The Commander of the United States Air Force in Europe has already said that some United States training might be switched to Morocco, as reported by Associated Press on 5 January 1989. Doctor Scholz also announced that the NATO tactical leadership programme, which involves low-level flying, might be shifted away from Germany, possibly to Belgium, but there has been some confusion about when this decision could be taken.
Judging by reports of the public mood in West Germany, the reaction against low-level flights seems to be based partly on accumulated anger about the noise and nuisance, partly on fear of more serious accidents and partly on the perception that the Soviet threat has significantly diminished, as well as on the long-standing resentment about singularity—the feeling that West Germany is bearing a disproportionate share of the risks involved in defending the West.
West German politicians have adopted a wide range of attitudes regarding the problem. While Ministers have spoken only of the need for a substantial cut in low-level flights, and have asked for such a cut, the defence spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group—not of my political persuasion, but the German Tories—Mr. Volker Ruhe, has suggested that flights could be cut by half in the next two years. So it seems that I agree with the German Conservative defence spokesman that the programme should be cut in half in the next two years. That was reported in the Financial Times of 4 January this year.
Theo Waigel, the chairman of the CSU, has advocated a ban on all flights below 500 ft. That was reported in Jane's Defence Weekly on 28 January this year. The chairman of the FDP parliamentary group, Walter Doring, whose party is the junior partner in the governing coalition, has called for an indefinite suspension pending the elaboration of new defence concepts, so here we have the spokesman of a coalition partner in Government demanding an indefinite suspension of the whole low-flying programme in West Germany.
The opposition SPD has produced varied responses. Hans Apel, the former Defence Minister, has called for low-level flights to be reduced to the absolute minimum, while others want a complete ban. Several have implied that the present situation infringes German sovereignty and I have statements from many others in Germany objecting to the low-flying progamme.
I have gone on at length about low flying and I have done so for a reason. My office is now a postbox for nearly every low-flying complaint in the United Kingdom. People
1108
write to me from all over the country and I want them to know that we are pressing these matters at Westminster. We are not asking for an end to the programme. In a year we must get hundreds of, if not over 1,000, complaints. Certainly we did last year. I want those people to know that we are listening, that we are pressing the Government and that there are people in other countries who are also subjected to low flying, such as the West Germans; that they are equally concerned, but that it is this Government who refuse to be responsible and flexible and to publish all the information about low-flying losses and other aircraft losses because they are scared that the public will find out about the many hundreds of millions of pounds that are being lost and have been lost over these past years, all at the expense of the taxpayer.
8.38 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I am very pleased to be called in this debate, even at this late hour. I have a few brief remarks to make. I shall certainly not be going on for quite the length of time that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was on his feet.
This is a very appropriate day for a debate on the Royal Air Force. It is the 40th anniversary of the first flight of the Shackleton, the oldest aircraft in service with the RAF today. I do not know which Government procured that aircraft, but it was in the late 1940s or early 1950s. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Royal Air Force has had, and is still having, value for money from that procurement. I sincerely hope that we shall gain equal value for money from the Shackleton's replacement, the AWACS that we are purchasing from the United States. 11 want to ask a couple of questions in relation to that purchase and, in the first instance, to the offset agreements
The offset agreements allow for 130 per cent. of the cost of that aircraft to be offset against contracts in this country. I hope that in his winding-up speech, or perhaps in the future, my hon. Friend will be able to indicate whether the rate at which these offset agreements are coming through is about what it should be in relation to the timetable that was worked out with Boeing.
Another matter about which I should like to have some clarification is the amount of technology transfer that is taking place in relation to this project. I have become aware that the Americans, Boeing and those who produced the radar for the aircraft may have not been as forthcoming as they might have been in giving the Royal Air Force exact information as to its capabilities. It would be a great pity if, in purchasing an aircraft, we were to pay for something that we could not use fully.
I want to turn briefly to what is probably this year's most significant event concerning the Air Force. I refer to the European fighter aircraft and the collaborative deal with other European countries, which I fully support. It will undoubtedly maintain Euro-technology in this area well into the next century. Indeed, I think that it goes beyond defence needs. Skills of the sort that are needed to build such an aircraft have significant spin-off benefits in other areas of industry, particularly those concerned with electronics and advanced metals. Clearly, as regards airframe and engine, the decisions have been taken, but, as has been said by other hon. Members, we have still to make a decision about the radar system. I am not going to suggest what that decision should be, but I hope sincerely that some points will be taken into account. First, the

1109
aircraft's export potential is important. It will be one of the few major aircraft projects we have running into the next century, so a decision on the radar must take into account future sales to other countries. It would be an awful pity if export potential were sacrificed by restrictions imposed by the manufacture of the radar chosen. The development potential of that radar should also be looked at closely. We should not buy a system that is reaching the end of its development life; we should buy the system that we feel has the greatest development potential.
In this regard, it is worth mentioning briefly the experience of Foxhunter. One of the reasons Foxhunter radar has not been as successful as we hoped it would be is that there was a gap of over 20 years in the technology after the production of the previous airborne radar system —the one for the Lightning. It was difficult for people in this country to get to grips with technology with which, for a number of years, they had been unfamiliar.
In the context of Foxhunter, I should like to mention one or two other points. I am thinking in particular of the situation in GEC, which, I believe, has not spent enough money on maintaining the technology lead in that area of avionics. It compares pretty unfavourably with other companies, such as Plessey, Rafale and, indeed, Ferranti, that have taken the lead in this sector. I sincerely hope that those deciding which radar should be selected will take full account of the export and development potential.
There is another point that we should consider very closely. Because the Foxhunter radar for the Tornado has been less than successful, despite the phase 1 update, there may well come a time, during the mid-life update of the Tornado F3, when another radar system has to be considered. The only one that can be considered is the one that we have selected for the European fighter aircraft— EFA. Therefore, the decision is doubly important. When we make the decision on the EFA radar we shall effectively be making the decision for the mid-life update of the Tornado F3.
Having spoken of the Tornado, I should like to mention also the mid-life update of the GR1, which is much closer than that of the F3. As has been mentioned by other hon. Members, the stand-off capability of that aircraft is very important indeed. Probably the only shortfall in the performance of the GR1 is in terms of range, and that is simply because of the compromise reached between the criteria set by the Royal Air Force and those set by the German air force when the aircraft was procured. It was certainly the right decision to compromise in that area in order to get the collaborative project off the ground. However, we have to recognise that, for operations from the United Kingdom, the range of the aircraft is limited, and therefore a stand-off capability will become more and more necessary as we go into the last decade of this century.
The fact is that if one spends £17 million on an aircraft, and perhaps £4 million on the training of the crew, survivability of the system is very important indeed. Because of Soviet defences of the sort mentioned by the hon. Member for Workington, it is going to be less and less easy to fly over a target and therefore more and more necessary to have a stand-off capability to increase the survivability of the weapons system.
1110
Much of what I have said tonight about aircraft procurement will probably have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed many of the questions that have been asked in this Chamber over the last few weeks about progress towards deciding the radar contracts for EFA and the like have come from Labour Members. I therefore find it just a little surprising that those Members are very keen that we should procure a number of aircraft of this sort—indeed current Labour defence policy is one of unilateralism, and on that basis the party has made it clear that the money saved by scrapping nuclear weapons would be spent on conventional arms. The chances are that at least some of those conventional arms would be aircraft. The fact is that those hon. Members are suggesting that we procure more aircraft but at the same time seem to be denying the opportunity for the crews to train properly at low level so that they might make the best use of the systems that they want us to buy. There is a basic conflict in the Labour party's case for increasing our conventional defensive capability while being unwilling to give aircrews the opportunity to train properly. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said that, even with the bravest men in the world, they will be no good if they are not given the right equipment to do the job. I wish he had added that it is no good if they are not given the right training, because that is precisely what Members of his party are suggesting in their remarks about low-level training.
I should like to deal briefly with the question of low-level training. It is an indication of the ignorance of many Opposition Members that they do not really understand what it is all about. The hon. Member for Rhondda in this debate last year said:
"but I cannot accept that there is any skill acquisition from flying at 500 miles an hour at 100 ft. All that happens are knee-jerk reactions."—[Official Report, 11 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 588.]
That remark has bounced around the crew rooms of the Royal Air Force for the past 12 months, much to the hilarity of many people. I suggest that in a very short time he speaks to my hon. Friend and is given the opportunity to fly in the back seat of a Tornado over his own constituency at 250 ft. Perhaps then he would like to come back to this House and tell us whether he still feels the same way.
Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Mans: No, I will not. I tried three times——
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman must accept that I was referring last year, as I shall do again a little later, to the fact that pilots of planes flying at 100 ft—not 250 ft —at 500 mph are only capable of knee-jerk reactions. I am pleased that my words are noticed and that they do bounce around the mess halls of the RAF. I had a nephew, a squadron leader, who, tragically, was killed in a Shackleton, having crashed into the side of a mountain. I have a brother who served in the Dam Busters during the war who was awarded the DFC. I have a nephew who is a wing commander in the RAF and another nephew who recently retired as director of air safety for the RAF at the rank of air commodore. Therefore, I am perfectly aware of the feelings of officers in the RAF. But the whole thrust of my argument is that when flying at 500 mph at 100 ft it is impossible to acquire a skill; there can only be a reaction.

1111
Control is possible only at a higher level. That is why so many accidents are taking place. There was an accident last year——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. This is an intervention, not a speech. Mr. Mans.
Mr. Mans: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is still a great deal of skill acquisition when flying as low as 100 ft and as fast as 500 knots. If there were not, there would be no point in flying at that speed. If it were purely a matter of knee-jerk reactions, the accident rate would be many times higher than it is. The hon. Gentleman should take expert advice, not that of the hon. Member for Workington which is highly suspect.
The subject of low flying has been looked at in great detail tonight, but I just want to mention briefly the Federal Republic of Germany. There are more complaints about low flying there because of that country's failure to adopt the British system of spreading the load over the whole country rather than confining it to a few small areas. If a great amount of low-level activity is confined to a small area, it is not surprising that there should be a considerable number of extra complaints. My hon. Friend should continue to make representations to the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany to see whether it is possible to spread out low flying there. If that is done, the sort of concern suggested by the hon. Member for Workington will be reduced in the Federal Republic of Germany, as happened in Britain when that system was adopted 10 years ago.
I fully support the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) in relation to pensions, and, in particular, in relation to the tragic death of Squadron Leader David Nelson. I hope that my hon. Friend will look at that to see whether it is possible to rationalise and revise the type of awards, gratuities and pensions that are available.
Finally, I want to say a few words about RAF personnel and, more specifically, about our ability to retain and recruit sufficient numbers into the 1990s. A number of hon. Members have spoken about the demographic changes that are acting against RAF recruitment. There is now a problem in retaining sufficient numbers of staff in key grades and occupations. In that respect, I am pleased that a study is being carried out into the recruitment of women pilots. I made that point in the RAF debate last year. There did not seem to be much movement then, and I am pleased to see some now. There is a chance that women pilots will be recruited. I hope that that study will be speeded up as much as possible so that women can be recruited as pilots as soon as possible, because that is one area where there is clearly a shortfall.
One reason for the shortfall in pilots is the increase in the commercial activity of airlines in relation to the size of airports. As recently as 10 years ago a considerable number of the total number of pilots trained in Britain were trained by the RAF and they still had the ability when they left the service to supply most of the needs of the civilian airlines. Things are changing fast as a result of the increase in air travel. To mention just one statistic, the Royal Air Force now trains just under 200 pilots a year, but British Airways alone is taking on 100 pilots a year for the next eight years at the British Aerospace training facility at Prestwick. That excludes other airlines' requirements and British Airways' recruitment from inside
1112
the airline industry and from the RAF. That alone shows that the Air Force has a problem in recruiting and retaining sufficient pilots.
The other area for anxiety is the cost of pilots, or, more specifically, their remuneration. When someone finishes at Prestwick and goes into the right-hand seat of a 737, at the age of 22 or 23 they can earn as much as £28,000 a year, slightly more than many RAF pilots are earning at the age of 38, at one of the option dates for leaving the service. That focuses on one of the major problems. There is a growing discrepancy between the reward for flying for airlines and the financial benefits of staying in the Air Force. We should look at that closely. We should look at the conditions of service and at the comments and representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in relation to service men being able to buy their own homes, at least technically, so that they are better able to afford their own home when they leave the service.
That applies not only to pilots but to many senior NCOs in the Air Force. Many of the skills that they gain during their training in the Air Force have, over the decades, been of great use to British industry. Indeed, many of Britain's electronic industries were founded on the basis of people coming out of the RAF with electronic skills and using them productively. The RAF now trains rather fewer technicians than it did 10 years ago and, as a result, they are in even shorter supply to civilian industry. That, too, poses a threat to the technical expertise of the engineers who keep the aircraft flying in the first place.
Another area that needs to be looked at closely is the experience of the pilots who stay in the Air Force. Many take their options before they reach 38 and others leave prematurely. As a result, the experience level on many or the second-line aircraft—perhaps not the Tornado, but certainly the Phantom and to a lesser extent the Buccaneer —is getting low. There is a higher percentage of "first tourists" in those aircraft than there has been previously. That is where the problem begins to manifest itself. Unless something is done about it, it is liable to become considerably worse in the next few years.
Today the RAF has to make decisions that will affect the force well into the next century. Therefore, it is absolutely vital to maintain our technological ability on this side of the Atlantic to meet the equipment needs of the Air Force into the next century. At the same time, we must provide the training for aircrew to enable them to fly these highly complicated weapons systems. The professionalism of the Air Force has never been in doubt in the past and, provided that we provide proper equipment and training, it will not be in the future.
8.59 pm
Dr. Kim Howells: I am glad to hear the tributes to the trained readiness of the men and women serving in the Royal Air Force. I was especially glad to hear the details of the year-long tour of our leading airfields taken by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). The beatific smile that lit up his face every time he recalled a trip he had made in a jet or helicopter was particularly warming. It proves that some Conservative Members are still able to indulge in simple pleasures rather than cheering as elements of our top military and Civil Service personnel try to pile through every revolving armaments door in sight.

1113
I was less gladdened, however, by the unwillingness of certain Conservative Members to address themselves to the fact that the very same highly trained RAF personnel face the prospect of flying aircraft which are equipped with radar and missiles that do not work. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has already referred to the scandal of the Foxhunter project. I wish that a scrutiny of the management of the Ministry of Defence of the procurement of RAF equipment would turn up nothing similar. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Numerous other scandals threaten the proper air defences of this country.
The air-launched anti-radiation missile—known, appropriately, as ALARM—has been identified by the Select Committee on Defence as a cause for great concern, owing to the enormous over-runs which are directly connected to the incompetence of the Ministry of Defence's procurement policy. At the last posting, the ALARM programme was £260 million over budget and several years behind schedule.
The reason for the delay and increased cost is that the original sub-contract for the rocket motor ran into trouble. It was awarded to an MOD research and development establishment, the propellants, explosives and rocket motor establishment, by another MOD section —the rocket motor executive. How separate were these two parts of the MOD? What has happened to the civil servants involved in the affair? Will the Minister assure me that none of the civil servants involved in this drastic and worrying incident will work for British Aerospace in the future? Other hon. Members asked similar questions, during the defence estimates debate, about the sale of Royal Ordnance plc. I understand that they have yet to receive adequate replies from the Minister.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has already drawn our attention to the vital question of the proper allocation of public funds. The Foxhunter and ALARM debacles are evidence either of plain misallocation or of Government managerial incompetence. Whichever option the House favours, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the failures and delays associated with both projects are selling short our Air Force.
The Government are failing to provide the nation with a wholly reliable air defence system. There may be Conservative Members who recall with some pleasure flying by the seat of their pants—or kilts, as the case may be. However, as the most junior Member of the House, may I suggest—with respect—that that is no way to run key elements of a £20 million defence budget.
The hon. Member for Ryedale compared discipline within the airfields that he visited on his grand tour with that which he remembered from his days in the Metropolitan police force. He would have made an even more significant contribution to this debate had he suggested that a little of that discipline might have been transferrred from the police beat into the offices of the Government's RAF procurement agencies.
9.4 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), whom I have not heard speak in the House. He
1114
stood looking fit and well, as do new Members after they have fought an election. However, the House will soon put paid to that. I congratulate him on arriving here with the streets of Pontypridd still ingrained on his feet.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). It is the role of Back Benchers to hold Ministers accountable for the money which they obtain from the House, and in doing so the hon. Gentleman is worth a Benchful of Labour Members.
Defence debates such as this are full of acronyms, and I had to go and look up "MLRS". I found that it stood for multiple-launch rocket system. I think that in future I shall apply that acronym to the hon. Member for Workington, who launched plenty of rockets at Government spokesmen this evening.
An aspect of the Royal Air Force that has not been mentioned today is the role of helicopters in battlefield and support work. We have heard a good deal today about search and rescue, and I feel that the battlefield and support role also needs our attention. I am glad that both Ministers and senior officers are now beginning to realise the importance of helicopter-borne operations. They are also realising that not only is the number of both RAF and Army Air Corps helicopters inadequate for the job in hand, but there is a lack of balance in resources vis-a-vis the other teeth arms of armour, infantry and artillery.
At present, in what is largely peacetime, the RAF support helicopters are mainly programmed to meet Northern Ireland commitments and to perform a host of other operational and training tasks. I would argue that that leaves a shortage in the event of general hostilities. It is unrealistic to claim that the United Kingdom has an adequate helicopter force to cope with all the necessary tasks at one time, and I fear that support helicopters would be swamped with requests and would be unable to meet them all.
It has been suggested that the RAF, for its own logistic requirements alone, could probably mop up all the support Wessex and Puma helicopters. Why are those battlefield and support helicopters so important? In battle there is an increasing need for mobility and for better speed of reaction within NATO. Lateral movement of ground forces is difficult when enemy penetration is accepted in the design for battle. Only battleworthy helicopters can provide an adequate solution to the need for increased mobility, which is as important for out-of-area operations as in the central front. Flexibility is an important principle of war, and the helicopter in battle gives troops that flexibility.
In spite of what the Soviet Union has been saying about reducing its conventional forces, I think that that is highly unlikely to apply to its helicopters. All the evidence suggests that the Soviets are continuing to build up their rotary-winged force at least to reach a par with the United States. The USSR is believed to have at least 4,600 helicopters available to its armies—some reports have suggested as many as 7,000. Whatever the number, there is no doubt that it will continue to grow rapidly.
What can we put into battle in the NATO theatre in Europe against such a threat? I know that, with perestroika and glasnost prevailing, peace seems to be breaking out all over the world, but we must still keep our guard up and be able to respond to this most obvious threat, bearing in mind where it is most likely to come from. The United States has some 8,600 battlefield

1115
helicopters available to its armies. West Germany has 800, France 700 and Italy 330. In addition, Italy has a good many small light-fixed-winged aircraft.
In terms of battlefield helicopters, the United Kingdom has 320 allocated to the Army Air Corps, largely used for reconnaissance and anti-tank work. There are a further 63 in the Royal Air Force—32 Wessex and 31 Pumas—and 38 Chinooks are available for battlefield and support work. Of that total of 421 helicopters, 101 are under RAF command. I argue that, because of the multiplicity of roles that those helicopters have to undertake, that is not enough.
For example, in addition to their battlefield role, helicopters have to support our Northern Ireland operations and move men and materials all around central Europe and the United Kingdom. They also have to support the Harrier force in central Europe and perform all the RAF's logistic tasks. Those helicopters support our air mobile brigade, which is currently stationed in the United Kingdom but is allocated to the northern army group. Those helicopters also have many overseas commitments, particularly in the Falklands and in Belize. If hostilities broke out, there is no doubt that much of that work could not be done. Alternatively, the helicopters could not meet their battlefront commitments.
If there is to be a helicopter battlefield support force capable of fulfilling all those roles—and, in particular, of supporting the Air Mobile Brigade, which requires at least 50 support helicopters to move it around—the field army needs a further 150 helicopters as a bare necessity. I know that it is a case of priorities. When it comes to defence expenditure, it is always a question of deciding what one wants most. If I were Secretary of State for Defence, I would put my faith in more helicopters rather than in more tanks, because the helicopter offers more flexibility. If the Ministry of Defence does not get its house fully in order in respect of helicopters, in the event of war, the Army could become totally immobile.
We were pleased by the statement of my right hon. Frind the Secretary of State for Defence on 9 April 1987 about orders for support helicopters. On that occasion, my right hon. Friend announced that he was placing orders for 25 of the Anglo-Italian EH101. That good news was welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. However, I am sorry to report that that aircraft is still flight testing at Yeovil for its future development. I would like to know how soon the preliminary development contract for that aircraft will be placed. I understand that there are delays because the armed forces persist in increasing their specifications. That is typical of so many orders for the British armed forces.
The point about a support helicopter is that it is a truck that flies. We want airborne facilities that will move large quantities of troops and materials from one place to another. I cannot believe that it is necessary to go to such lengths at the development stage, which merely delays the aircraft's introduction into service.
Mr. Roland Boyes: The hon. Gentleman should sit down now, or we shall take time off the Minister's speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. That is very discourteous to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).
Mr. Colvin: I had not appreciated that another hon. Member is to speak before my hon. Friend winds up. Now that I know that, I am happy to conclude my remarks.
We are extremely fortunate in the United Kingdom to have the Westland Group to manufacture our helicopters. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has been present during the debate because, although as a Whip he is muted in debate, I know how much he supports that company and lobbies for it. The manufactures at Yeovil are normally carried out in co-operation with the aerospace companies of our NATO allies. Under this Government, Westland can look forward to a good future, but it would be much better if the Ministry of Defence took my advice—not only my advice, because it comes from outside the House as well —and added more helicopters to battlefield and support inventories so that, if hostilities were to commence, they would be able to give our Army in the field the backup it required, without which our troops would he at a great tactical disadvantage.
9.15 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: Having sat through all but about 15 minutes of the debate, I am pleased to have a few minutes at the end of it. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) took so long, because that has curtailed the time for other hon. Members. I am sure that he had much to say, but he might have said it more briefly.
Labour Members support the policy of an adequate defence force, of which the Royal Air Force is but one branch. We support a publicly owned and controlled defence system because we believe that that is the most effective. The Government believe that as well, because they have not yet brought forward proposals for privatising the Royal Air Force into British Airways, British Midland or any other private body, and they have not proposed selling off the armed forces to Securicor. that is true for our armed forces—and defence is all important according to the Government—it is also true for major services such as water, gas and electricity. If things are important—and water is important and essential to life —public ownership and control is an important concept for Labour Members.
Labour Members support unilateral nuclear disarmament and it is Labour party policy. It is currently under review, which is not tactically clever because it prevents us, for a couple of years, from arguing the overwhelming case for getting rid of nuclear weapons. The Government make little jokes about it, but as I keep saying—and the Government have no answer to this—nuclear weapons are potential mass murderers. As the Government know well, 133 non-nuclear nations have said that they will not manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons. By our "modernisation" of the Royal Air Force and our deployment of Trident, which I dealt with in the Navy debate, we are metaphorically kicking in the teeth those 133 nations which look to the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, the nuclear signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to carry out article 6 and effectively negotiate the removal of nuclear weapons.
The United States and the Soviet Union have at least embarked on that programme. Only the United Kingdom retains nuclear weapons without any suggestion that it is prepared to negotiate with anybody to remove them. That

1117
is a scandal and a disgrace. The modernisation proposal is a betrayal and a calculated deceit towards the INF treaty, into which the United States and the USSR have entered. I have a letter from the Bradford Telegraph and Argus which encapsulates the plea to the Government not to cheat on the INF treaty. Headed: "Don't turn treaty into a mockery", it says:
"We were delighted to learn recently of the withdrawal of American forces from Molesworth RAF base and to hear that the public can now view the empty insides of the silos which had been built to house Cruise nuclear missiles. Let us hope that the INF Treaty is just the beginning of total world nuclear disarmament. It is disturbing to read, however, that ideas are being floated in the United States and within NATO on how best to 'compensate' for the loss of Cruise and Pershing by introducing either a new range of nuclear weapons or placing Cruise-type missiles on cruisers and destroyers operating out of British ports. We feel that the British public needs to be reassured that the INF treaty is not a mockery."
That letter is signed by Jane Nuttall of Wyke women's peace group in my constituency. She and millions of others like her seek that assurance. They want to be sure that Tornado—the most expensive procurement programme in our history—will not be modernised to include nuclear missiles, and that nuclear bombs will be removed from those planes as part of our programme of honouring the INF treaty. We may not be signatories, but we should honour the treaty in spirit.
Labour's policy also involves the removal of the United States nuclear bases, which were allowed in this country under an agreement reached in October 1951. Why was the agreement reached then? A general election was taking place, so the Prime Minister of the day was not subject to the scrutiny of the House. The Conservative Government accepted the agreement when they were elected to replace the Labour Government.
That slip of paper says that there shall be joint decision-making on the use or RAF bases by the United States
"in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time."
That means that a unilateral decision can be made to engage in nuclear war—despite the removal of cruise missiles—by using F111s at Lakenheath with nuclear weapons on board. It is the sane policy, and in the interests of our future safety, to get rid of American nuclear bases and to close down the American facility at Lakenheath, just as Molesworth and Greenham Common were closed as a result of negotiations to which our Government were not a party.
There is to be massive investment in the Tornado programme—£13 billion—while the European fighter aircraft project is to cost £7 billion. That £20 billion-worth of investment has warped our civilian aircraft programme. This country once led in the production of jet aircraft but now the nearest thing to a large-bodied jet that we produce is the modest BA 146, which is powered not by a Rolls-Royce engine but by an Avco Lycoming engine imported from the United States.
We are prepared to spend £20 billion on fighter aircraft that we cannot use in a conflict. People talk about flying aircraft low towards a target. The poor wretches who fly them to their targets in a nuclear war will find when they return that their base is no longer there. The whole notion of a conflict is out of date; it is antique.
1118
We should invest in our civilian aircraft programme. British Airways now relies completely on Boeing; indeed, the replacement for Shackleton is to be provided not by the British aircraft industry but by Boeing, whose quality, as we know, is somewhat variable. We could be supplying British Airways ourselves if we had directed investment towards the civilian programme. Japan, which spends less than I per cent. of its gross national product in military expenditure, has managed to flood the world with services and goods because it has concentrated on things that people need and want rather than pouring money into military research and expenditure.
An enormous sum—£19,636 million—is being spent on defence in 1988–89. In the same year—on April 11—we are to cut pensions and a whole range of benefits on which the neediest and poorest people in our country depend. In that same year, we embarked on expenditure of £20 billion for military purposes. The Minister stated proudly that that was a real terms increase of 3 per cent.
I do not want to reiterate the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington—indeed, I could not, because my voice is not that strong—but I want to point out that in the current defence estimates, for the year I January 1987 to 31 December 1987, the cost of replacing aircraft that have crashed on low-flying exercises, which, in my view, are entirely unnecessary, was a total of £200 million. That expenditure was due to the mistaken policies on low flying. If the Government disagree with the policies of a local authority and regard them as mistaken, they surcharge and dismiss from office the Labour councillors involved. Because of the Government's policy of support for nuclear weapons, because of their careless use of aircraft and because of their low-flying policies, the Government should be dismissed from office also.
9.25 pm
Mr. Rogers: The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces referred to AWACS and said that when his colleague replies he will mention it further. I should like to know how many such systems are available to the Royal Air Force. The Minister also referred to the flying displays and the changes that will be brought in to enhance safety, especially for spectators. We welcome that. The RAF's thrilling displays at various events are looked forward to with a great deal of pleasure by many people. Obviously, the more restrictions that can be introduced to increase safety the better so that people can enjoy the displays without the fearful accidents that sometimes occur.
The Minister also mentioned low flying—an issue to which some of my hon. Friends have also referred. I was pleased by the Minister's answer because it was much more positive and not as arrogant as some of the answers that we have received from his colleagues. The Minister seems to be applying himself to the issue instead of adopting—if I may use the expression—the knee-jerk reaction of saying, "The RAF says that it is good and necessary so we must carry on."
Although it is obvious that the Minister is looking at the problems, the restrictions on low flying are still gravely deficient. The problems are not fully appreciated. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces seems to find the matter humorous, but perhaps he will pay attention because if low flying were carried out over his constituency or even over constituencies in Kent, we should see a greater response from the Government. It seems that

1119
environmental problems must affect Kent before the Government will do anything. I should like to say to those on the Government Benches, "Come on, lads. Realise that there are other places outside the Tory-held south-east of England and realise that this is a serious problem."
The Minister recognised the problem, referring to the "sudden noise alarming people". That is putting it mildly. Anyone who has experienced a Tornado flying overhead at only 100 ft and at 500 mph knows that it is not just alarming; it is shudderingly frightful. People have no warning that exercises are going to take place. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point. The Government's answer to a request that people be allowed to be told that the exercises are to take place was, "It is a matter of national security." I cannot see how it can be a matter of national security. Why cannot people be told that low flying will take place within certain hours?
Mr. Bill Walker rose——
Mr. Rogers: No, I do not have enough time to give way and, in any case, I was asking the Minister for the answer, not someone who flew in the last century.
I detected in the Minister's opening speech a slight thawing in the Government's neanderthal attitude towards low flying. I ask him please to bend a little more and think of the people, especially in central Wales and the two areas of Scotland, who are subjected to this 500 mph bombardment from 100 ft. It is a very important issue for them. The quality of their life is important.
Mr. Ray Powell: On that very point, which is of great interest to the House, can my hon. Friend recall my question to the Minister on Tuesday regarding the £1 billion of Government funds that is wasted every year on the maintenance of fast jets? A report has come out saying that fast jets spend half their time being maintained. Will my hon. Friend bear that fact in mind? Are the fast jets going about the airways of Wales fully maintained? Can we have a reliable statement from the Minister that there will not be any air crashes like those in the public sector?
Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is right to draw the House's attention to the enormous sums of money being spent on repairing aircraft involved in accidents. As he is well aware, very close to his constituency at RAF St. Athan, there are 32 Tornado F2 and F3 aircraft in store, worth more than £500 million. In a Defence Committee report they were picturesquely described by witnesses from the Ministry of Defence as
"a small buffer stock of aircraft".
The nation can do without a small buffer stock of aircraft worth well over £500 million.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a very thoughtful speech. Perhaps we might not agree with his conclusions, but it is important to look constantly at the arguments. We are in a dynamic situation. I am sorry to use the word "neanderthal" again —perhaps it is a problem of a geologist—but because of the neanderthal attitude of Conservative Members, they do not recognise that we are in a dynamic situation. The way forward is to consider new situations that will arise from time to time.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) declared his well-known interest in the RAF. I am pleased that he still gets enormous pleasure from it, as I am sure he will to the end of his days. He remarked that the RAF needs the very best radar. I wish that he would take a little
1120
step further and have the courage to turn to his Front Bench and say to Minister that they are not doing a good job. The RAF should have the very best radar, but it is not up to the job. It has been in service for four years. It was introduced on an interim standard. It is still not up to the required standards and specifications of the RAF. The management of defence procurement by the Government is appalling.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) told us of his experiences in the RAF under a new scheme that has been introduced by the Secretary of State during the past year. Some service experience is indeed useful in understanding the problems. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on taking up that opportunity. I hope that other hon. Members will follow his example.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) paid tribute to Bristow. I began to wonder whether he, too, would take that little extra step and highlight some of the deficiencies in the air search and rescue service. The Opposition have drawn attention to those deficiencies in previous debates. There is a sore lack of equipment in that service. It ought to have more money and more resources.
In answer to a question by me on Tuesday, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that more than enough money is available to meet all the commitments of the services. Perhaps he should devote some of that money to the search and air rescue service so that it can update its equipment for the tremendous job that it does.
The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) referred to the loss of skilled personnel. He is absolutely right to draw our attention to that issue. As the effects of the fall in the birth rate become ever more apparent, it will become increasingly important to retain the right personnel. Each time the topic has been raised the Government have sought to assure us that there is nothing to worry about. The Minister at last acknowledged that there were severe shortfalls in the number of aircrew and engineers, but he said that such shortages are containable and exist only in the short term. At long last what we have been saying over the past few years has now been acknowledged by the Government. The Government's attitude to any criticism is, "No, no, there is nothing wrong." If Opposition Members dare to put forward constructive criticism, Conservative Back Benchers say that we are attacking our armed forces. That is not true. We are attacking the Government and the management of the Ministry of Defence, not the members of the armed forces, who are doing a good job for us in the difficult conditions that obtain under this Government.
RAF personnel are voting with their feet. The statistics are alarming. The number of fast jet pilots who have taken premature voluntary release has increased from 20 in 1979 to 31 in 1988. The number of trained engineers leaving the service is also a cause for concern. In 1980, the number of electronic engineers joining and leaving the RAF brought about an overall gain of 554. In the same year, there was a net increase of over 1,000 in the number of mechanical engineers. In 1988, the situation worsened. The RAF had an overall loss of 427 electronic engineers and 433 mechanical engineers. That loss of hundreds of highly skilled engineers is of great concern to the Opposition.
Opposition Members recognise the great importance of those people. Although the Minister mentioned some measures that the Government are taking to stop that flow

1121
of personnel, I wish that such steps had been taken before, when we referred to the loss of maintenance staff. We hope that the Minister's proposals will stem the flow.
I re-emphasise the Opposition's commitment to the defence of this country. If hon. Members would accept that there is a strong commitment to the defence of this country, and if our criticisms were accepted in the constructive way in which we attempt to put them, we would get a lot further in defence debates. The country is not served by yah-boo political debates. People do not have the peculiar views that the Government sometimes put forward. I hope that the Opposition's constructive suggestions will be taken on board by the Government.
9.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We have had a very varied debate, varied in a number of ways, in general attitudes to defence and foreign policy, a nice variation among those on the Opposition Benches, and a variation between them and the Government Benches. There was a variation in the relevance of the speeches to the subject of the debate, which I thought on some occasions the House needed to be reminded was the Royal Air Force. There was quite a variation in the length of contributions. I am only sorry that the contribution of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) resulted in such a disturbance afterwards on his side of the House that we nearly had to call time-out while it was sorted out.
There was even a variety in the frequency of contributions. I realise now why on this occasion the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) needed to be dual-capable, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Armed Forces so nicely put it. He wanted to make one speech on a variety of what, if one stretched a point, could be called defence-related issues, and another to cover the RAF. Some of us were not so lucky to have the opportunity to make two speeches. I thank him and congratulate him on his second speech, however, and I recognise his personal and family commitment to the RAF and to the defence of the country.
On one issue, at least, I hope we were united—in recognising the dedication and commitment of the men and women of the RAF. That is something that we all know we can rely on. Reliability has been much in the news and it is relevant to the comments of several hon. Members in the debate. The interest in reliability has been brought to the fore by the report of the National Audit Office on the reliability and maintainability—R and M for short—of defence equipment.
I want to stress that I am in general sympathy with the report and grateful for the succinct way in which it sets out ideas, proposals and objectives. I particularly welcome its recognition of the marked interest and concern on the part of my Department and British contractors to make further progress. Nevertheless, good reliability is only one facet of the services' needs. Performance and availability on time are obviously important, and so are cost considerations, since there is obviously a trade-off between increased costs and improved reliability. These criteria frequently conflict and a judgment must be made on the correct compromises. The exercise is to ensure that reliability receives sufficient emphasis and is taken into account early enough.
1122
I should not like it to be thought that we have been inactive in the area of reliability and maintainability. As the recent NAO report said,
"The need for good R and M has long been recognised by the Department."
We have identified what is needed, in itself a task of some complexity. As a result, we have not only set in hand further work by consultants, such as the contracting for reliability study, but have also looked at our organisation and procedures.
For example, nearly five years ago we gave further momentum to the collection of quality assurance experts with the project management teams, and more recently we have been incorporating them into the project teams. We have also been putting more and more R and M and life-cycle information into the equipment policy committee. The project management teams, too, have been active in exploring new approaches so that, as we gain experience, we shall be well placed to identify those ideas which generally contribute to improved reliability. The most recent decision has been to appoint a director of reliability, charged with the central co-ordination of current and future R and M initiatives.
I should like the House to be aware of the influence of the long, in some cases incredibly long, time scales of procurement on the effectiveness of our policies. Everyone is agreed that the proper time to start to get R and M right is when a project is in its earliest design and specification stage; improvements can be made to R and M thereafter, but it becomes progressively more difficult and expensive. It follows, therefore, that much of the equipment now criticised for poor reliability or high maintenance costs started to be designed and developed at least 10 years ago, long before we began to give greater attention to R and M. Equally, a considerable time will pass before we get the full fruits of our better applied effort. Meanwhile, I can assure the House that as new projects are initiated the policy is that the full R and M doctrine should be applied.
I was glad to hear how much my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) had gained from his time with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I was also pleased to hear his tribute to the service men he was with: they enjoyed his company as he enjoyed theirs. We look forward to the scheme not only continuing but expanding. I am glad to be able to confirm to him and to the House that no civilian has been killed on the ground during the 1980s as a result of an RAF flying accident.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces covered low flying fully in his opening remarks. It was referred to by many hon. Members, some with perhaps more understanding of the need for low flying training than others. The hon. Member for Workington worried about the cost to the Exchequer of aircraft lost in accidents. If we had no training, we would not have accidents during training, but we would not have the capable Air Force that the country needs and deserves.
In his extraordinary efforts to show that low flying was not worthwhile because of the highly capable missiles which the Russians have, the hon. Member for Workington ignored the far greater risks of trying to reach targets at high levels and the defensive capabilities of our aircraft. Most of all, he ignored the well known and well set-out advantages of terrain-following, low-level attack. I assure him that we are aware of the threat posed by Soviet missiles and by other Soviet equipment. That is why we equip the RAF to meet that threat.

1123
It was no surprise to the House to hear again that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), supported by the hon. Members for Workington and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), still believes in a non-aligned foreign and defence policy. The right hon. Gentleman is not only a supporter of one-sided nuclear disarmament but, as I understood his speech, he also advocated unilateral conventional disarmament. I think that we should leave him to carry on his argument within his own party. I am sure that he will do it with the same eloquence within the party as he has used in the House.
Mr. Benn: Can the Minister give any indication to the House how, 10 years after the Government have been in force, with a Soviet Government who are more friendly, most people would think, than Mr. Brezhnev's Government, we should find it necessary to spend 20 per cent. more in real terms on weapons than at the time when we were dealing not with Mr. Gorbachev but with Mr. Brezhnev?
Mr. Sainsbury: It was an interesting slip for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the present Government had been in force rather than in power. I take it that he was referring to our majority.
When the right hon. Gentleman makes his suggestions about unilateral conventional as well as nuclear disarmament, he appears to ignore that until now the Soviet Union has continued to produce new modernised military equipment for nuclear forces, conventional forces and every type of force. The one thing that so much of the equipment has in common is its attacking capability. We hope that we can look to a time when the Russians will no longer produce a submarine every six weeks, for example. That has not happened yet. Indeed, the hon. Member for Workington drew to our attention what seemed to him the almost magical attributes of a new Russian missile. If the Soviets are producing new weapons, I would have thought that it was only right that we continued to do so ourselves.
I shall try to cover the other points that were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), with his great experience of and his great commitment to the RAF, mentioned the very important Tucano. I am glad to tell him that 11 aircraft have been delivered to the RAF and that reports from those who have flown the aircraft are most encouraging. The power, agility and safe handling of the Tucano endow it with the ideal characteristics for basic training. I think that it will serve the RAF extremely well,
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) raised the question of gratuities and pensions payable to the wives and families of serving personnel. I assure him that the Royal Air Force takes great pride in the care and support which it offers to its bereaved. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will write to the hon. Gentleman about the tragic loss of Squadron Leader Nelson and about the wider question of benefit levels.
AWACS—now to be called the Sentry—has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Rhondda appears to be wondering how many we already have. I hoped that he might have been aware that seven are on order and that the first one is expected to be rolled out of the production line during this summer.
Mr. Rogers: But how many?
Mr. Sainsbury: I have just said that seven are on order and that the first one is due to be rolled out this summer —[interruption.] It would help me to answer the points raised in the debate if the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen could restrain themselves a little.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) asked about the AWACS off-set agreement. I assure him that we are closely monitoring Boeing's performance in fulfilling the off-set commitment. We have every confidence that the company will meet its obligations in full. I can further assure my hon. Friend that we are also confident that the RAF will receive from its American counterpart all the information that it needs to operate the Sentry E3 successfully.
Perhaps not surprisingly, radar has featured in a number of contributions—both the radars that we have and, indeed, the ones that we have not yet chosen. Questions were raised about the capability of the radar systems that we have, especially about Foxhunter. Indeed, that gets inextricably mixed up with the Tornadoes. Of course, the hon. Member for Rhondda wheeled out the ones in storage, if I may mix metaphors, at St. Athan.
As the Defence Committee recognised in its report on the Statement on the Defence Estimates for 1988, storage represented the most cost-effective and operationally acceptable course open to the Ministry of Defence when faced with the need to rephase Tornado ADV deployment plans after 1984. All the aircraft involved will be upgraded to a standard comparable to that of the latest production F3s. As the hon. Member for Rhondda said in his second speech, a number of them are, of course, only F2s. I cannot persuade the hon. Gentleman to believe it, but that is what will happen.
My hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North and for Wyre, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), and, as one might always expect, the hon. Member for Rhondda, mentioned the Foxhunter radar, which, even in its present form, is performing much better than on its first. introduction to service. We are confident that its capability will continue to improve as the development progresses We have agreed with the contractor a programme of work to bring the radar up to the required standard.
Mr. Rogers: The Minister has, in fact, acknowledged that the Foxhunter is not up to the standard required. It has been in service now for four years. Can the Minister tell the House when the radar will perform, as it should have performed in 1985?
Mr. Sainsbury: As I have already said to the House, it is already performing much better than the first deliveries. There have been progressive improvements. We have agreed with the contractor a tight contract, which covers the further programme of improvements, with milestones for payment against performance, which is extremely important.
The European fighter aircraft radar seems to feature in practically every Defence Question Time and probably in every defence debate these days.
Mr. O'Neill: It will until the Government make up their mind.
Mr. Sainsbury: I know that the hon. Gentleman is impatient, but he should know—because he is supposed to be in charge of these matters for the Opposition—that there is a procedure to be followed before a choice is made.

1125
We must have a recommendation from the European NATO Fighter Management Agency as to what radar should be chosen. I am sure that all the hon. Members who raised the issue will appreciate that both competing radars involve British companies. It would be wrong for me to prejudge the outcome of the competition. We have been waiting for the recommendation to NEFMA by Euro-fighter, the prime contractor, and we still hope that a recommendation will be made. However, in the meantime the four participating nations are carrying out their own evaluation of the bids from the two competing consortia.
Mr. O'Neill: We have heard repeated undertakings that the decision would be made soon. We were told tht it would be forthcoming last year, in September, in December, at the end of January and we are now into March. How much longer will the delay take? Why is this taking so long? Why will the Minister not be frank with the House?
Mr. Sainsbury: The decision, as I have explained to the hon. Gentleman, is awaiting a recommendation from Euro-fighter. I am not Euro-fighter. We are representatives of the collaborating nations. In a way, the hon. Gentleman is addressing his questions to the wrong people.
I hope that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) will appreciate, in view of all the interest expressed in the subject so far, that the radar is a very important part of the aircraft. The most modern, highly capable radars are not the easiest things to get right and we would all probably agree about that. It would be sensible to ensure that we reach the right conclusions on this important subject.
Mr. O'Neill: That sounds like a Bobby Robson answer.
Mr. Sainsbury: I remind the hon. Gentleman that Bobby Robson has just had a success, winning two-nil away from home.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) made some interesting comments about the importance of helicopters. I assure him that we recognise that and I will study what he has said carefully because, regrettably, I was not able to be in the Chamber for all the time that he was speaking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside asked about the development of the EH101 utility helicopter. As I told the House last November, the programme has started on the formal project definition stage which will examine in detail the RAF's requirements and establish more clearly the costs and risks involved. I assure my hon. Friend that the RAF's basic requirement has not changed.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Tayside, North were among those who asked about stand-off weapons for the Tornado. They referred to the need to provide an updated stand-off capability for the Tornado and the importance of stand-off weapons for survivability in today's highly challenging environment. They will be pleased to know that we are proceeding steadily with the development of a weapon to meet that requirement.
We sought proposals from industry early in 1987 for a range of possible solutions. A total of eight bids were received in October 1987. Although some have been
1126
eliminated as being clearly unacceptable on operational or performance grounds, we are continuing with our assessment of the remainder and expect to make further decisions later in the year.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East referred to the search and rescue provision from RAF Leuchars. The greatly improved service provided by the Royal Navy Sea King helicopters at Prestwick and Culdrose together with other helicopter and coastguard services in the area have made it possible to reduce the search and rescue service from Leuchars. The resources dedicated to search and rescue will not substantially change as a result of the redeployment.
The aim of making better use of our existing assets to meet military and civilian needs has been achieved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for transport in Scotland are satisfied that fully adequate provision is being made for civilian search and rescue needs.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the staff of the Royal Aerospace Establishment, who were not mentioned during the course of the debate. However, those with a knowledge of the RAF would recognise that their research into aircraft and missile systems has helped to keep the United Kingdom at the forefront in those areas. Equally important, the establishment enables the MOD to maintain the intelligent customer capability which is so crucial in our dealings with industry and our procurement effectiveness.
The House will be aware that earlier today I announced that we have concluded that a move to Preston farm in Teesside is the most cost-effective solution for the headquarters and laboratories of the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance now at Woolwich and Bromley. The move would concentrate the headquarters functions and main laboratories of the directorate on a single site with fully modern facilities, while at the same time releasing the Woolwich and Bromley sites for disposal and redevelopment. We shall be consulting with the trade unions, as is normal practice. There are 1,500 jobs involved, of which about 650 would be good quality scientific and engineering posts and about 250 would be apprentices.
We have, of course, recently heard of the death of that intrepid pioneer aviator and aircraft designer Tommy Sopwith. It would be inappropriate if this evening went by without his career being mentioned and a tribute being paid to the contribution he made over many years to a wide variety of aircraft names—the Hurricane, the Typhoon, the Hunter and, of course, more recently, the Harrier.
Today is also, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned, the 40th anniversary of the inaugural flight of the Shackleton aircraft.
Every year in this debate we recognise, as many hon. Members have commented, another year of effective and loyal service by the service men and women of the Royal Air Force. They are an enormous credit to the nation through the selfless way in which they continue to carry out their tasks.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.
  That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1989 which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
  That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  Question agreed to.

Minibuses
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
10.2 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I should like to raise the matter of a proposal coming from the European Commission which has an extremely adverse effect on the future of voluntary drivers of minibuses. Such proposals are buried in Euro-documents over which the House tries to keep some form of control. This proposal is buried in the so-called second directive on driver licensing, which would remove the ability to derogate—which is Euro-jargon for opt out—from the categories of driving entitlement prescribed in the first directive.
The effect of all this jargon would be to oblige the United Kingdom to introduce categories of driving entitlement that would in future threaten the activities of voluntary organisations, community transport operations and many small businesses. It would also deny other member states the option of developing their own voluntary and community sectors by using voluntary drivers and minibuses.
At present, voluntary drivers of minibuses who hold a full ordinary passenger-car licence may drive passenger vehicles not used commercially and goods vehicles up to 7½ tonnes in weight. These new proposals from the European Commission would oblige such voluntary drivers to take a second test and to fulfil higher medical standards if they wished to drive. This would apply to drivers of passenger vehicles with more than eight passenger seats and goods vehicles of more than 3½ tonnes.
This would have a direct effect on our voluntary drivers. At the moment many voluntary drivers, particularly people recently retired, are prepared to drive minibuses for voluntary organisations. However, if they had to go through another driving test and to take continuous medical inspections they would say that, although they would like to help, with all the inconvenience it was just not on.
I do not think that the European Commission has taken fully into account the scale of this sector in the United Kingdom. There are 85,000 minibuses in Great Britain and this is way above the number in other member countries. Community transport alone in this country does some 10 million passenger journeys each year; 48 per cent. of all minibuses are used by voluntary organisations and private individuals.
It is worth bearing in mind the fact that, without these voluntary services, thousands of our elderly and disabled people could literally become housebound and many more would be denied the only chance they have to take part in recreation or sporting activities, to travel outside their own homes and to have a holiday. There are many thousands of organisations which are totally dependent on the use of minibuses with voluntary drivers to transport their members to and from club activities and on outings and holidays.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to cite some cases from my own constituency. Take, for example, the Gravesend and Northfleet day centres, which are local branches of Age Concern. Both have minibuses that collect old people from their homes every day and take them to the centres for hot lunches and various forms of

1129
attention and social recreation. The drivers, many of whom are retired people, are all volunteers who would be adversely affected by these regulations.
On the other hand, take the Meopham community bus, again driven by volunteers, half of whom are retired. They provide many people in rural parishes with their only means of going shopping, and the bus links villages that are not served by scheduled buses. That community bus is used by old people's clubs in the area. It also takes Meopham cricket club's junior team to many away matches.
Other examples abound. The Helen Allison school, which caters for autistic children, relies heavily on voluntary drivers for its minibuses. The same applies to other organisations up and down this land—parent-teacher associations, scout groups, Mencap, Cheshire homes, and Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied. One could give an immense list of organisations that would be adversely affected.
Where does the Commission's proposal come from? Tracing its origin into the obscurity of Brussels, one finds that it comes from the then Transport Commissioner. It is perhaps to the shame of this House that the then Commissioner is a former Labour Member of Parliament, Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis, who appears to have forgotten the part that voluntary organisations play in Britain and, indeed, play in his former constituency to this very day. In a quite extraordinary letter of December last year, which is in the Library, Mr. Clinton Davis condemns the Minister for lobbying in Europe against the proposals—an extraordinary process, he seemed to think.
The letters that were exchanged, which, as I have said, are to be found in the Library, contain platitudinous statements such as this:
"I think that the safest conclusion one can draw from your two sets of figures"—
the Minister's figures—
"is that road safety for these vehicles needs to be improved. Especially vulnerable groups—like the elderly and the disabled—need extra reassurance that they are being driven in safety. They are special people who, in the event of a serious accident, are obviously less able to fend for themselves."
That is all quite straightforward, but if these measures were to be introduced the elderly people would not be in the vehicles but in their homes, and not taking part in a very wide range of activities.
What of the figures that he referred to? The recent Transport and Road Research Laboratory study found that the accident rate for minibuses is no higher than for cars and, indeed, far lower than for buses. A more recent examination of the latest available statistics reveals that the passenger injury rate for cars is twice as high as for minibuses. The danger to passengers is halved if they are carried by minibuses rather than by cars. Indeed, Britain has a good record on road safety and road accidents. It is a fact that if the rest of the community had our standards of road safety, 40 per cent. fewer people in the European Community would have died last year.
Where does the decision on this directive lie? Mr. Clinton Davis, of unlamented memory, has been trundled into the history books and is no longer the Commissioner for Transport. There is a new Commissioner, and let us hope that he will approach this matter with an open mind. The decision, in fact, will be taken by majority vote in the Council of Ministers. Obviously, it is the objective to argue
1130
our case with the other 11 members of the European Community. Certainly I commend the Minister for his activities with regard to the Mobility Alliance and his venture to Strasbourg to put our case energetically.
I resent Commissioner Clinton Davis's dismissive reference to lobbying and his extraordinary condemnation of the mobility allowance for having the support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's Government. The Government should be commended for giving their support to such a good cause.
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): In case anyone misinterprets my hon. Friend's words, I should say that the Mobility Alliance and the Government are both working for people who have the advantage of community transport in minibuses. He and I want to make sure that the Mobility Alliance is not necessarily associated with the Conservative party, although we hope that it is. On minibuses, there is complete agreement between the Government and community transport organisations.
Mr. Arnold: The important point is that this is a non-party political issue. If the Government support such an organisation, all concerned will benefit. Over the coming months before the decision is made, my hon. Friend has the support of a great range of voluntary organisations and a great number, if not the majority, of our right hon. and hon. Friends.
10.10 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The House and millions in the United Kingdom will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for drawing the attention of the House to this important issue. My hon. Friend is concerned with other transport issues. Those who were present earlier will have heard the point of view that he has been putting forward on the Channel link on behalf of his constituents. This issue should unite the House. I assume that we have the Labour party's support, but none of its Members is present this evening. I was going to say that I notice that the alliance parties are here but, sadly, they are leaving the matter to the Government.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham, for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for their support. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) is also present and he has raised this point at transport questions, when I made the point that the correspondence between Stanley Clinton Davis and me should not be regarded as a vendetta. However, it is probably true to say that the curious letter that he sent me in December from Strasbourg was ill-judged. I assume that he was let down by poor staff work. I suspect that he was getting ready to leave his job, which he had carried forward in a fairly distinguished way except in this issue. He must have signed the letter without reading it.
In Woodspring and in Eltham—in every constituency represented by one of my hon. Friends who are present —many thousands of people have the advantage of community transport in minibuses. There are, as my hon. Friend says, 85,000 minibuses or more in the United Kingdom. No one in another European country can

1131
comprehend that. Virtually every other European country forbids people to drive minibuses unless they have a special licence.
It is right that Members of the EC should be concerned about transport safety. Over the months, we have had tragic news of ferry disasters, plane disasters and train crashes. The community rises up to mourn with the families of those who lost their lives. But, as we have been reminded today with the M6 tragedy, many more lose their lives on the road—50,000 or more a year in the European Community. Britain is by far the safest country. As my hon. Friend said, if Britain's death rate was common to the EEC, 40 per cent. fewer people would have lost their lives last year.
We want to work together with the Commission. We want the freedom to exchange licences. We are even prepared, although we did not sign the Vienna convention, to have a delay before people can drive minibuses. It could be argued that someone who passed their driving test at the age of 17 or 18 should wait another two years before they drive a large number of people. But it would be wrong for us to accept, and it would be wrong for other countries or for the Commission to try to make us accept, that 10 million journeys a year for the elderly, the young and the frail should be waved away because others cannot understand the system that we have developed for the handicapped and for community groups.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, subsequent to the departure of the demob-happy Clinton Davis, he has had discussions with the new Commissioner? Do other countries have the sympathy that I feel they should have for our case and for the safety record of minibus drivers in this country?
Mr. Bottomley: In the remaining minutes I may refer to something that the Commissioner emeritus Clinton Davis said in his letter. I shall try not to knock him, because there is not much point in doing so, although I note in passing that he referred to himself as a former Commissioner for the environment rather than as the Commissioner for transport. I suspect that he was trying to distance himself from the minibus issue. In his unfortunate letter to me he said that he was proud of what he had taken through the Commission. If that is so, heaven knows what he was ashamed of.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher rightly referred to the Commisssioner for Transport, Mr. Karl van Miert, who is approaching the matter with an open mind. I have had the advantage of meeting him twice. The first time was with a group of academics and politicians in Brussels. Commissioner van Miert kindly gave up some of his time to meet us and I said to him that I would be most grateful if he would ask his officials to reconsider and try to reach agreement on the safety facts with the British researchers. This issue should be determined first on safety and secondly on mobility for the handicapped and those with special needs—although mobility is important.
One friend in the European Community asked me, "Is it true that British accident figures are built up by the British police?" I replied, "Yes. They come in a form called `Stats 19'." He replied, "In that case, no one should dispute the figures." I agree, but if anyone does have different figures, we should all—researchers, road safety experts and statisticians—put our heads together. I made the offer to Commissioner van Miert that I should come to
1132
Brussels and work with his officials to agree on the facts and figures. Once that was done the figures could then be offered to the Commission, to Parliament—which has to give an opinion on the draft directive—and, of course, to the Council of Ministers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham rightly said, it is the Government who are supporting the members of the Mobility Alliance rather than the Mobility Alliance trying to support the Government. I think that that was the point that Commissioner emeritus Clinton Davis may have missed in December. If the campaign is successful, I suspect that within 10 years other European Community countries will have developed voluntary minibus schemes for people such as students, young children and the elderly.
I suspect that by then cricket will have crossed the Channel and the Lords Taverners will be raising money every week to buy minibuses in other European countries. I suspect that the International Variety Club of Great Britain will have spread beyond the few countries in which it is involved to the rest of Europe and that minibuses will appear with the International Variety Club emblem on them. There will be a degree of solidarity between the elderly, the young, and, most of all, between the volunteers who wish to give their time to drive others about.
May I remind the House that about 6 per cent. of our 85,000 minibuses have fare-paying passengers. I shall give this commitment: we shall not do anything to stop those professional drivers on fare-paying minibuses from taking public service vehicle tests. We are concerned only with the non-professional drivers—perhaps the person with a large family, the scoutmaster or the Akela or someone who is semi-retired and wants to spend two days a week driving for the PHAB club.
There are many reasons why people might want to drive together. A person may volunteer to stay off booze and drive a minibus so that the other 10 or eleven people in his group can drink. That example may be more appropriate after Easter but I give it—for what it is worth—during Lent.
The thresholds proposed by the European Community will have serious consequences for community and voluntary transport operations.
There is no evidence that minibuses are more difficult to drive than vans, and the draft directive will allow vans the same size as minibuses to be driven on an ordinary driving licence. There is no safety case requiring drivers of minibuses to take a second test or to meet higher medical standards. The terms of the second draft directive should be modified—preferably as a recommendation by the European Parliament, because this is a popular issue with which, ideally, the European Parliament should deal—so that minibuses can continue to be driven with passenger car entitlement.
I repeat that, as an added assurance of competence, the United Kingdom would be willing to accept a requirement for two years' driving experience in passenger cars to be imposed on individuals wanting to drive minibuses. That would allow similar opportunities for safe, cost-effective transport operations in other member states.
I want to give the figures, although I am not sure whether giving them in a speech on the Floor of the House will make it easier to put them in tabulated form. I leave that to those who have to massage the words afterwards. Let us take the accident ratios to vehicle types. If we represent a minibus by the figure 1, the casualty rate for

1133
each passenger kilometre in a car is 2·5— in other words, two and a half times as great. The casualty rate for the motor cyclist is 65.
The accident rate figure for the minibus itself—the vehicle, not the passengers—is 1. It is 1·2 for the car and 15·2 for the motor cycle. That evidence shows that if we take any action that discourages people from being driven in minibuses and makes them switch to driving a car the safety rate is worsened: they are more likely to be injured. All Members of the European Parliament should begin to understand that. Most British MEPs do, although a few seem to be in the same group as the Commissioner emeritus, and have said, "There is no problem. If people abandon minibus driving in future, the Government can provide the money for extra training."
For each volunteer minibus there are between six and 10 volunteer drivers. I believe that Dr. Barnardo's estimated that it would lose five out of six of its volunteer drivers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said, it is aggravating for someone to have to show that he is qualified, and then perhaps to have regular medical checks.
In December the Commissioner said that minibuses were longer than cars. A 13-seat Ford Transit is 15 ft long, while a Ford Granada is 15 ft 3 ins long. An Aston Martin Lagonda measures 17 ft 5 ins, while a Volkswagen Transporter is 14 ft 10 ins. I think that that makes the point.
Another claim in the unfortunate letter is that in a minibus people sit higher up. I am not sure that whoever drafted the letter could ever have driven a minibus or van. If someone is sitting higher up he has a better view and a better understanding of what is happening on the road in front of him, and is more likely to have a lower accident involvement rate for every kilometre driven.
Obviously if a minibus drives a shorter distance there may be inequality in the figures per year. The worst possible comparison is that in a year the minibus may have as many crashes as a car, but the figures per passenger kilometre are better for the minibus passenger.
I hesitate to say too much—because I think that it would bring moisture to people's eyes—about what would happen to the handicapped and under-privileged who did not transfer to a car but were left at home.
The House will forgive me for stuttering, but we have just seen an hon. Member who takes a keen interest in all European affairs, except this one apparently, leave the Chamber. I wonder what it is about the 10 million people whose journeys we are trying to protect that does not claim the interest of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
We have much to learn about working in the European Community. Some countries will share the view that behavioural contributions to road casualties are not necessarily within the competence of the European Community. I shall not dispute that for the moment. I will say that we must pick up on the best and share it.
In the case of mobility for those in wheelchairs, for example, Britain is the only country in Europe that has laid down a regulation that every new taxi in its capital should be able to accommodate a wheelchair. That has been done in London. That development was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, and
1134
it came into effect in February. Britain is the only country where every public bus running from the airport to the main terminals takes two wheelchairs. That is integrated transport. We are also developing dial-a-rides and the taxi-car. We are not perfect, but we are adding to the provisions for those having special mobility needs. I hope that we shall find ways of working with the European Parliament so that there will be more understanding. What is good spreads, and at the same time the casualty rate falls.
To those in Europe who read this debate, I may say that we are proud that the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads has reduced by 6 per cent. in the past 12 months, even though there has been an increase in the volume of traffic. We are proud that the same kind of reduction was seen the year before. We weep for the families of those who died on the M6 today. Fourteen people die on our roads every day and 300,000 are injured every year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has set a target for cutting road casualties— especially those killed or seriously injured—by one third by the year 2000.
Who thinks that the House and the Government would tolerate extra risks for those being driven in minibuses? Who could point to Britain and say that we are dragging our feet in cutting road casualties? Twenty fewer people a week die on our roads than two years ago, given the same volume of traffic. We are the people who ask to combine the maintenance and enhancement of safety with the maintenance and enhancement of mobility for those with special needs or those of a common interest group— whether it is the village cricket team or those using one of the 12,000 minibuses fitted with tail lifts. I pay tribute to John Ratcliffe, who has done so much in the Variety Club as well as being in the commercial business of installing tail lifts. I pay tribute also to people like Richard Stilgoe and Stirling Moss, who came to wave off the Mobility Alliance motorcade that went to Brussels. I was accused of lobbying for those groups. Rather, I was representing their interests. It is a shared concern with the European Parliament and with the Council of Ministers.
We shall make further progress. As my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and for Gravesham intimated, it is time that we left the Commissioner emeritus behind and moved forward with the Transport Committee of the European Parliament. We look forward to receiving its opinion. We hope that it will be possible to share the arguments with it, so that we may build on the provisions we have and allow their extension to others. We hope also to build alliances with the Council of Ministers to improve road safety, rather than take actions that will severely harm our people.
I wrote to Commissioner Clinton Davis two days before he wrote to me. I said that the aim of the United Kingdom Government is to maintain and improve road safety standards. I made the point that a minibus passenger is less likely to be involved in an accident than a car passenger. I made the point also that we want to work towards common standards in driving competence, which will facilitate the exchange of licences between countries. We mean that. We also want to recognise and provide for the needs of vulnerable groups—especially the elderly and the disabled.
My father's generation fought each other. Many of his generation—the war wounded—are now travelling around as passengers in minibuses. They may have been volunteer

1135
drivers in their time, but they are passengers now. Let them be driven around throughout Europe by volunteer drivers of our generation. Let us maintain solidarity through the generations. Let us maintain the unity of safety and mobility. The whole of Europe will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham for raising the debate, and I hope that the message will go out throughout the
1136
Community that we must move forward together in safety and with solidarity, and remembering the vulnerable groups.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Induction Loops
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the number of clients of the Arts Council who have fitted induction loops.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: This information is not held centrally. I will ask the chairman of the Arts Council to write to the hon. Member direct on this subject.

  Museums (Registration)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether the Museums and Galleries Commission will be responsible for registering national museums.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: I understand that there is no obligation on the national museums and galleries to apply for registration under the Museums and Galleries Commission's registration scheme, which is a voluntary scheme.

  I hope, however, that the national institutions will lend their support to a scheme which seeks to set standards for the museums' community.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 6 March.

SCOTLAND

  Protein Fractionation Centre
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to extend Crown immunity to the protein fractionation centre so as to exempt it from the legal requirement for manufacturing or product licences.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The protein fractionation centre is part of the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service and as such is entitled to whatever immunities that agency, as a Crown body, has from the application of statute. I have no plans for extension of Crown immunity in this field.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current regulations governing building standards in Scotland, and the parent legislation from which they derive.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Building standards regulations in Scotland are made under the Building (Scotland) Act 1959. The current regulations are:

  The Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1981

  The Building Standards (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1982

  The Building Standards (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1984

  The Building Standards (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1986

  The Building Standards (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1987

  Torness Power Station
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information was submitted to the assessor of public undertakings by the South of Scotland electricity board in respect of generating capacity at Torness power station on 1 October 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  The information submitted by the South of Scotland electricity board to the assessor of public undertakings (Scotland) was that, on 1 October 1988, the installed generating capacity at Torness was nil. The relevant statutory instrument requires the board to certify the generating capacity in each rating area on the basis that all generators which were installed were capable of being fully used at the relevant time. I understand that the No. I unit at Torness had not completed its test run on the date in question.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contribution, in megawatts, has been made to the national grid by Torness power station in each month since generation started at that site.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by the South of Scotland electricity board that the first unit at Torness synchronised on to the national grid on 25 May 1988, following which a gradual build up in power proceeded in accordance with a programme agreed with the nuclear installations inspectorate. By the end of July 1988, an interim rating of 682 MW gross was achieved. Since then the unit has operated for much of the time at this power although occasional interruptions for scheduled testing have continued.

  Torness unit No. 2 synchronised on 3 February 1989 and is presently operating at 540 MW gross. It is expected that this unit will achieve its interim rating of 682 MW gross before the end of this month.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will direct the South of Scotland electricity board to review the figure relating to generating capacity at Torness which was submitted to the assessor of public undertakings on 1 October 1988, with a view to ensuring that the board makes an appropriate financial contribution to the budgets of Lothian region and East Lothian district during the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The apportionment of the South of Scotland electricity board's rateable value among rating areas is
  591
  carried out in accordance with the formula set out in the Scottish Electricity Boards (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985. Part of the apportionment to East Lothian district council for 1989–90 is based on the board's generating capacity within the district council's area on 1 October 1988 as certified by the board to the assessor of public undertakings (Scotland). The Secretary of State has no powers to direct the South of Scotland electricity board to review its certified figures.

  Crops, Plants and Plant Health
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received the report of the review of the functions of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland in the area of crops, plants and plant health, which commenced in April 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The report of this internal review has now been received and is being considered. Decisions on the recommendations in the report will be reached as quickly as possible, following appropriate consultation with interested parties.

  Newbattle Abbey College
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet replied to the letter of 21 December 1988 from the acting chairman of the governors of Newbattle Abbey college; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I met the chairman and other representatives of the governors on 24 February and have today written to him. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library. This confirms my intention, announced in December 1987, to cease grant payments to the college at the end of this academic year.

  The future of the college is a matter for the governors and trustees. The Government are committed to increasing the proportion of mature students in higher education in Scotland and our current projections assume that numbers of such entrants will be maintained at more than 6,000 a year. The Scottish wider access programme (SWAP) announced last year is working to that end, and resources released from Newbattle will support collaboration under SWAP between further and higher education institutions and education authorities in regional consortia based on each of the four main cities. Such consortia are already operating in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and plans are far advanced in Dundee and Aberdeen.

  Castlehill Site, Aye (Sale)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made with the Ayrshire and Arran health board regarding the use of funds arising from the sale of the Castlehill site in Ayr; what he expects the proceeds from the sale to be spent on; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: If the sale of Castlehill estate is concluded in the financial year 1989–90 as expected, the proceeds will be retained by Ayrshire and Arran health board and used for capital projects designed to improve the retained properties in its area, to reduce running costs and improve health care.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  "Action for Cities"
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made with "Action for Cities" over its first year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I am today publishing a report "Progress on Cities" which outlines the Government's strategy for inner-city regeneration, illustrates achievements to date region by region and sets out the Government's priorities for future action.

  The report shows that the economic regeneration of our inner cities, based on businesses earning commercial returns, is clearly under way. Unemployment is falling rapidly. New shops, offices, factories and homes are under construction. There is growing confidence and co-operation between the private sector, public authorities, voluntary organisations and local communities. The Government will encourage this growing partnership, continue to emphasise the crucial role that business can play and work to ensure that inner-city residents are able to benefit fully from the regeneration of their neighbourhoods.

  I am sending copies of the report to hon. Members with constituencies in inner city target areas. Copies will also be placed in the Library and are available in the Vote Office.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he intends to make any changes to the location of the inner-city task forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government's inner-city task forces have proved highly successful in creating jobs, encouraging training opportunities and stimulating enterprise in the areas where they work. They have now been involved in nearly 1,100 projects with total commitments of nearly £33 million.

  The task force budget for 1989–90 will be £17 million, representing an increase of over 20 per cent. compared with the present year. I have today given approval for some 50 further task force projects involving funding of over £3 million, together with a number of other inner city projects amounting to about £2 million.

  I have decided to establish new task forces in Bradford, in Lewisham (Deptford), and in Liverpool (Granby/Toxteth). My officials will be discussing their precise boundaries with the local authorities and City Action teams, with a view to the task forces starting their work as soon as possible.

  These new task forces, like the existing ones, are not intended to be permanent Government agencies in the areas concerned. Their aim is to promote changes and provide opportunities which will have a continuing beneficial effect, and to foster the development of local organisations which can carry forward and build on the task forces' work when the task force itself leaves.

  The task force in Birmingham, Handsworth is now nearing the completion of its programme, following my predecessor's announcement in June 1988 that it would come to an end in March 1989 and that the task force effort in Birmingham would be refocussed in east

  593
  Birmingham. A very encouraging evaluation of the Handsworth task force's work, by independent consultants, was published last week.

  In the light of this experience, and of the significant progress they have made, I have decided that it would be right now to set the end of this year as the date by which the task forces in Leicester (Highfields), Preston and Wolverhampton should complete their programme and withdraw from their areas. During that time they will continue their important task of building up the capacity of local bodies which can take over responsibility for their work in future. They will, therefore, be embarking on discussions locally about future arrangements, including where necessary some continued period of support for particular projects.

  A number of important new projects by these task forces are among those I have announced today, and they will continue to welcome new proposals until the end of May.

  Pharmaceuticals
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will print in the Official Report the surplus of deficit on the United Kingdom's total trade in pharmaceutical products in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, the total value of exports and imports of pharmaceuticals in 1987 and 1988, the total value of parallel imports of pharmaceuticals from other European Economic Community members for 1986, 1987 and 1988, and the total value of parallel imports from Greece in 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information parallel imports from countries in the European Community is not available. The remaining information requested is given in the following tables:

  Table 1

  United Kingdom trade in medicinal and pharmaceutical products 1984 to 1988

  Value in £ million

  Division 54

  Balance

  1984

  680·1

  1985

  836·6

  1986

  853·0

  1987

  834·4

  1988

  859·4

  Table 2

  Total value of imports and exports of medicinal and pharmaceutical products 1987 to 1988

  Value in £ million

  Exports

  Imports

  1987

  1,620·7

  786·3

  1988

  1,735·3

  875·9

  Notes:

  (i) 1988 figures are provisional.

  (ii) exports fob; imports cif.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Select Committees (Recommendations)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about and how many accepted, by his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Forth
  In the two reports by the Trade and Industry Committee completed since June 1987, to which the 594
  Government have responded, 62 recommendations were made, of which 37 have been accepted in whole or in part by the Government, or noted, where no further action by Government was sought.

  Computerised Information (Confidentiality)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the potential risks of unauthorised entry into the computer systems which calculate the monthly balance of payments figures.

  Mr. Forth
  The security requirements of the computer system used in my Department for calculating the United Kingdom visible balance of trade were addressed before the system was designed and put into operation. Security safeguards designed to minimise the risks of unauthorised entry were incorporated into the system, taking account of appropriate specialist advice. Security of the system is regularly reviewed.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the possible effects on financial markets in the United Kingdom and abroad of the unauthorised penetration of sensitive information held by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  The security of sensitive information is addressed at an early stage in the design of new systems by assessing the impact of unauthorised disclosure or loss of the information to be held. Measures are introduced to reduce the risks of unauthorised penetration to a justifiable minimum.

  Chambers of Commerce
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many chambers of commerce have received assistance from his Department; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department provides assistance on a wide range of matters to many chambers throughout the country.

  Textiles
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce a scheme under the Industry Act 1972, as amended, to provide grant aid for the textile dyeing industry to invest in machinery which reduces water consumption; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Member states are bound by restrictions on sectoral aid for the textile and clothing industry. However, firms in assisted areas may apply for regional selective assistance under the Industry Act towards investment projects which meet the established criteria. Firms in the industry may also be eligible for assistance under the enterprise initiative.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the Government's proposal to review the Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion) Levy; what views have been expressed by the Confederation of British Wool Textiles:, what is his response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have received a number of representations from interested parties, including hon. Members, trade
  595
  associations and trade unions. The Confederation of British Wool Textiles stated that it wished the statutory levy to be retained. All views expressed will be taken fully into account before a decision is taken.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on quota arrangements for textiles in the European Economic Community by 1992; and what consideration has been given as to whether imports will be controlled on a Communitywide basis or quotas for imports allocated to each member state.

  Mr. Maude
  It is the Commission's view that individual member states quotas or shares of any ECwide quotas, backed up by derogations from the normal free-circulation rules authorised by the Commission under article 115 of the treaty of Rome, would be inconsistent with the completion of the single market in 1992. How far this might extend to the treatment of textiles and clothing is unclear although the curent EC bilateral textile agreements under the multi-fibre arrangement already allow for automatic transfers between member states' share of EC wide quotas. There has, however, been no detailed Community discussion of future arrangements for EC quotas on textiles and clothing. The current extension of the MFA lapses in 1991 and the future of the arrangement itself is under discussion within the GATT round of multilateral trade negotiations which themselves are due for completion in September 1990.

  Tin
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contribution the United Kingdom is making to the administrative account of the International Tin Council in the current year.

  New merchant shipbuilding orders

  Thousand gross registered tons

  1987

  1988

  Qtr. 1

  Qtr. 2

  Qtr. 3

  Qtr. 4

  Qtr. 1

  Qtr. 2

  Qtr. 3

  Belgium

  0

  1

  0

  26

  20

  0

  7

  Denmark

  60

  1

  5

  216

  50

  17

  48

  France

  0

  30

  26

  2

  44

  1

  5

  Germany

  176

  67

  168

  154

  40

  307

  158

  Italy

  301

  127

  14

  18

  2

  33

  3

  Netherlands

  9

  7

  11

  9

  36

  26

  21

  Greece

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Portugal

  79

  0

  0

  2

  7

  1

  3

  Spain

  12

  26

  44

  324

  14

  106

  245

  United Kingdom

  6

  75

  10

  8

  8

  6

  83

  Total EEC

  644

  334

  279

  760

  221

  499

  573

  Japan

  913

  1,307

  1,314

  1,216

  1,168

  1,079

  1,522

  South Korea

  1,023

  1,307

  605

  1,225

  726

  778

  612

  Other

  838

  762

  422

  749

  640

  485

  692

  Total

  3,418

  3,710

  2,620

  3,950

  2,755

  2,841

  3,399

  Source: Lloyd's Register of Shipping.

  Honey
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much of honey exports is produced from British hives and how much is imported honey packaged or repackaged in Britain.
  596
  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's contribution to the administrative account for the year ending 30 June 1989 was assessed by the International Tin Council as £15,007.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what have been the costs to date of defending the various legal actions brought against the Government following the collapse of the international tin agreement in 1985.

  Mr. Atkins
  Payments in respect of legal costs by the Treasury Solicitor acting for Government Departments concerned in various actions in the courts in England arising out of the cessation of the buffer stock operation of the International Tin Council totalled £375,106 at 31 January 1989.

  Defence Exhibition
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to the countries which will be represented at the defence components and equipment exhibition at the Birmingham national exhibition centre on 9 to 11 May.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand that over 250 British companies are exhibiting at the event together with a number of European firms, the majority of whom are currently engaged in collaborative projects with British firms in the defence field. Visitors are expected from many countries.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent information he has on the gross tonnage of new shipbuilding orders won by each European Community country, Japan, South Korea and all other countries in 1987 and 1988 quarter by quarter.

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

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply to this question.

  There is no information available to distinguish between the honey exports that are produced from British hives and those from packaged or repackaged imports.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  National Insurance
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will allow a repayment supplement to individual taxpayers where there has been a mistake in their class 4 national insurance contributions and the Inland Revenue is at fault;

  (2) if he will seek to amend section 824 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to allow a repayment supplement, as with the case of income tax, on class 4 national insurance contributions, where the individual has been overcharged because of an error on the Inland Revenue's part.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Social Security has no plans to amend Social Security legislation to reflect the provisions of section 824 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to class 4 national insurance contributions.

  Shipping (Investment)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a brief summary of the main differences between the Norwegian K/S investment scheme and the business expansion scheme in so far as they affect investment in shipping.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Norwegian K/S partnerships and the business expansion scheme are entirely different. K/S partnerships, which are usually involved in shipping, are in principle similar to United Kingdom limited partnerships. A K/S partnership is not itself chargeable to tax; instead, the individual partners are taxed on their share of the partnership's profits and are entitled to the tax allowances associated with the partnership's business. This carries certain tax advantages for investors. The Norwegian Government have recently made proposals to limit the use of such partnerships.

  The business expansion scheme offers tax relief on investments made by outside investors in new full-risk equity of small United Kingdom unquoted companies, including companies which operate or let ships. The Government welcome the fact that more shipping companies are using the BES to raise finance this year.

  Computers (Unauthorised Entry)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any contingency measures to deal with the possibility of unauthorised tampering with computerised systems in the money markets.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is the responsibility of individual participants in the money markets to ensure the integrity of their respective computerised systems.

  Shipping
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the contribution of British shipping to the United Kingdom balance of payments in 1988 and what it was in 1978, expressed both in current value and constant value terms.

  Mr. Major
  The latest annual information relates to 1987, when the direct overseas earnings of ships operated 598
  by United Kingdom companies, net of their overseas expenditure, was £500 million. The equivalent figure in 1978 was £662 million, or about £1 billion at 1987 prices.

  Tax System
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations he has given to the codification of the United Kingdom tax system, along the lines of that in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 2 March 1989]: Any such change to the present system would need to be considered in the wider context of statute law as a whole. I refer my hon. Friend to the report of the Renton committee (Cmnd. 6053, presented to Parliament on 7 May 1975) for the arguments which led ito recommend against continuous codification of statutue law. It also looked specifically at fiscal legislation but was not persuaded that it deserved special treatment and I see no reason to depart from that view. When drafting legislation, parliamentary counsel do use the textual amendment approach where practicable. This is a convenient and well-understood drafting technique which helps to reduce difficulties for practitioners. In particular it allows related tax legislation in different Finance Acts to be brought together in the Taxes Acts which the Inland Revenue updates and publishes annually.

ENERGY

  Windpower Farm (Isle of Wight)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration has been given to the benefits of siting a windpower farm at Tennyson downs on the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No consideration has been given by my Department to siting a wind farm at Tennyson downs on the Isle of Wight.

  Domestic Energy Resources
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what current estimate he has of the number of households in England and Wales which are unable to obtain a gas supply.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  As my hon. Friend will appreciate this is now a matter for British Gas plc, since it has been privatised.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what current estimate he has of the number of householders in England and Wales who are unable to burn coal or wood fires.

  Mr. Parkinson
  A recent market survey by Audit Great Britain (AGB) estimated that the number of households in England and Wales who did not have the potential to burn coal or wood fires in the winter of 1987–89 was 12·843 million.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since June 1987.
  599
  Mr. Parkinson
  The Government have responded to recommendations made in three reports of the Energy Select Committee published since June 1987. The responses are contained in the following reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.The Effect of Oil and Gas Prices on Activity in the North Sea:
  Energy Committee: First Special Report Session 1987/88 House of Commons 205
  The Department of Energy's Spending Plans 1988–89:
  Energy Committee: Second Special Report Session 1987/88 House of Commons 693
  The Structure, Regulation and Economic Consequences of Electricity Supply in the Private Sector:
  Energy Committee: Third Special Report Session 1987/88 House of Commons 701

PRIME MINISTER

  Pensioners
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what action she is taking to co-ordinate Government policy to ensure that all pensioners have an adequate standard of living.

  The Prime Minister
  This Government's success in co-ordinating policies to ensure that pensioners have an adequate standard of living is clearly shown by the fact that we have maintained the value of retirement pension, ensured that pensioners' savings keep their value, and encouraged the growth of occupational pensions. These policies resulted in a 23 per cent. real terms increase in pensioners' total average net income in our first seven years in office. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced in November last year that an extra £200 million annually is to be made available to certain groups of pensioners through the income support scheme, who have not shared fully in the prosperity enjoyed by pensioners as a whole.

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

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

  Sea Defences
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the protection of the British coast line and the development of appropriate sea defences; and which of her Ministers has overall responsibility for the development and implementation of such a policy.

  The Prime Minister
  Through the provision of grant aid to water and other drainage authorities and to maritime district councils, Her Majesty's Government provide a substantial contribution to the cost of capital works undertaken by these bodies for the protection of the coastline from flooding and erosion by the sea.

  Ministerial responsibility in England for flood and coastal defences rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in other parts of the United Kingdom the respective Secretaries of State.

  Civil Service Code
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to amend the operation of the Civil Service code as it relates to staff at 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  The Civil Service code applies to all civil servants. I have no plans to make any changes which relate specially to staff at 10 Downing street.

  Middle East
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she intends to discuss issues relating to the peace process in the middle east with President Gorbachev during his forthcoming visit to Britain.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to discuss with Mr. Gorbachev a wide range of issues of mutual interest including the middle east.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her recent meeting with President Mitterrand of France, she discussed the joint development of inherently safe nuclear reactors.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her recent meeting with President Mitterrand of France, she raised the possibility of France signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Test Ban Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her recent meeting with President Mitterrand of France, she raised the possiblity of Franco-British technical co-operation to resolve outstanding technical problems of verification for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Sudan (Visit)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement following the postponement of her visit to the Sudan.

  The Prime Minister
  I concluded that it would be considerate to postpone my visit to Sudan because of the present political difficulties there. The Government hope that all parties in Sudan will work for the restoration of peace and stability.

  Engagements
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 March.
  601
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and 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 shall be presenting the north-east business man of the year awards in Gateshead.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Examination Results
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all local education authorities in England in rank order of expenditure per secondary pupil per year, together with their position in the table of examination results for school leavers achieving five or more O-levels at grades A to C or CSE grade 1, for the year 1984–85.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information in the table gives the average cost per secondary school pupil for the financial year 1984–85; 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 and are presented in the form of a three-year average, rather than for any single year, to help mitigate the effects of sampling error.

  Secondary schools in England

  Examination results: Average over the academic year 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87

  Expenditure per pupil (£) in the financial year 1984–85

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

  Ranking

  Local education authorities:

  ILEA

  1,940

  15·4

  90

  Haringey

  1,615

  17·3

  83

  Brent

  1,525

  19·1

  75

  Newham

  1,485

  12·4

  93

  Waltham Forest

  1,450

  11·0

  94

  Ealing

  1,315

  19·6

  69

  Manchester

  1,295

  17·3

  82

  Hillingdon

  1,275

  21·2

  62

  Barnet

  1,265

  41·0

  1

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,245

  17·7

  80

  Knowsley

  1,240

  10·6

  95

  Harrow

  1,240

  37·8

  2

  Havering

  1,230

  23·9

  44

  Barking

  1,225

  9·9

  96

  Croydon

  1,225

  22·9

  52

  Hounslow

  1,190

  21·5

  61

  Redbridge

  1,185

  25·6

  32

  North Tyneside

  1,180

  21·9

  56

  Coventry

  1,180

  19·9

  67

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,170

  26·5

  26

  602

  Examination results: Average over the academic year 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87

  Expenditure per pupil (£) in the financial year 1984–85

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

  Ranking

  Liverpool

  1,165

  17·0

  84

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,165

  34·8

  3

  Rochdale

  1,155

  20·2

  64

  Bromley

  1,155

  30·5

  10

  South Tyneside

  1,150

  18·1

  79

  Enfield

  1,150

  23·7

  45

  Sheffield

  1,150

  18·9

  74

  Sandwell

  1,135

  13·4

  92

  Wolverhampton

  1,130

  15·4

  89

  Stockport

  1,130

  24·3

  41

  Wigan

  1,110

  27·2

  19

  Nottinghamshire

  1,110

  19·6

  68

  Salford

  1,110

  18·9

  76

  Walsall

  1,105

  19·1

  73

  Leicestershire

  1,100

  22·9

  51

  Bury

  1,100

  28·4

  16

  Buckinghamshire

  1,095

  31·6

  8

  Avon

  1,085

  24·7

  38

  Bexley

  1,080

  26·6

  24

  Gateshead

  1,080

  18·8

  77

  Hertfordshire

  1,075

  28·9

  13

  Cleveland

  1,075

  27·5

  18

  Barnsley

  1,070

  15·7

  88

  Tameside

  1,070

  23·5

  48

  Oxfordshire

  1,070

  26·5

  25

  Doncaster

  1,065

  19·2

  72

  Birmingham

  1,060

  16·9

  85

  Bedfordshire

  1,060

  25·9

  29

  Sutton

  1,060

  34·4

  4

  Sunderland

  1,060

  19·3

  70

  Berkshire

  1,055

  27·5

  17

  Sefton

  1,045

  27·0

  21

  St. Helens

  1,040

  23·6

  46

  Merton

  1,040

  24·9

  36

  Shropshire

  1,040

  27·0

  22

  Humberside

  1,040

  21·1

  63

  Trafford

  1,040

  31·7

  7

  Wirral

  1,035

  23·5

  47

  Bolton

  1,035

  24·9

  37

  Northamptonshire

  1,035

  20·0

  66

  North Yorkshire

  1,035

  31·4

  9

  Surrey

  1,030

  34·4

  5

  Cumbria

  1,025

  24·2

  42

  Staffordshire

  1,025

  23·4

  50

  Derbyshire

  1,020

  21·5

  58

  Solihull

  1,020

  29·4

  11

  Essex

  1,015

  25·1

  35

  Lancashire

  1,015

  24·7

  39

  Gloucestershire

  1,015

  28·6

  14

  Cheshire

  1,010

  26·6

  23

  Norfolk

  1,010

  21·9

  57

  Warwickshire

  1,010

  26·2

  27

  East Sussex

  1,000

  25·7

  30

  Calderdale

  1,000

  19·3

  71

  Northumberland

  1,000

  29·0

  12

  Oldham

  995

  16·1

  87

  Rotherham

  995

  17·4

  81

  Dudley

  990

  21·5

  60

  Bradford

  990

  16·7

  86

  Lincolnshire

  985

  25·3

  34

  Devon

  980

  23·4

  49

  Hampshire

  980

  26·0

  28

  Suffolk

  975

  22·0

  55

  Wiltshire

  975

  22·1

  54

  Wakefield

  975

  15·4

  91

  Leeds

  970

  21·5

  59

  Durham

  965

  20·0

  65

  West Sussex

  965

  32·1

  6

  Cornwall

  965

  25·5

  33

  603

  Examination results: Average over the academic year 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87

  Expenditure per pupil (£) in the financial year 1984–85

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

  Ranking

  Dorset

  960

  28·4

  15

  Isle of Wight

  960

  18·3

  78

  Hereford and Worcester

  955

  25·7

  31

  Somerset

  950

  22·2

  53

  Kirklees

  950

  24·1

  43

  Kent

  935

  27·1

  20

  Cambridgeshire

  690

  24·4

  40

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list, for each of the local education authorities in England the number of A-level grades A to E awarded to pupils in maintained institutions, including both secondary schools and tertiary colleges, in each year from 1982–83 to the latest for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to my hon. Friend in due course.

  University Teachers
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when and where it was stated and agreed in 1986 that the staged salary increase for university teachers was to cover three years; how long the standard response letter from his Department signed by Miss J. Bonde, in reply to representations concerning the Association of University Teachers dispute has been in use; and if it is his intention to revise it.

  Mr. Jackson
  The pay settlement for university non-academic and academic related staff agreed in March 1987 provided for increases of 16·6 per cent from 1 December 1986 and 7·4 per cent from 1 March 1988. At the time of the settlement, the Government gave a clear indication to the employers that no further funds would be made available to finance further increases from 1 April 1988. In the nature of things many correspondents make the same points and accordingly there are areas of similarity in the Department's replies. The comments made on all matters are revised when necessary.

  Travellers' Children
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report the number of travellers' children being educated by each local education authority.

  Mr. Butcher
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested.

  Top-up Loans
  Mr. Straw
  To ak the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library copies of the submissions which he has received from organisations and bodies in response to his White Paper "Top-up Loans", in a manner similar to the arrangements he made in respect 604
  of submissions on the consultative documents for the Education Reform Bill; and if he wll list those organisations.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 15 February and 7 March to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) at columns 209 and 465–67. Formal responses have also been received from Oxford university, Liverpool polytechnic and the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education.

  Deaf/Blind Children
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the statement on the educational needs of deaf/blind children.

  Mr. Butcher
  The statement has been published today and a copy has been placed in the Library. My right hon. Friend and I hope that it will help those concerned to make the most suitable provision for the education of deaf-blind children. We are grateful for the help that voluntary organisations, in particular SENSE, and local education authorities have given the Department in drawing up this statement.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Cable Television
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many households in Northern Ireland are at present able to receive cable television.

  Mr. Renton
  Ulster Cablevision has the Cable Authority franchise to provide cable television to 136,000 homes in Belfast. This franchise is not operational yet. In addition, the Cable Authority has authorised a number of satellite master antennae television systems in Northern Ireland. Information on the number of households connected to such systems is not readily available.

  Broadcasting Acts
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the 1981 and 1987 Broadcasting Acts as they affect Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Renton
  The Broadcasting Act 1981 sets out the statutory framework for the operation of independent television and radio in the United Kingdom. Under it Ulster Television was re-awarded the ITV franchise for Northern Ireland in 1981 and Downtown Radio had its contract for the provision of the Northern Ireland ILR service extended by a further eight years in 1986. In accordance with the Broadcasting Act 1987, which makes provision for extending existing ITV contracts with the IBA until 31 December 1992, the franchise of Ulster Television is extended to that date.

  Electric Trains (Radio Interference)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has carried out any investigations into the effect of arcing created by electric trains travelling at
  605
  speeds of over 200 km per hour on the transmission of UHF and VHF broadcasts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend has not commissioned any such investigations; neither are we aware of any. Neither the BBC nor the IBA are aware of any problems in transmission or reception of UHF or VHF broadcasts caused by arcing from high speed electric trains.

  Mr. Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long police protection has been provided for Mr. Salman Rushdie; and what has been the cost to public funds of that provision.

  Mr. Hurd
  On 14 February 1989, the Metropolitan police decided that it was necessary to provide Mr. Rushdie with police protection. It would not be sensible to disclose information about police protection which would indicate its scale in a particular case.

  Sealink Harbours Ltd. (Special Constables)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there has been any change in the advice given to chief constables concerning the appointment of special constables as in the case of Sealink Harbours Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There has been no change in the advice given to chief officers of police about the appointment of special constables for their police force area under section 16 of the Police Act 1964. Chief officers are not parties to the appointment, by Justices, of persons nominated by a statutory harbour authority (under the terms of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847) whose special constabulary powers apply only within the port and one mile around it.

  Football (Offences)
  Mr. John Marsh
  all To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those arrested at football grounds during the past two seasons were (a) subsequently charged with offences and (b) convicted; and if he will provide a breakdown of the types of offences for which convictions were secured.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not recorded centrally.

  Relate (Funding)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding was given to Relate: National Marriage Guidance for England and Wales in each of the last five years; what funding is set for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: Grants-in-aid to relate for the years 1984–85 to 1988–89 were:

  £

  1984–85

  827,460

  1985–86

  864,570

  1986–87

  890,500

  606

  £

  1987–88

  912,870

  1988–89

  11,035,910

  1 Includes £100,000 supplementary grant-in-aid.

  Subject to the approval of Parliament the provision for 1989–90 will be £959,310. That provision will be reviewed during the year.

  Safer Cities Initiative
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish initial reports on the safer cities initiative in Hartlepool.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: A progress report on the safer cities programme will be produced later this year.

  Public Drinking Ban
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the results of the pilot scheme ban on drinking in public places operating in Stockton-on-Tees.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: The experimental byelaw in Stockton-on-Tees, which makes it an offence to drink alcohol in designated public places, was made by the council on 24 February and is expected to be confirmed, subject to the statutory requirements being fulfilled. The experiment will last two years during which its operation will be monitored by the local authority with the assistance of the Home Office. It is expected that the results of the pilot scheme, which involves six other local authorities, will be available in 1991.

  Crime (Cleveland)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures his Department is taking to prevent crime in Cleveland;

  (2) how many neighbourhood watch schemes have been established in Cleveland.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: At the end of November 1988 the Cleveland police force strength was 1,470 police officers and 429 civilians. This represents increases of 123 police officers and 111 civilians since 1 97 9. Nine police officers and one civilian work full time on crime prevention. Four crime prevention panels are in operation in the area and there are 463 neighbourhood watch schemes, covering 15,826 homes. As part of the Government's "Action for Cities" initiative, a safer cities project is being established in Hartlepool.

  Ex-offenders (Hostels)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places in hostels he estimates will be lost to ex-offenders as a result of' the introduction of the new social security regulations.

  Mr. John Patten
  None.

  Select Committee (Recommendations)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted, by his Department since June 1987.
  607
  Mr. Hurd
  In the five departmental Select Committee reports completed since June 1987, to which the Government have responded, 56 recommendations were made, of which 44 have been accepted in whole or in part by the Government, or noted, where no further action by Government was sought.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how his Department is evaluating the effects and use of its guidance on child abuse issued to the police in July 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has asked HM inspectorate of constabulary, as part of its annual force inspections, to discuss with chief officers and to report to him on the implementation of Home Office circular 52/1988.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department's guidance to police officers on child abuse issued in July 1988 is available to(a) hon. Members and (b) the public.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Yes. A copy of Home Office circular 52/1988 on the investigation of child sexual abuse, which was issued on 6 July 1988, was placed in the Library. Copies are available to members of the public on request.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the inter-departmental working group on child sexual abuse has met.

  Mr. David Mellor
  I have been asked to reply. Eight times.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that employees of private security firms are properly vetted.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to questions by the hon. Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on 15 December 1988 at column 716.

  Juveniles (Crime)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles under 17 years sentenced by juvenile and Crown courts in Greater Manchester received custody in 1988; and what proportion this is of the total number of juveniles sentenced to custody in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1987, a total of 502 juveniles aged under 17 years were sentenced to immediate custody at all courts in Greater Manchester; that was 12 per cent. of the juveniles sentenced to immediate custody in 1987 throughout England and Wales. The 1988 figures are not yet available.

  Dog Fighting
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to establish the extent of dog fighting; and if he will make a statement.
  608
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Dog fighting is an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and penalties were recently increased by the Protection of Animals (Penalties) Act 1987 and the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1988. The investigation of crime is a matter for the chief officer of the police force concerned.

  Official Secrets Bill
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it will be an offence under the Official Secrets Bill as currently drafted for an organisation to act as United Kingdom publisher of a copy of an international publication compiled outside the United Kingdom and including information based on official confidential United Kingdom communications to the European Commission.

  Mr. Hurd
  Any such disclosure could be an offence only if, among other elements of the offence, the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the information related to security or intelligence, defence or international relations, as defined in the Bill; that it had previously been published without the authority of the international organisation to which it had been given; that, despite its previous publication, its further disclosure met the relevant test of harm set out in the Bill; and that the discloser had reasonable cause to believe that it would. It is difficult to imagine that a disclosure in the circumstances described could meet these tests.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (i) males and (ii) females were strip-searched by(a) the police, (b) immigration officers, (c) prison officers and (d) other authorities in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on the number of strip searches carried out by police officers is not collected centrally. Comprehensive information about the strip-searching of prison inmates is not available because establishments are not required to record every strip search. Immigration officers normally seek the co-operation of Her Majesty's Customs in any search of a passenger's baggage or person which may be considered necessary, and in practice immigration officers do not carry out strip searches. With regard to the number of strip searches carried out by Customs officers, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to a question from the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) on 10 February at columns 836–37.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action is being taken in the light of local staffing difficulties at Her Majesty's prison, Leeds over (i) searching, (ii) provision of library, (iii) staffing of landings, and (iv) weekend closure of some facilities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action is being taken in the light of local staffing difficulties at Her Majesty's prison, Lindholme over (i) regular suspension of searching, internal cleaning and workshop patrols, and (ii) occasional suspension of receptions, censoring, canteen and library services; and if he will make a statement;
  609
  (3) what action is being taken in the light of local staffing difficulties at Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield over (i) occasional suspension of searching and (ii) regular closure of workshops; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In all three prisons systematic searching is completed on a regular basis in both residential and non-residential areas. Searching is never suspended, but occasional staff shortages may cause changes to a particular programme of searching. Programmes of category A searching are always adhered to.

  I understand that there has been some reduction in access to library services at Her Majesty's prison, Leeds in recent weeks, but that this difficulty has now been resolved. Since the introduction of fresh start working practices at Leeds, there are more staff now available to work on the landings. Only one recent cancellation of weekend association (on Sunday 28 August 1988) has been recorded.

  In Her Majesty's prison Lindholme, wing officers control the cleaning of the wings. Other officers are allocated to the different parties that clean the various areas around the Lindholme site. The task is accomplished to a satisfactory level on a regular basis. On workshop patrols, the preferred manning level is four officers, with an additional officer available to give assistance to the instructors if required. Staff absences and other commitments mean that this manning level is not often fully achieved, and there is a local agreement to drop the additional officer tasks if the suggested patrol numbers are short. Work on receptions, censoring, canteen and library services fluctuates according to demand and staff are deployed accordingly.

  In Her Majesty's prison Wakefield, workshops are not regularly closed, but there are occasional closures, for example due to staff absences or interruptions in the supply of materials.

  Ex-offenders (Employment Prospects)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to improve employment prospects for ex-offenders.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 22 February 1989]: The Home Office has issued advice to prison establishments and to the probation service about employment training and its relevance to offenders and ex-offenders. Prison officers in several establishments are receiving special training and support to enable them to provide employment guidance to inmates. It is intended that the vocational training currently provided within prison establishments should be expanded in line with the Government's policy initiative on the competence-based and work-related national vocational qualifications. Advice is currently being offered to prisoners by prison education departments and through pre-release schemes and post-release counselling on opportunities to continue

  Reported8 fatalities in the construction industry9

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  Date of accident

  Falls of persons1

  Falls of materials2

  Work in excavations3

  Transport4

  Electricity

  Cranes5

  Hoists6

  Others

  Total

  Employees

  1960

  154

  29

  17

  28

  14

  1010

  2

  24

  278

  1961

  129

  40

  13

  28

  12

  1021

  —

  29

  272

  1962

  152

  38

  19

  30

  12

  1010

  1

  19

  281

  610
  skills training following release. Long-term prisoners who are coming near the end of their sentences may apply for temporary release, living in a pre-release employment scheme hostel and working for local employers.

  The Home Office after-care grant scheme contributes towards the central and administrative costs of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the Apex Trust, organisations which are actively involved with the Training Agency to provide training and employment opportunities for ex-offenders. The Home Office also contributes to a number of other organisations which seek to place ex-offenders in employment as a regular part of their programme of rehabilitation and after-care.

  The Home Office takes part in regular meetings with the Training Agency, Department of Employment, the probation service, voluntary organisations and others to co-ordinate initiatives for improving employment prospects for ex-offenders.

  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to ensure that the entitlement to benefits of victims is not affected by compensation awards from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Payments from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are treated in exactly the same way as any other payments made in compensation for a personal injury. lf the award is placed on trust it will be fully disregarded if the recipient is a child or young person, or for at least two years if the recipient is an adult. However, any payments made by the trustees will be treated as income or capital in the normal way. There are no proposals for changing these provisions.

EMPLOYMENT

  Construction Industry (Fatalities)
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total number of fatalities in the construction industry reported by the Health and Safety Executive for each year between 1960 and 1987, inclusive that were caused by(a) falls of persons, (b) falls of materials, (c) work in excavations, (d) transport, (e) electricity, (f) cranes, (g) hoists and (h) other.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the available information. Fatalities to the self-employed and members of the public were not reportable until 1 January 1981. The few voluntary reports collected between 1978 and 1980 are included with employees. Fatal injuries to the self-employed working on their own have never been reportable.
  611

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  Date of accident

  Falls of persons1

  Falls of materials2

  Work in excavations3

  Transport4

  Electricity

  Cranes5

  Hoists6

  Others

  Total

  1963

  143

  15

  16

  19

  15

  1012

  4

  23

  247

  1964

  140

  35

  25

  16

  21

  1012

  1

  21

  271

  1965

  118

  33

  16

  22

  8

  1015

  4

  14

  230

  1966

  130

  42

  19

  40

  18

  716

  3

  24

  292

  1967

  115

  20

  7

  20

  9

  711

  4

  18

  204

  1968

  124

  28

  19

  18

  11

  724

  2

  14

  240

  1969

  124

  22

  23

  35

  14

  726

  1

  23

  268

  1970

  84

  22

  10

  35

  13

  720

  4

  16

  204

  1971

  96

  13

  22

  29

  10

  715

  5

  11

  201

  1972

  80

  17

  21

  25

  12

  716

  4

  15

  190

  1973

  98

  16

  23

  35

  10

  722

  4

  23

  231

  1974

  76

  13

  9

  21

  12

  724

  —

  11

  166

  1975

  67

  23

  11

  26

  10

  721

  1

  23

  182

  1976

  72

  18

  7

  18

  8

  712

  1

  18

  186

  1977

  73

  6

  4

  17

  3

  716

  —

  11

  130

  1978

  88

  16

  10

  11

  9

  105

  4

  10

  153

  1979

  81

  18

  11

  11

  4

  104

  3

  17

  149

  1980

  93

  17

  9

  19

  14

  10—

  —

  13

  165

  1981

  52

  13

  5

  23

  5

  10—

  —

  7

  105

  1982

  53

  16

  4

  24

  3

  10—

  —

  —

  100

  1983

  64

  14

  9

  11

  6

  10—

  —

  14

  118

  1984

  47

  16

  8

  24

  3

  10—

  —

  2

  100

  1985

  51

  18

  9

  21

  3

  10—

  —

  2

  104

  198610

  12

  2

  —

  5

  1

  10—

  —

  4

  24

  1986–8711

  45

  9

  6

  12

  4

  10—

  —

  23

  99

  1987–8811

  47

  9

  3

  22

  4

  10—

  —

  15

  100

  Self-employed

  1981

  8

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  1982

  11

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  18

  1983

  15

  1

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1322

  1984

  12

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  17

  1985

  15

  4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  22

  198610

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1986–8711

  18

  2

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  26

  1987–8811 12

  26

  3

  —

  2

  3

  —

  —

  7

  41

  Non-employed

  1981

  —

  3

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  5

  12

  1982

  6

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  13

  1983

  6

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  11

  1984

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7

  1985

  3

  4

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  198610

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1986–8711

  8

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  14

  1987–8811 12

  7

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  6

  16

  1 Includes falls into excavations but excludes falls from vehicles
  which are included under transport.

  2 Excludes falls of earth in trenches which are included under work
  in excavations.

  3 Includes falls of earth in trenches but excludes falls into
  excavations which are included under falls of persons.

  4 Includes falls from vehicles.

  5 Includes injuries involving lifting machinery other than hoists, except in 1978–79 when cranes only are included.

  6 Excludes falls of persons and materials; these are included in columns 1 and 2.

  7 Includes falls of persons and materials; these are not included in columns 1 and 2.

  8 Reported to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates and all other relevant enforcing authorities under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 (NADOR) for 1981 to March 1986, and the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR) for 1986–87 onwards. Fatalities between 1960 and 1980 are limited to those reported to Her Majesty's factory inspectorate.

  9 The construction industry is defined as in the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 1968 (Order XX) up to 1980 and as in SIC 1980 (Division 5) from 1981.

  10 First quarter (January to March).

  11 Year commencing 1 April.

  12 Provisional.

  13 Revised.

  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the total number of health and safety inspectors who have been employed in each of the past 10 years; and for how many the specific purpose of employment has been to oversee the safety of workplaces.
  612
  Mr. Nicholls
  Since 1979, the total number of inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive is as follows (1 April figures):

  Number

  1979

  1,424

  1980

  1,435

  1981

  1,404

  1982

  1,323

  1983

  1,276

  613

  Number

  1984

  1,242

  1985

  1,266

  1986

  1,231

  11987

  1,204

  1988

  1,165

  21989

  1,185

  1 Her Majesty's industrial air pollution inspectors (37 posts) transferred to the Department of the Environment on 1 April 1987.

  2 1 February.

  All HSE inspectors are recruited specifically to contribute to the executive's role in overseeing the safety of workplaces, by inspection, advisory and enforcement activities, or by the provision of specialist technical advice to visiting inspectors. In the course of their employment inspectors may also spend time on other duties including line management responsibilities and contributing to the development of legislation, guidance and technical standards.

  Industrial Accidents
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the total number of people killed as the result of accidents in the workplace in each of the last five years showing, in each year, what the figures were in the previous 10, 20 and 30 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the available information. Fatalities to the self-employed and members of the public were not reportable until 1 January 1981.

  Fatalities as a result of work activity to all enforcing authorities1

  Great Britain

  Date of accident

  Employees

  Self employed2

  Non employed

  Total

  1987–883 8

  340

  83

  102

  525

  1986–873

  355

  52

  91

  498

  1986 Q14

  98

  10

  24

  132

  1985

  399

  71

  5159

  629

  1984

  438

  60

  105

  603

  1983

  447

  65

  85

  597

  Yearly average:

  1973–826

  588

  9..

  9..

  9..

  1963–726

  939

  9..

  9..

  9..

  1953–626

  7677

  9..

  9..

  9..

  1 Reported to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates and all other relevant enforcing authorities under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 (NADOR) for 1981 to March 1986, and the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR) for 1986–87 onwards. Prior to 1981, injuries were reported under various legal requirements. Fatalities between 1953 and 1962 are limited to those reported to HSE's factory inspectorate. Fatal injuries to the self-employed and the non-employed reported to the mines and quarries inspectorate for the years 1981 to 1984, and reported to local authorities for the years 1981 to 1985 are included with employees.

  2 Fatal injuries to the self-employed working on their own have never been reportable.

  3 year commencing 1 April.

  4 First quarter (January to March)

  5 Includes 56 members of the public killed in the Bradford City football club fire disaster.

  614
  6 Average yearly figure for the 10-year period.

  7 Factory inspectorate only.

  8 Provisional.

  9..Not available.

  Further Education Programme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to provide for consultation with local authorities and other interested parties in relation to the future further education programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I have no plans for formal consultation in relation to the further education programme. My officials are in regular contact with local education authorities through their associations and with other interested parties.

  Voluntary Organisations (Bradford)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make funds available to Bradford metropolitan district council to enable voluntary organisations, previously funded by the Manpower Services Commission, to continue.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Funds are already available under employment training to enable Bradford metropolitan district council to provide training for unemployed people. It is for the council to decide how it will organise this training and which voluntary organisations it will fund as a training provider.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons on the employment training programme have had two days' training plus three days' work a week for at least a four-week period each month since September 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None. Employment training is a full-time training programme five days a week. In exceptional circumstances people can undertake a part-time introduction to the programme or part-time training, but people in those circumstances are individuals who are not able, for medical or other reasons, to work during the time they are not attending employment training.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the components of the cost of living index on which increases in the retirement pension are based.

  Mr. Lee
  Retirement pensions are uprated in line with the "all items" retail prices index. The index covers practically all the goods and services on which people spend their money. The main groups used for classification are food, catering, alcoholic drink, tobacco, housing, fuel and light, household goods, household services, clothing and footwear, personal goods and services, motoring expenditure, fares and other travel costs, leisure goods and leisure services.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number in the civilian labour force in 1988, and in each quarter of 1988; and what is his estimate of the number of persons economically active in employment in 1988, and in each quarter of 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  An estimate of the civilian labour force in Great Britain in mid-1988 will be available shortly using the results of the labour force survey conducted in the spring of 1988; the projection published last year was 27,538,000. Quarterly estimates of the civilian labour force are not available.

  Estimates of the number of persons economically active in employment in spring 1988 will also be available shortly from the labour force survey. Quarterly estimates are not available.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been employed in each travel-to-work area of Hampshire in each year since 1979; and if he will express this as a percentage increase or decrease on the preceding year.

  Mr. Lee
  The table gives the available information, taken from the September 1981 and September 1984 censuses of employment, for each of the travel-to-work areas which fall wholly or partly within the county of Hampshire:

  Employees in employment1

  Numbers (thousands)

  Percentage change

  September 1981

  September 1984

  1981 to 1984

  Travel-to-work area2

  Basingstoke and Alton

  64·1

  69·6

  +8·7

  Gosport and Fareham

  45·5

  48·6

  +6·8

  Southampton

  163·5

  162·7

  -0·5

  Winchester and Eastleigh

  70·7

  73·0

  +3·2

  Travel-to-work area3

  Andover

  25·6

  26·7

  +4·6

  Bournemouth

  83·6

  81·8

  -2·2

  Guildford and Aldershot

  152·5

  160·3

  +5·1

  Newbury

  28·1

  31·8

  +13·3

  Portsmouth

  143·0

  133·9

  -6·3

  Salisbury

  370

  38·1

  +2·9

  1 Excludes the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces.

  2 Travel-to-work areas wholly contained within the county of Hampshire.

  3 Travel-to-work areas partly contained within the county.

  Fletcher Hunt and Connaughts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will prosecute the employment agencies known as Fletcher Hunt and Connaughts for the charging of clients for counselling and other services, contrary to the Employment Agencies Act 1973.

  Mr. Lee
  It is not an offence under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 to charge clients for counselling and other services. The offence is to make the provision of a job-finding service conditional on the use of chargeable services. No evidence of the offence has been found hitherto in Fletcher Hunt and Connaughts. The practices of all agencies are kept under review.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans for new initiatives in inner cities.

  Mr. Fowler
  My Department makes a substantial contribution to inner city regeneration through its employment, training and enterprise programmes and the special initiatives that we already fund as part of the action for cities programme.

  We now plan to fund a range of further initiatives which build on our existing services and extend them further to help even more people in the inner cities.

  Progress on the existing school/industry compacts has been excellent. Thirty bids for development funding were accepted in August 1988 and the first four applications for operational funding—Birmingham, Bristol, Coventry and Hull—have now been approved. Other applications will be considered shortly. We will now be inviting bids for up to a further 10 compacts (nine in England and one in Scotland) from partnerships of employers and education authorities.

  I am anxious that more unemployed inner city residents should have the opportunity of training designed to help meet emerging skill shortages. In 10 inner city areas we will therefore pilot an initiative in employment training to allow people who have been unemployed for between three and six months to join the programme in addition to the existing eligible groups.

  I am also concerned to improve the job opportunities for people who have been out of work for six months or more. As an extension of the restart process we will therefore pilot a job interview guarantee in 20 inner city areas. It will offer employers a comprehensive range of ways, including short work trials, to choose the right people for their jobs. In return for the enhanced service they will be offered, employers will enter into formal agreements with the employment service in which they guarantee to interview long-term unemployed clients.

  I am convinced that these new initiatives announced today will help to enhance the valuable work already being undertaken by my Department in the inner cities.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the principal achievements of his Department since 1987.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My Department has been in the forefront of efforts to achieve further progress in reforming the CAP, the arrangements embodied in the February 1988 European Council agreement being the most significant step taken so far. This introduced for the first time a legally binding ceiling on CAP market support expenditure; and limited its growth to about 2 per cent. in real terms between 1988 and 1992 compared to 10 per cent. a year over the previous four years. Stabilisers are now in place for most CAP commodities, and these are backed up by practical measures to strengthen financial control. Community spending on agricultural market support has been kept under control. Both the outturn for 1988 and the budget for 1989 are well within the financial guideline.
  617
  The 1988 price-fixing settlement built on this progress. The negotiations demonstrated clearly the impact of the new rules on budget discipline, and the final settlement respected the expenditure ceiling for 1989 and 1990. At the same time, the Government continued to press United Kingdom farm interests and achieved a devaluation of the green pound worth about £120 million on farm incomes in a full year.

  Since 1987, the much criticised EC surpluses in most major commodities, as demonstrated by intervention stocks, have fallen significantly. Stocks of butter have fallen 88 per cent. since the end of 1987. Cereals stocks are down about 40 per cent. since August 1987. Skimmed milk powder stocks, which were nearly 800,000 tonnes in 1987, are now virtually non-existent.

  We have reached agreement in the European Community on new support arrangements for beef which significantly reduce the role of intervention and its cost, leave the market more responsive to supply and demand and provide direct payments to beef producers.

  To complement the policy of price restraint and increased market orientation, the Government have introduced a range of schemes designed to achieve a better balance between agricultural production and the environment, encourage farm diversification and alternative land use, and encourage farming practices that are beneficial to the landscape and to the conservation of wildlife.

  The introduction in 1988 of a set-aside scheme provided incentives for the reduction of surplus cereal production, while keeping the land set aside in good heart.

  Following the passage of the Farm Land and Rural Development Act 1988, the Government introduced the farm woodland scheme 1988 which is designed to encourage planting of trees on land previously in agricultural production and which has already got off to an encouraging start. Grants for enterprise feasibility studies and marketing costs of diversified enterprises were introduced in August 1988. These complement the capital grants for farm diversification introduced on 1 January 1988.

  The farm and conservation grants scheme was introduced in February 1989. This targets assistance on investments to prevent water pollution by farm operations and to enhance the conservation of the countryside. The lowland grant rate of 50 per cent. for waste treatment and disposal facilities is the highest level ever offered in those areas and is also the best rate of grant available anywhere in the Community. Extra help is also provided for horticulture. Prompt action was taken to assist farmers and growers adversely affected by the great storm of 16 October 1987 through extra grants for the replanting of orchard trees and replacement of damaged hedges and walls.

  We have established 10 environmentally sensitive areas in England. The scheme, which is voluntary, encourages environmentally beneficial agricultural practices. Over 300,000 hectares of land are within environmentally sensitive areas. This represents a considerable commitment to helping to protect some of the most beautiful parts of the country.

  We have taken further measures for the safe application of pesticides by requiring certification of certain groups of operators. Statutory controls to limit pesticide residues in crops and food have been introduced. Measures have been
  618
  taken to ensure that farmers limit pesticides to approved uses only and clear guidance has been issued on disposal of surplus pesticides.

  The Government have engaged in extensive consultations with industry and consumers as a part of our major review of existing primary food legislation and hope to bring this forward as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  We have strengthened the science base for consumers' protection by building up a comprehensive food monitoring and investigative system under the auspices of the steering group on food surveillance. The objective is to provide a basis for regulation and advice to consumers.

  In July 1987 the Government issued guidelines on nutrition labelling of foods which aim to standardise the presentation of nutritional information. This is helping consumers to achieve a balanced diet by enabling them to compare food more easily.

  The United Kingdom has taken an active role in negotiating Community directives which form part of the single market food law harmonisation programme and which will remove barriers to trade and benefit both consumers and industry. Last year agreement was reached on nine Community directives including the five important framework directives on food additives, materials and articles in contact with food, foods for particular nutritional uses and the official inspection of foodstuffs.

  The Government have enacted about 30 food law measures and proposals have been issued for consultation on a further 10 measures including draft regulations on soft drinks, fish products and fat spread products, and amendments to the Food Labelling Regulations to introduce alcoholic strength marking and restriction on the use of the term "low alcohol".

  As soon as it became clear that there was a problem with salmonella enteritidis in eggs, the Government acted immediately to tackle the problems at every point in the production chain, from feed production through breeders, hatcheries and laying flocks to the food distribution industry and consumers.

  A working party was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Southwood to look at all aspects of the new cattle disease called bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The Government took prompt action in imposing a feed ban to cut off the most likely source of disease to cattle, and responded quickly to the working party's interim recommendations to slaughter affected animals and destroy the carcases and milk from them. The working party's full report, which was published on 27 February, welcomed the Government's prompt action.

  The United Kingdom has been successful—along with Denmark—in achieving Community recognition of its higher (step 2) hygiene status under the EC heat-treated milk directive.

  In the animal welfare area we have banned veal crates, made new legislation on battery hens and poultry transport, and produced new on-farm codes for seven species.

  Following sustained United Kingdom pressure, the Council of Agriculture Ministers reached agreement in December 1988 on a new regulation defining spirits, which will greatly strengthen the competitive position of the United Kingdom drink industry.

  Increased Government funding for the construction and improvement of flood and coastal defences, was announced in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement 1988.
  619
  For water authorities, £15·9 million of extra grant will be made available over the next three financial years, increasing Government support in this sector by 1991–92 to nearly £25 million annually. In addition the grant-aided capital programme of local authority flood and sea defence work is being increased over the same period by £8·8 million, increasing the Government funded programme by 1991–92 to £11 million.

  Updated guidance to drainage authorities on their environmental responsibilities was issued and regulations were made to implement the EC environmental assessment directive regarding flood defence improvement work.

  During 1988, the Government secured improvements in the EC fish conservation, marketing and control regimes, including improved measures to protect juvenile mackerel and plaice and provision for carry-over premium for herring and mackerel. We also secured a satisfactory settlement of the 1989 catch quota including the right to take some of our western mackerel quota east of 4 west and a 1989 North sea haddock quota which took account of our special claims under The Hague preference. We have announced new national measures to improve the conservation of bass stocks.

  Deer
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for each of the last five years (a) how many live deer and of what species were exported from the United Kingdom, (b) how many were exported for the purpose of deer farming or the improvement of stocks of foreign deer and (c) to what countries they were exported; what procedures were carried out to determine if they were free from disease; and whether any tests were carried out for tuberculosis.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested about the numbers and species of deer exported, their purpose and countries of destination is not available. Consignments of deer for export are normally accompanied by a health certificate produced in accordance with the importing countries requirements. To date certificates have been agreed for exports to Austria, China, Denmark, New Zealand, Guernsey, Republic of Ireland, Israel, Taiwan, South Africa, United States of America and Oman.

  In all cases the certificate is signed at the boarding point by a local veterinary inspector who is required to confirm that, amongst other things the animals are healthy and free from clinical signs of infectious or contagious disease. A number of countries also require certification to the effect that the animals have been tested for tuberculosis with negative results.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has received any representations concerning the payment of environmentally sensitive areas payments to landlords; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have received no representations concerning the payment of ESA payments to landlords. ESA payments are made direct to the applicant who will usually be an owner-occupier or tenant.
  620
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of farmers who have entered into environmentally sensitive area agreements who are(a) owner-occupiers, (b) tenants of private landlords and (c) tenants of public authorities; and if, in respect of the latter, he will state the number of tenants of each public body in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and would not be available in the form requested.

  Forestry Commission (Hunting Permission)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 24 February,Official Report, column 853, if he will now place in the Library the appendices referred to in the form of permission to hunt used in the Forestry Commission's east England conservancy.

  Mr. Ryder
  Each standard form of hunt permission issued in the Forestry Commission's east England conservancy is accompanied by the appropriate schedules referred to in condition 1 of the permission. These schedules are completed in each case to show the areas of land which the hunt may enter and the conditions of such entry. I have arranged for copies of the schedule forms to be placed in the Library, although they do not add anything to the information already given in condition 1 of the permission.

  Ruminant Feedstuffs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on how many occasions since 18 July 1988 his Department has taken and tested samples of ruminant feedstuffs containing ruminant-derived protein material;

  (2) what action his Department is taking to monitor the effectiveness of his ban on the use of ruminant-derived protein material in ruminant feedstuffs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Ministry officials are empowered to take and test samples of ruminant feedstuffs if they have reason to believe the ban on the use of ruminant-derived protein is being broken. To date, there has been no reason to believe the law has been broken and such action has not been necessary.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those animal species known by his Department to be infected with scrapie or scrapie-like infections.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Scrapie in sheep and goats and BSE in cattle belong to a group of progressive degenerative diseases caused by unconventional transmissible agents. Similar diseases are known to have occurred in other countries in mink, captive mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the sites in the Crewe and
  621
  Nantwich constituency being used to dispose of cattle infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy; if he will identify the method of disposal; if he will take steps to ensure the supervision by his officers; and if he will list the numbers of occasions on which the Wardle landfill site has been used for such a purpose.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Slaughtered cattle suspected of having BSE are buried at the Wardle landfill site, Nantwich under the supervision of Ministry staff. Since 24 June 1988, a total of 46 carcasses have been buried there.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council on 6–7 March in Brussels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The main business before the Council, at which I represented the Government, consisted of the Commission's proposals for agricultural prices and other aspects of the farm support system for 1989–90. There was extensive discussion, but no agreement was reached. In the main, I supported the Commission's proposals, while pressing points of particular importance for our farmers, including an appropriate devaluation of the green pound.

  The meeting also discussed a proposal to make payments to farmers specifically to encourage them to diversify into certain non-surplus products. Along with several other Ministers I objected to some aspects of the proposal because of the risk that established producers of non-surplus products could be unfairly affected by subsidised competition. I was particularly concerned about the impact on our soft fruit growers and horticultural businesses producing plants and flowers. I was able to secure sufficient support to prevent these sectors from being included in the list of sectors eligible for subsidised competition, and the president decided therefore to remit the proposal for further study. It could otherwise have been accepted with the exclusion of those products at the Council. We shall return to the issues at a subsequent Council.

  The Commission again urged, with our support, that a decision be taken on future arrangements for imports of butter and sheepmeat from New Zealand but several member states were still unwilling to reach a decision for the time being. The matter will be discussed again at the Council beginning on 20 March.

  Finally, the Council had a first reading of proposals from the Commission which it entitled an action programme for forestry. These will likewise be discussed further at a later date.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Nurses' Pay
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nurses in Northern Ireland are unsatisfied with their pay award and how many appeals are outstanding.

  Mr. Viggers
  Of the 15,400 nurses in Northern Ireland, some 6,000 have requested informal reviews with their nurse managers. 4,280 reviews have been completed of 622
  which 682 posts have been upgraded. 2,574 cases a re proceeding with formal appeals of which 26 posts have so far been upgraded.

  Security
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  The House will be aware of the explosion at Buncrana road, Londonderry last night in which two soldiers were tragically killed and six of their colleagues were injured. The House will also be aware of the indiscriminate shooting attack at Coagh village on Tuesday afternoon in which three civilians died. The total deaths since I last answered questions in the House on 9 February are 13. This includes three soldiers and 10 civilians. The Provisional IRA claimed responsibility for eight of these murders, the IPLO for one, while the remaining four are thought to have been carried out by Loyalist terrorist groups.

  These figures confirm the serious warnings that the RUC has given about the high security threat, against which the security forces are maintaining their high level of response.

  Since the beginning of the year 53 persons have been charged with serious offences including four with murder and seven with attempted murder. A total of 99 weapons, over 9,400 rounds of ammunition and 154 lbs of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Garda Siochana has recovered 21 weapons, 9,500 rounds of ammunition, and 175 lbs of explosives.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on any recent meetings which he has had with Ministers of the Republic of Ireland under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I met Ministers of the Republic of Ireland at the last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 8 February. A copy of the communiqué, which lists the subjects discussed, has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the review of the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to be completed.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to be able to report on the completion of the review of the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
  623
  Mr. Tom King
  I would expect it to be before the summer.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received on the review of the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have received a number of representations in response to my invitation to members of the public, political parties, and other interested bodies to submit their views on the working of the Intergovernmental Conference under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. These are being carefully considered.

  Lagan College
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects work to start on the provision of permanent buildings for Lagan college.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Early 1990.

  Political Parties (Talks)
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in holding talks with the political parties in Northern Ireland since 14 February.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what responses he has received to his call for talks with the political parties in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response his appeal to the political parties in Northern Ireland to engage in talks with him has received.

  Mr. Tom King
  In my speech in east Belfast on 14 February, I said that we would be seeking to explore with all in Northern Ireland who have a contribution to make, what possibilities may now exist for political progress. This process has now started.

  Charitable Donations
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the level of donations to charities and voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland; and whether any patterns can be discerned over the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information held by the Government about donations from the public to charities and voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland is limited to returns from Provincewide house-to-house collections. These do not enable general conclusions to be drawn about patterns of giving.

  The Government have taken steps over the past three years to encourage giving in the workplace, through the payroll giving scheme. The scheme in Northern Ireland has been growing steadily, and expects to handle some £100,000 in the 1988–89 financial year. Over 200 employers are now enrolled with the scheme.

  Auxiliary Oiler Vessel
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the financial arrangements with 624
  potential acquirers of Harland and Wolff for meeting existing liabilities or for meeting losses on existing contracts will exclude any liabilities or losses in respect of the AOR1, contract.

  Mr. Viggers
  The financial arrangements with potential acquirers of Harland and Wolff will involve a complex range of factors. I can confirm, however, that they will include provision for meeting losses on existing contracts.

  Irish Sea (Pollution)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference will consider the implications for the environment and health of Northern Ireland of current levels of pollution in the Irish sea.

  Mr. Tom King
  Discussions between the United Kingdom and Irish Governments about pollution in the Irish sea have hitherto been conducted by the Ministers and officials directly concerned rather than through the Intergovernmental Conference. I am sure that this remains the right approach.

  South Down (Investment)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each year from 1984 to 1988 the number of occasions when the Industrial Development Board and Local Enterprise Development Unit brought potential investing companies to South Down for the purposes of new development and job creation; and to what bodies or persons they were introduced.

  Mr. Viggers
  Since 1984, the industrial development board has accompanied potential inward investors on 15 visits to the hon. Gentleman's constituency as follows:

  Number

  1984

  1

  1985

  3

  1986

  1

  1987

  4

  1988

  4

  In 1989 there have so far been two such visits. The visitors met local business men, and inspected industrial estates, port, training and employment service facilities in the area. The role of the local enterprise development unit is to support locally based projects.

  Housing Executive (Public Liability Claims)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total of public liability claims paid by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive(a) in 1979–80, and (b) in 1987–88.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive who has advised me that the information is not available in the form requested.

  He has informed me that during 1979–80 the Housing Executive insured against public liability risk and the amount paid out by the insurance company is not known.

  During 1987–88 the executive paid out £1·4 million in respect of public liability claims.

  Local Government Reforms
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any proposals to introduce local government reforms in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland published a consultative paper on local government last November, setting out proposals with regard to the conduct of district council business, the administrative structure of environmental health and building control services, and the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for certain services. Comments were requested by I March 1989 and are now being considered.

  Extradition
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been extradited from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland during the last three months; and of these how many were charged with terrorist-type offences.

  Mr. Tom King
  No persons have been extradited from the Republic of Ireland during the last three months. One application has been made and 18 applications are pending. There is no differentiation in the applications between terrorist and non-terrorist cases.

  Cross-border Security
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on improvements in cross-border co-operation on the frontier between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on 15 November 1985.

  Mr. Tom King
  A number of steps have been taken in the field of co-operation, intelligence, communication and other related aspects which are all directed towards improving cross-border co-operation.

  Single European Act
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in preparing Northern Ireland for the implementation of the Single European Act.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  We have set in train action on a broad front to prepare Northern Ireland for the implementation of the Single European Act. This action includes gearing up the private sector for the challenges and opportunities of the single European market, ensuring that the public sector is alert to changing requirements on such matters as standards and public purchasing arrangements, and preparing the necessary development plan and programmes to take advantage of the Province's objective 1 priority status under the reformed structural funds.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Traffic Accidents)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many motor accidents involving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve there have been in Northern Ireland during 1986, 1987 and 1988; and in how many cases the police officers were to blame in each case.
  626
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Records are not maintained on the number of police officers involved in road traffic accidents whilst driving private vehicles. However, the number of accidents involving police vehicles is summarised as follows:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Total number of accidents involving police vehicles

  864

  736

  696

  Accidents in which police drivers were adjudged to be blame worthy

  275

  293

  209

  A substantial number of these accidents were of a minor nature, many of them occurring within police property. Further information may be found in the Chief Constable's annual reports.

  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fatalities, other than police officers, there have been as a result of motor accidents involving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve in which police officers were held responsible for the accident.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested is not available from current records.

  Police Officers (Driving Training)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what driving skills training is available to police officers in Northern Ireland; what encouragement is offered to them to take up this training; and how many police officers have taken the advanced driving test in 1986, 1987 and 1988, respectively.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  All qualified drivers who join the Royal Ulster Constabulary are given a four-week initial standard driving course as part of their initial training. On passing this course to the required standard they are appointed as police drivers. No officer may drive a police vehicle unless appointed as a police driver. Throughout an officer's career he or she may at any time apply to become an advanced driver or motor cyclist. Each application is considered on its merit and a high percentage are so trained. Numbers trained were as follows:

  Advanced driving courses

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Number of officers trained

  102

  90

  70

  Number passed

  97

  86

  67

  Police Officers (Traffic Offences)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prosecutions for road traffic offences were taken against police officers in 1986, 1987 and 1988; and how many were for(a) driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, (b) speeding and (c) dangerous or reckless driving.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Information is not available as to the number of police officers prosecuted for all road traffic offences. However, the number prosecuted for drunken driving and reckless driving was as follows:
  627

  Royal Ulster Constabulary officers prosecuted under Article 141(1) and 145(1) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (Drunken Driving)

  Year

  Number of officers

  Number convicted

  Number acquitted

  No result of hearing yet received

  1986

  24

  23

  1

  —

  1987

  27

  25

  2

  —

  1988

  37

  28

  —

  9

  RUC officers prosecuted under article 139(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic (NI) Order 1981 (Reckless Driving)

  Year

  Number officers

  Number convicted

  Number acquitted

  No result of hearing yet received

  1986

  12

  11

  1

  —

  1987

  11

  10

  1

  —

  1988

  9

  6

  —

  3

  Note: Ten officers appear in both tables, having been prosecuted in the same proceedings for both an offence of reckless driving and an offence of drunken driving.

  Housing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people live in(a) public sector housing, (b) the private sector rented, and (c) owner-occupied housing in the Province expressed in figures and as percentages of the total; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, details of tenure of occupied housing stock at October 1988 are as follows:

  Number

  Percentage

  Owner Occupied

  322,000

  61·7

  Public Sector (Northern Ireland Housing Executive)

  171,000

  32·7

  Private Rented Sector)including Housing Associations)

  29,000

  5·6

  Total

  522,000

  100

  Devolution
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent information he has on the extent of popular support in favour of devolved government for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  I am anxious to establish more precisely the degree of support in the Province for political progress. For that reason and with the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) I am exploring with the parties and interested groups the possibilities for political movement. A copy of my speech given to the Belfast East Rotarions on 14 February has been place in the Library.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners there are in Northern Ireland who have served more than 10 years in prison, and were under 21 years when convicted.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Seventy-four.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Vietnam
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any proposals for the removal of restrictions upon trade and overseas aid to Vietnam; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no restrictions on trade with Vietnam. We ceased aid to Vietnam in 1979 following the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. We welcome the Vietnamese announcement of intention to withdraw from Cambodia and are following developments closely, but we have no immediate plans to change our policy.

  Hong Kong (Refugee Camps)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what levels of grant were made by Her Majesty's Government for UNHCR's English language training programmes in refugee camps in Hong Kong in each of the years 1986 to 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We contributed £100,000 in March 1988 and £1 million in October 1988 to UNHCR's programme in Hong Kong. This programme includes their English language training schemes for Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.

TRANSPORT

  Airports
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to which local authorities are currently conducting negotiations for the sale of their airports to the private sector in whole or in part.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None. Such information would be a commercial matter for the authorities and those with whom they were negotiating.

  Rolling Stock Technicians
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from British Rail regarding the costing of the rolling stock technicians, grade two, on stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. These are management matters for the British Railways Board.

  Belgian Trawler (Sinking)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the location, time, weather conditions and other circumstances regarding the sinking of a Belgian trawler in the Irish sea on 6–7 March; whether the sinking was in United Kingdom territorial waters; what information he has on whether any submarines were in the vicinity; what arrangements have been made for an inquiry into the cause of the sinking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Belgian-registered trawler Tijl Uilenspiegel sank approximately 25 miles south-east of the
  629
  Isle of Man on Sunday 5 March 1989. No distress signal was received from the vessel by Her Majesty's Coastguard. The precise time of the casualty if not known—it is thought to have sunk after noon.

  Her Majesty's Coastguard were alerted to the incident when another Belgian trawler, Drakkar, recovered a body at 8.18 pm that evening. A subsequent major full scale search was mounted all that night and on Monday 6 March 1989, but no further bodies or any liferaft have been recovered. The sea condition was moderate, with a south east wind of 17 to 21 knots, with visibility at seven miles.

  The casualty occurred outside United Kingdom territorial waters and no investigation will be undertaken by the Department. Department officials have contacted the Belgian maritime authorities to ascertain whether Belgium will be undertaking an investigation into the cause of this tragedy.

  I am advised that no United Kingdom or allied submarine was operating in the area at the time of the incident.

  Roads (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on roads in Hampshire for which it is the highway authority each year since 1979, expressed(a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms based on 1979 and (c) as a percentage increase or decrease on each preceding year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information in the form requested is not available. It could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Manchester city council has received as a contribution to rates from Manchester international airport for the years 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We do not have this information. I suggest that my hon. Friend contacts the local authority.

  Chapel-en-le-Frith/Whaley Bridge Bypass
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stretford of 2 March,Official Report, column 294, he will give the dates on which different sections of the report of Allet and Lomax, consulting engineers, as to the performance of the consulting engineers employed on the Chapel-en-le-Frith/Whaley Bridge bypass, were received at his Department; when he expects to receive further sections of the report; what is the content of those sections; and when he estimates he will be in a position to consider whether to place the full report in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The scheme took longer and cost more than expected. The report, which will deal with the geotechnical difficulties encountered on the scheme, is being prepared in phases. A summary of the first two phases was received by the Department on 3 March 1989. This is under consideration. Various interim technical statements received prior to 3 March form appendices to the summary report. The amount of work in the later 630
  phases depends on earlier findings, and it is difficult to give firm completion dates. When it is complete, we will consider whether it is appropriate to place it in the Library.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has caused delays in announcing further road improvement works beyond the Chapel-en-le-Frith/Whaley Bridge bypass; whether reappraisals have taken place in the light of the cost overspend on this section; and whether particular routes have now been ruled out because of doubts about the geology of the area.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The response to the public consultation on the adjoining A6 Disley-High Lane bypass proposal was exceptional. It included suggestions for 18 alternative routes which have had to he evaluated.

  Our estimates for all routes have allowed for dealing with geological conditions. At this stage, no route has been ruled out on geological grounds.

  Manchester Airport (Accident)
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action has been taken to improve passenger safety arising out of the lessons learned during the course of the Manchester aircraft accident investigation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The CAA has in fact already actioned many of the AAIB's recommendations. In the weeks and months following the accident changes were made to the maintenance procedures for the Pratt and Whitney JT8D engines fitted to this aircraft, and to methods of assessing the effect of repair schemes based on operators' fleet experience with this engine.

  Other significant recommendations which have been acted upon include amendments to cabin materials certification to limit smoke and toxic gas emission in the event of fires.

  In consultation with the industry, the authority has formulated requirements for the provision of smoke hoods and masks for passenger protection during fires, issuing a specification for passenger protection breathing equipment-smoke hoods, which defines both equipment performance and installation requirements. I understand that, at this stage, the CAA will not be making the provision of passenger smoke hoods mandatory.

  The CAA has, in response to a safety recommendation, initiated a comprehensive research programme to investigate the introduction on civil aircraft of cabin water spray systems.

  Channel Tunnel
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has taken any decisions on British Rail's proposal for a new rail link between London and the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  I welcome the fact that blight has now been removed from large stretches of Kent; that British Rail's intentions on compensation and the alleviation of blight have been made clear; and that in formulating its route proposal British Rail has clearly been guided by the environmental criteria set out by Kent county council. The Government will need to consider between now and
  631
  November whether they will support the introduction of a private Bill by British Rail for the necessary powers to construct and operate the proposed route.

  In reaching our decision, we shall be considering two main factors. First, we shall need to be satisfied that the route has been subjected to a full environmental assessment and that any Bill can be accompanied by a satisfactory environmental statement. Secondly, we shall want to satisfy ourselves that British Rail investment would be likely within a reasonable time to earn a proper commercial return. This means that British Rail will need to consider further the uncertainties about the traffic forecasts, the costs of the project and the revenues. In doing so, it will be considering proposals from the private sector for building and financing the line.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway Line
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway line.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend will make a statement when he has fully considered all the evidence. We are, however, conscious that the continuing uncertainty may cause difficulty to businesses in the area of the line. We therefore wish to make it clear that, whatever decision my right hon. Friend reaches on the closure case, he will not permit British Rail to withdraw its services at least until mid-October, when the timetable for all British Rail services changes.

  Birmingham Heartlands (Spine Road)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will announce his decision on the application by Birmingham heartlands for approval for the heartlands spine road.

  (i) Total net expenditure since 1981–82 is shown below. Information relating to total expenditure is not available on a consistent basis prior to 1981–82

  Total expenditure1—by authority in £000

  Counties

  1981–82 outturn

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 revised estimates

  1988–89 budgets

  Clwyd

  130,321

  139,097

  146,678

  150,403

  156,895

  169,753

  179,940

  193,982

  Dyfed

  107,212

  113,391

  120,506

  126,488

  130,335

  147,245

  160,456

  176,591

  Gwent

  148,524

  153,730

  160,316

  166,119

  173,327

  184,342

  202,169

  219,701

  Gwynedd

  77,217

  81,993

  86,314

  91,214

  94,465

  101,560

  110,645

  120,437

  Mid Glamorgan

  183,315

  194,759

  207,517

  217,985

  218,722

  239,148

  256,992

  280,363

  Powis

  41,777

  46,954

  49,515

  51,026

  52,911

  56,186

  59,465

  64,861

  South Glamorgan

  121,462

  129,407

  138,750

  141,274

  147,716

  162,111

  174,693

  191,518

  West Glamorgan

  126,551

  137,196

  141,924

  144,826

  150,228

  164,292

  176,418

  193,130

  1 Total expenditure is based on the same definition as that for Rate Support Grant purposes, that is net of local income (fees, sales and charges etc.) and net of specific grants.

  (ii) The county council precepts since 1977–78 are shown below. There are no separate business or domestic precepts as each county precepts for the amount that it requires. (Domestic Rate Relief Grant is paid to districts rather than counties.)

  Counties

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  (p)

  (p)

  (p)

  (p)

  (p)

  (p)

  (p)

  (p)

  (p)

  (p)

  (p)

  (p)

  Clwyd

  71·5

  79·0

  99·5

  124·0

  148·0

  148·0

  148·0

  162·0

  172·0

  189·0

  198·0

  210·0

  Dyfed

  64·1

  67·9

  87·0

  111·3

  122·2

  122·3

  130·7

  142·7

  170·6

  195·3

  208·9

  219·9

  Gwent

  73·9

  79·0

  98·0

  117·0

  129·0

  135·0

  141·0

  141·0

  146·0

  173·0

  192·0

  208·0

  Gwynedd

  63·5

  70·0

  96·5

  111·0

  128·0

  123·0

  136·0

  145·0

  150·0

  168·0

  183·0

  203·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  72·4

  73·4

  95·7

  119·4

  144·9

  144·8

  154·1

  180·4

  187·4

  205·9

  215·8

  228·4

  Powys

  54·0

  57·0

  81·0

  108·0

  124·0

  128·0

  128·0

  134·0

  154·0

  177·0

  188·0

  201·0

  South Glamorgan

  66·5

  72·5

  90·0

  101·9

  116·4

  133·4

  124·8

  132·4

  147·4

  183·2

  190·7

  204·9

  West Glamorgan

  73·9

  79·5

  109·6

  133·0

  156·0

  161·0

  165·0

  175·0

  184·0

  197·0

  225·0

  263·0

  632
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are considering the detailed case for a Birmingham heartlands spine road as part of our current review of the road programme. We will make an announcement when we can.

  Selby Bypass
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the route line and draft side road orders for the Selby bypass; and if he will make a statement on the overall progress of the project.

  Mr. Bottomley
  The additional preliminary investigations on this scheme are nearing completion.

  We shall shortly commence preparation of the draft line and side roads orders. Present progress indicates that these orders should be published by the end of this year.

WALES

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each county council (i) the net expenditure in each year since 1977–78, (ii) the domestic and business precept in each year since 1977–78, (iii) the percentage rise in the precept in each year since 1977–78, (iv) the percentage rise in the precept in the periods 1977–78 to 1980–81, 1981–82 to 1985–86, 1986–87 to 1989–90 and 1977–78 to 1989–90, (v) the change in the number of staff employed at the end of the periods 1977–78 to 1980–81, 1981–82 to 1985–86, 1986–87 to 1989–90 and 1977–78 to 1989–90 expressed in number and percentage terms, (vi) the political composition of the councils in 1977 to 1981, 1981 to 1985, 1985 to 1989; and if he will list the councils in rank order by largest increase in precept over the period 1985–86 to 1989–90 starting with the council with the highest increase in that period.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is shown in the following tables:
  633

  (iii) The percentage rise in the precept in each year since 1977–78 is shown below.

  Percentage change

  Counties

  1977–78 to 1978–79

  1978–79 to 1979–80

  1979–80 to 1980–81

  1980–81 to 1981–82

  1981–82 to 1982–83

  1982–83 to 1983–84

  1983–84 to 1984–85

  1984–85 to 1985–86

  1985–86 to 1986–87

  1986–87 to 1987–88

  1987–88 to 1988–89

  Clwyd

  10·5

  25·9

  24·6

  19·4

  0·0

  0·0

  9·5

  6·2

  9·9

  4·8

  6·1

  Dyfed

  5·9

  28·1

  27·9

  9·8

  0·1

  6·9

  9·2

  19·6

  14·5

  6·9

  5·3

  Gwent

  6·9

  24·1

  19·4

  10·3

  4·7

  4·4

  0·0

  3·5

  18·5

  11·0

  8·3

  Gwynedd

  10·2

  37·9

  15·0

  15·3

  -3·9

  10·6

  6·6

  3·4

  12·0

  8·9

  10·9

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·4

  30·4

  24·7

  21·4

  -0·1

  6·4

  17·1

  3·9

  9·9

  4·8

  5·8

  Powys

  5·6

  42·1

  33·3

  14·8

  3·2

  0·0

  4·7

  14·9

  14·9

  6·2

  6·9

  South Glamorgan

  9·0

  24·1

  13·2

  14·2

  14·6

  -6·4

  6·1

  11·3

  24·3

  4·1

  7·4

  West Glamorgan

  7·6

  37·9

  21·4

  17·3

  3·2

  2·5

  6·1

  5·1

  7·1

  14·2

  16·9

  (iv) The percentage rise in county council precepts for the periods requested is shown below. Information for 1989–90 is not yet available.

  Percentage change

  Counties

  1977–78 to 1980–81

  1981–82 to 1985–86

  1986–87 to 1988–89

  1977–78 to 1988–89

  Clwyd

  73·4

  16·2

  11·1

  193·7

  Dyfed

  73·7

  39·6

  12·6

  243·0

  Gwent

  58·3

  13·2

  20·2

  181·5

  Gwynedd

  74·8

  17·2

  20·8

  219·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  64·9

  29·3

  10·9

  215·4

  Powys

  100·0

  24·2

  13·6

  272·2

  South Glamorgan

  53·2

  26·6

  11·8

  208·1

  West Glamorgan

  80·0

  17·9

  33·5

  255·9

  (v) The change in numbers of staff employed in "general services" by county councils is shown below for the years where data is available.

  Individual authority data is not held centrally prior to December 1978 or later than September 1988. In order to minimise the effect of seasonal variation, March quarter returns for the appropriate years have been used.

  Counties

  Change

  Percentage change

  March 1979

  March 1981

  March 1986

  March 1988

  1979 to 1981

  1981 to 1986

  1986 to 1988

  1979 to 1988

  1979 to 1981

  1981 to 1986

  1986 to 1988

  1979 to 1988

  Full time staff

  Clwyd

  9,007

  8,724

  8,460

  8,371

  -283

  -264

  -89

  -636

  -3·14

  -3·03

  -1·05

  -7·06

  Dyfed

  8,388

  8,091

  7,693

  7,856

  -297

  -398

  163

  -532

  -3·54

  -4·92

  2·12

  -6·34

  Gwent

  10,929

  10,516

  9,856

  9,734

  -413

  -660

  -122

  -1,195

  -3·78

  -6·28

  -1·24

  -10·93

  Gwynedd

  6,151

  6,120

  5,613

  5,550

  -31

  -507

  -63

  -601

  -0·50

  -8·28

  -1·12

  -9·77

  Mid Glamorgan

  14,770

  13,977

  13,276

  13,463

  -793

  -701

  187

  -1,307

  -5·37

  -5·02

  1·41

  -8·85

  Powys

  3,285

  3,208

  3,078

  3,005

  -77

  -130

  -73

  -280

  -2·34

  -4·05

  -2·37

  -8·52

  South Glamorgan

  8,670

  8,661

  8,249

  8,171

  -9

  -412

  -78

  -499

  -0·10

  -4·76

  -0·95

  -5·76

  West Glamorgan

  9,954

  9,228

  8,584

  8,616

  -726

  -644

  32

  -1,338

  -7·29

  -6·98

  0·37

  -13·44

  Part time staff

  Clwyd

  6,045

  5,959

  6,933

  7,541

  -86

  974

  608

  1,496

  -1·42

  16·35

  8·77

  24·75

  Dyfed

  5,296

  4,996

  5,538

  6,296

  -300

  542

  758

  1,000

  -5·66

  10·85

  13·69

  18·88

  Gwent

  7,860

  7,839

  8,286

  9,390

  -21

  447

  1,104

  1,530

  -0·27

  5·70

  13·32

  19·47

  Gwynedd

  3,649

  3,607

  3,925

  4,201

  -42

  318

  276

  552

  -1·15

  8·82

  7·03

  15·13

  Mid Glamorgan

  8,689

  9,411

  10,704

  10,893

  722

  1,293

  189

  2,204

  8·31

  13·74

  1·77

  25·37

  Powys

  1,804

  1,762

  2,024

  2,340

  -42

  262

  316

  536

  -2·33

  14·87

  15·61

  29·71

  South Glamorgan

  6,038

  5,936

  6,361

  7,223

  -102

  425

  862

  1,185

  -1·69

  7·16

  13·55

  19·63

  West Glamorgan

  5,594

  5,349

  5,785

  5,871

  -245

  436

  86

  277

  -4·38

  8·15

  1·49

  4·95

  (vi) The political composition of the councils for the first and last year of the periods requested has been extracted from the "Municipal Year Book" for that year and is shown below.

  Counties

  Independent

  Conservative

  Labour

  Plaid Cymru

  Other

  Clwyd

  1977

  27

  11

  23

  0

  5

  1981

  22

  21

  20

  0

  1

  1985

  21

  13

  28

  0

  4

  1989

  19

  15

  25

  0

  7

  Dyfed

  1977

  42

  0

  29

  1

  6

  1981

  43

  0

  25

  6

  5

  1985

  40

  0

  28

  5

  5

  1989

  34

  0

  29

  5

  9

  Gwent

  1977

  1

  12

  59

  0

  4

  1981

  4

  26

  38

  2

  3

  1985

  0

  12

  65

  0

  1

  1989

  0

  9

  67

  1

  1

  Gwynedd

  1977

  56

  0

  5

  5

  0

  634 635

  Counties

  Independent

  Conservative

  Labour

  Plaid Cymru

  Other

  1981

  44

  8

  3

  9

  2

  1985

  45

  2

  5

  8

  6

  1989

  40

  3

  5

  10

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  1977

  4

  3

  61

  9

  3

  1981

  6

  8

  48

  16

  3

  1985

  4

  3

  64

  7

  4

  1989

  3

  1

  68

  7

  6

  Powys

  1977

  53

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1981

  53

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1985

  45

  1

  4

  0

  8

  1989

  41

  0

  8

  0

  8

  South Glamorgan

  1977

  3

  34

  42

  0

  0

  1981

  0

  64

  14

  0

  0

  1985

  0

  35

  41

  1

  3

  1989

  0

  18

  34

  1

  9

  West Glamorgan

  1977

  6

  9

  51

  1

  1

  1981

  3

  10

  43

  2

  0

  1985

  2

  10

  56

  0

  1

  1989

  2

  7

  53

  0

  5

  (vii) The increase in precept over the period 1985–86 to 1988–89 in rank order of increase is shown below. Information for 1989–90 is not yet available.

  Counties

  Percentage change 1985–86 to 1988–89

  West Glamorgan

  42·9

  Gwent

  42·5

  South Glamorgan

  39·0

  Gwynedd

  35·3

  Powys

  30·5

  Dyfed

  28·9

  Clwyd

  22·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  21·8

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh Affairs Committee has since June 1987 submitted one report, to which I have responded. The report made two recommendations, and I have accepted both.

  Consumers (Consultation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements there are for consulting consumers in the work and decisions of his Department.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Consumer organisations are consulted as and when appropriate.

  Ffrwyd Farm, Meerywinch (Pollution)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the pollution incident at Ffrwyd farm, Meerywinch which occurred on 27 February.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the Welsh water authority, which is currently investigating the incident.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many additional staff have been employed in the local enterprise agency network since 14 June 1988 in the valleys initiative area.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are 10 approved local enterprise agencies operating partly or wholly within the programme for the valleys area. Since 14 June 1988, a total of seven additional staff have been recruited by these agencies.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional finance has been given to the local enterprise agency network since 14 June 1988 in the valleys initiative area.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The 10 local enterprise agencies which operate within the programme for the valleys boundary will receive within the financial year 1988–89 funding of £220,000 (through the Welsh Development Agency, Mid Wales Development and the urban programme) with an additional £45,000 of urban programme funding provided for specific projects with which the agencies are involved. My Department is also providing additional funding of £9,100 to assist agencies in establishing new services for small businesses. These figures relate to the whole financial year; it is not possible to provide part figures from 14 June 1988. No enterprise agencies existed during the previous Labour Government in which the hon. Gentleman was a Minister.

  Valleys Small Loan Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the valleys small loan scheme;

  (2) what has been the number of (a) applications and (b) acceptances under the valleys small loan scheme; and what was (i) their value, (ii) the name and location of the companies and (iii) the number of new jobs created in each case.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Valleys Enterprise Loan Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the valleys enterprise loan scheme;

  (2) what has been the number of (a) applications and (b) acceptances under the valleys enterprise loan scheme; and what was (i) their value, (ii) the name and location of the companies and (iii) the number of new jobs created in each case.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Community Enterprise
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the community enterprise scheme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Welsh Technology Development Fund
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the Welsh technology development fund;

  (2) what has been the number of (a) applications and (b) acceptances under the Welsh technology development fund; and what was (i) their value, (ii) the name and location of the companies and (iii) the number of new jobs created in each case.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what revenue has accrued to the Forestry Commission from the sale of woodlands in Wales for each of the last seven years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Receipts from sale of forest land

  Year to 31 March

  £000

  1982

  105

  1983

  376

  1984

  1,767

  1985

  2,406

  1986

  2,193

  1987

  1,576

  1988

  871

  These receipts are surrendered by the Forestry Commission to the Consolidated Fund.

  "Authority to Hunt"
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library the Forestry Commission's Wales Conservancy's "Authority to Hunt" document.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  A copy of the form of authority used in the Forestry Commission's Wales Conservancy is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the number of applications for housing benefit for each year since 1979; and what was the number accepted for each district council;

  (2) what was the value of housing benefit distributed in Wales for each year since 1979 at constant prices;

  (3) what was the value of housing benefit distributed in Wales by district council for each year since 1979 at constant prices.

  Mr. Grist
  Housing benefit was introduced for some supplementary benefit claimants from November 1982 with full implemenation for all claimants following from April 1983. The information given in the following tables shows the payments and the numbers of recipients from 1983–84 onwards at 1987–88 prices. Figures for the numbers of rate rebates, rent rebates and rent allowances have been provided separately, as there is a significant overlap; most households getting assistance with rent will also be in receipt of a rate rebate. Data prior to 1983–84 are not held on a consistent basis. Information on the number of applications is not held centrally.

  Number of recipients 1983–84

  Rent rebates

  Rent allowances

  Rate rebates

  Alyn and Deeside

  4,237

  621

  8,200

  Colwyn

  2,421

  1,435

  9,673

  Delyn

  5,212

  703

  10,305

  Glyndwr

  2,414

  327

  4,078

  Rhuddlan

  2,165

  1,783

  8,926

  Wrexham Maelor

  9,996

  932

  17,140

  Carmarthen

  2,347

  581

  4,291

  Ceredigion

  1,930

  1,122

  4,755

  Dinefwr

  1,793

  331

  3,495

  Llanelli

  5,642

  660

  10,025

  Preseli Pembs

  4,336

  668

  6,704

  South Pembroke

  2,301

  673

  3,912

  Blaenau Gwent

  8,153

  562

  11,460

  Islwyn

  4,876

  793

  8,310

  Monmouth

  3,695

  644

  6,563

  Newport

  10,880

  2,410

  9,400

  Torfaen

  5,538

  705

  14,211

  Aberconwy

  2,250

  1,206

  6,536

  Arfon

  3,913

  1,200

  6,690

  Dwyfor

  1,158

  546

  3,351

  Meirionnydd

  1,716

  492

  4,127

  Ynys Mon

  4,373

  810

  8,377

  Cynon Valley

  4,202

  1,010

  9,526

  Merthyr Tydfil

  5,379

  854

  8,437

  Ogwr

  8,223

  1,323

  15,617

  Rhondda

  4,217

  1,161

  11,616

  Rhymney Valley

  8,887

  1,249

  15,238

  Taff Ely

  6,103

  936

  10,008

  Brecknock

  2,051

  461

  3,582

  Montgomeryshire

  1,955

  690

  3,410

  Radnor

  923

  529

  1,761

  Cardiff

  15,066

  10,537

  32,486

  Vale of Glamorgan

  5,074

  1,950

  11,377

  Port Talbot

  4,988

  413

  7,975

  Lliw Valley

  3,831

  391

  7,228

  Neath

  4,622

  647

  9,049

  Swansea

  13,787

  3,009

  27,853

  Total Wales

  180,654

  44,364

  345,792

  639

  Number of recipients 1984–85

  Rent rebates

  Rent allowances

  Rate rebates

  Alyn and Deeside

  4,077

  668

  8,114

  Colwyn

  2,560

  1,447

  9,050

  Delyn

  4,984

  863

  10,016

  Glyndwr

  2,160

  460

  4,050

  Rhuddlan

  2,106

  2,026

  9,000

  Wrexham Maelor

  9,728

  971

  15,040

  Carmarthen

  2,397

  730

  3,991

  Ceredigion

  2,490

  1,519

  6,872

  Dinefwr

  1,957

  384

  3,900

  Llanelli

  5,433

  637

  10,668

  Preseli Pembs

  4,358

  758

  7,624

  South Pembroke

  2,265

  815

  4,117

  Blaenau Gwent

  7,979

  627

  11,687

  Islwyn

  4,868

  830

  8,317

  Monmouth

  3,843

  722

  7,175

  Newport

  10,903

  2,547

  10,000

  Torfaen

  6,199

  553

  14,081

  Aberconwy

  2,385

  1,369

  7,140

  Arfon

  3,891

  1,702

  5,301

  Dwyfor

  1,160

  601

  2,817

  Meirionnydd

  1,628

  505

  3,924

  Ynys Môn

  4,430

  1,161

  8,088

  Cynon Valley

  4,625

  1,409

  10,505

  Merthyr Tydfil

  5,444

  972

  9,037

  Ogwr

  8,255

  1,362

  16,038

  Rhondda

  4,236

  947

  10,078

  Rhymney Valley

  8,577

  1,442

  16,960

  Taff Ely

  6,172

  940

  10,087

  Brecknock

  2,013

  479

  3,428

  Montgomeryshire

  2,114

  764

  4,201

  Radnor

  882

  565

  1,804

  Cardiff

  17,133

  11,581

  36,248

  Vale of Glamorgan

  5,112

  1,990

  10,712

  Port Talbot

  4,776

  336

  7,816

  Lliw Valley

  4,002

  400

  7,894

  Neath

  4,550

  715

  9,152

  Swansea

  13,768

  3,349

  28,404

  TOTAL WALES

  183,460

  49,146

  353,336

  Number of Recipients 1985–86

  Rent Rebates

  Rent Allowances

  Rate Rebates

  Alyn and Deeside

  4,059

  693

  7,591

  Colwyn

  2,662

  1,772

  13,672

  Delyn

  5,021

  892

  8,702

  Glyndwr

  2,183

  464

  3,512

  Rhuddlan

  2,100

  2,133

  9,092

  Wrexham Maelor

  9,884

  941

  14,224

  Carmarthen

  2,379

  812

  4,051

  Ceredigion

  2,777

  4,211

  7,816

  Dinefwr

  3,014

  518

  5,344

  Llanelli

  5,440

  851

  9,646

  Preseli Pembs

  4,418

  940

  7,934

  South Pembroke

  2,276

  787

  4,169

  Blaenau Gwent

  8,065

  601

  10,411

  Islwyn

  4,872

  1,008

  8,457

  Monmouth

  3,573

  993

  5,326

  Newport

  10,950

  2,665

  23,265

  Torfaen

  10,203

  613

  9,869

  Aberconwy

  2,349

  1,346

  6,949

  Arfon

  3,930

  1,395

  6,619

  Dwyfor

  1,104

  638

  3,179

  Meirionnydd

  1,612

  549

  4,865

  Ynys Mon

  4,499

  1,110

  7,539

  Cynon Valley

  4,268

  1,158

  9,146

  Merthyr Tydfil

  5,498

  1,214

  9,522

  Ogwr

  8,321

  1,376

  16,518

  Rhondda

  4,199

  1,216

  11,131

  Rhymney Valley

  8,664

  1,380

  15,848

  Taff Ely

  6,204

  1,245

  10,029

  Brecknock

  2,015

  532

  3,403

  Montgomeryshire

  2,734

  862

  4,142

  Radnor

  829

  572

  1,665

  640

  Rent Rebates

  Rent Allowances

  Rate Rebates

  Cardiff

  17,156

  10,828

  34,357

  Vale of Glamorgan

  5,025

  2,266

  10,381

  Port Talbot

  4,143

  448

  7,384

  Lliw Valley

  4,527

  716

  7,737

  Neath

  4,760

  338

  8,814

  Swansea

  13,585

  3,272

  27,831

  Total Wales

  189,298

  53,355

  360,140

  Number of recipients 1986–87

  Rent rebates

  Rent allowances

  Rate rebates

  Alyn and Deeside

  4,310

  669

  7,653

  Colwyn

  2,330

  2,277

  8,019

  Delyn

  3,857

  557

  7,236

  Glyndwr

  2,110

  580

  3,100

  Rhuddlan

  2,026

  2,159

  8,648

  Wrexham Maelor

  9,915

  1,023

  14,143

  Carmarthen

  2,391

  980

  4,293

  Ceredigion

  2,320

  2,639

  6,310

  Dinefwr

  3,232

  917

  6,072

  Llanelli

  5,432

  914

  9,375

  Preseli Pembs

  4,218

  848

  6,866

  South Pembroke

  2,323

  870

  4,355

  Blaenau Gwent

  8,018

  707

  10,541

  Islwyn

  4,704

  875

  8,227

  Monmouth

  3,415

  739

  5,330

  Newport

  11,000

  2,900

  22,250

  Torfaen

  10,055

  647

  13,456

  Aberconwy

  2,260

  1,451

  7,248

  Arfon

  4,265

  1,868

  8,195

  Dwyfor

  1,128

  863

  3,014

  Meirionnydd

  1,580

  571

  4,909

  Ynys Mon

  4,605

  1,414

  7,665

  Cynon Valley

  4,211

  1,192

  8,687

  Merthyr Tydfil

  5,940

  1,168

  8,810

  Ogwr

  8,279

  1,392

  15,738

  Rhondda

  4,298

  1,077

  10,309

  Rhymney Valley

  8,621

  1,435

  15,457

  Taff Ely

  6,175

  1,854

  10,747

  Brecknock

  2,009

  534

  3,444

  Montgomeryshire

  2,033

  820

  4,170

  Radnor

  769

  597

  1,767

  Cardiff

  17,322

  12,815

  36,876

  Vale of Glamorgan

  4,933

  2,486

  10,513

  Port Talbot

  4,557

  383

  7,023

  Lliw Valley

  3,799

  556

  7,206

  Neath

  4,417

  980

  8,524

  Swansea

  13,708

  4,362

  26,830

  Total Wales

  186,565

  58,119

  353,006

  Number of recipients 1987–88

  Rent rebates

  Rent allowances

  Rate rebates

  Alyn and Deeside

  3,897

  702

  7,102

  Colwyn

  2,450

  2,460

  8,472

  Delyn

  3,703

  532

  6,943

  Glyndwr

  2,265

  608

  3,675

  Rhuddlan

  2,053

  2,075

  8,214

  Wrexham Maelor

  9,593

  1,067

  13,554

  Carmarthen

  2,369

  872

  4,197

  Ceredigion

  2,257

  2,318

  6,264

  Dinefwr

  3,947

  930

  7,496

  Llanelli

  5,323

  785

  9,526

  Preseli Pembs

  4,387

  1,027

  7,635

  South Pembroke

  2,261

  953

  4,184

  Blaenau Gwent

  7,841

  760

  10,362

  Islwyn

  4,477

  786

  7,595

  Monmouth

  3,404

  819

  5,304

  Newport

  10,400

  3,500

  20,400

  Torfaen

  9,750

  623

  23,185

  Aberconwy

  2,220

  1,500

  6,092

  Arfon

  4,300

  1,900

  8,325

  641

  Rent rebates

  Rent allowances

  Rate rebates

  Dwyfor

  1,115

  730

  2,896

  Meirionnydd

  1,505

  545

  3,997

  Ynys Mon

  4,462

  1,132

  7,715

  Cynon Valley

  4,226

  1,211

  8,847

  Merthyr Tydfil

  5,843

  1,195

  9,890

  Ogwr

  8,017

  1,367

  14,918

  Rhondda

  4,220

  1,083

  10,360

  Rhymney Valley

  8,237

  1,412

  15,438

  Taff Ely

  6,034

  1,797

  10,582

  Brecknock

  2,017

  545

  3,562

  1983–84

  Amounts granted

  £ thousands

  Rent rebates at 1987–88 prices

  Rent allowance at 1987–88 prices

  Rate rebates at 1987–88 prices

  Total at 1987–88 prices

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,159

  345

  1,315

  3,819

  Colwyn

  1,646

  1,090

  1,153

  3,889

  Delyn

  3,213

  293

  1,442

  4,947

  Glyndwr

  1,396

  245

  516

  2,156

  Rhuddlan

  1,209

  1,297

  1,419

  3,926

  Wrexham Maelor

  4,499

  516

  2,219

  7,234

  Carmarthen

  1,672

  252

  419

  2,343

  Ceredigion

  1,665

  835

  519

  3,019

  Dinefwr

  1,062

  176

  337

  1,576

  Llanelli

  3,873

  394

  1,159

  5,426

  Preseli Pembs

  2,891

  466

  805

  4,162

  South Pembroke

  1,752

  595

  490

  2,837

  Blaenau Gwent

  6,433

  277

  1,371

  8,081

  Islwyn

  3,037

  426

  846

  4,309

  Monmouth

  2,430

  499

  831

  3,760

  Newport

  8,491

  1,650

  3,443

  13,584

  Torfaen

  4,568

  326

  1,921

  6,816

  Aberconwy

  1,725

  689

  922

  3,336

  Arfon

  2,743

  740

  764

  4,246

  Dwyfor

  719

  282

  323

  1,324

  Meirionnydd

  1,199

  272

  525

  1,996

  Ynys Mon

  3,087

  611

  1,070

  4,768

  Cynon Valley

  2,874

  431

  942

  4,247

  Merthyr Tydfil

  3,770

  561

  1,202

  5,534

  Ogwr

  6,386

  853

  2,151

  9,390

  Rhondda

  3,169

  345

  1,032

  4,546

  Rhymney Valley

  6,783

  638

  1,960

  9,382

  Taff Ely

  4,228

  410

  1,259

  5,897

  Brecknock

  1,277

  322

  326

  1,925

  Montgomeryshire

  1,438

  385

  491

  2,315

  Radnor

  652

  335

  194

  1,181

  Cardiff

  13,736

  6,747

  5,989

  26,473

  Vale of Glamorgan

  4,060

  1,387

  1,619

  7,065

  Port Talbot

  2,725

  276

  1,213

  4,214

  Lliw Valley

  2,625

  222

  981

  3,827

  Neath

  2,913

  351

  1,218

  4,481

  Swansea

  9,086

  1,888

  4,720

  15,694

  Total Wales

  127,192

  27,424

  49,104

  203,720

  1984–85

  Amounts granted (£ thousands)

  Rent rebates at 1987–88 prices

  Rent allowance at 1987–88 prices

  Rate rebates at 1987–88 prices

  Total at 1987–88 prices

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,065

  429

  1,392

  3,886

  Colwyn

  1,550

  1,402

  1,233

  4,185

  Delyn

  3,056

  335

  1,532

  4,922

  Glyndwr

  1,334

  334

  532

  2,199

  Rhuddlan

  1,198

  1,524

  1,640

  4,362

  Wrexham Maelor

  4,480

  604

  2,340

  7,424

  Carmarthen

  1,695

  427

  469

  2,590

  Ceredigion

  1,665

  1,143

  579

  3,387

  Dinefwr

  1,159

  260

  406

  1,825

  Llanelli

  3,815

  447

  1,314

  5,576

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  2,924

  635

  686

  4,245

  South Pembroke

  1,715

  785

  549

  3,050

  Blaenau Gwent

  7,023

  409

  1,410

  8,843

  Islwyn

  3,238

  704

  949

  4,891

  642

  Rent rebates

  Rent allowances

  Rate rebates

  Montgomeryshire

  1,964

  775

  4,031

  Radnor

  720

  615

  1,700

  Cardiff

  16,217

  11,438

  37,608

  Vale of Glamorgan

  4,776

  2,555

  10,342

  Port Talbot

  4,357

  423

  6,993

  Lliw Valley

  3,804

  457

  6,537

  Neath

  4,518

  1,004

  7,950

  Swansea

  13,681

  4,419

  30,511

  Total Wales

  182,610

  56,920

  362,402

  643

  Rent rebates at 1987–s

  Rent allowance at 1987–88 prices

  Rate rebates at 1987–88 prices

  Total at 1987–88 prices

  Monraouth

  2,284

  609

  798

  3,691

  Newport

  8,539

  1,978

  3,438

  13,954

  Torfaen

  5,116

  414

  2,066

  7,596

  Aberconwy

  1,699

  866

  1,039

  3,604

  Arfon

  2,777

  986

  824

  4,588

  Dwyfor

  671

  338

  330

  1,339

  Meirionnydd

  1,142

  334

  518

  1,994

  Ynys Mon

  3,163

  798

  1,163

  5,124

  Cynon Valley

  3,364

  670

  1,284

  5,318

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4,144

  793

  1,421

  6,358

  Ogwr

  7,521

  503

  2,463

  10,487

  Rhondda

  3,364

  480

  1,225

  5,069

  Rhymney Valley

  7,240

  893

  2,494

  10,627

  Taff Ely

  4,635

  588

  1,781

  7,003

  Brecknock

  1,368

  335

  404

  2,106

  Montgomeryshire

  1,382

  420

  604

  2,406

  Radnor

  639

  383

  203

  1,225

  Cardiff

  14,218

  8,461

  6,059

  28,737

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,998

  1,551

  1,668

  7,218

  Port Talbot

  2,731

  271

  1,199

  4,201

  Lliw Valley

  2,821

  277

  1,069

  4,167

  Neath

  2,900

  494

  1,283

  4,677

  Swansea

  9,471

  2,258

  4,887

  16,615

  Total Wales

  132,101

  34,141

  53,249

  219,492

  1985–86

  Amounts granted

  £ thousands

  Rent rebates at 1987–88 prices

  Rent allowance at 1987–88 prices

  Rate rebates at 1987–88 prices

  Total at 1987–88 prices

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,205

  482

  1,415

  4,102

  Colwyn

  1,676

  1,667

  1,321

  4,664

  Delyn

  3,028

  385

  1,553

  4,966

  Glyndwr

  1,403

  399

  554

  2,356

  Rhuddlan

  1,261

  1,892

  1,601

  4,754

  Wrexham Maelor

  4,838

  759

  2,351

  7,948

  Carmarthen

  1,765

  626

  554

  2,944

  Ceredigion

  1,720

  1,388

  738

  3,846

  Dinefwr

  1,179

  244

  423

  1,846

  Llanelli

  3,748

  577

  1,457

  5,781

  Preseli Pembs

  3,001

  759

  982

  4,743

  South Pembroke

  1,858

  917

  695

  3,470

  Blaenau Gwent

  7,179

  738

  1,270

  9,186

  Islwyn

  3,413

  909

  833

  5,155

  Monmouth

  2,750

  1,078

  891

  4,719

  Newport

  9,554

  3,150

  3,424

  16,128

  Torfaen

  7,921

  810

  2,057

  10,788

  Aberconwy

  1,817

  1,003

  1,061

  3,880

  Arfon

  2,956

  1,217

  845

  5,018

  Dwyfor

  671

  430

  338

  1,439

  Meirionnydd

  1,199

  391

  521

  2,110

  Ynys Mon

  3,291

  1,050

  1,206

  5,547

  Cynon Valley

  3,254

  671

  1,109

  5,304

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4,330

  946

  1,373

  6,649

  Ogwr

  7,555

  1,147

  2,465

  11,167

  Rhondda

  3,533

  565

  1,226

  5,324

  Rhymney Valley

  7,293

  938

  2,263

  10,494

  Taff Ely

  4,936

  741

  1,729

  7,405

  Brecknock

  1,324

  394

  431

  2,149

  Montgomeryshire

  1,953

  606

  604

  3,162

  Radnor

  604

  454

  231

  1,288

  Cardiff

  15,466

  10,655

  6,523

  32,644

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,944

  1,862

  1,848

  7,654

  Port Talbot

  2,826

  367

  1,138

  4,331

  Lliw Valley

  2,966

  570

  1,000

  4,535

  Neath

  3,046

  297

  1,193

  4,536

  Swansea

  10,008

  2,764

  4,898

  17,670

  Total Wales

  141,470

  43,847

  54,120

  239,437

  644 645

  1986–87

  Amounts granted

  £ thousands

  Rent rebates at 1987–88 prices

  Rent allowance at 1987–88 prices

  Rate rebates at 1987–88 prices

  Total at 1987–88 prices

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,259

  553

  1,501

  4,313

  Colwyn

  1,735

  1,890

  1,433

  5,057

  Delyn

  2,947

  401

  1,663

  5,011

  Glyndwr

  1,418

  543

  591

  2,552

  Rhuddlan

  1,285

  2,173

  1,727

  5,185

  Wrexham Maelor

  4,840

  71

  2,587

  7,497

  Carmarthen

  1,720

  810

  646

  3,176

  Ceredigion

  1,730

  1,559

  841

  4,130

  Dinefwr

  1,204

  256

  501

  1,961

  Llanelli

  3,757

  531

  1,649

  5,937

  Preseli Pembs

  2,921

  812

  1,158

  4,891

  South Pembroke

  1,851

  1,000

  787

  3,638

  Blaenau Gwent

  7,225

  477

  1,518

  9,220

  Islwyn

  3,509

  647

  976

  5,132

  Monmouth

  2,784

  646

  1,040

  4,470

  Newport

  8,917

  2,825

  3,889

  15,630

  Torfaen

  7,784

  556

  2,352

  10,692

  Aberconwy

  1,852

  1,138

  1,176

  4,166

  Arfon

  2,766

  1,414

  932

  5,111

  Dwyfor

  640

  480

  380

  1,500

  Meirionnydd

  1,144

  418

  556

  2,118

  Ynys Mon

  3,344

  1,246

  1,369

  5,959

  Cynon Valley

  3,431

  781

  1,193

  5,405

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4,278

  954

  1,468

  6,700

  Ogwr

  7,633

  1,170

  2,718

  11,520

  Rhondda

  3,839

  669

  1,373

  5,881

  Rhymney Valley

  7,650

  973

  2,450

  11,073

  Taff Ely

  4,863

  1,074

  1,933

  7,869

  Brecknock

  1,321

  430

  502

  2,253

  Montgomeryshire

  1,416

  618

  697

  2,731

  Radnor

  558

  486

  265

  1,310

  Cardiff

  15,547

  11,168

  8,072

  34,786

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,696

  2,126

  2,230

  8,052

  Port Talbot

  2,944

  304

  1,145

  4,393

  Lliw Valley

  2,916

  370

  1,048

  4,333

  Neath

  2,896

  691

  1,249

  4,835

  Swansea

  10,027

  3,448

  5,136

  18,611

  Total Wales

  140,649

  45,706

  60,750

  247,105

  1987–88

  Amounts granted

  £ thousands

  Rent rebates

  Rent allowance

  Rate rebates

  Total

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,141

  538

  1,454

  4,133

  Colwyn

  1,644

  2,136

  1,394

  5,174

  Delyn

  2,415

  418

  1,819

  4,652

  Glyndwr

  1,298

  485

  584

  2,367

  Rhuddlan

  1,293

  2,206

  1,660

  5,159

  Wrexham Maelor

  4,569

  857

  2,518

  7,944

  Carmarthen

  1,704

  820

  670

  3,194

  Ceredigion

  1,718

  1,833

  870

  4,421

  Dinefwr

  1,177

  246

  543

  1,966

  Llanelli

  3,797

  533

  1,674

  6,004

  Preseli Pembs

  2,773

  1,020

  1,138

  4,931

  South Pembroke

  1,810

  1,061

  798

  3,669

  Blaenau Gwent

  6,880

  569

  1,581

  9,030

  Islwyn

  3,278

  651

  1,008

  4,937

  Monmouth

  2,839

  610

  1,057

  4,506

  Newport

  8,244

  2,849

  4,093

  15,186

  Torfaen

  7,153

  542

  2,325

  10,020

  Aberconwy

  1,686

  1,213

  1,194

  4,093

  Arfon

  2,914

  1,479

  965

  5,358

  Dwyfor

  610

  503

  397

  1,510

  Meirionnydd

  1,068

  416

  555

  2,039

  Ynys Mon

  3,272

  1,283

  1,383

  5,938

  Cynon Valley

  3,397

  944

  1,203

  5,544

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4,131

  1,008

  1,446

  6,585

  Ogwr

  7,582

  1,251

  2,655

  11,488

  Rhondda

  3,765

  751

  1,348

  5,864

  Rhymney Valley

  7,350

  1,051

  2,396

  10,797

  Taff Ely

  4,691

  944

  1,928

  7,563

  646 647

  Rent rebates

  Rent allowance

  Rate rebates

  Total

  Brecknock

  1,342

  418

  522

  2,282

  Montgomeryshire

  1,378

  574

  690

  2,642

  Radnor

  484

  483

  252

  1,219

  Cardiff

  14,057

  11,008

  8,084

  33,149

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,370

  2,217

  2,157

  7,744

  Port Talbot

  2,837

  339

  1,189

  4,365

  Lliw Valley

  2,918

  361

  1,133

  4,412

  Neath

  2,851

  698

  1,329

  4,878

  Swansea

  10,051

  3,587

  5,684

  19,322

  Total Wales

  134,487

  47,902

  61,696

  244,085

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to publish a separate commentary on Welsh Office public expenditure.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am pleased to say that the first Welsh Office public expenditure commentary is being published today. The commentary, which has been produced bilingually, expands upon the information already published in the Wales chapter of the 1989 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 617), and will be a valuable source document for anyone wanting to know more about the Government's expenditure plans for Wales.

  I have arranged for copies of the commentary to be made available through the Vote Office.

  Housing Enveloping Schemes
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many housing enveloping schemes have been carried

  Local authority and scheme

  Number of houses

  Scheme cost

  Date of approval

  £ million

  Blaenau Gwent

  Six Bells, Abertillery

  262

  2·4

  September 1986

  Marine Street, CWM

  230

  1·4

  September 1987

  Cynon Valley

  Rheola Street, Penrhiwceiber

  75

  0·6

  September 1986

  Park View Terrace Abercwmboi

  105

  0·8

  September 1986

  Wyndham Crescent, Aberaman

  114

  1·0

  June 1988

  John Street, Abercwmboi

  71

  0·6

  Jun 1988

  Glanlay Street, Penriwceiber

  82

  0·6

  May 1988

  Carnetown, Abercynon

  191

  1·4

  March 1989

  Kings Street-Queen Street, Cwmdare

  88

  0·6

  March 1989

  Dinefwr

  Victoria Street, Llandovery

  24

  0·2

  June 1987

  Llandeilo

  26

  0·2

  May 1988

  Orchard Street, Llandovery

  28

  0·3

  October 1988

  Islwyn

  Cwmfelin Fach

  326

  1·6

  July 1986

  Woodside Terrace, Crumlin

  20

  0·1

  January 1987

  West End, Abercarn

  242

  2·0

  September 1988

  Wattsville

  73

  0·7

  December 1988

  Viaduct Terrace, Crumlin

  49

  0·5

  February 1989

  Llanelli

  Silver Terrace, Bury Port

  20

  0·1

  May 1987

  Cross Hands, Llanelli

  25

  0·2

  February 1989

  Neath

  Canalside

  29

  0·2

  June 1988

  Rhondda

  Cwmparc

  164

  1·0

  March 1986

  Maerdy Phase II

  192

  1·3

  March 1986

  Ynyswen

  127

  0·9

  May 1987

  Tylorstown

  72

  0·5

  June 1987

  648
  out in each south Wales valley district council area in each year since 1986; how many are planned for 1989, 1990 and 1991; how many houses were involved in each scheme; how much each scheme cost; and from what budget or funds each scheme was funded.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: Since 1986, nine local authorities in the south Wales valleys have undertaken a total of 38 enveloping schemes incorporating some 4,000 homes at a cost of over £29 million. Details of the projects are given in the following table. The projects have been funded both from local authorities' main housing allocations and from additional resources we have made available.

  Local authorities throughout Wales have been invited to submit bids for 1989–90 by 1 April 1989. I am confident these will include substantial new schemes in the valleys area which will enable them to make even greater progress in tackling the problems of the older housing stock.
  649

  Local authority and scheme

  Number of houses

  Scheme cost £ million

  Date of approval

  Penyrenglyn

  140

  1·0

  July 1987

  Maerdy Phase III

  132

  0·8

  April 1988

  Cymmer

  131

  0·9

  June 1988

  Maerdy Phase IV

  92

  0·7

  June 1988

  Ynsfeio

  101

  0·7

  July 1988

  Ystrad and Clydach Vale

  116

  0·9

  July 1988

  Rhymney

  Jubilee Road, New Tredegar II

  84

  0·5

  July 1986

  Brithdir Phase I

  125

  0·9

  April 1987

  Brithdir Phase II

  185

  1·5

  April 1988

  Torfaen

  Plas Y Coed, Phase I

  71

  0·5

  January 1987

  Plas Y Coed, Phase II

  25

  0·2

  August 1987

  Hanbury Road,Pontypool, Phase I

  26

  0·2

  May 1988

  Hanbury Road, Phase II

  55

  0·4

  May 1988

  Hanbury Road, Phase III

  73

  0·6

  June 1988

  Housing Allocations
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what capital allocations to housing associations Housing for Wales will make for(a) new building and (b) renovation in 1989; and what capital allocations are planned for 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: It will not be possible to say how much of the £72 million available to Housing for Wales will be allocated to associations until the value of projected schemes is known. However, Housing for Wales plans to allocate funds in 1989–90 for 1,600 new build and 800 rehabilitation projects. No decisions have yet been made about the ratio of new build to rehabilitation for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what capital allocations were made by the House Corporation to housing associations in the valleys for:(a) new building and (b) renovation in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: This information for the financial years prior to 1984–85 is not held centrally. Allocations in the approved development programme from 1984–85 for new projects were as follows:

  £000

  Year

  New build

  Rehabilitation

  1984–85

  3,500

  10,300

  1985–86

  4,655

  7,350

  1986–87

  7,409

  6,729

  1987–88

  8,448

  9,360

  1988–89

  19,240

  10,536

  Mrs. Clywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what capital allocations have been made in each year since their inception to the Welsh priority estates; how much is planned for 1989, 1990 and 1991; and from which budget or funds these allocations have been made.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: The capital allocations which have been made for Welsh priority estates projects since the inception of the programme are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1984–85

  1·3

  1985–86

  1·2

  1986–87

  2·8

  650

  Year

  £ million

  1987–88

  5·2

  1988–89

  7·6

  1989–90

  8·0

  Decisions on the level of PEP allocations for 1990–91 have not yet been taken.

  PEP capital allocations, as with all other capital allocations for local authority housing services, form part of the overall capital resource made available to local authorities in Wales. Decisions on the level and distribution for 1989–90 were announced by my right hon. Friend on 23 November 1988 at column 6.

  NHS Hospitals (Trust Status)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospitals he expects will have National Health Service hospital trust status in 1991; and how many hospitals he expects will eventually achieve that status.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: It will be possible by the early 1990s for a major acute hospital that so desires to become self-governing, provided that it shows clearly that it will have the capacity to provide efficiently and effectively an adequate range and depth of services to the population it serves. It is too soon to say how many hospitals will initially or eventually request and secure trust status.

HEALTH

  Records
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department keeps any records of business conducted by health authorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  A wide variety of financial, statistical and other information relating to their business is sent by health authorities to this Department.

  Health Authority Meetings
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of(a) full, (b) public and (c) private meetings of regional health authorities, held for the last five years.
  651
  Mr. Mellor
  This is a local matter.

  Cigarette Advertisements
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase the protection for children from exposure to cigarette advertisements in the agreement which he is currently negotiating with the tobacco industry on advertising and health warnings.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government will be seeking to renegotiate the voluntary agreement on tobacco products' advertising and promotion, and health warnings, but these negotiations are not yet under way. The current agreements already incorporate measures to protect children from exposure to advertisements, but this matter is among those which we intend to address.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of Government funds was spent on producing the National Health Service pamphlet "Working for Patients, the Health Service, Caring for the 1990s"; how many of these pamphlets have been printed; and what was the cost of distribution to post offices, as a separate figure.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The cost of printing 3·1 million copies of the pamphlet "Working for Patients" was 117,000.

  The Post Office makes a single annual charge for the display of my Department's leaflets and posters. The charge covers distribution to individual Post Offices and changes to the leaflets and posters on display at regular intervals. It is not possible to separate out the costs of the pamphlet "Working for Patients".

  Counterfeit Products
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Taunton,Official Report, 10 January, column 604, what representations he has received about alleged breaches of the requirements listed in that answer; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have records of one complaint which is currently under investigation.

  Dioxins
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he intends to publish his report on the investigations that he has carried out within his areas of responsibility into chlorine-bleached packaging, dioxins and food.

  Mr. Freeman
  A report on dioxins is to be published by the Department of the Environment and I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. The Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has been asked to consider the possible hazards to human health from dioxins. The committee's advice will form part of this statement.

  Nottingham Health Authority
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he is yet in a position to respond to the letter from 652
  the hon. Member for Nottingham, North regarding consultation on closures and transfers by the Nottingham health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  I wrote to the hon. Member on Wednesday 8 March.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the delay in answering the question on food safety put down for answer on 15 December 1988 by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), eventually answered on 15 February 1989, giving details of each stage in the processing of question and answer.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have already apologised to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for the delay in answering his question at column 864 during the debate on 21 February 1989, but I am happy to repeat that apology.

  The reply which I gave him on 15 February 1989 answered only the first part of his question. The delay arose because officials were attempting to collect information on staffing levels and costs over the past five years, but eventually had to conclude that this could be achieved only at disproportionate cost. As soon as that decision was taken, the answer was processed without delay.

  Registered Homes Tribunals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if registered homes tribunals have a right to impose additional categories of registration in addition to those which relate to the number of residents and their age, sex or category.

  Mr. Mellor
  In a recent case (Warwickshire county council v Valerie McSweeney (1988)) the High Court held that a registered homes tribunal's power to impose conditions in respect of a registration for a residential care home is limited to those cases set out in section 5(3) of the Registered Homes Act 1984—that is, as to the total number of residents and their age, sex or category. Decisions of the High Court arising from an appeal on a point of law are binding on subsequent registered homes tribunals.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on encouraging a diversity of ownership of private residential and nursing homes.

  Mr. Mellor
  We welcome a broad-based service developed in response to public demand. The extent to which individuals, companies or charitable bodies own private residential care or nursing homes is a matter for their commercial judgment.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many establishments which were formerly used as local authority homes or National Health Service hospitals are now used for private residential or nursing care;

  (2) how many former poor law institutions are currently still used for (a) local authority residential care, (b) National Health Service in-patient care, (c) private residential care and (d) private nursing care.
  653
  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold the information requested centrally.

  Nursing Home Fees
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the National Health Service accepts responsibility for providing in-patient nursing care for patients needing such care, whose financial resources, including pension entitlements and income support, where applicable, are insufficient to cover nursing home fees.

  Mr. Mellor
  The NHS has a responsibility to provide in-patient nursing care for those patients, whatever their financial circumstances, who have been identified as needing it. It is a matter for health authorities to decide the level and pattern of services in the light of local circumstances and available resources. This might include the potential contribution of private or voluntary facilities.

  "Home Life"
  Mr Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy to encourage registration authorities to implement recommendations contained in the publication "Home Life", which are not incorporated in the Registered Homes Act.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Secretaries of State for Social Services and Wales endorsed "Home Life" as an excellent guide to good practice and asked local authorities to regard it in the same light as the general guidance issued from time to time under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. In local authority circular (84)15 we said authorities should draw up local guidelines in the light of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and associated regulations, the guidance issued with that Circular and the recommendations in "Home Life". Copies of these documents are in the Library.

  NHS Assets
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what level he expects to set the interest element of the capital charge on National Health Service assets.

  Mr. Freeman
  The interest element of capital charges will be set at a level which is consistent with the cost of capital used for other public sector capital assets. The rate of interest will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors will determine the interest element of the capital charge on National Health Service assets.

  Mr. Freeman
  The rate of interest element of the capital charges for National Health Service assets will be consistent with the cost of capital used for other public sector capital matters.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the valuations of National Health Service land and buildings referred to in paragraph 2.7 of the capital charges working paper.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have placed in the Library a summary of the valuation of the NHS estate as at June 1987. There will be a new valuation of the NHS estate before capital charging is inroduced, and the figures will be available next year.

  Hampshire (Electoral Rolls)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the predicted(a) total population and (b) number of people on the electoral roll of each local government district of Hampshire in 1995.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys does not make projections of either total population or the number of people on the electoral roll for local government districts.

  NHS (Charges)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about National Health Service charges and spectacle vouchers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I will shortly be laying before the House regulations for increases in prescription charges in the National Health Service in England and Wales to come into effect on 1 April 1989. The prescription charge will increase by 20p from £2·60 to £2·80. This increase of 7·7 per cent. reflects the higher costs of the pharmaceutical services and will provide an extra £10 million in income helping us to increase the total resources available to the Health Service in England and Wales by the equivalent of over £2 billion next year. The new charge will continue to represent less than half the cost of an average prescription to the NHS. Under existing exemption arrangements over three quarters of prescriptions are provided free of charge, and these arrangements will continue. The new charges are therefore only likely to be levied on less than a quarter of all prescriptions.

  The four-monthly and annual prepayment certificate fees will increase from £13·50 and £37·50 to £14·50 and £40·00 respectively.

  The charges for elastic stockings and tights, wigs and fabric supports supplied through the hospital service will also be increased from 1 April, as shown in table A.

  From the same date, we will be making regulations under the powers now available to us in the Health and Medicines Act to extend the system of fully proportional charges for dental treatment to include dentures and bridges, which are currently on a fixed scale of charges. This means that all charges for dental treatment, including dentures and bridges, in the general dental service, and dentures and bridges in the hospital service, will be on a uniform charging basis as a fixed proportion of cost.

  Also from 1 April, the values of spectacle vouchers will increase by around 4·5 per cent. but vouchers for those with the poorest sight and who need the most expensive glasses are to increase by 10 per cent. Voucher values for the hospital eye service will rise by the same amount with the exception of the voucher for contact lenses which remains unchanged. The NHS charge for contact lenses prescribed through the hospital eye service will rise from 1 April to equal the voucher value of £26·50. The revised voucher values are shown at table B.
  655

  Table A

  New hospital service charges from 1 April 1989 (Present charges in brackets):

  Elastic stockings and tights, wigs and fabric supports

  £

  £

  Each elastic stocking

  2·80

  (2·60)

  Tights supplied through the hospital service

  5·60 a pair

  (5·20 a pair)

  Stock modacrylic wig

  24·00

  (22·00)

  Partial human hair wig

  62·00

  (58·00)

  Full bespoke human hair wig

  97·00

  (90·00)

  Surgical brassiere

  12·00

  (11·00)

  Spinal or Abdominal support

  16·00

  (15·00)

  Table B

  NHS spectacle voucher values from 1 April 1989 (present values in brackets)

  Voucher

  £

  £

  A

  17·00

  (16·25)

  B

  28·00

  (27·00)

  C

  46·00

  (44·00)

  D

  32·75

  (31·00)

  E

  58·00

  (52·50)

  F

  98·00

  (89·00)

  G Hospital

  98·00

  (89·00)

  H eye service

  26·50 per lens

  (26·50)

  Complex

  3·25

  (3·00)

  lenses

  18·00

  (17·00)

  Prisms per lens

  3·75 single vision

  (3·50)

  4·75 bifocal

  (4·50)

  Tints both lenses

  3·80 single vision

  (3·50)

  4·80 bifocal

  (4·50)

  Photochromic

  3·80 single vision

  (3·50)

  both lenses (Hospital eye service)

  4·80 bifocal

  (4·50)

  Small frame supplement

  33·00

  (31·50)

  Total population

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  Mid year 1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Basingstoke and Deane

  127,300

  129,000

  131,000

  132,100

  134,000

  136,300

  137,600

  137,891

  138,418

  East Hants

  87,800

  89,600

  91,600

  91,700

  93,600

  95,000

  97,000

  97,760

  100,210

  Eastleigh

  89,200

  91,200

  93,000

  94,000

  96,000

  97,600

  99,000

  99,523

  99,882

  Fareham

  87,000

  88,000

  89,000

  88,200

  90,800

  92,600

  94,200

  95,705

  98,154

  Gosport

  77,400

  78,300

  77,800

  77,200

  77,100

  77,200

  77,800

  77,513

  83,294

  Hart

  73,900

  76,000

  76,300

  76,800

  77,200

  79,000

  80,200

  81,283

  83,294

  Havant

  115,200

  115,300

  115,700

  115,700

  116,600

  117,400

  118,500

  118,918

  118,789

  New Forest

  142,300

  144,100

  145,500

  146,200

  149,000

  151,800

  155,600

  159,000

  161,250

  Portsmouth

  191,900

  190,200

  191,400

  191,000

  191,600

  188,600

  187,900

  186,884

  188,822

  Rushmoor

  79,700

  79,800

  80,600

  80,400

  79,400

  80,600

  81,400

  79,145

  77,671

  Southampton

  211,300

  209,900

  209,900

  207,400

  206,300

  203,900

  202,300

  200,501

  199,071

  Test Valley

  91,500

  92,100

  93,700

  94,100

  95,500

  97,100

  98,700

  99,335

  100,399

  Winchester

  90,600

  91,800

  93,000

  92,800

  92,300

  92,400

  93,700

  94,208

  95,612

  Local government electorate1

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Basingstoke and Deane

  88,897

  90,810

  92,905

  95,287

  97,494

  99,964

  102,286

  103,724

  104,967

  106,299

  East Hampshire

  63,104

  64,452

  65,884

  67,644

  69,034

  70,942

  72,087

  73,579

  74,463

  76,592

  Eastleigh

  65,269

  67,598

  69,280

  71,126

  72,546

  74,481

  75,579

  76,716

  77,827

  78,277

  Fareham

  62,441

  63,911

  64,989

  66,633

  67,977

  69,328

  70,900

  71,958

  73,706

  75,542

  Gosport

  52,057

  53,464

  54,619

  55,088

  55,955

  56,930

  57,881

  57,947

  57,936

  58,828

  Hart

  50,675

  52,038

  53,130

  54,406

  55,568

  56,652

  57,755

  58,935

  60,260

  62,187

  Havant

  83,333

  84,485

  85,752

  86,847

  87,821

  89,541

  90,483

  91,737

  92,845

  93,233

  New Forest

  108,466

  110,989

  113,148

  114,752

  116,803

  119,673

  121,457

  124,119

  126,690

  127,965

  Portsmouth

  137,589

  137,298

  138,565

  139,794

  140,428

  141,096

  142,068

  142,641

  142,665

  142,974

  Rushmoor

  48,634

  49,219

  50,135

  51,769

  52,586

  52,935

  53,215

  53,537

  53,425

  53,401

  Southampton

  159,914

  159,250

  159,464

  160,722

  159,639

  159,722

  159,299

  159,131

  158,894

  158,956

  Test Valley

  63,255

  64,528

  66,111

  67,263

  68,198

  69,527

  70,928

  72,617

  74,253

  75,713

  Winchester

  66,350

  67,270

  68,583

  69,808

  70,557

  71,001

  71,618

  72,760

  73,603

  74,738

  Note: 1979–85 total populations are in rounded figures.

  Source: OPCS EL Monitors and OPCS mid year estimates.

  1 The electorate figures relate to registers which came into effect in February of each year, based on qualification in October of the preceding year.
  656

  Voucher

  £

  £

  Supplement for special facial characteristics (Hospital eye service)

  33·00

  (31·50)

  Health Service Indicators
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the next set of Health Service indicators will be issued.

  Mr. Freeman
  The timetable for issuing the new set of Health Service indicators based on data for 1987–88 and, for the first time, using the Körner minimum data sets is as follows: each regional health authority will be sent the indicator values for its own districts at the end of March to be validated. This is being done at the request of the regions because the indicator definitions are new and untried with the new data. This process of validation will take up to three months. Once the values have been checked the full package of indicators will be brought together and published in July. The aim is to publish the set of the indicators based on 1988–89 data in January 1990.

  Hampshire (Electoral Rolls)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been(a) the total population and (b) the number of people on the electoral roll of each local government district of Hampshire in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have been transferred from unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit to invalidity benefit for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret the information is not available in the form requested. The following table gives the number of incapacity spells where invalidity benefit commenced in each year and the number of these spells which relate to previous unemployment.

  Year

  All commencement of invalidity benefit

  Claimant unemployed at start of spell

  Claim links with unemployment benefit claim

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  1987–881

  278

  126

  89

  1986–87

  284

  120

  82

  1985–86

  285

  106

  68

  1984–85

  272

  103

  67

  1983–84

  278

  101

  77

  1 Provisional.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are in thousands.

  2. A spell of incapacity following unemployment may begin with immediate entitlement to invalidity benefit, because there is a link to an earlier spell of incapacity. Where there is no such link, a spell of incapacity following unemployment will begin with entitlement to sickness benefit. The information in columns (ii) and (iii) relates to the situation at the start of the spell of incapacity, where this begins with sickness benefit or invalidity benefit.

  3. Many of the cases included in column (iii) will also be in column (ii), but they are not necessarily the same. This is because someone can be unemployed at the start of the incapacity spell, but if they have not registered there is no link with an unemployment benefit claim. Conversely, someone who goes back to work after an unemployment benefit claim but then goes sick within eight weeks has a link with that unemployment benefit claim but is not recorded as unemployed at the start of the incapacity spell.

  4. Information is not available to distinguish in columns (ii) and (iii) whether, during the preceding unemployment, the benefit paid was unemployment benefit, supplementary benefit, or a combination of the two.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the percentage take-up of child benefit;

  (2) whether the take-up of child benefit has changed since the abolition of universal maternity grants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available estimates show that the take-up of child benefit has remained substantially the same (around 98 per cent.) since its introduction in 1977.

  Maternity Benefits
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements have been made by his Department following the abolition of universal maternity benefit to ensure that newly nursing mothers get child benefit claim forms.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Claim forms for child benefit are available, on request, from the Department's local offices. Requests for the forms may be made by post, telephone or 658
  personal call to any local office—it does not have to be the one covering the claimant's home area. In addition, leaflet FB8 "Babies and Benefits", which is available from health centres, ante natal and child health clinics and maternity hospitals as well as social security offices, includes a cut-out coupon which can be used to obtain the appropriate claim form.

  Plastic National Insurance Cards
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stockport dated 6 March, whether plastic national insurance cards are capable of being adapted for use in cash dispensing machines.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Whether the plastic national insurance number card has the capacity to be adapted to this purpose has not been tested, but we have already made it clear that there are no plans to consider such a use for the card.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the amount of money paid out of the social fund since its inception, both in terms of cash arid a:3 a percentage of the social fund budget as a whole, from the following offices: Bolton, Bury, Crewe, Manchester (Sale), Preston (North), Preston (South) St. Helens, Warrington, Widnes and Wigan.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Such information is available from the details held in the Library.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he is offering housing authorities in Scotland on the need to make fresh assessments of current claims from private tenants to ensure landlords reduce rate and rent charges to reflect the abolition of rates from 1 April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Local authorities in Scotland have been advised that housing benefit should be assessed on the basis of the amount of rent the tenant is contractually liable to pay to occupy his home. After 1 April, when domestic rates are abolished in Scotland, local authorities will no longer be obliged to apportion rent between rent and rates in cases where the tenant has no personal liability to pay rates but pays an inclusive sum to his landlord. In such cases, the maximum housing benefit payable will therefore be 100 per cent. of the global sum as opposed to 100 per cent. of the amount apportioned as rent plus 80 per cent. of the amount apportioned as rates. Landlords will no doubt take the reduction in their overheads as a result of the abolition of domestic rates into account in setting the level of rents. Local authorities have powers to restrict the amount of housing benefit payable where the rent charged is unreasonably high.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to be in a position to respond to the letter from the honourable Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye concerning the application for family credit from the Reverend John Macleod, Porthahomack, Ross-shire; and if he will make a statement.
  659
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A reply was sent on 8 March.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are now receiving family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the end of February 254,000 families were receiving family credit, and a further 42,400 claims were awaiting determination.

  Transitional Protection
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the following categories of claimants in receipt of income support will receive no increase in their benefit payments as a result of the current year's uprating because of the effect of transitional additions:(a) pensioners, (b) persons in receipt of a disability premium, (c) single parents, (d) unemployed married couples, (e) unemployed single people, (f) unemployed with children, and (g) others.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: Precise information is not available. The estimated number of claimants in each of the categories listed who will receive no increase in benefit at this year's uprating is as follows:

  Number

  Pensioners

  200,000

  Persons in receipt of disability premium

  10,000

  Lone parents

  40,000

  Unemployed couples without children

  10,000

  Unemployed single people

  190,000

  Unemployed couples with children

  10,000

  Others

  110,000

  Total

  570,000

ENVIRONMENT

  River Pollution
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those firms which have been prosecuted for pollution offences in respect of rivers in each year since 1980; which were convicted; and what was the penalty in each case.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not held by the Department. However, the new National Rivers Authority will in future enforce water pollution controls on a

  Urban Development Grant

  Department of Environment Region

  Number of Schemes Approved

  Approved Grant

  Value of Schemes Approved

  Grant1 Expenditure

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1984–85

  West Midlands

  13

  1·934

  8·330

  3·275

  North West

  9

  5·786

  34·856

  1·632

  Northern

  7

  3·154

  10·460

  1·464

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  10

  2·186

  13·124

  0·582

  London

  4

  7·982

  35·295

  4·605

  East Midlands

  3

  1·104

  6·316

  0·614

  Merseyside

  3

  0·419

  1·685

  0·917

  South West

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  55

  22·565

  110·066

  13·089

  660
  national and more consistent basis as a result of which information of this nature should become more readily available.

  Grants
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to shorten the time taken to process applications by the private sector for city grant.

  Mr. Trippier
  With the introduction of city grant in May 1988 new procedures were adopted to help reduce the time taken to process applications. These include more thorough pre-application discussions to assist developers in producing workable proposals, a streamlined application procedure and a commitment by the Department to provide an early indication of the progress of each application. There are no plans to revise the procedures but they are kept under review.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff in his Department in London and in each regional office have been allocated to processing applications from the private sector for urban development grant and city grant for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Trippier
  Urban development grant (UDG) applications were and city grant (CG) applications are handled by regional and centrally located staff who are involved in various aspects of urban renewal work. It is not possible to give a figure for staff devoted solely to UDG and CG work.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (I) how many successful applications by the private sector have been made, broken down by Department of Environment region, for urban development grant and city grant in each of the last five years;

  (2) what has been the allocation and expenditure, by Department of Environment region, for urban development grant and city grant for each of the last five years;

  (3) what is the total value of projects, broken down by Department of the Environment region, that are dependent on urban development grant or city grant for each of the last five years; and what is his estimate for 1989–90.

  Mr. Trippier
  There are no regional allocations for city grant and there were no such allocations for urban development grant. The tables show the figures requested by region for schemes approved in each year.
  661

  Department of Environment Region

  Number of Schemes Approved

  Approved Grant

  Value of Schemes Approved

  Grant1 Expenditure

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1985–86

  West Midlands

  9

  2·063

  8·955

  4·589

  North West

  10

  6·427

  30·887

  5·671

  Northern

  8

  1·225

  5·511

  2·637

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13

  4·263

  13·886

  1·498

  London

  5

  5·576

  19·967

  4·655

  East Midlands

  1

  0·460

  5·213

  0·900

  Merseyside

  1

  0·164

  1·999

  1·614

  South West

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  47

  20·178

  86·418

  21·564

  1986·87

  West Midlands

  13

  12·421

  67·746

  4·581

  North West

  10

  1·531

  5·535

  4·196

  Northern

  10

  3·039

  10·780

  2·010

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8

  2·092

  7·129

  4·912

  London

  7

  4·551

  29·702

  4·609

  East Midlands

  6

  3·250

  12·638

  0·452

  Merseyside

  4

  6·093

  33·397

  0·546

  South West

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  58

  32·977

  166·927

  21·036

  1987·88

  West Midlands

  5

  0·550

  2·664

  5·943

  North West

  11

  2·596

  14·189

  4·038

  Northern

  5

  5·240

  18·278

  3·154

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  10

  3·626

  13·454

  2·480

  London

  4

  2·097

  8·657

  5·956

  East Midlands

  6

  3·358

  21·280

  1·972

  Merseyside

  2

  0·433

  1·247

  0·713

  South West

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  1

  0·249

  1·118

  0·090

  Totals

  44

  18·149

  80·887

  24·346

  1988·89 (to date)

  West Midlands

  6

  2·182

  8·610

  5·236

  North West

  5

  2·557

  15·156

  3·048

  Northern

  4

  1·115

  4·828

  2·389

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8

  5·008

  20·994

  3·538

  London

  4

  2·143

  12·100

  2·378

  East Midlands

  2

  0·222

  1·033

  3·463

  Merseyside

  2

  0·455

  1·972

  3·813

  South West

  1

  0·098

  1·447

  0·049

  South East

  0

  0

  0

  0·159

  Totals

  32

  13·770

  66·140

  24·073

  1 Expenditure in any year depends upon the progress on schemes
  approved in several previous years.

  City Grant (Scheme began May 1988)

  1988–89 (to date)

  Number of Schemes Approved

  Approved Grant

  Value of Schemes Approved

  Grant Expenditure

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  DOE Region

  West Midlands

  7

  5·368

  27·922

  0·714

  North West

  7

  5·559

  27·151

  0·109

  Northern

  3

  0·579

  2·841

  0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4

  0·784

  4·210

  0

  London

  5

  5·570

  28·648

  0

  East Midlands

  9

  8·802

  38·144

  0·152

  Merseyside

  1

  0·168

  2·468

  0

  South West

  1

  0·145

  0·485

  0

  South East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  37

  26·975

  131·869

  0·435

  662 663
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when the
  processing of city grant was delegated to his Department's regional offices;

  (2) by what criteria applications for city grant are referred to be processed by his
  Department in London.

  Mr. Trippier
  Regional offices are responsible for dealing with proposals
  and inquiries from developers at the pre-application stage and for receiving and checking formal
  applications. Complete applications are passed to a city grant appraiser based in London. It is
  then the responsibility of the Department's central inner cities division to progress the
  application through to a decision by Ministers.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much
  clawback of urban development grant and city grant has been obtained by his Department from the
  private sector in each of the last five years; and what is his estimate for 1989–90.

  Mr. Trippier
  The following amounts of urban development grant have been
  clawed back to date:

  Average processing time for applications approved (in
  days)

  Urban Development Grant

  DOE Region

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  West Midlands

  162

  142

  182

  246

  110

  North West

  142

  126

  187

  150

  68

  Northern

  147

  152

  109

  182

  100

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  173

  114

  148

  170

  120

  London

  135

  143

  147

  184

  96

  East Midlands

  0

  257

  160

  153

  32

  Merseyside

  116

  137

  299

  172

  70

  South West

  0

  0

  0

  0

  61

  South East

  0

  552

  0

  0

  0

  Average processing time for all applications decided (in
  days)

  City grant (scheme began May 1988)

  DOE region

  1988–89

  West Midlands

  118

  North West

  92

  Northern

  62

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  93

  London

  64

  East Midlands

  72

  Merseyside

  162

  South West

  56

  South East

  —

  Strom Damage
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment what was the
  total amount of Government assistance given for repairs and compensation following the stroms of
  October 1987; and if he will give a breakdown of the figure.

  Mrs. Virgina Bottomley
  To 7 March 1989 the Department has given financial
  assistance to local authorities totaling £21,311,968 under the Bellwin scheme announced
  on final audited claims. of the amounts in authorities' initial claims. Final settlement will be
  on the basis of audited claims.
  664

  £ million

  1986–87

  0·63

  1987–88

  0·96

  1988–9

  0·27

  No city grant schemes have yet been completed and thus no grant has been clawed back.

  No accurate estimate is possible for 1989–90.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average time taken, by Department of the Environment regions, to process private sector applications for(a) urban development grant and (b) city grant for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The figures for the processing time of applications are set out in the tables according to the year in which a decision was given. The times for UDG schemes do no include the processing of the application by the local authority before submission to the Department. The times for city grant exclude periods when schemes are, with the agreement of the applicant, held in abeyance.

  List A

  £

  Adur

  164,733

  Arun

  55,824

  Ashford

  173,825

  Babergh

  57,502

  Bracknell

  35,126

  Brighton

  250,651

  Bromley

  994,042

  Canterbury

  297,901

  Chelmsford

  64,434

  Dover

  30,050

  East Hampshire

  13,400

  East Hertfordshire

  15,733

  Eastleigh

  15,339

  Forest Heath

  10,561

  Gillingham

  50,512

  Gosport

  113,702

  Gravesham

  80,718

  Harlow

  13,138

  Hastings

  177,708

  Havant

  18,581

  Hove

  125,262

  Isle of Wight

  30,617

  Lewes

  34,859

  Medina

  33,178

  Mid Suffolk

  10,092

  Mid Sussex

  382,468

  Mole Valley

  58,275

  New Forest

  41,141

  North Hertfordshire

  11,137

  Reigate and Banstead

  18,963

  Rochford

  45,502

  Rother

  20,431

  Rushmoor

  20,237

  Sevenoaks

  334,928

  Spelthorne

  14,526

  665

  £

  Stevenage

  12,715

  Suffolk Coast

  21,013

  Surrey Heath

  18,519

  Tendring

  15,111

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  35,449

  Tunbridge Wells

  250,483

  Wandsworth

  394,797

  Waverley

  40,205

  Wealden

  66,118

  Welwyn Hatfield

  15,143

  West Sussex

  4,021,001

  8,455,650

  1 Amount paid on the basis of initial claim net of amount to be recovered as a result of final audited claims.

  List B

  £

  Barking and Dagenham

  340,200

  Basildon

  35,000

  Basingstoke

  29,700

  Bexley

  347,600

  Braintree

  101,000

  Brentwood

  210,000

  Broxbourne

  18,000

  Castle Point

  32,000

  Colchester

  17,000

  Christchurch

  74,925

  Eastbourne

  103,275

  East Sussex

  1,592,000

  Edenbridge

  210,600

  Epsom and Ewel

  21,600

  Great Yarmouth

  11,700

  Greenwich

  192,375

  Hackney

  235,575

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  28,000

  Hertsmere

  25,000

  Horsham

  119,475

  Ipswich

  168,075

  Kent

  3,364,200

  Lewisham

  138,375

  Maidstone

  148,500

  Merton

  222,750

  Norwich

  97,200

  Poole

  24,975

  Portsmouth

  64,125

  Shepway

  143,323

  Southend on Sea

  278,000

  South Wight

  178,200

  Suffolk

  47,700

  Surrey

  2,631,150

  Sutton

  297,500

  Swale

  153,000

  Tandridge

  247,050

  Thanet

  177,525

  Thurrock

  35,000

  Tower Hamlets

  303,345

  Waltham Forest

  259,000

  Waveney

  2,700

  Woking

  12,150

  Worthing

  117,450

  Total

  £12,856,318

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will express the Ealing domestic rates of 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 as a notional community charge; and if he will make a statement.
  666
  Mr. Gummer
  The illustrative community charges published by the Department are based on local authority returns. The figures for Ealing from 1985–86 to 1988–89 are as follows.

  Illustrative community charge in Ealing

  £

  1985–86

  172

  1986–87

  164

  1987–88

  278

  1988–89

  234

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the Department's estimate of the community charge for 1990 for the district authorities in (a) Merseyside, (b) Greater Manchester and (c) the London boroughs.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 7 March 1989.]: The Government have made no estimates of future community charges. Illustrative figures are published on 23 June showing what the community charge would have been i:n each area had the new system been in force in 1988–89. Those illustrative figures assume existing levels of spending and existing local authority responsibilities.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the estimate of the community charge that his Department expects for each district in (a) Cumbria, (b) Merseyside and (c) the London boroughs.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have made no estimates of future community charges. Illustrative figures were published on 23 June showing what the community charge would have been in each area had the new system been in force in 1988–89. Those illustrative figures assume existing levels of spending and existing local authority responsibilities.

  Interest Rates
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current standard national interesl: rate as defined in the Housing Act 1985, schedule 16(2); what were the monthly averages for(a) base rate, (b) average building society rate of interest and (c) standard national rate from the start date of the Housing Act 1985; and how he calculates the standard national interest rate.

  Mr. Trippier
  The current standard national rate. introduced on 6 February 1989, is 13·5 per cent. The standard national rate is calculated taking into account. interest rates charged by building societies in the United Kingdom and any movement in those rates.

  The monthly averages requested are as follows:

  Base rates Selected retail banks

  Average Building society rate of interest

  Standard National rate of interest

  1986

  April

  10·5

  12·16

  12·65

  May

  10·0

  12·04

  12·00

  June

  10·0

  11·06

  11·00

  July

  10·0

  11·04

  11·00

  August

  10·0

  11·04

  11·00

  September

  10·0

  11·04

  11·00

  October

  11·0

  11·04

  11·00

  November

  11·0

  12·28

  11·00

  667

  Base rates Selected retail banks

  Average Building society rate of interest

  Standard National rate of interest

  December

  11·0

  12·32

  12·30

  1987

  January

  11·0

  12·32

  12·30

  February

  11·0

  12·32

  12·30

  March

  10·0

  12·32

  12·30

  April

  9·5

  12·31

  12·30

  May

  9·0

  11·47

  11·25

  June

  9·0

  11·28

  11·25

  July

  9·0

  11·27

  11·25

  August

  10·0

  11·27

  11·25

  September

  10·0

  11·28

  11·25

  October

  9·5

  11·28

  11·25

  November

  9·0

  11·27

  11·25

  December

  8·5

  10·34

  11·25

  1988

  January

  8·5

  10·27

  10·25

  February

  9·0

  10·26

  10·25

  March

  8·5

  10·26

  10·25

  April

  8·0

  10·26

  10·25

  May

  7·5

  9·84

  10·25

  June

  9·5

  9·78

  9·75

  July

  10·5

  9·78

  9·75

  August

  12·0

  11·45

  10·34

  September

  12·0

  11·54

  11·50

  October

  12·0

  12·70

  11·98

  November

  13·0

  12·71

  12·75

  December

  n/a

  12·75

  12·75

  Sources:

  Base rates—"Financial Statistics", table 13.10 (rate at end of period).

  Building Society rates—"Financial Statistics", table 13.12.
  Standard National rate—Department of the Environment.

  Limehouse Link Road
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those sites identified or currently being considered for replacement accommodation for tenants affected by the Limehouse link road, giving for each the size and number of units that could be provided;

  (2) where the London Docklands development corporation has purchased or is considering purchasing completed units in private housing developments in docklands in order to rehouse tenants affected by the Limehouse link road; if he will give details of the developments involved including the numbers and types of units and the name of the development company; whether the corporation will purchase units at, below or above prices currently being asked by developers on the open market; and what mechanisms the corporation will adopt to ensure that any units purchased will be made available to tenants at affordable rents;

  (3) what consideration the London Docklands development corporation has given in order to rehouse tenants affected by the Limehouse link road, to purchasing completed units at the Ideal Homes Limited development at Timber Wharves Village, London E14.

  Mr. Trippier
  The LDDC has identified a number of sites for replacement housing including:Timber Wharves, E14—up to 421 units of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom accommodation.
  Devons road, E3–70 units of 3, 4, 5 and 6 bedroom houses.
  Lukin street, E1–30 units of 3, 4, 5 and 6 bedroom houses.
  668
  The LDDC recently announced its intention to purchase Timber Wharves, which is a development by Ideal Homes (London) Ltd.

  The prices paid for acquisitions are a matter of commercial confidentiality, but are subject to certification by independent valuers and will reflect the benefits of bulk purchase where appropriate. The corporation will assist the housing associations who will manage the properties to ensure that rents are set at levels which the tenants can afford.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest available estimate for the total cost of rehousing tenants affected by the Limehouse link road.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under the LDDC's accord with the London borough of Tower Hamlets, at least 400 households would be rehoused. The LDDC currently estimates that the average cost per household would be £142,000. This is based on assumptions about tenants' choices as between new housing association dwellings and existing council dwellings and about construction costs and so on. It would be offset by the LDDC's receipts from the eventual disposal of property released by rehousing.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update the figures on imports of special waste given in the answer to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 28 October 1988,Official Report, column 427.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is not yet possible to update the information given in reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 28 October 1988. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution expects to have the information from the waste disposal authorities later this year.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide figures for the tonnage of special waste, both indigenous and imported, disposed of in the United Kingdom in each year from 1978 to the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Records of imported special wastes have been gathered by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (and its predecessors) only since the financial year 1981–82. This information was provided in my answer to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 28 October 1988,Official Report, column 427. Figures for indigenous special waste arisings have been given in the hazardous waste inspectorate's three reports which have been placed in the Library. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution advises that the total of special waste (indigenous and imported) for financial year 1987–88 is 1,845,833 tonnes.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Ridley
  Copies of the Select Committee reports made since June 1987 which contain recommendations for my Department, and copies of the responses made by the Government, are available in the Library of the House.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects a reply to be sent by the London Docklands development corporation to the letter from the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, of 22 February addressed to Mr. Michael Honey.

  Mr. Trippier
  I understand that Mr. Honey will reply this week.

  Voluntary Organisations (Bradford)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the withdrawal of urban programme funding for voluntary organisations in Bradford, and as to what steps he is taking to ameliorate the effects of discontinuing such funds.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have made no decisions yet on Bradford's urban programme for 1989–90. I hope to do so shortly. I should point out that there are proposals within the programme for the funding of voluntary sector schemes to the extent of £1·29 million. I understand that several projects which have reached the end of their approved funding period, and which were not included in next year's programme, may come forward for consideration. I will of course examine these very closely.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make additional funds available to Bradford metropolitan district council to enable voluntary oranisations currently funded both by public agencies and by the council, to continue to receive funding at current levels.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no plans to do so. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) about urban programme funding in Bradford.

  Rent Officers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the role of the rent officer under the Housing Act 1988;

  (2) what guidance is given on the criteria by which the rent officers will decide market rents.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under the draft orders laid before Parliament last month, rent officers would, from 1 April, have the function of assessing whether the rents paid by housing benefit claimants in the deregulated private rented sector are reasonable for housing benefit subsidy purposes, and whether claimants are occupying over-large accommodation. The draft orders specify the criteria to be applied. Rent officers will be required to compare the rent paid by a benefit claimant with the rents paid in the open market by tenants who are not receiving benefit.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals for the recovery of chlorofluorocarbons currently in use for domestic or commercial refrigeration.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Both United Kingdom manufacturers of CFCs as well as some refrigeration 670
  companies offer a recycling service for used refrigerants. At least one retailer of domestic refrigerators and freezers has agreed to remove old appliances free of charge to extract the refrigerant for recycling.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to prohibit the release of CFCs into the atmosphere.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Overall production and consumption of cholorofluorocarbons (CFCs) is controlled within the European Community by the EC regulation implementing the Montreal protocol. Within that framework we are strongly encouraging action on a voluntary basis to reduce CFC use to the maximum possible extent by such measures as use of alternative substances, products and processes, prevention of leaks and wastage, and recovery and recycling. The steps already being taken by all sectors of industry will ensure that the United Kingdom will more than halve its consumption of CFCs by the end of 1989—10 years ahead of the protocol requirement. Following the initiative of the United Kingdom, EC Environment Ministers agreed on 2 March on the need to reduce CFC production and consumption by at least 85 per cent. as soon as possible with a view to a complete phase out by the end of the century, and to strengthen the protocol accordingly. The "Saving the Ozone Layer" London conference on 5 to 7 March underlined the need for tougher international measures. The United Kingdom hopes that such action will be agreed when the parties to the protocol meet in London 1990.

  Water Pollution (Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people have been affected by the impure water supply in Oxfordshire.

  Mr. Howard
  The diarrhoeal illness cryptosporidiosis is caused by the organism, cryptosporidium, which is widespread in the environment. It is not therefore known how many of the 69 people so far identified this year as affected by the illness in Oxfordshire were infected through the water supply. However, as the organism was positively identified in the water supply to areas where there was a higher incidence of the illness than normal, precautionary advice was given that water to be used by children under two and immuno-compromised adults should be boiled for one minute.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the changes in the numbers and distribution of badgers in the wild following the passing of the Badgers Act 1973.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The first reliable national survey of the badger population in Great Britain was commissioned by the Nature Conservancy Council and carried out between 1985 and 1988 by Bristol university and the Mammal Society. The initial findings are that there are approximately 42,000 main setts or social groups in Great Britain, equivalent to a population of approximately 240,000 animals. The final results of this study will be used as a baseline for future surveys. It is not possible accurately to assess changes in the British badger population since 1973.

  East Thames-side
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on his consultancy study of the housing potential of the five large sites in East Thames-side.

  Mr. Ridley
  The study has provided information on the potential of the five areas in east London for housing development. A copy of the study report is in the Library. It is clear these areas at the Greenwich peninsula, Beckton, Barking reach, the lower Lea Valley and Stratford can make an important contribution towards meeting the pressing housing needs of east London.

  The capacity of the areas considered developable depends on many factors, not least decisions on a balance of land uses and the chosen density of housing development. The five areas are substantially owned by local authorities, other public bodies or recently privatised industries. Although parts are in useful occupation, within the areas extensive sites remain undeveloped or underused. To a considerable extent their lack of productive use has been the result of prolonged designation as operational land despite a lack of specific plans for their actual development. Realisation of the unsatisfactory nature of this situation has been growing among those directly concerned. The reasons are, principally, pressure from Government, the rising value of the asset and the opportunity cost of its underuse, and initiative in some cases by local planning authorities. Each of the five areas will require a different solution. To prosper they will need concerted and co-ordinated action by the local authorities, landowners and developers.

  There is now enormous scope for mixed housing for at least 20,000 new homes including low-cost dwellings. The study and the Government's new initiatives to improve transport for Docklands and East Thames-side have now helped to bring the prospect of development nearer.

  Ancient Monuments
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the protection available for ancient monuments in the light of the recent decision at Gloucester Crown court relating to Condicote Henge.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Our 13,000 scheduled ancient monuments are an important part of our heritage. Monuments entered on the statutory schedule of ancient monuments are fully protected. English Heritage will continue to press vigorously for prosecution in cases of wilful damage to such monuments.

  The recent prosecution at Gloucester Crown court failed because the court was not satisfied with the evidence produced in court that the particular monument was included in the schedule. Documentary evidence was available in the Department's offices in London, but the Department had not been invited to provide a witness. We understand that the question of an appeal is being considered.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will increase the maximum discount allowed to tenants exercising the right to buy their homes.
  672
  Mr. Trippier
  My hon. Friend and many other hon. Members have pointed out that the present limits work unfairly for tenants living in areas where property values are high. My right hon. Friend therefore proposes to lay before the House an order under section 131 of the Housing Act 1985, and regulations under section 171C, raising the limit to £50,000. The present limit of £35,000 was set in January 1987. I am sure the increase will be welcomed by the many tenants in London and the south-east who have not been able to exercise their right to buy with the present limit on discount.

  Housing Act 1988
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent on press and public relations material and advertising in respect of the Housing Act 1988 in total; what are future spending plans; and how much has been spent on publicising(a) housing action trusts and (b) council estate ballots on opting out of council control.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: Expenditure on informing people of their rights and opportunities under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 amounts to about £84,000 to date of which £7,600 relates to housing action trusts including translation of material into ethnic minority languages. There has been no expenditure on publicising council estate ballots on council proposals to transfer their stock. Further expenditure of around £620,000 will be required to inform people about tenants' choice, and to report back to tenants in the proposed HAT areas the results of the consultants studies of their estates. For 1989–90 a total of £1 million has been earmarked for information directly related to recent changes in legislation and policy: the final breakdown has yet to be decided but the programme is likely to include material on housing associations, on tenants choice, on housing action trusts and on the proposed changes to the improvement grant system.

  Capper Pass Works Humberside
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the subject of the emission of radiation from the Capper Pass works in North Humberside.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has now completed its report on emissions from the Capper Pass smelting works in north Humberside. I hope shortly to place copies in the Library of the House. I will ensure that a copy is also sent to my hon. Friend.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total final number of(a) countries, (b) international organisations and (c) other interested bodies who have accepted invitations to attend the conference on the ozone layer and chlorofluorocarbons in London on 5 to 7 March.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: A total of 123 countries and the European Community registered attendance at the "Saving the Ozone Layer" London conference on 5 to 7 March. In addition to the United Nations environment programme,

  673
  four UN agencies accepted invitations to send an observer. Representatives of the Citizens' Symposium on CFCs also attended, and a large number of industrial companies, trade associations and scientific organisations provided speakers and technical experts.

  Rate Swap Arrangements
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those local authorities which he knows to have entered into interest rate swap arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: The London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham recently sought my right hon. Friend's sanctions for certain payments and receipts due under interest rate swaps and I am aware from press and market reports that other authorities have entered into such arrangements. Individual authorities are not, however, required to inform my Department before entering into swaps and do not do so. Advice on the powers of local authorities to enter into swaps was circulated to all authorities by the Audit Commission last year. I am aware therefore neither of how many authorities have entered into these arrangements nor of how many have done so outside the guidelines on the powers of local authorities to enter into swaps which was circulated to all authorities by the Audit Commission last year.

  Civil Servants (Political Activity)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. Ridley
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: Nine.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff within his Department 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. Ridley
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: The following numbers of staff are recorded as being local authority members:

  Numbers

  Politically restricted

  6

  Intermediate

  13

  The Department does not keep a record of the number of staff in the politically free group who are councillors.

DEFENCE

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the present operational duties of Royal Air Force Finningley; and what are the future proposals for this base.

  Mr. Neubert
  RAF Finningley is the centre for training all non-pilot aircrew for the Royal Air Force, and for 674
  advanced multi-engine pilot training. It is also the base for Yorkshire universities air squadron, and air experience flight and the headquarters of the search and rescue wing. Finningley is designated as a co-located operating base for use by American forces in time of war. There are no plans to change the role of the station.

  Royal Artillery Range, Hebrides
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the operation at the Royal Artillery range, Hebrides, in September 1988, involving a West German Army helicopter.

  Mr. Neubert
  The helicopter referred to was a West German army CH 53 deployed in support of a British Army air defence demonstration held on 13 September 1988. The helicopter added realism to the demonstration by deploying a Javelin missile detachment and recovering them after the missile firing.

  Exercise North Star 89
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role Royal Air Force Stornoway will play in Exercise North Star 89.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Stornoway Airport
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many movements by Tornado aircraft were recorded at Stornoway airport in 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  During 1988 Tornado aircraft were temporarily deployed to Stornoway on eight separate occasions for a single day. Records kept do not identify by aircraft type the number of movements undertaken during the day whilst there.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the results of the noise surveys carried out at Stornoway airport in July 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  Evaluation of the results of the noise survey is almost complete and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account was taken of run and break manoeuvres by military aircraft during the noise surveys at Stornoway airport in July 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  Run and break manoeuvres are rarely carried out at Stornoway and none was observed during the noise survey. Such manoeuvres would, in any case, be unlikely to affect the position of the average 70dB(A) noise contour.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account was taken of overshoot manoeuvres by military aircraft during the noise surveys at Stornoway airport in July 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  Noise measurements were taken of 18 overshoot manoeuvres (13 by Phantom F4 aircraft arid five by Tornado).

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account was taken of noise from ground engine running by military aircraft during the noise surveys at Stornoway airport in July 1988.
  675
  Mr. Neubert
  The aim of the noise survey was to measure the noise associated with representative aircraft operations at sites which would enable the computer predicted average 70dB(A) noise contour to be validated. Due to the limited duration of the military exercise it was not possible to take specific measurements of noise from ground engine running. Experience of noise surveys at other military airfields suggests that the noise from this activity would not affect the position of the noise contour.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are given to military pilots using Stornoway airport(a) during periods of military activation of the airfield and (b) during periods when the airport is under civilian operational control, concerning the carrying out of run and break manoeuvres.

  Mr. Neubert
  Military pilots practising run and break manoeuvres at Stornoway airport are instructed to approach runway 36 at a minimum height of 600 ft or 1,000 ft if there is any civilian light aircraft or helicopter activity within the circuit area; and runway 18 at a minimum height of 1,000 ft. Pilots should approach with a displacement of 400 ft from the centre line of the runway to the west side and break to the east, away from the populated area. These instructions apply whether air traffic control is being provided by military or civilian personnel.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many simulated air attacks were made on Stornoway airport during its period of activation for Exercise Ocean Safari in September 1987;

  (2) how many simulated air attacks were made on Stornoway airport during its period of activation for Exercise Flanagan in July 1988;

  (3) how many simulated air attacks were made on Stornoway airport during its period of activation for Exercise Teamwork in September 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  There were no simulated attacks made on Stornoway airport during these exercises.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many simulated air attacks have been made on Stornoway airport since 16 May 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) said in his reply at column 352 on 16 May 1988, there is no requirement for Highlands and Islands Airports Limited to maintain records of simulated air attacks by military aircraft on Stornoway airport, during the normal periods of civil use. However records are maintained by the RAF when the airfield is activated for military exercises.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what minimum height and maximum speed are specified in the instructions to military fast jet pilots carrying out simulated air attacks on Stornoway airport.

  Mr. Neubert
  Simulated air attacks at Stornoway airport are very infrequent and are subject to restrictions of height, speed and angle of approach as set out by Highlands and Islands Airports Limited.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many practice approaches were carried out by military aircraft at Stornoway airport in 1988.
  676
  Mr. Neubert
  During 1988 there were 278 recorded practice approaches made by military aircraft at Stornoway airport. Of these 134 were made during Exercise Flanagan, when RAF Stornoway was activated from 8 to 17 July, and 42 during Exercise Teamwork during the period 30 August to 12 September.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the planned dates of activation of Stornoway airport for military exercises during 1989; and if he will list the title, scope and purpose of the exercise in each case.

  Mr. Neubert
  At present it is planned that Stornoway airport will be activated for military activity during the following periods: 20 June to 8 July 1989 and 7 to 18 September 1989. I will write to the hon. Member nearer the time giving specific details of the exercises.

  Military Aircraft (Run and Break Manoeuvres)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those military airfields in the United Kingdom where restrictions are imposed on the carrying out of run and break manoeuvres by military aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  Run and break manoeuvres take place at most military airfields according to local conditions. To specify all local restrictions would not be possible without disproportionate cost and effort.

  RAF Stornowa
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role was played by RAF Stornoway in Exercise JMC 89/1.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Coastal Communications System
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the function of the United Kingdom maritime coastal communications system; when he expects the system to become operational; and if he will list the locations of any of its installations in the Western Isles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom maritime coastal communications system (UKMACCS), which became operational in April 1987, provides high frequency communications to and from ships of the Royal Navy from the United Kingdom coastline out to 200 nautical miles. There are no installations associated with this system in the Western Isles.

  RAF Aird Uig
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made to the equipment of RAF Aird Uig following the recommendations on Royal Air Force tactical communications equipment set out in paragraph 82 of Cm 228, "Implementing the Lessons of the Falklands Campaign: Government Response to the Fourth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1986–87".

  Mr. Neubert
  The report in question and the Government's response to it covered military communications over extensive distances between the United
  677
  Kingdom and the south Atlantic in 1982. These have now been improved in a number of ways. The equipment at RAF Aird Uig is a NATO facility designed to support maritime operations over much shorter distances in the north Atlantic. This equipment meets with NATO requirement. There have been no recent changes to it nor are any planned in the immediate future.

  Z-Berths
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ports are currently being considered as possible locations for new Z-berths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Navy's requirements for port visits by nuclear-powered submarines are continually under review. When a port appears suitable and practical, the safety considerations are discussed with local civil authorities. Swansea is at pesent under consideration as a possible location for a new Z-berth. My officials have also had preliminary discussions with the port and local authorities at Tilbury.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the port of Hull has been taken off the list of ports with approved Z-berths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  After navigational problems had been encountered on two occasions, the Royal Navy reluctantly decided in 1985 to discontinue visits to Hull by Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current and future status of the Z-berth in the port of Barry.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Use of the Z-berth in Barry by royal naval nuclear-powered submarines has been discontinued temporarily because of difficulties in maintaining the water level at low tide. We understand that Associated British Ports intends to replace lock gates and modernise the berth's facilities in the near future; once this has been done the berth should again be suitable for use by nuclear-powered submarines.

  Tain Bombing Range, Ross-shire
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on any alterations he is considering over the use of Tain bombing range, Ross-shire, for use by the Army for mortar practice.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 3 March 1989]: The possibility of the Army making very occasional use of the range at RAF Tain for mortar practice is currently under consideration. No decisions have been taken.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what point after take-off an aircraft is considered to be on a low-level flight; and if that definition always applies in determining low-level flight accidents.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 18 January 1989]: An aircraft is judged to have been involved in accident at low level when the accident occurs after it is clear of the airfield area and it is engaged in the low-flying element of its sortie.

  Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stage he has reached in his consideration of the most cost effective location for those parts of the directorate general of defence quality assurance now at Woolwich and Bromley.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have concluded that a move to Preston farm in Teesside is the most cost-effective solution for the headquarters and laboratories of the directorate general of defence quality assurance now at Woolwich and Bromley. The move would concentrate the headquarters functions and main laboratories of the directorate on a single site with fully modern facilities, while at the same time releasing the Woolwich and Bromley sites for disposal and redevelopment. We will be consulting the trades unions, as is normal practice. Some 1,500 jobs are involved, of which about 650 would be good quality scientific and engineering posts and about 250 would be for apprentices.

  Accident Statistics
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Navy Sea King off Falmouth on 26 September 1984.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: While hovering above the water in Falmouth bay, the aircraft suffered an engine failure. A controlled landing was made on the water. None of the crew suffered any injuries. Subsequently, the aircraft was recovered and damage to the airframe was assessed as category 3 (repairable on site but requires assistance beyond the unit's own technical resources).

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Navy Sea King at the Royal Navy AS, Culdrose on 24 August 1984.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: There is no record of such an accident on that date.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Air Force Lightning at RAF Binbrook on 19 July 1984.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: Shortly after the Lightning touched down, its right main undercarriage collapsed and the aircraft veered off the runway and through the airfield perimeter fence. There were no casualties. The aircraft suffered category 3 damage.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Air Force Tornado at RAF Honington on 8 November 1983.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: There is no record of such an accident on that date.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the

  679
  damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Air Force Sea King in the English Channel on 20 June 1983.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: There is no record of such an accident on that date.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to an Army Scout helicopter at Sek Kong, Hong Kong, on 18 January 1983.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: During a practice landing, the Scout's tail rotor struck the ground, causing the aircraft to land heavily, resulting in category 3 damage. The crew suffered minor injuries.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Air Force Phantom at RAF Stanley on 24 October 1982.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: There is no record of such an accident on that date.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Navy Hunter at the Royal Navy AS at Yeovilton on 19 August 1982.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: After suffering a bird strike while exercising in the Portland sea areas, the Hunter returned to RNAS Yeovilton. Unable to lower the nose-wheel, the pilot landed the aircraft on a prepared foam strip, using the main wheels alone. The pilot was uninjured. The aircraft suffered category 3 damage.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Air Force Bulldog of East Midlands Universities Air Squadron in 1982.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: There is no record of such an accident on that date.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Air Force Buccaneer of the 15th Squadron over West Germany on the 8 March 1982.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: While at 2,000 ft. above the Nordhorn range in the Federal Republic of Germany, a Buccaneer of 15 Squadron sustained a broken turbine blade, which resulted in an engine fire. The pilot landed successfully and without injury at the German Air Force base at Hopsten. Aircraft damage was assessed at category 3.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Air Force Canberra at RAE Bedford on 30 November 1981.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: Whilst undertaking a night landing in stormy weather at RAE
  680
  Bedford the Canberra's wheels failed to grip the runway due to an excess of rain water. The pilot raised the undercarriage and the aircraft skidded to a halt. Originally, the damage to the aircraft was assessed at category 3. Subsequently, however, it was considered that, due to the aircraft's age, it would not be economic to repair it.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Air Force Vulcan at Goose Bay, Canada on 13 November 1981.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: There was no accident and there were no casualties. Following a report of a large fuel leak, category 2 (repairable within unit resources) damage to the main cabin conditioning duct of this aircraft was discovered. Subsequently, because of the type, age and location of the aircraft and the damage suffered, the aircraft was written off as beyond economic repair.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Air Force Lightning at RAF Binbrook on 27 March 1981.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: After landing, the Lightning's undercarriage retracted accidentally. There were no casualties. The aircraft suffered category 3 damage.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Navy Sea King in the English channel on 13 October 1980.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: While conducting a sonar exercise in Falmouth bay, the Sea King suffered an engine failure. The pilot made a controlled landing on the water and taxied the aircraft to a local beach. There were no casualties. The aircraft suffered category 2 damage.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident at Royal Air Force Valley on 27 May 1980.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: After landing at RAF Valley, a RAF Hawk aircraft's left brake failed to operate correctly and the aircraft left the runway. Both pilots ejected and suffered minor injuries. The aircraft suffered category 3 damage when hitting a stanchion belonging to the end of runway arrester equipment.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Air Force Hunter, serial number XL567, on 18 August 1980.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: There is no record of such an accident on that date.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of

  681
  damage and (c) the casualties whether civilian or military resulting from the accident to a Royal Aircraft Establishment Canberra at RAF Manston on 20 December 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: There is no record of such an accident on that date.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement(a) the circumstances surrounding the accident to an Army Scout helicopter in Canada on 26 August 1979 and (b) the damages caused by the accident.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: While undertaking a routine flight over a training area in Suffield, Canada at a height of 30 ft above ground, the Scout's engine cut out, leading the pilot to make an emergency landing. The helicopter struck the ground heavily and sufered category 3 damage. The crew sustained minor injuries.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1980" shows no major injuries resulting from low-flight accidents overseas for 1979, when table 9 of his letter on 16 August to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, lists four "Army Other" for the year 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: There were two such major injuries resulting from an Army helicopter accident overseas during low level flying in 1979. These were omitted inadvertently from the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1980" but were correctly detailed in my predecessor's letter of 16 August.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the death of an Royal Air Force navigator in a Tri-National Tornado training establishment crash in Wales on 17 June 1986 is not included in the lists attached to his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: The accident to a German Air Force aircraft and the crew fatalities were listed at annex D of my predecessor's letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member. It was omitted inadvertently from table 4.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all the foreign military aircraft accidents listed in his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, occurred during low-level flights.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: No.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) fatalities, (b) serious injuries, (c) loss of aircraft, (d) serious damage to aircraft and (e) other damages to military or civilian property resulting from the accident of a Royal Air Force Hawk on 21 April 1983.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: While transitting over Fort Angustus as part of a formation, a Hawk aircraft struck power cables, suffering category 3 damage. The rear seat passenger ejected, suffering major injuries, but the pilot landed the aircraft safely. A second Hawk sustained very minor damage after hitting aerial debris caused by the ejection. The power cables required repair, costing £2,886.
  682
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the Jaguar accident caused by disorientation at 6,000 ft on 6 August 1981 was not included as a low-level flight accident.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: This aircraft had completed its low-level manoeuvre and climbed to 5,500 ft before the accident occurred. It would not, therefore, have been accurate to include it among accidents that had taken place during low-level flight.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is still his policy that all accidents to aircraft of the three services which have involved loss of or serious damage to aircraft or which have resulted in fatalities or serious injuries are to be listed in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates".

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: Yes.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which major injuries resulting from the Tornado/Jaguar collision on 12 July 1984 listed in table 5 of his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, are not included in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985".

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: The major injury suffered by one member of the aircrew was omitted inadvertently from the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985." The relevant information provided in my predecessor's letter of 16 August 1988, was correct.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether accidents which occurred following pull-up from low-level flights, caused by disorientation in cloud about 2,000 ft, are included in the statistics of low-level flight accidents.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: If the circumstances giving rise to an accident began to develop at or above 2,000 ft above the ground, following a successful pull-up from low level, then clearly such an accident would not be classified as having occurred during low-level flight.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to include in the statistics of low-level flight accidents those occurring during unauthorised low-level display flying.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: The Ministry of Defence maintains comprehensive accident records pertinent to flight safety. These records do not deal specifically with accidents occurring during low-level flying, since such information of itself is usually not considered directly relevant to flight safety. All questions from hon. Members about accidents during low-level flight are researched individually according to the information sought. Where appropriate, answers make it clear that information is included or excluded. In my predecessor's letter dated 23 March 1988 and 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member, copies of which were placed in the Library, it was stated that accidents during flying displays were not included in statistics relating to low-level flying exercises.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987" lists only two injuries resulting from the accident on 12 July
  683
  1986, when the lists of deaths and major injuries to military personnel as result of low-level flying attached to his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, record three injuries for that same accident.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: The three injuries resulting from the accident to a Gazelle on 12 July 1986 were included in table 5.4 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987"; one injury was excluded inadvertently from table 5.8. The relevant information provided in my predecessor's letter of 16 August 1988 was correct.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the two major injuries resulting from the Royal Navy accident of 7 December 1983 were omitted from the lists in table 9 of his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: Royal Navy accident records were not computerised until 1985. Details of accidents before that year can be obtained only by manual search of old accident and signal logs. The information referred to was contained in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984" but omitted inadvertently from my predecessor's letter.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the "Statement on Defence Estimates 1983", records no major injuries when table 5 of his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, lists two Royal Navy other major injuries.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: If the hon. Member rereads volume 1 of the "Statement on Defence Estimates 1983", he will see on page 49 a reference to a Royal Navy Sea King accident in which two Royal Navy personnel suffered major injuries. This was the figure quoted in my predecessor's letter of 16 August 1988.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the accident to the Lightning, which occurred during unauthorised flying aerobatics on 26 June 1983, was not included in his statistics of low-level flight accidents.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: There is no record of such an accident on that date.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the date of the accident to a Royal Navy Wessex listed in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984" as 7 December 1983 and in his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, as 1 December 1983.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: The correct date was 7 December 1983.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the accident to a Sea Harrier off Scotland on 15 October 1987 included in the lists provided in his letter of 16 August to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, but excluded from his lists in the letter of 23 March 1988 to the same hon. Member effectively took place.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: Yes.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the accident to a Royal Navy Sea King on 29 February 1984 was omitted from the lists in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985" and included in the lists provided in his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan.
  684
  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: Only major accidents (categories 4 and 5) are set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". This accident (category 3) was included in the list provided by my predecessor only in response to a specific question tabled by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Jaguar aircraft which made an emergency landing at RAE Bedford in 1984 has flown since that accident; what is its current status; and which unit was assigned to carry out repairs on it.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: Whilst undertaking a low-flying sortie the pilot was forced to divert from his planned path by adverse weather. In gaining altitude though cloud, his aircraft struck Charwelton radio tower and subsequently landed at RAE Bedford. The damage to the aircraft was assessed as category 3. Subsequently, however, it was decided that the aircraft was beyond economic repair and the wings are now being used for tests at RAE Farnborough.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the accident to an Army Gazelle of 29 April 1986, as listed in his reply to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours),Official Report, column 449, 16 November 1987, was not included in the lists in his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: It was omitted inadvertently.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983" lists only one injury resulting from the accident on 15 September 1982 when the lists of deaths and major injuries to military personnel as a result of low-level flying, attached to his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, records two injuries for that same accident.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: The two major injuries resulting from the accident on 15 September 1982 were included in table 6·6 volume 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983", but one injury was omitted inadvertently from annex F, volume 1. The relevant information in my predecessor's letter of 16 August 1988 was correct.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" lists four Royal Air Force fast jet major injuries in the Tornado crashes on 3 June and 27 July 1987 when the list in the table in his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, records only two such major injuries for 1987.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: My predecessor's letter of 16 August omitted inadvertently the major injuries sustained by the two aircrew of the RAF Tornado which crashed at Manby on 3 June 1987.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" lists only two injuries for the accident on 18 March 1987 when the list of deaths and major injuries to military personnel as a result of low-level flying, attached to his letter to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, of 16 August 1988, records three injuries for that accident.
  685
  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: My predecessor's letter should have referred to only two major injuries resulting from this accident. The third casualty received only minor injuries.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the Royal Navy Sea King crash in Oman on 30 November 1986 was omitted from the lists in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987".

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: The "Statement on the Defence Estimates" includes only major (category 4 and 5) accidents. Damage from this accident was assessed as very minor.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the accident to a Sea King on 23 July 1987 included in the lists provided in his letter of 23 March 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan was excluded from the lists in his letter to the same hon. Member of 16 August 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: Since the accident occurred while the aircraft was landing it should not have been included in my predecessor's letter of 23 March.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the accident to a Royal Navy Sea King on 23 September 1987 occurred during landing as stated in annex E of his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, or during low-level flying, as stated in his reply to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours),Official Report, column 449, 16 November 1987.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: The Sea King helicopter owned by Westlands but under military registration was undertaking sonar trials at low level when it suffered an engine failure and ditched into the sea.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether in 1979 there were two Royal Air Force fast jet major injuries as shown in table 5 of his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, or one as listed in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates".

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: The major injury to the pilot of the RAF Hunter resulting from a crash on 6 July 1979 was omitted inadvertently from the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1980". The relevant information provided by my predecessor in his letter of 16 August 1988 was correct.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Navy Bulldog at RAF Leeming on 1 June 1981.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: While carrying out a practice forced landing without power at RAF Topcliffe, the RAF Bulldog flown by a Royal Navy pilot hit the runway heavily and the landing gear collapsed. The aircraft slid some 100 m along the runway. Category 3 damage was sustained by the aircraft, while the engine and propeller were written off. The pilot suffered slight shock.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the
  686
  damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Air Force Buccaneer of the 16 Squadron at Nellis Air Force base, Nevada, in November 1981.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: There is no record of such an accident.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the circumstances of, (b) the nature of the damage and (c) casualties resulting from the accident to a Royal Air Force Jet Provost of the central flying school on 5 July 1984.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: While the pilot was practising aerobatics at a height of some 6,800 ft, a fuel leak caused an engine fire. The pilot made a successful forced landing at RAF Leeming and was not hurt. Originally, damage to the aircraft was assessed at category 3. Subsequently, however, it was considered that as the aircraft was nearing the end of its projected flying life it would not be economic to repair it.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983" records only three major injuries for 1982 when table 9 of his letter of 16 August 1988 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, lists four Army other major injuries for that year.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: One such injury was omitted inadvertently from the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983". The relevant information provided in my predecessor's letter of 16 August 1988 was correct.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what unit carried out the repairs on the Royal Air Force Tornado which crashed at RAF Wildenrath on 14 April 1987; and if the aircraft has now re-entered service.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: This aircraft is currently being repaired at RAF Laarbruch by a working party from 431 maintenance unit. It should return to service later this year.

  RAF Phantom XV591
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the withdrawal from use of the Royal Air Force Phantom serial number XV591 during 1987.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: During routine servicing, a serious defect was discovered in this aircraft. It was decided that, since the Phantom FG1 fleet is soon to be withdrawn from service, this aircraft was beyond economical repair.

  Strobe Lights
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the total expenditure in each year since 1979 on the fitment of high intensity strobe lights to military aircraft of the three services;

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress in fitting high intensity strobe lights to military aircraft of the three services;

  (3) when the fitment of high intensity strobe lights of RAF Nimrod aircraft was first proposed; what is the current status of the proposal; and what funding has been provided for this programme.
  687
  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: High intensity strobe lights (HISLs) have so far been fitted to aircraft of the three services as follows:

  Percentage

  Royal Navy

  Sea Harrier

  100

  Gazelle

  80

  Army

  Scout

  100

  Lynx

  85

  Gazelle

  65

  Royal Air Force

  Dominie

  100

  Harrier ¾

  95

  Harrier GR5

  1100

  Jaguar

  100

  Hercules

  75

  Buccaneer

  54

  Hawk

  100

  VC10 C1

  100

  Jetstream

  65

  Bulldog

  2—

  Sea King

  100

  Chinook

  35

  Puma

  85

  Gazelle

  50

  Wessex

  68

  1 Fitted during manufacture.

  2 Programme about to commence.

  3 Trial programme.

  688
  Consideration is being given to fitting HISLs on a further six RAF aircraft types including Nimrod. It is not, however, our practice to comment on whether individual items are included in the forward defence programme The installation of HISLs is undertaken only as part of a larger modification programme for each aircraft. It would not therefore, be possible to identify separately the discrete expenditure on HISLs for military aircraft since 1979, without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Accident Data Recorders
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the military aircraft types operated by the three services which are fitted with accident data recorders; and in what year each type was first fitted with this equipment;

  (2) what plans exist to fit accident data recorders to aircraft types operated by the three services which do not currently carry such equipment.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: The following RAF fixed wing aircraft type entered service fitted with accident data recorders (ADRs):
  VC-10 (1966), Nimrod (1967), Harrier (1969), Hawk (1976), Tornado GR1 (1980), Tornado F3 (1984), BAe 146 (1986), Tristar (1986), Tucano (1988).

  The Andover was modified to carry ADRs from 1970. There are no current plans to fit ADRs retrospectively to other military aircraft.

Preamble
The House met at three o'clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
Lord Layton Lord Layton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

UN Disabled People Project: UK Assistance
Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government: What assistance they are giving to the United Nations global project to promote the Decade of Disabled People.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government are pleased to announce that they have provided assistance to the value of £37,000 in the form of rent-free accommodation at their premises in London for the project manager of the global secretariat of the United Nations global project.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the global project is part of the United Nations world programme of action concerning disabled people which focuses on prevention, rehabilitation and equalisation of opportunities so that disabled people can make a statement about their rights, their needs and their status? This is the most imaginative project which is intended to heighten awareness and, above all, to change attitudes. With all that in mind, should not the Government be doing much more to assist the project than just providing some free office space for the international secretariat?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with the preamble to the supplementary question of the noble Lord. Although I understand that the overseas development administration makes grants to non-governmental organisations to carry out overseas projects, it does not normally contribute to their administration costs. We have already bent over backwards by providing accommodation to the global secretariat, as I have said. We have also provided money for a consultant in Vienna. If and when specific projects are established in the United Kingdom, we shall of course consider any requests for support. Meanwhile, I have no hesitation in commending this international cause to any sources of charitable and other funds.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I welcome the Government's intention which my noble friend has expressed in answer to this Question. Is my noble friend aware that according to the definition which has applied for many years in our country, the largest group of disabled people here are those who suffer from mental handicap? Within this international
1598
effort, will the mentally handicapped also be considered as an important group?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree substantially with what my noble friend has said. I thank him for his welcome of my earlier comments. But I am afraid that this is very much a question for the global group itself rather than Her Majesty's Government. However, I shall endeavour to find the information my noble friend asks for and write to him.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I sympathise very much with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this should be a project which deals with mental handicap as well as physical handicap. I also wish to express my support to the Minister for his indication not only of support for the secretariat, but also of the willingness of the Government to consider supporting particular projects when they are brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful for those comments.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government take encouragement from the fact that the United Nations International Year of the Disabled which took place in 1981, and for which I was chairman for Scotland, was judged to have helped considerably in spreading awareness of mentally disabled people and others whose handicaps are not obvious?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I quite agree. Indeed one of the early Questions to which I replied from this Box took place during the International Year of the Disabled in 1981. I seem to remember the subject was access to public buildings up and down the country. I also remember that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone was I believe the president or vice president of the national committee for that year when my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was chairman.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, as a disabled driver, I declare an interest in this matter. I wish to express my great gratitude for the extraordinary kindness I receive in that capacity. Can we have some explanation as to what a disabled driver is, and which people should give such a driver consideration and in what terms?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the term "disabled driver" is, as I understand it, a very technical one. It is written into the social security legislation. It also appears in some of the transport legislation. I hope there is a common definition. I shall certainly endeavour to discover that definition and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, do I understand from what my noble friend has been stating in replies that the United Nations Decade of Disabled People will apply to the mentally ill as well as the mentally handicapped?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a question which I was regretfully unable to answer. I said that I would write to my noble friend Lord Renton, and of course I shall include my noble friend in that correspondence.
Young People: Education and Training
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood asked Her Majesty's Government: What percentage of 16 year-olds are staying on in full-time education.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the percentage of 16 year-olds staying on in full-time education in the United Kingdom in 1987–88 was 47 per cent. Figures are not available for the United Kingdom for 1988–89, but provisional figures suggest that full-time participation for England has increased from 46 per cent. to 49 per cent.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer and I welcome the fact that the percentage is rising. In view of the enormous demand for skilled people and the fact that, according to what one reads in the newspapers, young people are required in all industries, can the Government encourage still more young people, both boys and girls, to stay on both at school and in technical colleges? That would cost money, but does the Minister agree that that would be an investment in view of the enormous demand for skilled staff in industry today?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am happy to say that the Government agree entirely with my noble friend. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science proposed to the Association of Colleges of Further and Higher Education that every young person should receive some form of education and training leading to a worthwhile qualification and that many more young people should stay on in full-time education studying for A and AS-levels or a vocational qualification.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Islington Sixth Form Centre, of which I have the honour to be a governor, has achieved a very impressive increase in the staying-on rate through an imaginative mixture of academic, vocational and craft subjects? Would he agree that that is the way to go ahead rather than making a rigid divide between the school and the FE system, which is rather the tendency of government policy?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I was not aware of the noble Lord's college but I shall certainly look into the matter.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, are we to understand from the Minister's reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that there is a prospect of Her Majesty's Government treating the years between 16 and 18 as a period of education and training for all?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, our examination reforms in the Education Reform Act will raise standards in schools giving more young people the qualifications and motivation to stay on. In the speech to which I referred my right honourable friend suggested action on three fronts:the curriculum and qualifications on offer, the image and marketing of further education and the re-organisation of the governance and management of further education colleges following the Education Reform Act. A copy of my right honourable friend's speech is available in the Library.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords. can my noble friend tell me how the 47 per cent. is divided as between boys and girls? Is it not true that girls are more sensible than boys about such matters?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have the figures here, if I can find them. I can confirm that the conclusion is that more girls stay on than boys.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House how those figures compare with the figures for our partners in the European Community?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on the whole they are lower. The Government are well aware of that fact and that is why we are taking action to improve the situation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I think that the relevant figures are that 53 per cent. of girls stay on at school while 45 per cent. of boys stay on. That confirms what the noble Viscount said. The noble Viscount mentioned that in the past year there had been an increase in those staying on in full-time education. Can he confirm that in the 1980s until last year the rate of increase was lower than at the start of the decade and that it was only last year that the situation began to recover? Can he explain that fact? Can he also explain the curious fact that the proportion staying on at school rather than going on to further education is now lower than it was at the start of the decade?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot answer the last question from the noble Lord. However, I agree that the figures to which he referred were 53 per cent. and 47 per cent. Before this year the annual increase was in the region of 0·5 per cent. The 3 per cent. increase in the past year is very encouraging. We do not have firm evidence as to why the staying-on rate is improving, but young people taking GCSE this year may have had a better experience of school. AS-levels, CPVE and TVEI are offering more attractive forms of provision for 16 year-olds and the opportunities for young people without qualifications are fast disappearing. They may be realising that a job at 16 without training is a dead-end.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount was referring to the situation in England. Did he give a figure for Scotland?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords, he did not. However, I can tell my noble friend that in 1987–88 the figure for Scotland was 48 per cent. but no comparable figure is yet available for 1988–89.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us what proportion of the 53 per cent. who do not stay on at school are given regular day-time release by their employers for further study or training?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in 1969 when I studied this problem the figure was around 40 per cent. for boys and lower for girls? Does he agree that the advance for boys seems to have been remarkably small over the whole of the past 20 years, not just the last 10 years?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I was not aware of that fact.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can we pursue one aspect of the Minister's answer in relation to GCSE which I welcome? Can he confirm that it is the Government's view that GCSE has been helpful in persuading young people to stay on in further education? Will he therefore confirm that it is a bad idea that those people who are trying to undermine GCSE should continue to do so? Can the noble Viscount confirm that GCSE is a success?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am happy to agree entirely with the noble Lord.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the fact that the percentage staying on at school was only 33·2 per cent. whereas the total continuing in education after school leaving age was 48·8 per cent. shows that sixth form colleges and tertiary colleges, or further education colleges, are very much more successful than small sixth forms in schools? Are the Government now taking a more reasonable attitude towards tertiary colleges?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on that point.

Uranium Imports Classification
3.20 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government: Who is responsible for codifying the uranium ore concentrate imported into the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Euratom authorities are responsible for assigning safeguard codings to uranium ore concentrate imported into this country.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that Answer puzzles me. Does the noble Baroness remember that on 30th November last year she told the House:
"The Euratom authorities assign the appropriate coding according to the conditions imposed by the government of the supplying country at the time when the contract is signed".—[Official Report, 30/11/88; col 301–2.]
Does that not indicate that whatever country supplies the uranium—in this case I am particularly interested in the supply of uranium from Namibia under South African direction—that country determines the code under which that uranium is supplied to this country?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Euratom authorities assign the appropriate coding according to the conditions imposed by the government of the supplying country and, where no conditions are imposed, they apply an "N" coding.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify a point regarding the re-export of uranium which is processed by British Nuclear Fuels? Is it the case that British Nuclear Fuels receives uranium ore concentrate from customers, processes it and re-exports it? If that is the case, does that mean that uranium which may be marked "N" could be processed in Britain and re-exported with a different codification?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think that that is unlikely. BNFL certainly receives uranium from overseas customers for processing and re-export. The material is under Euratom safeguards while it is in this country and I therefore see no reason why the coding would be changed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is that also true of re-exports to the Soviet Union for whom British Nuclear Fuels does a great deal of processing?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I imagine so, but I shall certainly look into that matter.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I can think of many things that one might do with concentrated uranium fuel, but how does one codify it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think that that question should more properly be directed to the Euratom authorities whose task it is. Nevertheless, the conditions are laid down and applied under the terms of the UK Euratom International Atomic Energy Authority Agreement which we entered into in 1978.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether it is the case that, when uranium is imported into this country, the codification can be changed by the Government of this country? I know that she said that they have no intention of changing it, but is it possible? Are they allowed to change it? Does it not destroy the Government's argument, as stated in both Houses, that no uranium has been imported for military purposes since 1973 if, during the intervening period, the uranium that has been imported can be used for military purposes should the Government so desire?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, it is not for the receiving country to change the restrictions under which the material is supplied. I can once again assure the noble Lord and the House that since 1973 no uranium ore has been delivered to the United Kingdom for defence purposes from any source.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is not the answer to my question. Will the Minister answer the question?
Noble Lords: Order, Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer the question: is it within the British Government's power to change the codification at their own will of any uranium which they import?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can perhaps repeat what I said on 30th November. As it is for the Euratom authorities to assign the appropriate coding according to the conditions imposed by the government of the supplying country at the time when the contract is signed, it is not for the United Kingdom Government to make any alteration to that coding.

Water Privatisation: Policy
3.25 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether there has been any change in their policy for privatisation of water following the Prime Minister's statement at the Conservative Party local government conference.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, No.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, on this occasion I had expected a very brief Answer. Bearing in mind the statement that the Prime Minister made at that conference, is the Minister aware that it is not up to the Opposition parties and the press to make the case for a government measure? Is it not also a fact that the measure is so bad in terms of what it will do to the service for the public in general that public opinion polls are running heavily against it? Have not the Ministers involved presented a poor case because it is a poor case to start with? Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister to stop acting like a petulant matriarch on this occasion and abandon the whole business in the interests of everyone concerned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the answer to the last question is no.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the noble Earl will not listen to the Oppositior. on this particular issue and if he does not agree that it is an idiotic, ill thought out measure, will he listen to the growing chorus of dissent and opposition from Conservative Members of Parliament as exemplified
1604
by Mr. Nicholas W Winterton on Jimmy Young's programme yesterday? Will the Government take note of those voices? If they do not, I am afraid that they will be soundly beaten.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong to accuse the Government of not listening. I can tell the House the advantages of privatisation. The separation of environmental and economic regulation from the provision of water supplies and sewage treatment work is vital if conflicts of interest are to be avoided. Only privatisation can separate ownership of the industry from its regulation. Only privatisation can unlock the door to access to private sector funds, ending the present position where spending on water industry infrastructure competes annually with spending on hospitals and schools for a share of the public purse. Nothing could be clearer than the effect of the IMF paymaster on water authorities' investment which was cut by one-third between 1974 and 1979.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister accept the gratitude of those on this side of the House who appreciate his setting out in advance the three weakest possible arguments for water privatisation that we have yet heard?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is more than his usual ebullient self. They were merely part of the argument.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Government made representations to try to reduce the horrifying projected increases in water charges and that they received a dusty answer? If that is the case, will they make further representations and what hopes have they of containing the projected increases in those charges?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the increases to which the noble Lord refers are of course the increases of those companies that are already in private hands which supply 25 per cent. of the water to England and Wales. Some of us can remember large increases. In those halcyon days of 1975–76 and 1976–77 there was a 26·3 per cent increase following a 42·8 per cent. increase in the same year that investment in water was cut.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would it not be better to defer debate on the Water Bill until it comes to us?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend makes a sensible suggestion. I am happy to debate the Bill at any time.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the Prime Minister has herself said that she is not satisfied with the way in which this matter has been presented to the public? Can the noble Earl tell us how the presentation is to be changed so as to sastisfy the British public, who at present feel a profound disquiet about the implications of this legislation? Can he further say why no date for

1605
flotation has so far been given by the Government either in the course of the legislation or by his department? Is the reason for that that at the end of the day the legislation will be dropped by the Government? That is the hope of the great majority of the people of this country.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, I do not have control of the press or of what the Opposition parties say. No date has as yet been fixed for flotation. That is not surprising. One will be fixed in due course.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is it reasonable or proper that when a piece of government legislation proves profoundly unpopular the Government should greatly step up the expenditure of public money on propaganda in its favour?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what we are doing is stepping up the amount of money spent on the infrastructure of water, to improve the quality.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say what will be the degree of foreign ownership when privatisation takes place? Which are the foreign countries and foreign organisations already involved? Will there be any defence of the land, much of which is now publicly owned in British interests, which would pass to foreign ownership?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, those three questions are very different from the Question on the Order Paper. I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that he is against foreign investment.

Schizophrenia After-Care Bill [H.L.]
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to improve the provision of after-care services for persons discharged from hospital after having received treatment for schizophrenia. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Mottistone.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Official Secrets Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill represents the first major change in official secrets legislation since 1920. It is a notable reform and one which considerably narrows the scope of the criminal law. It is right, therefore, that the House should look carefully at its provisions. I have no doubt your Lordships will consider that the time for reform is long overdue, and I hope you will agree that this Bill provides the right balance between material
1606
which must continue to be protected by official secrets legislation and the many other areas where such legislation need no longer be invoked.
There have been two main developments since your Lordships debated the White Paper on the reform of Section 2 in July. The first is the changes which we have made to the Bill itself, in the light of the comments which were made on the White Paper, including those expressed by your Lordships. We have introduced a test of harm for the unauthorised disclosure of the confidences of other governments and of international organisations. We have sharpened the international relations harm test so that it applies clearly to the protection of this country's interests abroad. We have narrowed the offence relating to the disclosure of information which results, or is likely to result, in crime. We have clarified the reference to interception so that it protects only information which is authorised under a statutory warrant.
The second main development since your Lordships last debated official secrets is the introduction of the Security Service Bill, to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading last week. The placing of the security service on a statutory basis, the warrant provision to which I have referred, the provision for a commissioner to review the exercise of the Secretary of State's warrant powers and the provision of a tribunal to which aggrieved people can take complaints are all important developments and safeguards which the House will no doubt wish to take into account when considering the Bill.
It may be of assistance if I set out the general shape and outline of the Bill which is before your Lordships today. Clauses 1 to 4 set out the six categories of information which are to be protected by the Bill. They create offences relating to the disclosure of such information by Crown servants or government contractors, and, under Clause 1, by notified persons.
There are specific tests of harm which are relevant to the type of information which is protected by each of the first three clauses of the Bill. They are security or intelligence; defence; international relations; and foreign confidences. There are also clear harm tests which are inherent in the description of the crime category in Clause 4 of the Bill. There is no separate test of harm in the sixth category for the disclosure of information about, or information which is obtained by, activities under statutory warrant.
These are essential instruments for protecting the security and well-being of the country. Their effectiveness depends on secrecy, and any unauthorised disclosure must therefore reduce that effectiveness. In those circumstances, we think it right to ask your Lordships to agree that, in this narrow, defined and statutorily controlled area of activity any unauthorised disclosure is bound to be harmful.
For similar reasons, in relation to security or intelligence matters, we propose that the test of harm should not apply to disclosures by members of the security and intelligence services or by people who are notified that they share the same liability.
Clause 5 deals with unauthorised disclosures of official information by people who are not Crown

1607
servants or government contractors. It works by applying Clauses 1 to 4 to those disclosures. It makes it an offence for a person to disclose information in the six areas which are protected by Clauses 1 to 4, provided of course that any test of harm is proved and provided that the prosecution can prove that the discloser had good reason to know or to believe what it was that he was doing. Clause 5 does not apply where official information is first disclosed outside the jurisdiction of our courts.
Clause 6 makes an exception to that provision. It applies where information which relates to security or intelligence, to defence or to international relations is communicated in confidence by this country to another state or international organisation. The effect is that that information continues to be protected by the Bill if it is leaked abroad and if it is subsequently disclosed without authority but within the jurisdiction of our courts.
The remaining clauses make provision for related offences, for provisions relating to prosecutions, penalties and criminal processes, and they deal with definitions, interpretation and extent.
Perhaps I may refer to three particular points which I know have exercised some of those who contributed to the consideration of the Bill in another place, and to which I have no doubt some of your Lordships will wish to return. They relate to the offence in Clause 1 for members of the security and intelligence services and notified people; to proposals for separate public interest defences; and to proposals for a defence of prior publication.
I wish to take first the special offence relating to security or intelligence. The Government have considered very carefully the proposal in the Bill that members of the security and intelligence services, and those who are notified because of their work with those services, should continue to be subject to the criminal law for any unauthorised disclosures which they make about the work of the services, without having to pass a separate test of harm.
We believe that all disclosures of that nature are harmful. We think it is essential to expect that those who are entrusted with the most sensitive secrets of the country should respect that trust. When they do not do so, the breach of that trust damages the probity of the services in which they are involved, which probity is essential if the services are to work effectively.
This is fundamental to the nation's security. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor reminded your Lordships last week, in the context of the Security Service Bill, that secrecy was at the heart of security. We cannot get away from that. Nor is there anything wrong in that. Nor is there anything wrong in admitting that. So we must make sure, in our endeavour to be open-minded, that we do not create a hole in the heart of the nation's security.
I know that some noble Lords are concerned that this requirement, which we consider to be vital, could mean that any concerns which members of the services may have about their work were swept under the carpet. That is not so. That is why the
1608
Government have already put provisions in place, following a report of the Security Commission, to deal with that concern in a careful and effective way.
Since November 1987, there has been a staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services to whom any member, or indeed a former member, of the services may turn if he has anxieties about his work and which he has been unable to resolve through management in the normal way. The staff counsellor has not himself been a member of the services, and he can report on any matter, if he judges it necessary, directly to the Prime Minister or to the relevant Secretary of State. Reinforced as they have been by this appointment, we do not believe that members of the services need—or, indeed, should be able—to make unauthorised disclosures about their work outside the essential barrier of secrecy within which the services must operate.
I do not believe that Parliament, through this Bill, should give any encouragement to the view that those sorts of breaches of trust are either reasonable or desirable. That is why we believe that the law in this comparatively small area must remain very much as it is today.
Your Lordships will no doubt wish to consider an alternative—but broader—way in which some have suggested that an unauthorised disclosure could be justified in circumstances which are not covered by the specific provisions of this Bill. It lies in what has come to be called the "public interest" defence. I am not sure whether those proposals have the effect of building a flyover across the offences in the Bill or of driving a coach and horses through them. Either way we are convinced that such a defence is not workable in this legislation. Nor do we believe that it is necessary.
I have no doubt that we shall return to these matters in more detail. Today I should like to point out two items. The first is to make it quite clear to your Lordships that those who propose a public interest defence are seeking a new provision—one which has not before existed in the Official Secrets Acts. I know that there are those who have sought to argue that the 1911 Act provides some such defence, but that argument has never been sustained in any court ruling. Every relevant court ruling has come to the opposite conclusion. We are looking, therefore, at a new provision and a new defence.
The second item is to ask your Lordships to recognise the true nature of this proposal. It is to allow the categories and the tests in the Bill to be set aside by a separate series of defences which are unrelated to either the categories or to the tests. The proposal, in effect, says that, even though the harm which is identified in the Bill has indeed been caused, there is some differently perceived and wider interest which means, in effect, that the harm does not matter.
The consequences of this kind of argument are these. It means that the damage to the essential concerns which this Bill seeks to protect in the interests of us all will have been done. The lawyers can later sort out the arguments, and the court can seek to decide who is to blame; but the damage will have been done.

1609
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, is not in his place today. He has given us the privilege on two recent occasions of being reminded of most of the contents of Troilus and Cressida in a manner—dare I say it—of which the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, might have been envious. I would be slow to be drawn into competition with the noble Lord. But when the secrets have been divulged, whatever the reason, I would remind your Lordships of the anguished but apt words of Lady Macbeth:
"What's done cannot be undone".
That is the truth of the matter when we encourage, or appear to encourage, disclosures which could do great damage to the nation's interests as described in the Bill. The result of such proposals would be to create a criminal law which is so weak and so uncertain as to call in question whether it is possible to have an effective criminal law in this area at all.
We are not talking about competing or balancing interests, as under the civil law, which can be considered before any damage is done. We are talking about the proper protection of the nation's secrets and what should be the predictable consequence of betraying those secrets.
I suggest that there are better ways of raising—and indeed of investigating—concerns without making damaging betrayals. For these reasons we see no safe or necessary place for a general public interest defence in this Bill. Nor do we believe: was harm done by that particular disclosure?
Against what I hope your Lordships will agree is a reasonable, clear and fair operation of the proposals in the Bill, those who advocate an absolute defence of prior publication must argue that there can be no circumstances whatever in which a subsequent publication can ever cause the harm against that for which the Bill seeks to provide the necessary protection. It would be a brave and perhaps even a reckless person who could make that kind of assumption.
One would have to assume not just that every hostile foreign government must always know everything which was ever published, in any form, in this country or abroad, in any of the protected categories in this Bill. One would also have to assume that, for example, all terrorist organisations are similarly equipped. I do not believe that that can be so. This defence is not necessary to ensure that those who harmlessly repeat information, which is already widely available, need not be in any fear of the proposals in the Bill. Not only in that respect is this defence unnecessary. I believe that it is an immensely damaging proposal which I hope that your Lordships will see fit to resist.
I have no doubt that we shall return to these matters at later stages of the Bill. Today we look at
1610
the principles embodied within it. They are that we must take this opportunity to reform Section 2. It has, I believe, done this country little credit, and it has militated against the nation's interests that we have left it for so long. I ask your Lordships to agree, too, that it is right that the Bill should seek to protect the six categories of information which I have described and that, in the great majority of areas, there should be specific tests of harm which the prosecution will have to prove. It is right in principle that the decision on guilt or innocence should be left to the jury, with no provision for ministerial intervention.
I believe that the Bill strikes the right balance between that which must be protected effectively by the criminal law on official secrets and that which does not require such protection. It strikes a fair balance between the interests of the country as a whole, and the responsibilities as well as the liberties of the individual. It strikes a proper balance between what should be defended under official secrets legislation and what need not be and should not be. It is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now react a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.50 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for his lucid exposition of the Bill. I should like to say at the outset that all the combined wisdom of your Lordships' House will be needed in the treatment that we give to the Bill. If ever a Bill justified the existence of a reviewing Chamber it is this Official Secrets Bill.
It may be useful to concentrate for a moment on the history of the matter. The original Act of 1911 was passed in Parliament one afternoon in an atmosphere of some panic. The all-enveloping, all-confounding and all-nonsensical Section 2 was not even debated. Since then everyone who has looked at the problems created by official secrets has said that Section 2 must go. One must be fair about the matter. All governments of whatever complexion shied at trying to deal with the matter, or they put forward alternatives which were not acceptable. Therefore, no one comes to a consideration of this Bill shrouded in white; the colour is slightly grey.
One observes with a certain amount of appreciation that at least a Bill has now been presented to Parliament which we can debate. However, if they are empty debates which do not take into account the vital principles involved, then Parliament will not have done its duty in respect of democratic government, our constitution and otherwise.
Perhaps noble Lords will agree that it is a good idea to concentrate on the principle which will guide us in consideration of the Bill at all its stages. I do not believe that we can do better than follow the noble Lord, Lord Franks, whose report many noble Lords will remember. It dealt specifically with Section 2 of the 1911 Act. At its commencement he stated:
"from the earliest times governments of all types have been anxious to preserve secrecy for matters affecting the safety or tactical

1611
advantage of the State. It is, however, the concern of democratic governments to see that information is widely diffused, for this enables citizens to play a part in controlling their common affairs. There is an inevitable tension between the democratic requirement of openness, and the continuing need to keep some matters secret".
It is that tantalising balance that Parliament must exercise in considering what shall be secret and unavailable to the public and the media and what shall not.
From the start I cannot help regretting the state of our statute book in this context. We are considering matters about which the public must not be informed. Those who break that confidence are guilty of a criminal offence. Yet we do not have any right enshrined in statute which tells the public what, as a matter of law, they are entitled to obtain by way of information.
It would have been a happy event if, together with the Security Service Bill and the Official Secrets Bill, we had been told that in the parliamentary programme there would be an Information Bill enabling the public to have rights in regard to information. That is a thought with which I hope the House will agree.
In introducing the Bill the noble Earl, with his usual foresight, believed that there were matters which would be debated in your Lordships' House as they were in the other place. With great adroitness he put his finger upon those matters and dealt with them perfectly fairly from the Government's present point of view. I say from the "present point of view" because I hope that the Government will not shut their ears to the voices which may be heard in your Lordships' House in regard to these vital matters. I should like to make abundantly clear the fact that in debates in another place, and those in this House on the White Paper, it was on no party line that the voices were heard. From all sides in another place and in this House the view was expressed that, with the national interest so much at heart, party loyalties in the narrow sense were irrelevant.
The noble Earl dealt with the question of public interest and quite rightly said that it was pertinent to a debate on the Bill. He chose his words carefully and said that the question of public interest had not been clearly stated in any legislation dealing with official secrets.
From that point of view he was right, although he gave too narrow an interpretation in regard to the old much-maligned—and correctly so—Section 2. In the Ponting case which was brought under Section 2 the learned judge endeavoured to tell the jury that the question of national interest was for the Government to decide and it was unable to decide or to take that matter into consideration. One of the lessons which we should learn when considering the Bill is that when juries believe that the law is completely contrary to their sense of justice and common sense it will not be taken seriously by them. Even in the face of the learned judge's summing-up on the law a jury will find contrary to what he expects.
The law certainly knows something about public interest but it is the civil law. I should like to quote from what was said by the noble and learned Lord,
1612
Lord Goff of Chieveley, when sitting judicially in your Lordships' House in the Spycatcher case. He said:
"It is incumbent upon the Crown in order to restrain disclosure of Government secrets, not only to show that the information is confidential, but also to show that it is in the public interest that it should not be published…although in the case of private citizens there is a public interest that confidential information should as such be protected, in the case of Government secrets, the mere fact of confidentiality does not alone support such a conclusion, because in a free society there is a continuing public interest that the workings of Government should be open to scrutiny and criticism".
I cannot think of a more elegant description of public interest or of the need to consider public interest in protecting government secrets.
When the noble Earl addressed us, I imagine that he was thinking in terms of the danger which might be created by civil servants divulging secrets and coming forward with a plea of public interest when there was absolutely no need to do so. There was no need, first, because the matters were not serious enough. However, the harm would have been done and there would have been the publication, of which complaint was made. Secondly, there is machinery available to deal with those matters.
I believe that I would correctly interpret what is in your Lordships' minds if I say that all those safeguards could very easily be put into this Bill, as indeed the honourable Member, Mr. Shepherd, on the government side endeavoured to do in the other place. One could have the safeguard that all the channels had been used by the civil servant, but unfortunately ineffectively, and that any matter which could be published must come within categories of either fraud or serious misconduct of some kind at the instance of government.
If we do not have that and we have no freedom of information Bill, and if, heaven forbid, there was a Watergate or an Irangate case in the United Kingdom, then those matters could never come to light. As I think back, as your Lordships will, sitting in this House in safety I wonder whether that safety would have been the same and whether we should be debating matters in the way in which we are today if it were not for Winston Churchill and people like him. The voices of Winston Churchill and the civil servant who gave him the vital information which led to some strengthening of our national security—because we were told of its weakness—would not be voices in the wilderness but voices confined to a prison cell if a Bill such as this had gone through without that protection.
That is not the only provision in the Bill at which we shall have to look. Again, the noble Earl was quite right in his forecast. He said that there would be discussions on previous publications. I wonder whether it would not be suitable for us to remember what another of our colleagues, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, said in your Lordships' House quite recently, sitting judicially:
"Having established that Peter Wright remains bound by his duty of confidence, the Attorney General then submits that any third party who receives the confidential information, knowing of his breach of confidence, is likewise bound by the same duty not to disclose the contents of Spvcatcher. The Attorney General therefore submits that despite the fact that Spvcatcher has received worldwide publication and is in fact available in this country for anyone who wants to read

1613
it, the law forbids the press, the media and indeed anyone else from publishing or commenting on any part of it, saving only that which has already been referred to in the judgments of the courts. If such was the law then the law would indeed be an ass, for it would seek to deny to our own citizens the right to be informed of matters which are freely available throughout the rest of the world".
That was a civil case but if in civil law the law is an ass, in criminal law the law will be a laughing hyena if we allow any Bill of this kind to go through without the proper protection of saying, "You do not commit a crime if you are publishing something which has already been published".
I could go on to talk about other matters which are obviously to be dealt with in the remaining stages of this Bill. I could give absurd examples of what this Bill would lead to in regard possibly to nearly everyone in your Lordships' House sitting in this Chamber today. I could talk about the lack of definition of harm and other provisions in the Bill which make our law uncertain instead of certain. I believe that I can best conclude as I began by saying that your Lordships have in your power in this Bill to do something which preserves our democratic way of life and which prevents us from falling into the trap of believing that all that government do, they do for the best. I can only repeat that your Lordships' wisdom, tolerance and respect for our democratic traditions will be called for by the nation in the consideration of this Bill.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I believe that it is indisputable that this country has one of the most secretive traditions and systems of government to be found anywhere in the democratic world. I do not believe that that results in a greater degree of efficiency or even immunity from spy and disclosure scandals in this country than in others. However, clearly the responsibility for that tradition and practice does not rest entirely with the present administration. It was built up over many years. It began with the 1889 Act, which was carried by a Conservative Administration, and then came the ill-considered 1911 Act, which was of course by a Liberal Administration in the Asquithian heyday. None of the five Labour Governments who held office up to 1979 carried through any effective amending legislation.
As I was Home Secretary for at least part of the time in two out of those five Labour Governments, I must obviously take some part of the responsibility for that. Therefore, I begin with a few words of reflective explanation. In the mid-1960s I do not believe that I seriously applied myself to the official secrets issue although my Home Office administration in those years is not normally criticised for lack of liberalising zeal—rather the reverse. However, one could not do everything and the issue was not then on the boil.
However, in the mid-1970s, the Franks Committee having reported, I had both a commitment and a desire to become rid of the indefensible Section 2 and greatly to narrow the area of restriction. I also paid a special visit to the United States to study the working of the then fairly new American Freedom of Information Act. I was a little worried by the
1614
potential expense but not by any other aspect of it. I then took my proposals to my Cabinet colleagues. If, after 14 years, I am not risking imprisonment under Mr. Hurd's liberalising measure I can tell your Lordships—and perhaps give Mr. Hurd's a crumb of non-partisan comfort—that the welcome I received was far from unanimous.
There were certain powerful departments where secrecy had become a way of life and where the Secretaries of State in charge of them, though powerful in Cabinet, did not (how shall I put it?) allow their reforming enthusiasm to lift them above their department ethos. I found the war of resistance sufficiently strong that I decided—and there may be a lesson for Mr. Hurd here—that any measure which emerged might actually make things worse and not better. In particular, I feared for the replacement of the rusty old blunderbuss of Section 2 of the 1911 Act, which, although it looked fearsome, was too cumbersome and inaccurate to be at all frequently used. I feared that its replacement by some new armoury of sharp-shooting weapons which would nonetheless splay too wide might be damaging.
Therefore, I decided to apply what I thank is a good old Conservative principle, though it is one that is not much in vogue today: that if you cannot be fairly confident that you will improve matters and not make them worse, it is better to leave them as they are. I withdrew. It was not noble; but then the principles of Conservatism, at least since the great Halifax, the trimmer, rarely are noble, but they can often be sensible.
In my view, Mr. Hurd has not been sensible; nor, I fear, has he been wholly frank. Whether out of weakness or myopia, he has brought forward a Bill which owes too much to obsessive resentment at the outcome of the Spycatcher and Ponting cases and has gone on with an increasingly pathetic lack of conviction trying to proclaim that he is presenting a great liberalising measure.
On the first point I cannot now, looking back with the calmness of hindsight, recollect a saga comparable with the Spycatcher case, where a government persistently and collectively so completely lost their sense of proportion. On the second point, surely it is now obvious that the Home Secretary has failed to carry any significant body of informed or independent opinion with him.
In the House of Commons we have had the spectacle of the Government being unsupported in debate except by the Home Secretary and his junior Minister, who as often as not were contradicting each other. Of course, there has been a guillotine which was much protested against by prominent Conservatives. However, what seems to me to be still more objectionable in a measure of this sort, going to the roots of the balance of the relationship between the individual and the state, is not so much the Government's impatience with extended debate as their unwillingness to take any notice of the arguments deployed, whether the debates be long or short. Only a single, one-word, obscure amendment has been accepted. The others have been crushed by the unlistening, uninformed, unconcerned majority. It has been a performance in the House of Commons

1615
which must make the noble Lord, Lord Denham, green with envy.
If this is not an elective dictatorship, I do not know what is. Eleven years ago I was much taken by the use by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, of that mind-moving phrase. I entirely understand why the noble and learned Lord cannot be here this afternoon. He is having yet another well-deserved honour conferred upon him. He explained to me that his absence is unavoidable but that he will welcome reading what I have to say.
In 1977 the noble and learned Lord was of course warning against an elective dictatorship of the Left. I am sure that he is not so bounded by partisanship that he can only see an argument from one side of the hill. We are very close today to exactly the circumstances which he was warning us against; a government with a big majority in the House of Commons, though well short of a majority of the votes cast in the country; an exceptionally centralised system of decision-making in the Government; a measure which has no mandate behind it and which has been appallingly mauled in arguments both inside and outside Parliament where the only real props are the will of the Prime Minister and the discipline of the Whips. We could say the same, on a minor scale, of the Football Spectators Bill where even the pretence that the Minister has to answer arguments has been tacitly abandoned. I fear that we are about to see much the same on a subject which is close to the heart of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—the independence of the Bar.
We are very close to exactly the position which the noble and learned Lord was warning against 11 years ago. In the circumstances, I am sure he does not think that the threat is rendered innocuous by the fact that it now comes from the Right and not the Left. Surely your Lordships' House should not be inhibited from pressing well-argued and well-supported amendments to the Bill, which I believe will be deployed.
At least three main amendments seem to be necessary. First, there is the public interest defence. It is the only real protection against erecting a theory of the state which justifies the carrying out, if they are given, of the most monstrous orders. I thought that that theory was disposed of at the Nuremberg trials, at which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, began his great politico-legal career. Secondly, reasonable regard at least must be given to prior publication, if only to prevent this and future British governments making world laughing stocks of themselves. Thirdly, the absolute life-long obligation of complete confidentiality is too blanket a restriction. It cannot be enforced, as I suppose in strict theory it should be, against politicians who have held one of two Secretaryships of State, or the Prime Ministership. If they are de facto excluded, as in practice they must be, the whole measure becomes a piece of discriminating hypocrisy.
This is not a good Bill. It could, however, be improved by substantial amendment. If it is not, it will stand out discreditably as restrictive legislation masquerading under the guise of liberalisation, as a
1616
partisan approach on a subject where cross-party agreement is manifestly called for, and as legislating with a taste for punishment which is positively unhealthy with an almost deliberate intention of running head-on into the European Court of Human Rights.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, when we debated the White Paper last July, I welcomed the general approach but argued that the blanket protection for information provided in confidence by foreign governments and other international organisations was too sweeping. Therefore, I am glad that the Bill includes a test of damage. I wish today to return solely to the question of a public interest defence or what I have called the "Robin Hood argument"—that it is all right to do wrong provided good comes of it. Many people are worried about the absence of this defence, and I have thought a good deal more about it.
The Bill provides that prosecutions will need the consent of the Attorney-General who as a law officer must consider whether it is in the public interest for a prosecution to be brought in a particular case. To go further than that and to provide specifically for a public interest defence seems to be open to a number of very real difficulties. It would be very difficult to define; it would greatly increase the risk of damaging disclosures being argued over ex post facto on different interpretations and different arguments about where the public interest lay. Above all I believe that it would be inconsistent with what should be the fundamental starting point.
In a moment I shall come to what I accept are exceptions when the fundamental principle cannot apply. The fundamental principle is that Ministers are accountable to Parliament and that civil servants are responsible to Ministers. I believe that anything that was perceived, even if not intended, as a general departure from that fundamental principle would not only be constitutionally incorrect; it would be a recipe for politicising the Civil Service. If civil servants are to be given two loyalties, Ministers would understandably wish to have as their close advisers people on whose political loyalty they could depend.
The noble Lord, Lord Croham, unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon. On a different occasion he said that those who advocate an ethical duty on civil servants to inform on Ministers while remaining in their posts have almost certainly not realised how intolerable that would be to civil servants and Ministers alike. The question is how to deal with the exceptional case where the general principle breaks down. If we are honest, I believe the first matter is to recognise that we are talking about the exceptional case. It is for Ministers and not civil servants to defend and to gain support for their policies and to decide how to do that. It is for Ministers to present their own arguments. Provided the civil servant has given the best possible and honest advice that he can, it is not normally right for him to go around saying, "But the Minister has left out one point which will be to his disadvantage".

1617
If a civil servant is so personally committted that he seeks to frustrate government policy, then he really should be in a different profession. Again, what about the wholly exceptional case (each one gets more exceptional) where the civil servant not only feels, "I cannot stomach this"—in which case it should normally lead to a request for a transfer to other work—but where he also feels that what is going on is so legally or ethically improper and so wrong that in conscience he must do something about it. As has been said, there are procedures for this. The individual concerned has the right of access first to the head of his department and then on appeal to the head of the Civil Service. In the case of the security and intelligence services he has also the right of access to the staff counsellor.
This should deal with what is already by definition an exceptional matter unless one assumes that the senior authorities consulted or appealed to are either part of the same conspiracy with the Minister or are too pusillanimous to do anything about the responsibility that they now bear themselves, the matter having been reported to them. To get to the situation where a public interest defence might be genuinely needed, we have to assume not only the exceptional case where a civil servant is justified in undermining his Minister but also instances where the established procedures—in some cases put formally into place only recently and hardly given a fair trial—have not worked
That is an ascending series of unlikelinesses. But let us suppose it all happens. I believe then that the civil servant must act according to his own conscience. I believe that if the conscience is a strong one and properly informed and the civil servant is not playing politics but really acting in a way that he believes he has to, it is very difficult to believe, whether or not there is a public interest defence, that a successful prosecution could be brought.
I have deliberately spoken from a narrow standpoint and that of a former civil servant. I believe that the introduction of an overriding but ill-defined public interest defence would not be in the interests of a bipartisan Civil Service and, by blurring loyalties, would send the wrong signals to it. I would say this with less confidence if harm was to be defined, as it was going to be on an earlier occasion, by ministerial certificate that could not be challenged. But now, in almost every case in the Bill, damage is defined and the decision on damage is left to the jury. Against that background I still believe that there is no reason to provide for a public interest defence.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I will come to the question of the exceptional case that has just been mentioned to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in a very few minutes. But I wish to begin, as the other three speakers at the beginning of this debate began, with the matter of principle involved. We are debating the Second Reading of this Bill against a background of years of public and parliamentary clamour that there should be much less secrecy and much less use of the criminal law in that context.
1618
I confess that I have not been surprised that successive governments have been cautious on this issue. The dilemma is real. The security of the nation is the first duty of any government. The question is how to authorise the release of that information to which an educated and involved public may reasonably feel to be entitled while denying to the listening and probing potential enemy the knowledge that would help it to subvert our constitution and institutions and to undermine our defences. It has taken many years to come forward with a Bill that attempts to do that.
I have had some years of experience of the intensity of those who aim to destabilise our society and of the skill, vigilance and professionalism needed by our security services to counter them. That is a very difficult business that Parliament has to decide in the context of this Bill. I would never join the clamour for the repeal of Section 2 of the existing Act until I could be reasonably satisfied that the areas of undisclosable official information could be more precisely defined to protect essential secrets so that those who deal in the dissemination of information know plainly where they stand under the law. The Bill comes much nearer to that position than anything that has gone before.
I welcome the greater precision with which the six areas that are to remain subject to criminal sanctions are defined. Within those areas I like, too, the test of harm in which the intention to damage the interests of the nation has to be proved against the defendant. Both those provisions are important and good. I confess that I have some misgivings at times in this highly specialised and twilight area of activity as to the ability of the jury to assess the national interest. However, I believe that, on balance, it is preferable to the Executive being the judge in its own cause. I find it possible therefore to vote for that part of the Bill.
There can be no doubt that the all-embracing formula of the national interest had become discredited in the public mind. I am more particularly glad to see that included in the six areas is information gained in confidence from foreign governments. That is an especially sensitive and delicate field of international relations. Looking back over the past 20 years, if leaking had been as prevalent and fashionable then as it has become lately, we would not have succeeded in our negotiations with the United States over the Polaris submarine or with the test ban treaty with the Soviet Union. The price of deliberate leaking of official information can be exceptionally and unacceptably high. I believe that we ought when considering these matters to keep that in mind.
I welcome too the fact that the Bill is preceded by the Security Service Bill. It is of great importance, as we have to have a secret service, that morale in MI5 and MI6 should remain high. The provision of a staff counsellor for the members of those two services is good and will contribute towards a more contented service than we have had in the past.
There is one matter on which I hope my noble friend the Minister can help me and the House. It has already been touched on by a number of speakers. It relates to whether a member of the secret services or a civil servant who desires to write a book or perhaps

1619
to write his memoirs should be able in certain circumstances to do so. After some years I confess that I am a little rusty on the rules governing matters in this twilight area. However, if I remember correctly, this used to be possible provided that the writer availed himself of the consultation processes devised by the departments and by the Cabinet Office in Whitehall. They provided for consultation at various levels of authority up to the permanent secretary in the department, and if necessary to the Secretaries of State, with the Prime Minister in reserve.
I think I can properly illustrate my meaning by reference to one example with which some noble Lords will be acquainted. The late Sir John Masterman, a most distinguished citizen, was during the war a Crown servant in the secret service. He wished to publish a book which he appropriately named Double Cross. In it he gave an account of how our secret service confounded the plans of its German opposite number until in the last year or so of the war the German secret service was virtually working for us. It was a most enthralling story. The question was raised whether the publication of such secret matters was against the public interest.
The book went through, with Sir John's consent, all the departmental hoops, right up to the permanent secretaries of the two departments—the Foreign Office and the Home Office. It eventually arrived with the Secretaries of State, one of whom happened to be me. At the time we took the book to the Home Secretary who had the main authority in this matter. Between us we authorised publication. I read the debate on this matter in another place and it left me confused. Can my noble friend tell me whether when the Bill becomes an Act such facilities through the departments will be available to servants of the Crown? I hope so because it seems to me to be a sensible procedure and also has about the right degree of flexibility. If my noble friend can answer that question today, well and good. I am certainly happy to support the Bill.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I certainly wish to endorse the compliment which my noble friend Lord Mishcon paid to the Government on their courage in tackling this difficult and controversial subject. Many governments have said that they would do something about the redundancy of the Official Secrets Act but none of them managed to achieve anything in that area. Whether a government are courageous or foolhardy, at least an attempt to tackle the question is to be commended.
My interest in confidentiality over the years has been in the Inland Revenue. I would not seek to change the conventions and the rules regarding confidentiality which Inland Revenue officials are required to observe in the affairs of taxpayers. However, the Bill removes the power of the Inland Revenue to prosecute its own staff who may be guilty of serious delinquency in disclosure of taxpayers' affairs. At present it has the disciplinary remedy and in the worst cases it can prosecute and pursue a
1620
criminal charge. Will something be done to restore to the Inland Revenue its power under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act in order that it is not deprived of the ultimate right to go to court in serious cases?
I understand that this will be put right by a clause in the forthcoming Finance Bill which will restore to the Inland Revenue especially the powers taken away from it in Clause 2. That is right and I have not heard so far of any serious objection to it. I do not speak in a representative capacity but my long experience over 40 years with the Inland Revenue enables me to say that the present system has worked very well and there is no reason why it should not be fully retained in its existing condition.
Perhaps I may say in passing that the record of the Inland Revenue for confidentiality on taxpayers' affairs is remarkably good. When one considers the different ranks, classes, regions and personalities of the thousands of staff of the Inland Revenue who have access to the files and records of individual taxpayers it is remarkable that so little complaint has ever arisen about disclosure. When I was on the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, however, I encountered serious differences of opinion regarding the duty of tax gatherers who discovered in the course of their work serious fraud or crime, not only in relation to people's tax affairs but crimes and frauds which were committed incidental to the affairs of taxpayers.
For example, I cite a simple case of a transport firm which might claim commissions payable in its accounts. The tax inspector says, "What are they; to whom are they paid and what for?" The accountant, or the taxpayer, then demurs on disclosing the object of those commissions. Of course the person concerned can be threatened with the disallowance of a dubious item in the accounts as a deduction from taxable profit. But where, in those circumstances, a taxpayer discloses that they are in fact commissions paid to the chairman of the transport committee of the city council as a condition of getting contracts,, what does the tax inspector do?
There are two views on the matter. One is that the tax inspector should go straight to the police. But that is not what he should do now; his duty is to transfer his responsibility to the board of the Inland Revenue. The commissioners of the Inland Revenue have by statute law and letters patent the care and management of the Income Tax Acts and they assume full responsibility for what occurs in the course of the investigations conducted on their behalf. It is the duty of the Inland Revenue to decide what shall be done.
Let us suppose that the tax inspector in this hypothetical case waits for some indication of what the board of the Inland Revenue is going to do. However, he hears nothing about any prosecution; he thinks that it is dreadful scandal and his conscience will not allow him to sleep at night until he has made some disclosure to the press, the police, or whatever. That is the dilemma. I believe the rule is that the commissioners of the Inland Revenue have taken the responsibility off the shoulders of the tax inspector and he is relieved of all further responsibility. Moreover, his conscience is clear when that is done.

1621
After all, he should not carry alone, and on his own initiative, the whole and ultimate responsibility for everything that goes on around him. There are others whose duty it is to assume that responsibility.
That is the kind of dilemma which can arise. One view can be that in those circumstances the inspector should have gone straight to the police; it was his duty. It was not a tax crime; it was a fraud in respect of the local authority. It was a crime of itself. Even so, I think that one must let the buck stop somewhere, and if it stops at the Inland Revenue that is where it rests. It is not for individual members of staff to try to carry the matter further.
I can tell noble Lords this. More of the truth about taxpayers' affairs comes out because there is more confidence in the reliability of the Inland Revenue staff to keep their mouths shut than there would be if there was the fear that disclosure of people's tax affairs might be freely made. How far would the Inland Revenue get if it had to place on the desk of every Inland Revenue official a notice warning: "You are not bound to make any statement, but if you do it may be taken down and used in evidence against you"? How many accountants would keep their seats in the face of such a warning and go on candidly with their disclosure of taxpayers' affairs?
I think that what the Inland Revenue does at present is undoubtedly in the public interest. I have taken the view that where a citizen is obliged by law to disclose certain matters relating to himself, he is entitled to rely on that information being used only for the purpose for which the law requires it be given, unless Parliament decides otherwise. That means that the Inland Revenue is not free to make disclosures to other departments, or anyone else, of information received in the course of its work—unless the law provides for that to be done.
It is done now where exchange of communications between Customs and Excise and the Departments of Health and of Social Security, on VAT and other matters, takes place. But, again, there are some very intimate secrets of individuals resting in the hands of civil servants. What would happen if the Department of Health or the Department of Social Security discovered that an insured person had committed bigamy? Is it the department's duty to go to the police, or what? If we feared that that might happen, far fewer of us would commit bigamy, and that might not be a good thing. In my view there is something to be said for bigamy. Nevertheless, I think that the system works very well.
There were, however, serious difficulties about this matter in the Royal Commission, but I shall leave that now because I think that the Inland Revenue should be left alone to deal with its little interest in the Bill by a change in the Finance Act when it comes into being.
I turn now to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, regarding the public interest defence. Here I completely agree with what he said. Indeed, I wrote to The Times to say so when a little body of former permanent secretaries wrote to that newspaper on the subject. There is only one question: should there be a final repository for the consciences
1622
of troubled civil servants who cannot abide what they know, unless something is done about it or can they go to someone who will accept responsibility in the matter?
The letter sent to The Times by the former permanent secretaries drew attention to the fact that in the case of financial matters there is a long stop, so to speak, in that a civil servant can go to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I have been asked many times about what would happen if the Inland Revenue, for instance, received a direction from the Treasury—which the Income Tax Acts say that it must comply with—which it felt was a corrupt instruction from that department possibly to discharge all the tax liabilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What would it do with it? I have received different replies from different chairmen of the Inland Revenue over the years. However, they mostly amounted to this: "We might be slothful in giving effect to it, we might go straight to the Comptroller and Auditor General and tell him, or we might comply and go to the Comptroller and Auditor General". At all events, they could go to an officer who has a duty to Parliament and would have his remedy in that way.
I was once called to India to advise on the dilemma of a permanent secretary to the Ministry of Finance. He had drafted a reply to a question in the Lok Sabha (the lower House of the Indian Congress) on behalf of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance so altered the reply as to give an answer in the Lok Sabha which was almost a complete untruth. That was more than the Permanent Secretary could stomach. We have heard already about the stomach from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. There are, no doubt, a great many stomachs about which cannot stand something or other. A lot of them are probably in the Civil Service.
There was a difficulty. I advised the Permanent Secretary to go to the Prime Minister. He went to the Prime Minister who immediately set up a judicial inquiry which found that the Minister of Finance had behaved wrongly. He resigned. However, the Permanent Secretary found the environment thereafter so chilling in the presence of other Ministers that he decided to accept a much more lucrative appointment in the field of insurance. That is how that matter was dealt with in India. One cannot be sure of what would happen in the British Civil Service if a civil servant exercised his right to go to a Minister.
So far as finance is concerend, the path is clear. In non-financial policy matters—and here I have in mind the Ponting case—what is to happen? The Bill does not provide for, and nor do I believe that there is any satisfactory provision for, a civil servant in that position to take his worries to higher authority and leave them there. That is something we should consider. I have thought of the Head of the Civil Service having a statutory authority; I have thought of a board of referees. Three wise men are not unknown in the Civil Service. They judge the loyalties of individuals which may be questioned by their department. There may be some point of reference to which a civil servant could take his worries.

1623
I was then asked, "What if the complaint is about the Prime Minister? What do you do then?" The buck has to stop somewhere. It has to stop with those democratically elected to carry the ultimate responsibility for public administration. If there were a separate board of referees, its advice would at least be available. It might even have its own remedy of reporting to Parliament if it though it necessary to do so.
I endorse the withdrawal of the public interest defence from civil servants in those circumstances. To contest that one must go to great lengths of theoretical and hypothetical possibilities to find the type of case that would not be taken care of in that way. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said it is difficult to define the public interest. Attempts were made in a Bill introduced by a Back-Bench Member of the other place to define the public interest which should comprehensively protect the civil servant who might avail himself of it. One goes then from the specific to the general and adds "or other misconduct". When you have defined all you can think of you then say, "or other misconduct". It is not a satisfactory definition of what is in the public interest.
We should not seriously contest what the Government propose to do in that regard; but in the non-financial area we should consider giving the type of point of reference which is available to civil servants in a case of financial administration.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps he will allow me to say that I take it that we are to assume that his reference to seeing something in bigamy is a purely theoretical concept in view of the fact that he and Lady Houghton will be celebrating their Golden Wedding next Saturday. I congratulate them both.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I rely upon my noble friend to acquit me of any personal involvement in bigamy.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, I endorse the good wishes that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said—that this is a subject which has strained the ingenuity of all parties and of all governments. That point was well illustrated in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who described his difficulties in achieving a solution of his own, no doubt an ingenious one, through a Labour Cabinet. We sympathise with him. We had the advantage of being able to see the smiles on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, as he described his efforts in that direction.
It is a difficult subject. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that this is at any rate a brave Bill. It is bold to attempt it. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said the same. Here we at least have
1624
proposals which are not being debated round the corner. They are out in the open for your Lordships' House to discuss. It is a brave and a sensible Bill which deserves a Second Reading.
I shall follow other speakers and say a word or two about the boundaries of the debate. There is one view which says that anything that comes to the knowledge of a servant of the Crown in the course of his duties should be private to him. He has learnt it through his duties. He should not hand it on except with due authority. That view, so to speak, has been wisely or unwisely reinforced by linking it to the criminal law, first, I believe in 1898 and then more forcefully in 1911, on an August day when, for some reason which I have not been able to discover, the whole business was pushed through as though it were a matter of little importance which would not alter things much. Section 2 was passed almost on the nod. In retrospect, the one or two spokesmen who protested deserve our congratulations upon their foresight.
I wish to talk about the boundaries. There is the secrecy view. There is another view—a view which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put with great eloquence—that in a free, democratic society it is necessary that knowledge should be widespread; that the public interest is often best served by spreading that knowledge widely; and if anyone believes that the public should know about such things, he should be able to defend his actions by pleading that view. Both those views are untenable. The truth must be found somewhere between them.
I want first to say a little more about the view of secrecy. That is the theme with which I, perhaps because of my age, was brought up. I served in government departments where conversations between Ministers and civil servants were absolutely confidential. The thought never crossed one's mind that what one was saying to one's permanent secretary would be handed on to someone else. May I say that it operates the other way round. Permanent secretaries have said some very funny things to me in my life, but I would not dream of handing on in public what I recollect they said.
The debt that those of us who have been Ministers owe to civil servants is enormous. The ability to discuss incredibly difficult subjects with people of impartiality and intelligence—not partisan; not party minded—who are willing to advise members of whatever party is there is an inestimable boon to public life. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I think we should remember the norm here. The norm is that that confidentiality is, and should be, respected. It was reinforced by these Acts of Parliament, but it is perfectly clear that the Acts of Parliament as they stand today cannot be sustained and have to be altered. Juries simply cannot be brought to convict in many of the cases that are brought forward.
There is of course the other side of the leaf. When I think of the sort of open government side, I think of Dick Crossman. Many of your Lordships knew Dick Crossman. I knew him very well. He was a friend of mine. Clem Attlee would never have him in a Labour Government, really because he thought of

1625
him as he was, a journalist, rather than a politician. I used to do a television programme with him and with Malcolm Muggeridge. Malcolm and I used to go up in the train to Manchester writing Dick's script so that what he said was just to the left of me when we got in front of the cameras, which we thought was important to his career. I found him the most intelligent and lovable man.
Whatever the enormities of what he was doing, his political diaries have made an immense contribution for anybody who wants to know anything about politics. They ought to be compulsory reading for any student of politics, whether you agree with them or not.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I only wanted to ask whether they were to be read as a serious contribution to history or as a work of fiction.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, they should be read. They should undoubtedly be read. Let us face it, Dick Crossman's view of security was a bit different.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way again? It was not Dick Crossman, the journalist, of whom people were a bit suspicious. It was Dick Crossman as a political don, and it was as a political don that he wrote up his diaries as a kind of sequel to Bagehot.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, maybe, but he used to seize me in the corridors of this House and say, "Peter, you have no conception what they got up to in Cabinet this morning". There is no reason why one should not reveal this. I do not say it against him. I loved the man. However, it is a different approach to public life.
I do not think that we can have a world in which on the one hand, you send everybody to prison if they give information on what has come to their knowledge in public affairs or, on the other, there is quite such an open view as I have described. You have to find some situation in between the two. Therefore, I hope I carry the House with me in saying reject these extremes and look for something in between them.
I agree that is difficult, and I am not going to make a long speech or even go into as much detail about these clauses as some noble Lords have done. But if you are going to look for something in between these two positions you have to answer some of the questions that this Bill asks and seeks to answer. You have to decide which areas you want to protect. The Government have decided here to leave out of the area of protection vast wads of what goes on in government.
I do not have the information that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has as to what the Treasury does. I do not know whether a criminal offence has been committed by communicating to the noble Lord, the future contents of the Finance Bill. But as the law would stand under this Bill, Treasury officials would not be prosecuted. I do not say that they should be. I share the noble Lord's view of the moral duty of a
1626
civil servant in the Treasury; it is confidentiality. It would be chaos if every edition of the Budget was leaked in advance. If a man really felt that he had to go on leaking various editions of the Budget, he would be better advised to do something else: look after salmonella in eggs, the privatisation of water or any of the other delights that governments can always find for officers of this character.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I can set his mind at rest. The information I gave about the contents of the Finance Bill to come have already been announced publicly to the staff of the Inland Revenue.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, that is the good defence of earlier publication, which I absolutely accept from the noble Lord. I would find it a bit astonishing if, having gone through all this trouble with the Bill, the Treasury managed to put back a criminal offence into the Finance Bill, but it may be able to do so. However, this would be a Committee point.
Under the Bill, there are great areas, which would include finance, the social services, health, education, many areas of government, policy documents and the rest, where I hope the confidentiality habit would be, and remain, the norm—and in that I think I carry the whole House with me because governments would find it difficult to carry on if it was not the norm—but where no prosecution would lie if they were in fact published.
If you are going to find somewhere between these extremes you have to select some areas that you think are of importance. The Government have selected those areas and set them out. At Committee stage it is perfectly possible to argue that they are the right ones, that they are the wrong ones, that some ought to be left out or that some ought to be added: but those are Committee points that can he debated at the proper time. My point is that they have adopted the right technique in answering the question of which areas therefore they wish to protect.
The second question they have to be asked is: "Do you mean that everything in those areas is going to be subject to prosecution?" They say "No"—and I think rightly—"only if actual harm can be produced". I think that the House would, on the whole, probably agree with that decision.
The third and last point that they have to answer is who should be the judge of this. It is either a Minister or a jury. There may be difficulties about that. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. I believe that the jury is the right answer, as he does. Therefore, they have answered those questions.
If noble Lords think that there is some other middle position, they are perfectly entitled to say so. No doubt many of them will when we reach Committee stage. The principle that one should reject the extreme views and seek for some solution along these lines seems to be the right one. I therefore commend the Second Reading of the Bill to the House.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, against the background of the profound speeches with which this debate has been introduced and after those endearing references by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, to Dick Crossman I am happy to say that I served the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, in previous years under the old Official Secrets Act, I trust satisfactorily, and would do so again under any Official Secrets Act. My own contribution will be somewhat narrow.
The reason that I put my name down to speak is to get one point clear. In a letter to The Times on 7th March the chairman of the British International Studies Association said that the Bill as drafted will,
"threaten the numerous relationships of trust that the research community"—
a term which I do not quite understand—
"has built up with numerous civil servants over the years in order to help them".
If that is the case, I should like to know what would be the position of ex-civil servants such as myself and retired leaders of the armed services—I do not see any present—who had taken part in controversial discussions leading to particular items of government policy and who subsequently kept themselves informed about those matters. Would they be able to take part in debates about those issues when, because of their prior knowledge and experience, they felt properly qualified to speak?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I wonder whether he has seen the letter in today's issue of The Times signed by Mrs. Chalker, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, which certainly partly tries to answer the question.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, no, unfortunately I have not. If the Minister has provided a satisfactory answer, no doubt the noble Lord the Leader of the House in winding up the debate will refer to the matter.
I should like to give a specific example of what I have in mind. It is an example that some Members of the House will recognise because they were concerned with it. It relates to a programme to improve or modify the warhead of the Polaris missile. I can talk about it today because a few years ago there was a lengthy television programme in which the civil servants who were concerned took part. I imagine that that was done with the authority of the Minister concerned or under the authority of a Permanent Secretary or the Secretary of the Cabinet. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Hunt was the Secretary for the Cabinet at the time, but he certainly knows about the affair.
When the story began in 1966, Mr. Healey was the Secretary of State for Defence. He agreed that certain studies should be made at, for those days, a trivial cost—a few tens of millions of pounds. I believe that members of the Cabinet at the time were not entirely convinced that it was a good idea. When Mr. Heath's government followed—I know this because it all came out in a television programme—he was not convinced. He allowed the programme to go ahead
1628
only on the basis that reports on progress were made every three months or so.
The story ends with the government of which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, was Prime Minister. By then the project had cost more than £1 billion. It is on public record now that the then Foreign Secretary, Dr. David Owen, considered it a waste of money but thought that he could not stop it because so much had already been spent on it, a view that has also been publicly stated by Mr. Healey who had by then become Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I would not be able to refer to this matter in your Lordships' House had the television programme not gone out, coupled with the fact that various Ministers in their memoirs have referred to it. The main objection to the project was that the United States and the USSR were then locked in the negotiations which were to result in the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. I ceased to be a civil servant in 1971 and when the treaty was concluded I had become a Member of your Lordships' House. Would I have become guilty under this Bill of a criminal offence had I referred to the story at that time, and if I had admitted giving as my view to Ministers of successive governments that it did not make the slightest difference to the United Kingdom's status as a deterrent power to expend that money on the project? Would I, I ask, have been guilty of a criminal offence had I spoken on the subject after the 1972 treaty had been concluded, say in 1975 or 1976, in the way that I am doing now? Obviously it is not a story that I would have told at any time when I was an active civil servant.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the answer to his question. It is not for me to do so. However, it would not have prevented him going to the Prime Minister of the day, who took office in 1976, and giving him his views then, would it?
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, I do not know whether I would now be in breach of the Official Secrets Act if I were to say that I may have done so. Perhaps, when the 30 year-rule is up, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, can refer to the papers and see what the situation was.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I do not want to pursue this matter too much. However, I must say, in view of the references that have been made, that my understanding was that Mr. Heath's government had carried this matter on. By the time I attained the office that I was very proud to hold, so much had been committed that I was told, as one usually is, that it would be more wasteful to stop it than to continue it. So it went on. I am sure other noble Lords have had that experience in other areas.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, when I became the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Mr. Harold Macmillan—later to become the Earl of Stockton—then the Prime Minister, gave me some advice about these matters. He said, "Kill the projects when they are small fry. They are more difficult to stop when they become sprats and impossible when they are herrings".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I ask the Minister to tell me, either now or subsequently, whether I am committing a criminal offence by listening to this speech.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, I shall now lead up to my final point. Given the letter in The Times, to which there is an answer in today's edition of The Times, which I have not read, will the Bill as it now stands in some way reduce the extent to which the government of the day might benefit—I say might, not would—from the widening of debate on controversial defence issues, as the letter to which I have referred implies?
5.21 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to take part in this debate, as certainly six of the previous speakers have held high office in government. One thing has become perfectly clear: that is, that the lifelong obligation for confidentiality must already have been broken many times during the past half-hour. Therefore, I am somewhat encouraged by that in the views that I wish to express about this Bill.
I also wish to join in congratulations to the Government for at least having cleared away and killed off Section 2 and got rid of a mass of dead wood. I suppose one must forgive the Government too for a mass of propaganda and a little misinformation which has been put out about this replacement Bill. But two things are quite clear: first, that this will be our last chance for many a long year to get this controversial and vitally important legislation right; and, secondly, that this Bill is in no way a liberalising measure.
Section 2 has become a dead letter because it threw, and was meant at its inception to throw, a blanket of potential criminality across the whole Civil Service. It established a tradition of secrecy in governmental operations which became an obsession to which my noble friend Lord Jenkins has already referred. Its brooding presence has smothered the operations of the Executive in a fog of half truths and concealment.
Although the Bill with one benevolent hand clears away much of this smog, with the other rather more malevolent hand it introduces even greater restrictions in the six areas to which we have already referred. If I may say so, that is a Home Office technique with which we have become familiar in this House. The House should appreciate that over the past 30 years all prosecutions involving leaks to the media have been within the six areas covered by the Bill.
Franks recommended the replacement of Section 2 by an official information Bill. What we have here is of course a resolutely Official Secrets Bill. Since 1972, there has been a revolution in information technology. Satellites survey and transmit to the whole world. As Mr. Gorbachev himself has recognised, information can no longer be kept from people. In mature democracies people demand their freedom and their civil rights and the information which makes the exercise of those rights possible.
1630
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has said:
"The law must recognise and enforce the right to receive as well as the right to impart information".
That is a proposition recognised and made effective in the United States, in much of the Commonwealth and in many European democracies. But in this Bill there is no recognition of that at all. It does nothing to reduce the secret nature of our system of government. It does not make one piece of official information more available to the citizen. Indeed, the White Paper warns us:
"Ministers will continue to determine what information should be disclosed and to account to Parliament for those decisions".
In other words, there will be a perpetuation into the 21st century of the paternalistic state of the 19th century. Surely in a protection of official secrets Bill the principle must be to forbid what is seriously harmful and to free what is not. Franks said that harmful meant
"that which causes serious injury to the interests of the nation".
If the Government had accepted that simple criterion in this Bill, they would have placed this country, in this respect, alongside the other great democracies of the world. But instead what have the Government done? In Clause 1 and Clause 4, as we have already heard, they create absolute criminal offences—blanket offences that prohibit for all time the disclosure of anything relating to the two intelligence services. It matters not whether the disclosure is harmless, trivial or stale or whether it discloses crime, fraud, iniquity, negligence or incompetence. It enshrines for ever the concept of absolute Trappist confidentiality.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, is not damage to the nation exactly what has to be proved by the prosecution before the jury?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, with great respect, that is not the case in that part of Clause 1 with which I am dealing, where there is no question of a jury ever having any duty to decide anything. In the Spycatcher saga, which of course is the main cause for this Bill, the judges of this country, applying the common law, have utterly rejected this oppressive claim by the Government. That claim was made when the Government sought to suppress and silence press and publisher alike, by resort to the civil law of confidence.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, has already been quoted. I quote him again. He stated:
"In this litigation there are no absolutes".
I ask the House to pay regard to the words of Mr. Justice Scott when he said:
"A balance must be struck between the freedom of the press and security. The extent of the duty of confidence depends on the relative weight of the needs of national security and the public interest that the information should be disclosed".
Later, he continued:
"The press has a legitimate role in disclosing scandals in government. The ability of the press freely to do so is one of the bulwarks of our democratic society".
It is to the common law, not to this Bill as it now stands, that we must look once again for the

1631
maintenance of our fundamental rights and freedoms.
If it is unjustifiable to apply civil sanctions in an absolute way, is it not even worse to seek to do so with criminal sanctions where the liberty of the subject is at stake, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has already observed? Can we in this House support clauses in a Bill that establish that nothing the secret service does should ever become public knowledge? Will there not always be a lifelong possibility that the interests of government and the public interest may not coincide?
In opening this debate the noble Earl said that the public interest defence would not be workable. I suggest to the House that this blanket suppression, if left in the Bill, will prove unworkable. It will he a charter for leaks and deceit, but truth will not for ever be suppressed. Indeed, as Edmund Burke declared:
"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny".
The House should remember that in this Bill we are dealing with offences carrying a maximum of two years' imprisonment on indictment; that is, at the lower end of indictable crime. It is Section 1 of the 1911 Act, which remains in force, which deals with offences at the higher end—espionage and entering prohibited places. To establish an offence under Section 1 the prosecution must prove that what was done was:
"for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State".
That is, in the really serious area of official secrets the law demands proof of a purpose, one that is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state: in other words, a public interest requirement.
Yet here, dealing with far less serious offences, it is proposed that the law should require no purpose to be proved, no harm to the safety of the state and no defence to be allowed. That seems hardly credible. Of course the most sensitive secrets of the state must be covered and secured, but surely some relaxation of that absolute ban must be possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said, there must be something in between.
I suggest that a proper, sensible and just defence must be provided in these clauses of the Bill. Of course internal procedures should be followed by civil servants and the security of the nation must be preserved. But I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that public interest was involved in the 1889 Official Secrets Act. It was possible to spell it out in the old Section 2 of the 1911 Act, whatever the noble Earl may have said in opening the debate.
It was relied on successfully in the Ponting case and it was relied on, as I know so well because I relied upon it myself, in the Sunday Telegraph case. The words, communicating to
"a person to whom it is in the interest of the State his duty"
to do so may not have been blessed by some decision in the higher courts, but I think I am right in saying that those words have never been dealt with in the Court of Appeal at any time. The result of this Bill is that those words have been swept away and there is now no public interest element in the Bill. I sincerely hope that the House will agree to put it back.
1632
It is welcome that the Government have abandoned the idea of ministerial certificates and have brought in the jury to try the issue of harm. But what is that issue? It will not be serious injury to the interests of the nation; it will not be public interest. It will be damage to the work of any part of the services; damage to the capability of any part of the armed forces to carry out their task; jeopardising the interests of the United Kingdom abroad. Those are weak, inexact and unreliable issues, far removed from the central question of the security of the state.
I ask the Minister to explain more fully the role of the jury in those cases. If the defence say, "Yes, we agree that there was slight damage to the ability of the army stores department to carry out its task but we considered it essential to disclose the massive corruption involved in the purchase of the stores", would the jury be allowed to weigh the damage to the army's ability to carry out its duties against the damage to the reputation of the army and the necessity to disclose the corruption? I do not understand what it is that the jury will have to decide in such cases.
In the matter of international relations in which UK interests abroad are jeopardised, the defence may say, "Yes, the interests of this country are jeopardised by the disclosure because the disclosure shows that the person concerned in the contract for a big armaments deal was involved in corruption. Nothing could be worse for our relations with another country than that". Is the jury which tries such a case to decide on the one hand that the disclosure has jeopardised our relations with that other country but on the other that the reason was a corrupt contract and therefore the contract fell through? I ask the Minister to clarify that question. It is very important that we should understand it before we reach the Committee stage.
Finally, I suggest that the real mischief of the loose elements of those defences is the threat involved which will hang like a sword of Damocles over the heads of civil servants and, under Clauses 5 and 6, over the heads of all those in the media. We shall be back to the mischief of Section 2—uncertainty. Will disclosure be damaging as defined? Will disclosure be likely to jeopardise our interests abroad? No editor will be able to tell, no civil servant will be able to be sure. This much vaunted trial by jury begins to look like a new threat to the freedom of the press and something of a confidence trick.
In another place there were many appeals to this House to set right the mischiefs in this Bill. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will so alter the Bill as to make it one worthy of this country and a Bill that looks forward to the 21st century and not back to the last.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said will be the subject of discussion in Committee. I dare say that, like me, many noble Lords were surprised to hear him say that the Bill is not a liberalising measure. It clearly is a liberalising measure because it does away with the catch-all provisions of Section 2 of the 1911 Act and

1633
replaces them, so far as prosecution is concerned, with the six clearly defined categories in the Bill. The Government surely deserve to be congratulated upon the introduction of the Bill. It undoubtedly brings the law into the realm of reality and enables the publication of a vast range of government information which was previously forbidden. I dare say that the media will find that they have never had it so good.
In my opinion the Government have gone as far as they reasonably could in allowing freedom of information. It is arguable that they have gone too far. For example—this point is clear from the speeches of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—it appears that, apart from the tradition of confidentiality between civil servants and Ministers, there will no longer be Budget secrets. Even the leaking of a draft Budget Statement will be beyond the scope of the Bill and not subject to prosecution.
We benefit in the Chamber during this debate from the presence of three former Chancellors of the Exchequer and two former Chief Secretaries. I wonder how they feel about the proposition of no more Budget secrets. One remembers a Chancellor of the Exchequer who, alas, resigned because, as he walked towards the Chamber of another place to deliver his Budget Statement, he casually mentioned to a journalist something that was to be in that Budget Statement. Honourably, he resigned.
Does the liberality of the Bill mean in effect that that ancient and valuable restraint is to vanish? I hope not. However, as the Bill stands it looks as though it will. A rather absurd situation arises because to do away with the secrecy of the Budget could lead to undesirable speculation which the secrecy—by common consent, a necessary constitutional tradition—has always been there to prevent. The Government should think about that point.
I doubt also the wisdom of allowing Cabinet minutes to be freely disclosed unless they concern the six matters mentioned regarding security and so on. Of course, if Cabinet minutes dealing with those matters are disclosed, they will be the subject of prosecution, but there must surely be some protection of confidentiality for discussions in Cabinet and its committees. If there is no confidentiality it is bound to inhibit freedom of discussion. That goes without saying. Freedom of discussion is essential to enable a consensus among Ministers to be found. Ministerial decisions should have the widest support inside the government, but they may not do so if confidentiality is not protected.
There is another strange result. All members of every Cabinet and a number of senior members of every government are Privy Counsellors who take an oath of secrecy by which they are bound. It would become a mockery if their discussions were to lose their confidentiality through the publication of Cabinet papers. I therefore most seriously suggest that the Bill needs to be strengthened with regard to the disclosure of Cabinet minutes and papers, ministerial correspondence and especially matters relating to the preparation of the Budget. Even if the
1634
Bill were to be strengthened in those ways, the media would be in a far freer and better position than ever previously. They would still have plenty to write about. The heresy hunters would still have their fun. Even if the Bill were to be strenghtened a little, as I suggest, they would know exactly where they stood.
I do not in any sense criticise the Bill by mentioning my next point. It is inevitable that juries will sometimes have some quite difficult questions of interpretation to decide. The words "possession" in Clause 1(1) "jeopardises" in Clause 2(2)(b) and "damaging" in Clause 1(3) will give rise to a great deal of argument in the courts. And, on the evidence, it may be rather difficult for juries to come to a decision. I mentioned that point not to criticise the Bill, but in the hope that—if anyone ever reads this debate and my speech—the courts will realise that they have to give juries plenty of guidance. There is a tradition in the law that if a prima facie case has not been established on any particular question of fact the judge does not require the jury to decide that question. The safeguard of the judges having that responsibility is worth bearing in mind when considering how the Bill will work in practice in the courts.
The Government have done well to introduce the Bill. I strongly support the measure even though it could reasonably do more to protect the confidentiality of some state secrets. I hope that that will be done.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it has already been noted, particularly by my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that the debate is in effect about the tension between freedom and security, and liberty and order, but surely the only justification for security and order is to protect and defend freedom and liberty. I admit that, in our society, apathy and indifference, characterised by the constantly used phrase, "I'm not interested in politics" is of more danger to democracy than is authoritarianism—the concept of "them" and "us". I contend that the Bill increases those elements that are debilitating to a democratic society.
The Government have started from the wrong premise. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, on that point. In order to foster a rich, deeply rooted and participating democracy, citizens need information. They need to know what is being done in their name. Above all, they need to know what is being done by those in authority who have executive power, except of course where it is absolutely necessary to withhold that information for the protection of the democratic society itself. I wish to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, mentioned; namely, that the Franks report put this much better than in the Bill.
The noble Earl who opened the debate spoke of the test of harm. That is a very vague phrase; it is even vaguer when accompanied by the word "likely". In the Bill we see that there are many loose phrases of that kind which are dangerous. The noble Earl took to task those of us who have been pressing for the

1635
retention of the defence of public interest. He said that all disclosures of that nature were harmful. He then went on to suggest that those who used the element of public interest for their actions were suggesting that harm did not matter. I submit that he was wrong. The issue is not whether harm does not matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has pointed out, the issue is whether more good to society comes from whatever it may be—a leak or a revelation—than harm.
Harm is not an absolute; but in this Bill harm becomes an absolute. However much good may result from a revelation, if the Government consider that there is the slightest element of harm then they condemn that revelation. I should much prefer the test of harm to be left with juries rather than be decided by Ministers.
If we are to foster our democratic society, if we are to get greater participation by citizens in the political process at local and national level, the supply of information and the right to know are of paramount importance. I am not alone in thinking that. I wish to offer noble Lords a quotation which I think that the noble Lords on the other side of the House would be wise to accept. The quotation is as follows:
"Publicity is … the most effective check against any arbitrary action … the paramount function of this distinguished House is to safeguard civil liberties rather than to think that administrative convenience should take first place".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/2/60; cols. 1351 and 1357–58.]
That quotation was given by the lady who was then the honourable Member for Finchley, but who is now the right honourable Lady the Prime Minister. It is not often that I agree with the right honourable Lady; on this occasion I do.
When we were debating the White Paper on 29th July last year, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was challenged by my noble friend Lord Mishcon to answer the question as to what would have been the position under the terms of that White Paper of the gentleman who supplied Sir Winston Churchill with information about the defence forces before Sir Winston was in government. The noble Earl refused to answer on these grounds. He said:
"I have no intention of giving an immediate answer, and for one good reason which the noble Lord will understand perfectly well. That is, whether or not they were guilty of a criminal offence would depend on what the law states. We do not yet have the new law; all we have are proposals which may be turned into law. One cannot possibly answer a question like that without knowing the details of the new law".—[Official Report, 29/7/88; col. 560.]
That excuse has now gone. We have the specific proposals in a Bill so I think I am entitled to ask the noble Lord who will wind up to answer the questions that I asked the noble Earl when we were debating the White Paper. They may be historical but they are precedents. We are entitled to know what would be the position of these historical incidents under the terms of the Bill.
What would be the position of Clive Ponting if the Bill becomes law? Would that trial ever have taken place? Or would it have been the Government who decided that he was guilty without any opportunity for a jury to hear the case? What would have been the position of Sarah Tisdall under the terms of the Bill?
1636
Would there have been a trial or would the Government have taken action themselves?
What would have been the position of Cathy Massiter? Would she have been sent to trial or would the Government have acted on their own? What would have been the position in the Westland case? What would have been the position of those officials who, we are told, leaked the vital letters? What would have been the position of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? What would have been the position of the Prime Minister? What would have been the position of the law officers of the Crown? I understand that Mr. Mogg and Colette Bowe have now deposited their papers in security boxes. Why? If their accounts of what took place coincide with those of Ministers, why should they have to secrete the papers that were vital on a matter of national interest at the time? We have never been told the full story. What would have happened under the terms of this Bill?
What would have happened to the film "Zircon" and the magazine, the New Statesman or any other magazine that wrote about the affair? Would they have been banned under the Bill? I do not know whether noble Lords have seen the new film "Scandal". I hope that they saw the Channel 4 programme on the film the Sunday before its premier. At the end of the Channel 4 film the statement was made that MI5 had denied that Stephen Ward was one of their agents, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was conducting his investigation. According to the programme on Channel 4 much later MI5 admitted that that was not the truth. I do not know. Is that the case? If it is so then is it not also true that that could not have been done under the Bill? The top officers of MI5 would never have been allowed to admit that they had not told the truth at the review.
The national interest is served by the freest supply of information. Citizens have the right to know. It is then their responsibility to use the information that they are given. They have the right to know—to know what is being done in their name by their elected representatives, by the Civil Service and by Members of this House. Only that right to know will preserve our democratic system. If any noble Lord doubts that we have only to think back to the examples of pre-war Germany and Italy to recognise the dangers of the withholding of information. Above all, Ministers' and governments' reputations are often served by the suppression of the truth. That is not a strength to democracy.
My fear is—and I am not alone in this, because Members on the other side of the House are concerned—that the Bill will put back the worst features of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act with greater force and by so doing will increase the secrecy of government and will weaken the cause of our democratic society.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Bethel!: My Lords, I join those who have congratulated the Government on having found the courage to tackle one of the most complicated and difficult areas of necessary law reform. Unlike their

1637
predecessors they have looked at this seriously and have produced a Bill that demands our very careful consideration. Unlike some noble Lords opposite, I cannot agree that the Bill is in no way a liberalising measure. There are certain areas where it liberalises and reforms in an extremely positive way. The most important area is the removal of an oppressive punishment for disclosure of information which falls outside the six categories mentioned in the Bill. From now on anyone who improperly reveals or discloses any such information will not be subject to punishment under the criminal law.
However, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Renton is not in his place because I wanted to refer to what he said about budget secrets and others. The provisions do not mean that any civil servant or Minister who discloses such matters would go unpunished. Hugh Dalton was severely punished for his indiscretion. Under this Bill or under no Bill any civil servant who reveals budget secrets or secrets about the environment, health or driving licences is subject to the sanction of the ruination of his career and to the sanctions of his superiors. I suggest that this is an extremely heavy instrument which can be used effectively. The reform therefore is in the removal of criminal penalties for these areas outside.
I am also very pleased to note that the Government did not go down the path of the ministerial fiat—the idea that the Government and the Government alone should determine what is or is not damaging to the national interest. It is much more sensible and in keeping with British justice—even the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, made this point—to leave that question to the 12 good people, and true, of a British jury. I have no doubt that a jury will consider very carefully any case that is brought before it and will use normal common sense in deciding whether the interest of the state has been damaged by an unauthorised disclosure. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, spent some time on this point. He asked whether a jury would take into account other matters. For example, the national interest may have been damaged in one respect, but in another respect it may have benefited from disclosure. Will the jury take that into account? I dare say that my noble friend Lord Belstead will not be able to answer that because he cannot speak for how juries may interpret the Bill in the future.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves this point, will he address himself to the fact that in the Bill there are six designated areas which are absolute crimes and will not therefore be subject to jury decision on any question of public interest?
Lord Bethell: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, these areas provide scope for a jury decision because in each case, with the exception of matters of security and intelligence, a jury will have to decide whether damage has been done to the national interest. I believe that juries will take into account all the facts that are put before them in such a case. In the example of stores which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, it will be perfectly
1638
in order for counsel for the defence to say that there perhaps has been damage to a keeper of stores, but there has been benefit to the national interest through the disclosure and the revelation of corruption in that area. If counsel makes the case well and convinces the jury, his client will be acquitted of the charge.
It makes a lot of sense for this matter to be kept reasonably vague in the Bill so that the jury has the utmost scope in deciding the matter. After all, what would we prefer? Would we want the Bill to spell out in the closest detail what is or is not damaging? Should it be left to a Minister to decide what is damaging? Certainly not; it should be for a jury to decide what is damaging and in this respect I see the positive points of the Bill.
I shall therefore support the Bill in general. However I hope that the Government will be willing to accept an amendment to Clause 1(1), which deals with the vexed question of the lifelong duty of confidentiality. I am referring to the paragraph which states that it is an absolute offence for any member of the services or anyone who has been notified in the appropriate way to reveal any information relating to security or intelligence.
I accept that we must have secret services and that these services must remain secret. I accept too that almost always it would be wrong for facts about operational or policy matters in the services to be made public by people who are associated with them, at least for many years. However, I can envisage circumstances when it would be not only proper for, but indeed the duty of, such a person as mentioned in the subsection, to disclose facts which were of deep concern to him or her.
Members of the services are not demigods. They are human and capable of making mistakes. They are even capable of committing crimes. As a student of Eastern Europe I have what I hope is a healthy caution towards any accumulation of extra power by security and intelligence services. I do not suggest that we in this country have to any extent approached the improper activity of the secret services in Eastern European countries. However, we cannot guarantee that that will never happen in the future. We cannot guarantee that in the future there will not be an oppressive government which will authorise and instruct secret services to commit crimes against citizens.
The secret services are the guardians of the state, but how are they to be guarded? I suggest only by a vigilant Parliament and press. However, Parliament and the press will be helpless in such a matter without the ultimate safeguard of the officer authorised to reveal information. If, having gone through every possible recourse—through the staff counsellor, his superiors and, if necessary, Ministers—he received no satisfaction and found that wrong-doing continued, he should then be entitled to make the facts known.
I do not imagine that happening today, this year or next year, but to say that it should never happen is a mistake. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers in saying ghat all non-authorised disclosures are harmful. One can envisage

1639
a circumstance in which disclosure would not be harmful and would be the fulfilment of the officer's higher duty to the Crown and the law. In such circumstances the law should protect that person.
I should like to turn to the less intense area of history. I ask the Government not for amendment but for clarification. We know how the matter was debated in another place. The question of the memoirs of secret service officers was put forward most notably by my right honourable friend Mr. Amery. Noble Lords will be aware of the hundreds of books that have been written on the basis of the disclosures of secret service officers mainly involved in the Second World War. I must declare my interest in that I have written books on such subjects.
There has been a certain amount of confusion among Ministers in another place about how and under what circumstances such disclosures or memoirs should be authorised. In a letter sent to me last autumn the Home Secretary wrote that damage to the national security would be the only criterion and that authority could be granted when it was possible to be satisfied that no damage to national security would result. Mr. Hurd also said that with the passage of time it will be increasingly possible for the officers to obtain such authority.
However, a few days ago in a debate in another place he said that such authorisation would be given only rarely and under exceptional circumstances. I am not sure that that is a total contradiction but I believe that the Government should try to clarify the position, if not today then in the course of the passage of the Bill.
I must confess that if the blanket prohibition had been in force when I put pen to paper I should have found myself behind bars. For instance, I have discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, events which took place in 1947 when he was an intelligence officer in Palestine. I have also discussed with my noble friend Lord Jellicoe events which took place in Washington when he was involved in security matters with his then colleague Kim Philby and was concerned with the operation to remove the Government of Albania.
Rightly or wrongly, it is a common practice for former service officers to talk within certain bounds to authors whom they believe to be responsible. If that is to be made illegal and an absolute offence, then at the least the Government should make clear the circumstances under which an officer may disclose information or himself put pen to paper. If not, we shall have great problems and difficulties, not to mention the loss of a tranche of contemporary history.
There are areas in which that loss would be severe. For instance, are we to say that security officers now in Northern Ireland will never be able to write about what has happened over the past 10 years—even in the year 2010 or 2020? I should be sorry if that were the case. I hope that the Government will indicate their willingness to look more flexibly on such an eventuality. The revelations of the crimes of Kim Philby made by the Sunday Times in the 1960s, and
1640
a journalist's interview with him last year shortly before he died, would, under the Bill, be illegal because Mr. Philby was a former intelligence officer. The fact that he broke his vow would make disclosure no less criminal.
If we British officers and historians fail to write about such matters and put forward the case when it is believed that it is not harmful to do so. we may be sure that writers overseas—those among our adversaries in Eastern Europe and Asia—will put forward the anti-British case with great enthusiasm. Are we then to discover that there is no one here able to obtain authorisation to put our side of the case? I believe that it would be wrong to have such a clear-cut, no exception rule about the work of the secret services.
Of course, the work of the service must be protected where it is harmful to the state. However exceptions can be envisaged where it would be thoroughly wrong for the person to keep silent. As regards memoirs, disclosures and contemporary history the Government must make matters clear otherwise, in the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, "we shall leave our history to our enemies".
6.18 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, it cannot be said too often that an effective Official Secrets Act is an essential part of our national defence. With his unique authority, the noble Lord. Lord Home, made the same point. However, from time to time one hears people claim that we have no secrets now. That phrase was used by a Member of this House during a debate last summer. It is said to be no longer necessary to take such matters seriously.
In one respect that is reassuring because it demonstrates how ill informed are such people of the organisation which the Bill is designed to protect. As many noble Lords know, it plays a vital role in times of tension, particularly in the detection of hostile intentions towards us. All the dangers of the international scene have not yet passed away and it would be a great mistake if we now proceeded on that assumption.
Of course, it was right to try and get rid of the old Section 2 of the 1911 Act. Although at the same time it should be acknowledged that in practice I believe it caused no criminal prosecutions of the trivial matters theoretically covered by it. To replace Section 2, in my view, it is generally better to have an Act which is a blunt instrument and administer it liberally rather than strive to create something perfect. Of course, the revision of Section 2 baffled, as many noble Lords, said, all political parties for many years. However, the present Home Secretary has at last succeeded in tabling what I believe is a workable alternative.
The implication of the Bill now before us has been fiercely debated in the other place and very widely debated by journalists, some of whom seem to be more interested in their own convenience than in the country's security. The White Paper of last summer made many sensible concessions to interested parties, and other concessions have been added since the White Paper was issued. I do not agree with all the concessions; and I must say that I still hanker after

1641
the idea in certain cases of a ministerial certificate, provided it is signed by a Minister and the Lord Chancellor. However, generally speaking, the Secretary of State has stood his ground with determination and has listened with patience and goodwill to arguments, serious and frivolous, which have attempted to deflect him from the main purposes set out in the White Paper.
I do not speak as a former member of the security or intelligence services, but had this Bill been passed into law many years ago, I should have been put under the same obligation of lifetime silence as a member of those services. I see no hardship in that with the qualification to which I shall draw attention in a moment. After all, the medical profession seems able to keep its mouth shut throughout the life of its members.
However, at this stage of the Bill and in advance of the Committee discussions, I should like to make only three points. As I say, I see no objection to the proposal for a lifetime of silence from certain Crown servants on sensitive matters of security and intelligence. Of course, that obligation is qualified by the continuation of the long-established understanding that authorised—and I repeat authorised—disclosure can be made in appropriate circumstances. I believe that the Minister will confirm that that is unchanged by this Bill.
There have been many notable cases in the past when authors have been permitted to write about especially secret material. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, mentioned the case of Sir John Masterman. I remember discussing it with him together with the then head of the intelligence services. I do not believe that our discussion was unduly influenced by the fact that Sir John had been tutor to each of us in turn. However, the Home Secretary has indicated that permission to publish will in future seldom be given. Of course, his successors may have a different attitude; but I do not blame him, particularly now, that he does not wish to invite a flood of authors, tempted by extravagant rewards, to try to see what they can get away with.
Mr. Amery in the other place made a more elaborate proposal for the formal arrangements to clear manuscripts. I do not really believe that that is necessary. The way to do that is now clear and not always blocked. The Foreign Secretary may be hesitant about giving permission in the immediate aftermath of this Bill, but it is clear that permission will continue to be given from time to time.
I should like to refer again to the relationship between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Wigram before the war. The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred to that. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, when he mentioned that before, said that Mr. Wigram could not have acted as he did if this Bill was in position. I do not believe that he is right; and I looked up the passage in Sir Winston's book which dealt with that. He said:
"Mr. Wigram had reached a level in his department which entitled him to express responsible opinions on policy and use a wide discretion in his contacts, official and unofficial".
1642
That sounds to me like authorised disclosure, and under this Bill only unauthorised disclosure constitutes an offence.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting since he was kind enough to mention my name. Nowhere in Winston Churchill's memoirs—and I have tried to go through them very carefully—has there been any mention of the fact that his contacts were authorised. If the noble Lord can point to any passage which says that, he is justified in making the point. A description of the seniority of the civil servant. Mr. Wigram, has no bearing on that at all.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I do not agree. He says that his position gave him the discretion to discuss matters of policy with official and unofficial contacts. I do not believe that there is any indication anywhere which I have seen that Mr. Wigram was ever told by his seniors that those contacts were not to be continued.
While it is easy to define when it is damaging to make disclosures in the defence, security and intelligence fields, it is less easy to do so in the field of intelligence relations. The language of Clause 3 now before us is admittedly inexact or imprecise. In this context, it is difficult to devise a form of words more appropriate than "jeopardise" or "seriously obstruct". However, the imprecision of those words may from time to time cause argument. However, the purpose is clear and justifiable and in the course of the Committee stage there may be other wording which the Government find acceptable. Of course, it is in the sphere of international relations that one can expect the majority of authorised disclosures to be made and they take place very frequently; for example, in the news department of the Foreign Office and in the course of discussions with journalists, the BBC and other organisations.
The second point to which the Bill gives great attention is the question of a public interest defence. I really cannot improve on what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, said on that point. Paragraphs 58 to 61 in the White Paper of last summer which reject that are very cogently argued. It is obviously a nonsense to allow a damaging disclosure, however well motivated, and to argue about its justification afterwards.
Any Crown servant who thinks he should go public on what he claims is serious wrong-doing has the means to argue his case within the government machine. The new staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services provides, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, new protection. For civil servants outside these services I believe that the difficulties have been exaggerated. Of course, it would need courage but he or she would inevitably have allies and if the object was to right a wrong then the case could be successfully drawn to responsible authority. I find it hard to imagine circumstances in which action would not be taken.
Some senior retired civil servants have suggested yet another kind of ombudsman to whom an appeal could be made in confidence. I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Croham, would be here to amplify

1643
what he said, with his colleagues, in his letter to The Times. However, in this country we are fast creating an army of ombudsmen who referee even the most normal administration. As the White Paper says:
"Any argument on the public interest should take place within the context of the proposed damage tests where they are applicable".
My third point concerns the protection of information received from international organisations. Obviously such information must be protected and there can be no argument about that. The problem is to find a sensible definition of "an international organisation". That is attempted in Clause 13 and I shall be interested to hear why that is not adequate.
Finally, the critics of this Bill seem to regard the strict protection of official secrets as something which always conflicts with the national interest. They seem anxious to obstruct the Home Secretary and they are inclined to regard the motives of the authorities—politicians and government servants—as suspect. In my opinion, more often than not it is the motives of the critics which should be treated with caution.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, a noble friend whose name ought to have been on the list of speakers today is not taking part because, as he explained, he could not think of anything new to say. A veteran Front Bencher commented, "That shows he is no politician". I am not sure what he meant—whether a politician can always find a new angle on an old story or whether a real politican takes every opportunity of repeating his case, hoping that in the end he will carry conviction.
Yet I too approach this Second Reading with trepidation. I spoke at length when the noble Lord, Lord Bethel], brought before us his Bill to reform the silly, wicked Section 2 of the Act. I spoke again at length on the White Paper. Since then I have addressed several committee meetings of angry scribes and even, alongside Mr. Shepherd, an international press conference in central Africa. I may say that they were most excited by what they heard.
Of course, we as journalists have a primary interest in this Bill. We are the people to whom official information is leaked without authorisation and we often publish it at our peril. In newspapers, we have more than one function, in a life of great complications. We have to entertain our readers. We have to make money, or stop printing. However, we have to do something more. We have to provide readers with the information which enables them to make something like a democratic choice.
We are a bad lot, perhaps, but without us there would be no democracy and as newspaper people we are concerned about its development and preservation. That is a harder task in Britain than it is in many other countries, simply because our establishment from local councils up to Whitehall is secretive by nature and tradition and its natural undemocratic habits are fortified by our official secrets legislation. If your Lordships would like an example of the kind of official mentality on the question of secrets I can do
1644
no better than recall the words which the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has spoken and also his lack of enthusiasm for journalists.
When we plead for a relaxation of the current restraints we do not get very far. We are in bad odour, as is the electronic press. Many politicans attack not only the admittedly gross and indefensible behaviour of a few newspapers, but feel generally that the members of the media are getting above themselves, that they are too powerful and ought to be restrained. In fact, there are two restraining Bills presently going through Parliament. One deals with privacy and the other gives the aggrieved person a right of reply.
The Government themselves use their administrative power to curb and manipulate. Like all governments, they are keen on the freedom of the press and on open government—but not too much of it. However, the Bill has much wider implications than the perils of the press. The Bill is tremendously important to Her Majesty's Opposition of today, and Her Majesty's Opposition of tomorrow, too. An Opposition stinted of information is an Opposition crippled.
The Bill is also important for public servants who are sometimes faced— rarely, perhaps, but occasionally—with a moral dilemma. It is important to spycatchers and to spies. Finally, the Bill is important to our citizens who have to stump up £100 million or more a year to keep the security services going in, we are told in the other place, eight to 11 large buildings in London. Surely they are entitled to a better idea of how their money is spent. The present Government seem to want not only to keep the operations secret but also to keep the services hidden; though a Bill to legalise them which is now going through this House is very much to be welcomed.
The Bill becomes unacceptable from its very first clause. It states that a person who is, or has been, a member of the security and intelligence services is guilty if he discloses any information about security or intelligence that he has obtained in the course of his work. The section is not, thank God, retrospective but it means that he must stay silent until the day of his death. Only when he reaches the pearly gates is he entitled to tell the story of his life.
We are never to be able to probe the purposes and policies of the services, to discover whether they are efficient, whether some members are trying to put a spoke in the political process, or whether some are going a bit too far on the wrong side of the law. Even when a member of the services comes across a real and obvious iniquity he may not tell a Minister or a Member of Parliament, and certainly not a journalist. He may go to the staff counsellor. What happens then? Who knows? Whom does the counsellor inform? The situation could be pretty inconvenient for an officer's career. How can the information get into the parliamentary system, where it may well belong? The information may do no harm to the country, but the Government will not limit the ban in this instance to harmful disclosures. Even when members of the security services are coming to the end of their careers or are retired they are not allowed to say a word about their experiences, even though they may lie in the remote past.

1645
There is the convention about which several noble Lords have spoken this afternoon that former officers who want to publish their reminiscences might do so after showing them to the relevant authorities who could ask for the necessary changes to be made. That convention protected the national interest and saved authors from prosecution under the Act.
But after Ponting and Wright, it seems that the Government began to claim that members of the secret services had a life-long obligation to maintain confidentiality about their work. When Anthony Cavendish wrote a book largely to defend his old friend and colleague, Sir Maurice Oldfield, it is said that the authorities refused to look at it and warned him that he could not sell it without a breach of confidentiality. So he gave the book away to his friends; and nothing was done because the authorities were reluctant, for very obvious reasons, to bring a charge under the Official Secrets Act.
The right honourable gentleman who sits for Brighton, Pavilion, gives general support to the Bill. At the Second Reading in another place he asked whether the Government would not be wiser to go hack to the old vetting procedure. He received satisfying assurances. However, when the Bill went through Committee the assurances were very much weakened. It was said that permission to publish would only be given in exceptional circumstances. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, there have been scores of such books. I wonder whether the Government can think again while the Bill is going through this House and repeat the original assurances.
There was reference made to the public interest defence. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said how well it was expressed in the White Paper. I believe that it was very badly expressed. It has caused a good deal of misunderstanding of what the idea is about. The White Paper states:
"The Government recognises that some people who make unauthorised disclosures do so for what they themselves see as altruistic reasons and without desire for personal gain".
They make it a matter of conscience. The idea of those of us who want a clause of this kind is perhaps best expressed in a new clause that some tried in vain to add in another place. It narrows the defence very greatly. The clause states:
"It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Act to prove that the disclosure or retention of the information, document or other article was in the public interest insofar as he has reasonable cause to believe that it indicated the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other serious misconduct.".
That is pretty narrow and I believe that it can be further improved. It leaves one or two matters to chance. I hope that in this House we can find some defence for a person who breaks the code in the public interest in order to reveal a crime and to bring a criminal to book.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. I believe that the Government have shown courage in taking on this extremely difficult task that has baffled successive governments over many years. This Bill will replace confusion with clarity and obscurity with
1646
lucidity. Let us not be distracted, as we were in the debate on the White Paper at the end of July, by talk about the need for a freedom of information Act. Whatever the case for that, it is not relevant to this Bill, which is simply a measure to replace the old and discredited Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which, as many of your Lordships have said and which met universal agreement, was a catch-all measure so absurd as to be almost unworkable.
The most controversial clause in this Bill is Clause 1. It makes criminal the disclosure without lawful authority by a member of the security or intelligence services or a person notified that he is subject to the same rules, any information relating to security or intelligence in his possession. That is an offence irrespective of any damage it might have caused. It is an absolute offence like driving a car over the limit. There is a similar absolute ban on disclosure of information acquired by special investigation powers. That is to be found in Clause 4. which so far has not been discussed very much by your Lordships.
It has been argued in another place and also here this afternoon that there should be a public interest defence, certainly as regards Clause 1. I imagine that some attempt will be made to insert it by an amendment at the Committee stage in this Chamber. I hope that the Government will stand firm on that as far as they can. I thought that the case against a public interest defence was expressed admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. I cannot do it better myself so I shall not attempt to do so. I merely say that public interest is a very vague concept and people's views of what it constitutes are liable to wide variations.
In all cases except the two mentioned, the Bill obliges the prosecution to prove damage or harm. It defines damage in respect of each of the areas where this proof is required and where the issue will be left to the jury. I believe that that is a great improvement on what went on before. One of the purposes of this Bill is to substitute clear rules and guidelines for a vague and foggy catch-all section. The media will now know just where it stands. At any rate, it will have a much better idea when the provisions become law—not that it will thank the Government in any way for it. That would be far too much to hope for.
I shall finish with a point raised in debate in the newspapers, here and elsewhere, as regards the information passed on by Crown servants to Sir Winston Churchill. According to Martin Gilbert, whose official biography of Sir Winston is probably a more reliable source than Churchill's own memoirs since there were certain things that he felt inhibited from saying when he was writing them, for obvious reasons, there were some 20 or so Crown servants who passed on information to Churchill. I believe that all of them would have been guilty under the 1911 Act, though the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, may not agree. The question raised is whether they would have been guilty of an offence had the measure that we are discussing this afternoon been law at the time.
It is by no means clear that they would have had no defence under this law. I am pretty certain that some disclosures were authorised, but if I am wrong I shall apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I believe

1647
that some were authorised by Ramsay MacDonald at some stage. They were a very small part so it does not affect the main argument. I wish to remind noble Lords that Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister in the National Government from 1931 to 1937.
A noble Lord: It was 1931 to 1935.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I stand corrected. My point is that it is by no means clear that Crown servants would have had no defence under the present Bill. Some of those who informed Churchill could have argued that in defence (the main issue) their disclosures were not damaging to the public interest, and a jury might well have accepted that argument. Under this Act the person who, if prosecuted, would have had no defence at all was Sir Desmond Morton, who was the director of the Centre of Industrial Intelligence from 1929 to 1939. It was some kind of offshoot of the Committee of Imperial Defence. He would have had no defence under the Bill because he was in the intelligence service, but the others in the Foreign Office, the Air Ministry and the War Office might well have had a defence. I mention the matter only to put the record straight for it is an issue that is often misunderstood.
I have one final point on which I should welcome the guidance of my noble friend the Leader of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, seemed to suggest that he would have been prosecuted if he had revealed in the House certain details about armaments negotiations after he had ceased to be a civil servant. I wonder whether my noble friend can confirm that one cannot be prosecuted for anything one says in the House. Surely we possess what is called absolute privilege and there is nothing on which a prosecution could be founded for anything said in this House or in another place. I believe that to be correct, but perhaps my noble friend will confirm whether or not it is. I welcome the Bill and strongly support its Second Reading.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Hemingford: My Lords, I belong among those who believe that the balance which the noble Earl mentioned when he opened the debate has not been correctly struck in the Bill. It is not a question of saying that there should be no secrets now. However, one should beware, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, of falling into the error of believing that whatever government do, they do for the best. I follow also the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his discourse on the possibility that the security services might at some time in the future go over the top.
Safeguards have been erected in the Bill and in the Security Service Bill. They were outlined with wonderful clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, who took us through each successive stage of the procedure. However, when he reached the end of the line he was reduced to saying that if a civil servant was seen to be acting in a truly conscientious way, he found it difficult to believe that it would be possible to secure a conviction. I do not believe that that is good enough. We ought not to have to rely on
1648
what I believe is called a perverse jury. We ought not to deny a defendant the ability to argue the point that what he or she had done was more right than it was damaging. It is precisely with the last case position, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, took us, that a public interest defence would come into play.
Perhaps I may pick up the Minister's metaphor. We are not calling for either a flyover or a coach and horses but for one of those ultimate slip roads filled with gravel into which a lorry can be driven to prevent it crashing it out of control. Whether one calls it a public interest defence or something else, some provision should be built into the Bill to avoid making such a disclosure automatically an offence without regard to any surrounding circumstances.
The other night on television I watched with great interest an interview with Christabel Bielenberg, an Englishwoman who lived in Hitler's Germany throughout the war. She said that because the press was muzzled people were not aware of what was going on in the concentration camps. When she was asked to draw one conclusion from her experience she said it was that a free press, however badly it behaved—I acknowledge that ours often does behave badly—was an essential bulwark of freedom. I believe that the Bill will have the inhibiting effect on the media which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, described and I hope that in Committee we shall correct this.
I say that against a background of what seems to be an attempt by the Government to represent Britain's media as little more than a sectional lobby dedicated to nothing but its own narrow interests. The process began when the previous Home Secretary insisted on establishing a legal precedent by giving journalism a special position under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. He did so even though all the most influential editors in the country did not want it. That put the media in a false position and has enabled people to represent subsequent media concern over legislation as special pleading.
For all their faults, the British media represent the interests of the public in obtaining information and acting as watchdogs. The Association of British Editors, representing senior journalists across all the media, and the more local Guild of British Newspaper Editors, whose parliamentary and legal committee watches legislation with great and responsible care, have both expressed grave concern at the absence of a public interest defence in the Bill. I belong to both those bodies. I can say that their concern is not with their own narrow interests but with the effect on the public's right to know what is going on. Therefore their concern should not be dismissed as special pleading. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. and his description of the motives of journalists in drawing attention to what they regard as the dangers in the Bill.
There are other matters to which we shall come in Committee which ought also to be corrected, but I am sure that if we could insert into the Bill a public interest defence we might be able more readily to acknowledge some of the Bill's merits. I refer to the useful fact that it will remove from the scope of the criminal law much that was previously and

1649
ludicrously covered by it, and to the greater clarity which it will bring to an important area. If we had a public interest defence and one or two other minor improvements it would then be a real improvement on the discredited Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. However, without a public interest defence it will be nothing of the kind.
Even if we had a public interest defence, I do not think it would be possible to wax so enthusiastically as to agree with the Home Secretary's description of the Bill as producing an earthquake in Whitehall. I suspect that Whitehall will find ways to keep confidential matters which I believe ought to be made public. Nevertheless, it is welcome that people would not be branded as criminals if they leaked utterly harmless information. The Government have made it clear that they would still be quite likely to lose their jobs, but at least they would not be liable to be thrown into gaol.
I hope that in Committee we shall give the various representations in favour of the public interest defence more impartial consideration then they were allowed in another place. There I think party discipline was strongly enforced and the Bill was not subjected to line by line scrutiny, which I think it needs. As a result, the Government were in a way able to impart a gloss on the Bill which is not present in the wording. I hope that we shall look more objectively at what the text of the Bill actually says. Despite that, a significant number of government supporters entertained serious doubts about the Bill, particularly about the absence of a public interest defence.
7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that I have been raising intermittently in this House for some time the need to replace Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Therefore noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I welcome the fact that this is now happening. I spoke in the only debate in Parliament on this matter over 10 years ago on the Second Reading in this Chamber on the last attempt to replace Section 2 by means of the Protection of Information Bill 1979, which was then withdrawn. I also accept that an administration which is prepared to grasp the nettle, as the Government are now doing, cannot avoid difficult decisions on consequential and related matters. Those decisions must be taken.
Through the publication of the Government's White Paper, my noble friends and my right honourable friends, have listened to the views expressed and have made some changes—"not enough" I am sure will be said by some of your Lordships. It is surely impossible, however, to meet everyone's views on how best to achieve the optimum balance between security and freedom.
I shall now make a few comments on the Bill. Because I have also been advocating that the secret organisations—that is, the Security Service and the intelligence organisations—should be cocooned within a separate regime, I applaud the fact that the Bill does just that. I expressed that view in the debate in my name which took place on 16th March last year and in the White Paper debate which took place on 29th July. Therefore I need not now repeat my
1650
arguments. Moreover, I asked a question during the Second Reading debate last week on the Security Service Bill about whether members of that service would now be Crown servants as the Security Service is being placed on a statutory basis. I said then that I would wait for a reply on this Bi El because it contains a definition of Crown servants for the purposes of this Bill. Today may not be the occasion for a detailed reply to my question—indeed that may happen at a later stage—but I again put down a marker.
One of the controversial issues which many noble Lords have raised today is the notion of a public interest defence. I shall only say that it does not exist at present, it has not existed and it would be something new being created. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, on this issue. There will be situations where an official is worried about possible impropriety. In my view, taking action on his own to make information public is not the best way of dealing with the matter. I can understand reluctance to take the matter up with the immediate superior, or to ask to see the permanent secretary or the head of the Civil Service. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, today confirmed that is the present approved course.
I ask the Government whether there should be an equivalent in future to the staff counsellor, who has been brought into existence for the security and intelligence services. There could perhaps be one for the Home Civil Service and another for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I put forward that suggestion because it may be a way to deal with the problems of ethics and propriety, where indeed the official may be quite wrong because he has completely misunderstood what is happening. There is also the possibility, I am afraid, that such a defence could be used simply as a pretext by an official who is determined to leak information for other reasons. Therefore I agree with the Government on the issue of a public interest defence.
I turn now to the writing of books and articles. I hope that the system of consultations beforehand, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Home, will continue where secret information is, or might be, involved. I also support the system that drafts should be sent in for vetting if such matters arise. I have seen that practice working satisfactorily when I was an official in the Foreign Office many years ago. I hope that it will continue under the Bill. Certainly it is the practice in the United States.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, pointed out that authorised disclosure is not a matter which would be an offence under the provisions of the Bill. Therefore it is important that authorisation should be sought and consent given, or qualified consent or refusal. I should like to add that the system will fail, or fall into disrepute, if there are inordinate delays. Authors and publishers will justly feel that they are being badly treated. I suggest to the Government therefore that the system must be made to work expeditiously.
There is then the question of lifelong silence. Again, anyone entering the secret organisations, as I said in previous debates, should, when he is recruited and first enters the service, fully understand that that obligation is one which he takes on. However, that

1651
does not mean that later, or after retirement, he cannot write a book or an article which touches upon his life. But if there is anything which might involve secret work, then that again must be vetted and authorised.
One hears general comments to the effect that there is little point in taking as much trouble as we do to protect secrets because the Soviet Union must already know many of them. I accept that that may be so. No doubt the KGB operates a sophisticated intelligence service like other great powers. However, I profoundly disagree with the view expressed, for the reason that there are other regimes in the world from which we should withhold information about our defences against terrorism or aggression. Of course the obvious example at the moment is that of Colonel Gaddafi, and in the recent past that of Idi Amin and General Galtieri. It would be wrong to present such people gratituously with secret information.
I welcome the fact that a vast range of information will no longer be treated as official secrets. There must still be sensitive and confidential information outside the six special categories. They are to be dealt with under the provisions in the Bill by means of disciplinary action if they are disclosed without authorisation.
My noble friend Lord Renton raised the question of the Budget and Cabinet Papers; and indeed that matter has been raised by other speakers. My understanding is that they will be covered by disciplinary action; but the disciplinary action must be such as to be severe enough to make sure that there is no temptation to do this.
In our present system of government we cannnot avoid situations in which the process of decision-making produces information or documents which are highly sensitive, though the subjects can be quite ordinary in the case of domestic matters; for example, housing, electricity or transport. Moreover, the media would be glad to know what is happening and which Ministers and departments are arguing with each other and why.
The system of Cabinet collective responsibility allows for sharp disagreement before a decision is taken. However, once taken it is supported by everyone in the Cabinet and the Government. I can recall occasions when I was an official and a Minister—indeed, I am sure other noble Lords will have similar recollections—when after considerable arguments which went on for weeks the Minister responsible for the decision has had to make an announcement, often in the other place, and some of us have known that he had been arguing in the minority in the Cabinet discussions. Had that fact been known, his authority would have been eroded. He was arguing the case, having accepted the majority decision of the Cabinet.
There is of course the other part of the system; namely, the right of resignation. If it is a matter of such importance that the Minister feels that he cannot carry on, under our system he resigns. An outstanding example of that was given by my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft in 1958. He illustrated that principle. As long as we continue with the principle of
1652
collective responsibility there will be confidential or sensitive papers and information, including advice given by civil servants, which should not be disclosed.
However far freedom of information may be extended in this country in the future, the press cannot expect to be given the role of providing blow-by-blow accounts of the process of arriving at decisions. It would stultify the system. It would make it more difficult for full and frank advice to be tendered by the Civil Service. This is not a matter merely of embarrassment for the government. I must make that clear. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, that we must ensure that, when enacted, the Bill is not used to protect the Government from embarrassment. This is part of our procedure for reaching decisions in Cabinet government. It may be a bad system and it may be changed; but while it exists we cannot avoid these situations.
The noble Lord, Lord, Ardwick as a journalist, pointed out that it is journalists who are the recipients of leaked information. I make the observation that when over the years I have recognised a leak when it appeared in the press, it was usually fairly easy to guess from where it had come—which camp—because it was slanted in favour of that camp. The press is often not being told the true picture when it receives a leak, because the object of the leak is to support one side of the argument. I suppose that the same could be said of the diaries of the late Dick Crossman which were mentioned earlier. When they were published, I was aware that several of his former colleagues rejected his version of events. Although in his case it was a matter of memory, I noted what was said earlier about fiction in that respect. I support, as I hope noble Lords will realise, the general principles of the Bill, but look forward to the discussions that will take place in the later stages.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I venture to intervene in the debate because, having listened to such interesting contributions, one or two things occur to me. It is worthwhile recalling that one of the main reasons why a new Official Secrets Act is required is that the size of government since 1911 has increased out of all proportion to what it was then. Secondly, it is increasingly recognised in the country and by Ministers that the functions of government are often greatly helped by discussions with journalists, academics and others. That realisation is one of the most encouraging developments of the past 20 years.
Thirdly, there is the fact—affecting the whole issue of the intelligence or security services—that in the past, and especially in 1911, it was thought that a clear distinction was to be drawn between times when we were at war and times when we were at peace. However, since the beginning of the cold war it has not been so easy to draw that distinction. We have not been publicly at war with the Soviet Union or Communist countries; nevertheless at times our conflict with those countries has seemed more desperate and more acute than it was on several occasions in remoter times when we were at war.

1653
Our friends and allies have different policies towards such matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, pointed out. When he referred to other great democracies having more liberal policies, he probably was not referring to those nearest to us on the Continent but primarily to the United States. That is a factor which we and the Government will presumably be considering carefully in relation to any amendments to the Bill which may be tabled. After all, the United States has a Freedom of Information Act upon which historians such as my noble friend Lord Bethell and myself have sometimes drawn, not only to understand the policies of the United States Government but also those of the British Government. That is a new dimension to public information.
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it will be worthwhile taking a great deal of trouble and spending time to make the Bill as good as it possibly can be. The Act which emerges from the Bill could last for at least another 80 years. I felt some sympathy when my noble friend Lord Bethell said that at some time, however unlikely it seems at present, this country could be faced with governments a good deal more oppressive than we have had in the past but whose oppressiveness could he tempered by a good Act at this stage.
No government I know of finds the line between information and security easy to draw. By chance, I had the pleasure this morning of taking the chair at a meeting addressed by a Soviet general. It may have been the first time, or at least the first time for many years, that a Soviet general has spoken in a Committee Room of this House. He told the audience that there was no Official Secrets Act in the Soviet Union. He decides what he will publish and what he will not publish in his, as I understand it, official life of Stalin. He told us that he believed that sooner or later there would have to be a law which would decide where the line should he drawn.
In general I support the Bill. I add my congratulations to the Government. My noble friend the Minister will have noticed how many noble Lords on the other side of the House have congratulated the Government on grasping the nettle of the Official Secrets Act. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was going rather far and being a little churlish when he referred to the Bill as in no way a liberalising measure. As my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft pointed out, vast wads of information are now likely to be free of the risk of prosecution.
Confidence within a great deal of domestic government will be more easily preserved because in future that confidence will be protected by a sense of loyalty rather than by the criminal law. That surely reminds us that the smaller the organisation the easier it is to insist upon confidence. If governments wish to have their secrets protected, the best solution is to cut the size of government.
In respect of intelligence and security (which, I suppose it is true to say, have inspired the Government to have a new Official Secrets Act) a draconian policy is surely desirable while existing threats survive. All the same, my noble friend Lord Bethell asked some uncomfortable questions. I look
1654
forward with great interest to seeing his amendments, as would any historian.
Sooner or later, the post-1939 security and intelligence papers will cease to be matters of great moment just as the security and intelligence matters of World War Two are open to discussion as a result of decisions already taken. Some might also believe that anything which Philby exposed and passed on to the Soviet Union might even now be inquired into by responsible historians. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, that international relations and organisations are more complicated than perhaps the Government understand. After all the media plainly will continue to want to speculate on many affairs relating to international subjects and will want to get their facts right. It is difficult to comment effectively unless those facts that have been discussed are known. So the public interest defence, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, could play more of a part than might have been totally recognised on this side of the House.
This is particulary important since, just as the distinction between war and peace is less clearly drawn in the late 20th century, so is there a less obvious distinction between domestic and international policies. The whole aim of the European Community, for example, is presumably to end that distinction by means of European union. Yet the European Community is by most definitions an international organisation as defined by Clause 13 of the Bill.
However, when you say that, you suddenly realise that it is an international organisation of a different type to the United Nations or other international organisations since it has a parliament to which we send members from this country and whose law affects us. Therefore, perhaps it is not an international organisation after all. There are similar ambiguities which suggest the possibility of ways in which the Bill might be able to be improved by amendment. Those will surely be considered sympathetically by the Government.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, this has been a long debate of a somewhat discursive nature, and I shall make my remarks as brief as possible and try to avoid repeating what has already been said more than once on many occasions. However, I find that the course of the debate has reflected a difference of opinion which has emerged on several occasions in the last few months between two attitudes towards freedom and liberty in general.
There is the view held on one side—the view expressed in the first amendment to the American Constitution, and also in the European Convention on Human Rights—that freedom of speech and liberty are fundamental rights. There is the alternative view, which is really the British view, that liberty is what is left behind by common law and statute. Therefore it is a residual right rather than a fundamental right. This seems to have shown itself in this debate as it did in earlier ones.
It is that difference of attitude that has led this country to find itself before the European Court on

1655
certain occasions, and this particular Bill, if it becomes law, will lead to a repetition of that position. As to whether or not Irangate could have occurred had this Bill been law in the United States at the time, I do not think there is much doubt that it could not. Therefore we have to consider whether such iniquities as Irangate could occur in this country, and if they could occur what means have we to prevent them, or to reveal them when they have occurred.
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, is correct in saying that those people in the Civil Service who gave Mr. Churchill information before the war were breaking the law. The reason why they were not prosecuted was in point of fact because that particular Act had lost credibility and people were reluctant to use it, particularly in the case of a man of the distinction of Mr. Churchill.
That is why some of us have slight reservations about the presence of the new Bill before us which may be a more effective measure not so much for keeping secrets as for preventing truth coming out. The Bill before the House is extremely important, and it has constitutional implications for which we have particular responsibilities.
In any democracy it is essential that certain information should be kept secret, but it is equally true that it is just as important in a democracy that there should be a free flow of reliable information. That is the balancing factor. You have your secrecy, but you must have your free flow of reliable information. That is why some of us would have been happier if the new Official Secrets Bill had been accompanied by the promise of some legislation that would have assured freedom of information to the citizens of this country.
The debate today seems to me to be a prelude and an introduction to the Committee stage that will come along in a few weeks' time. On this occasion and as regards this Bill the Committee stage is of particular importance. I take that view because, first, in another place this Bill of constitutional importance was guillotined, much to the discomfiture and displeasure of many of the supporters of Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, of the 16 clauses eight were simply not discussed. There is therefore a heavy responsibility on this House that we discuss them, and discuss them carefully, and that we have time to discuss them carefully.
If we believed all that the Home Secretary claims for this Bill I must confess that we would be looking forward, I suppose with apprehension, to an earthquake in Whitehall and to a Niagara of information that would be made available to the people of this country. All the noble ex-permanent secretaries who are sitting on the Cross-Benches and who have made such notable contributions to our debate today would be trembling at the prospect of the secrets of their lifetimes being torn from their bosoms. That would be attributed to the revolutionary and radical measure that Mr. Hurd has introduced. Somehow I do not feel that that is exactly the climate of this debate. I do not expect the walls of Whitehall secrecy to come tumbling down when, and if, this Bill is passed. But what we should do at this
1656
point is look briefly at the balance sheet of liberty before and after the Bill is passed.
It is true, as several noble Lords have said—and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Renton—that the Bill formally releases large areas of information which had previously been within the scope of the Official Secrets Act 1911 but which, when this law is passed, will be outwith the law. Leaks or information concerning education, pensions, the Budget and water privatisation, which were previously within the ambit of the law, will no longer be within the ambit of the law. That is the chief achievement, so far as I can see, of the Home Secretary's measure.
However, it seems to me to be a largely theoretical achievement. When was the last journalist prosecuted under the Act of 1911 for leaking information of the kind that I have just mentioned? The answer is, I think, never. The earthquake that the Home Secretary spoke of, which was to shake the foundations of Whitehall, is largely a figure of speech. In practice, when the Bill becomes law, The Times education correspondent will not feel that a great load of anxiety has been lifted off his shoulders.
In these large areas the writ of the Act of 1911 never ran. Even in those parts covering security and defence, after Ponting a prosecution was a risky and unpredictable business. So it could be argued that this country found itself without an Official Secrets Act, and hence the necessity of the one that we have before us, which I would argue is in some respects wider in its scope and more easily enforced than the one that it succeeds.
My noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington has dealt effectively and fully with the very important question of what the harm test means. This is the crux and the crucial test by which the prosecutions will be decided. There are the consequences of removing the word "serious" before "injury" in the Franks definition. What we are now left with is "damage" or "jeopardy", which are much weaker and vaguer than "serious damage to the national interest", which Franks preferred. The word "serious" has now been dropped and "harm- now means that any jeopardy or damage, however minor can be an offence.
The significance of dropping the word "serious" can be put in another way. Franks' "serious injury" corresponds roughly to the classification in government documents of "secret"; "harm" or "damage" corresponds to "confidential". Where there is one secret document, there are probably 50 or 100 confidential documents. Thus the effect of dropping the word "serious" is vastly to increase the area covered by the legislation. That is an important point that has not been brought out clearly. Dropping "serious" is something that has happened since the 1979 legislation, as far as I can understand.
Furthermore, it is in my view disingenuous and misleading for Ministers to say that the Bill will only penalise disclosures that, in the Home Secretary's words,
"cause serious harm to the public interest".
I regard that as a disingenuous explanation of what the Bill sets out to do. The words "public interest" do not appear in the Bill, and the Government have rejected every single attempt to introduce by

1657
amendment the word "serious". Therefore, let us not take that definition as meaning what it appears to mean.
That is just one example that I offer your Lordships of the need to examine the Bill in Committee with the utmost care over and beyond the major issues that have been discussed tonight, such as public interest as a defence, about which I do not propose to say anything further; lifelong confidentiality, about which I do not propose to say anything further, except to assent most heartily to the dictum of Mr. Justice Scott that this type of iron curtain is unachievable; and prior publication, except that I think that it raises rather difficult and complicated issues. It was not in the 1979 legislation. It is presumably in response to terrorism. One can see that it is perfectly true that information published in a highly technical journal which might be picked up by, let us say, the USSR would not necessarily be picked up by a small terrorist unit, whether the IRA, Abu Nidal, or anyone else, and that information might be significant and important to them. It is therefore an exceptional case, and has to be looked at seriously.
The trouble is that the blanket proposal as set out in the Bill produces the ludicrous Spycatcher situations that simply bring the Government, the country and the law into total disrespect. I wonder whether this is not a case that we should try to deal with not by means of the law but by means of some arrangement such as the D notice whereby special cases have special answers of an administrative rather than a legal kind.
As I have said, the Bill deserves the closest scrutiny in Committee in matters both great and small. The great issues have been aired pretty thoroughly; the smaller, because of the guillotine, have been touched hardly at all. For example, I would point out that the definition of the basic offence of "disclose" is set forth in Clause 13(1), which has not been looked at; the definitions of Crown servant, of proscribed persons and who it is proposed to proscribe are in Clause 12(1). In Schedule 2 it emerges that a section in the 1920 Act making it an offence,
"to have possession of any official document issued for his use alone"
has not been repealed. The new offences that the Bill introduces have not been examined or discussed.
Much has been left to be done in this House by another place. I only hope that the Government will regard the amendments that we have put with a slightly more open and flexible attitude than they regarded the amendments put in another place where out of the total only one word was changed. I think that the way in which they treat the amendments will be a measure of the respect in which they hold this House.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we have discussed issues of great importance in the spheres of public policy involving, as the debate has so graphically shown, on the one hand the safety of the realm and on the other the right of the individual citizen and of Parliament to the utmost information available
1658
compatible with that safety. If I may say so, I thought that that latter category was somewhat caricatured in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow. However, that is by the way.
There have been powerful speeches from great experts—Cabinet Ministers, distinguished civil servants, eminent journalists and historians. In the course of the debate we have had powerful critical speeches from a number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, Lord Hatch of Lusby, Lord Ardwick, Lord Hemingforcl and Lord Bonham-Carter. Some searching questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. We shall clearly have an exciting Committee stage. I agree with all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, as to the importance of the Committee stage and subsequently, and the importance, if I may give advance notice now, of enough time being made available by the Government for full discussion of these serious matters.
Apart from the Opposition speeches that I have mentioned, there was the half-way house speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft—I hope that he will not mind my so describing it—calling for a balance between the extremes expressed in the debate. We look forward to hearing him, with his customary vigour and cheerfulness, enlightening our debates in due course.
The range covered in the debate was very wide. It was, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who spoke of memoirs. My own experience of memoirs and secrecy is a curious one. I submitted my autobiography to the Secretary of the Cabinet for his examination. He returned it to me and said, "I am afraid that we must insist on one omission". I asked, "What is that?" He replied, "You have set out in full the Privy Counsellor's oath". It was of course the oath created by Queen Elizabeth I. Apparently it is still a breach of secrecy and security to publish the Privy Counsellor's Oath. I felt somewhat relieved that that was the only omission insisted upon.
The debate has given rise to major criticisms of the content of the Bill. While, of course, we commend the decision to get rid of the intolerable provisions of the 1911 Act, which my noble friend Lord Mishcon demolished so powerfully and which has been a matter of ridicule over the years, the major criticism, as I followed the debate,was directed to omissions in the Bill. The criticism was directed to the omission of a public interest defence. In my submission., there can be little doubt that from time to time the public interest is, and can be, best served by a breach of official secrecy.
Then there was the failure of the Bill to provide that prior publication should be accepted as a reasonable defence in law. The Spycatcher case brought the Government, if I may say so, into some ridicule principally because they did not take proper account of the effect of prior publication. I hope that lesson has been learnt.
The further matter which has given rise to concern is the absence of a test of harm requirement, whenever a criminal offence is to be created. Many

1659
are created by this Bill. Neither secrecy nor justice is well served by the proposed creation in the Bill of several absolute offences. There should be evidence in each case that the national interest has been damaged by unauthorised disclosure of official information. As we have been told more than once in the debate, the test of harm should be the Franks Committee formulation of serious injury to the security of the nation or the safety of the people.
Clause 1, which was queried by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and castigated with his customary vigour by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, is the most blatant example of the creation of automatic absolute offences; namely disclosures by:
"(i) "A person who is or has been—;
(a) a member of the security and intelligence services".
The matter complained of is to be found in Clause 1(1)(a), and also in Clause 1(1)(b). Clause 1(1)(b) concerns:
"(b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection".
In these provisions, the prosecution in a given case would not have to prove any harm or damage to the national interest in order to secure a conviction. The fact of disclosure by the civil servant would of itself suffice, if the disclosure came from a civil servant who is or has been:
"(a) a member of the security and intelligence services; or
(b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection".
Any disclosure by such a civil servant, or persons from a wider context than that, is an absolute offence with no requirement of proving any damage to the public interest at all.
Then again under Clause 4(3)(a) of the Bill, it is an absolute offence to pass on unauthorised disclosures with regard to interceptions—telephone tapping— made under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. Information regarding warrants issued under the security service legislation falls in the same category. Again, no evidence of harm need be established to obtain a conviction. In our submission, those provisions are wholly unacceptable as they stand. We shall endeavour to remedy the matter in Committee.
The unauthorised disclosures on defence matters in Clause 2 are not absolute offences. But the provision that disclosure prejudices, or is likely to prejudice, the capability of the armed forces to carry out their task, in our submission is far too indefinite to constitute the basis of a criminal offence.
While again unauthorised disclosures in the field of international relations are not absolute offences, the prosecution under Clause 3(2)(a) must prove that the disclosure:
"jeopardises the interests of the United Kingdom abroad".
That is the language used in the Bill. Similar language is used in Clause 3(1)(b) with regard to disclosure of confidential information which is received from other states or international organisations.
In my submission, the concept of jeopardy is not a useful guide either to juries or to journalists. We shall
1660
have to deal with that. It is more than a Committee point. It goes to the substance of the creation of new areas of offences which can greatly disturb and interfere with the liberty of journalists, and indeed that of civil servants for that matter.
The test applied in Clause 3(3)(b) concerns whether the disclosure described is "likely" to jeopardise United Kingdom interests. In my submission those words are not easily quantifiable as the foundation of criminal offences.
As the House has been told in the course of this debate, the Franks Committee proposed a far more rigorous definition of the harm test; namely, that the disclosure would result in serious injury to the interests of the nation. Indeed, the report of that committee recommended that information classified below that level should not be covered by official secrets legislation or criminal sanctions. Under the terms of the Bill, anything remotely related to security, no matter how trivial, could be covered.
We have had discussions of an impressive character relating to the absence of any public interest defence in the provisions of the Bill. In my submission, the consequence of that will be that if the Bill is implemented in its present form, it will provide dangerous possibilities of information regarding misuse of governmental power being suppressed by the risk of criminal prosecution if that information is disclosed.
As my noble friend Lord Mishcon pointed out, the defence of public interest is well established and long established in the civil law of confidence. In the Spycatcher case the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, described the defence clearly when he said:
"In a free society there is a continuing public interest that the working of government should be open to scrutiny and criticism".
Earlier in the same case the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, the Master of the Rolls, said:
"The press has a legitimate role in disclosing scandals in government. An open democratic society requires that that be so … The ability of the press freely to report allegations of scandal in government is one of the bulwarks of our democratic society".
The public interest defence is what will enable crime, abuse of power and scandal, to be exposed. Without it, in our submission, important areas of public administration will be beyond, and remain beyond, the power of Parliament and of the press. When we come to Committee stage we shall pursue the matter. We prefer the formulae which it is said by the Government at this stage are not satisfactory in order to introduce that element into the Bill.
When I began my observations I stressed the need for a balance between, on the one hand, protecting the safety of the realm and, on the other hand, asserting and establishing the right of our citizens and Parliament to the utmost information available compatible with that safety. In our submission that balance has not been achieved by the Bill as it now stands. It is up to noble Lords in this House to redress the balance. I believe that the public looks to us and expects us to do so. It is a critical time in the history of your Lordships' House in view of the wholly inadequate treatment of the Bill in another place, in

1661
the terms indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. This could be one of the finest hours for this distinguished House if we do our duty on the lines that I have ventured to suggest.
7.50 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in expressing my appreciation of a most interesting debate. This Bill, for the first time in 80 years, considerably narrows the scope of the criminal law relating to disclosure of official secrets and leaves decisions to be made by a jury. Like some other noble Lords, I think that at the end of this debate I ought to consider whether the principles on which the Bill is founded are right and whether the structure is sound.
I should like to refer to the areas where I believe there is general—if not total—agreement, because it will be important when we come to scrutinise the detail to hold fast to the central propositions.
First, I would contend that we have recognised that the criminal law has a role to play in the protection of this country's necessary secrets, a role which must go beyond the espionage-related provisions in Section 1 of the Act of 1911. Secondly, stemming from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I think all your Lordships have agreed that Section 2 will no longer do. We must have something effective, but more narrowly targeted, to take its place. Thirdly, I believe the House recognises—and certainly the intervention of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton emphasised the point—that now is the time to make that reform. We cannot prevaricate any further. It is not fair that the present unsatisfactory state of the criminal law in this field should continue any longer.
Fourthly, my noble friends Lord Home and Lord Thorneycroft, together with other noble Lords, welcomed the fact that the Bill will define the limited areas of official information to which the criminal law on official secrets should apply. Fifthly, I think that the House has welcomed, with just a slight reservation on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, the Government's decision to abandon the idea of ministerial certificates and to leave the decisions established in the legislation to the jury. It follows that it is necessary to establish harm tests, and a great deal of the debate has centred around that point. The Bill does so on an individual basis for a great majority of the circumstances that are covered.
I would also claim that the House has welcomed—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, made the point in the debate on the White Paper last July—that decisions about prosecutions should, with the recognised exception of the crime category, be made by the Attorney-General. His role in such matters and his independence from government in exercising that role are better understood by many of your Lordships than possibly by myself.
Finally, I would contend that a welcome has been given to the fact that, unlike Section 2, the Bill does not penalise someone who had no reason to know
1662
what it was that he or she was disclosing. That being said, I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, if I understood him aright, say that comparing it with this Bill the blunt instrument of Section 2 of the 1911 Act might just as well have remained in place. I believe there are plenty of people who would not go along with the noble Lord in that contention. After all, if Parliament agrees this Bill vast areas of official information will no longer be covered by the law on official secrets because the present wide offences of disclosure under Section 2 will be removed.
The noble Lord told us that he was not able to secure support for his proposals when in government. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been able to go even further than the Franks recommendations. The Bill contains no proposals for ministerial certificates; only six areas of official information remain eligible for protection under the Bill; tests of harm are provided; and all decisions are left to the jury. It is in that context that I was particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft for emphasising that in his view we have got the basic structure right.
I should now like to take another step and consider whether other proposals raised in this debate to add to that structure or to change it are necessary in themselves and whether they would provide for a better or worse piece of legislation. I am confident that the House will want to test the various proposals that we shall be discussing in the later stages of the Bill against that yardstick.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, suggested that we ought to have what one might call the Franks formula in place of the tests of harm in the Bill, a formula of serious injury to the interest of the nation, or a general test of serious damage. Other noble Lords have spoken along the same lines. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred to the issue in his speech.
However, I ask your Lordships to consider whether it would be reasonable to expect a jury to operate such general and unspecified tests of harm without further guidance. The members of the Franks Committee did not think so. Their solution was to have a ministerial certificate to accompany the test. We do not think so. Our solution is to have much more specific tests of harm related to the nature of the information which requires protection. In those few circumstances where we believe all unauthorised disclosures are harmful we say so. Everywhere else the Bill provides individual tests of harm. I like to think that those tests are right for each category and set to the right level to ensure the protection which the nation needs. However, I know that we shall be returning to these matters in the later stages of the Bill.
A matter which occupies almost every speech was whether or not there should be what is called a public interest defence. Many of my noble friends, led by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, were quite clear in their view that that was not right. In a closely argued speech the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, referred to the disastrous effect which he felt such a defence could have upon relations between Ministers and the Civil Service.

1663
As I understood the noble Lord, he said that it could create an expectation that public servants and others should disclose information of the greatest sensitivity if in their personal judgment, the information indicated behaviour or a threat which concerned them. The noble Lord drew attention, as did other speakers and I now do, to the fact that under such a test it would be for the person concerned to decide whether or not to accept assurances he had been given about his concerns and then to make his own judgment. Once that person had made the decision to disclose, nothing could prevent the harm his act would cause. Whatever the courts decided, the damage would be done.
I really cannot believe that that is a sensible way in which to expect our public service to operate. I am strengthened in that belief having listened to the closely argued speech of the noble Lord on the Cross Benches. With respect, nor do I think it necessary, for reasons that were deployed this afternoon about the various safeguards for people in the public service. I believe that a public interest defence would do untold damage to the public interest and that in practice it would be impossible to operate objectively and clearly the law on official secrets with such a general defence cancelling out all the other carefully structured provisions in the Bill.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, raised seven past cases and asked how the Bill would affect them. My answer to him must be very simple: the decision to bring any prosecutions in the circumstances that he briefly mentioned in his seven cases would, under this Bill, be made by the Attorney-General acting independently of government and in any case brought the jury would decide and there would be no ministerial certificate.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will make that point quite clear. If those cases came under the absolute prohibition of revelations, would it not be the jury that would decide? The judge would instruct the jury what to decide as distinct from the way in which matters were conducted in the Panting case when the jury came to a decision despite the judge's summing up. In those cases of absolute prohibition, must not the judge direct the jury to convict?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I very much doubt whether the noble Lord is right is saying that. Certainly, I shall not be so imprudent as to comment on his question. There are two cases in which there is a no harm test. If he is referring to the one involving members of the intelligence and security services, I should point out that I shall come to that case in a moment. However, I should like the noble Lord to look at Clause 1(5) in order to see the reference made in my speech; namely, that it is a welcome point in the Bill that someone who had no reason to know what it was that either he or she disclosed should not be penalised.
Perhaps I may also say very briefly that the Government are not persuaded by the arguments that have been advanced for prior publication defence. It is for those who advocate such a complete
1664
defence to prove beyond doubt that in no circumstances can a disclosure of information that has been published somewhere in the world ever cause the harm from which this Bill seeks to protect us. I do not believe that that can be done or that it is safe or necessary to proceed on such an unlikely assumption. We believe that a further disclosure is bound to result in further harm only in the narrow circumstances that we have described in the Bill. In all other cases, we believe that it depends on the circumstances, and that is a matter for the jury.
A prior publication defence takes all such matters out of the hands of a jury and in many cases it will be impossible to prove that a further disclosure of the same information caused additional harm or that the person making the disclosure had reasonable cause to know that it would. However, with the necessary exceptions that I have described, all that is already provided for in the Bill. A separate defence of prior publication is not needed to achieve all that.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the security and intelligence services, to which both my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred. We believe that those services are in a special position. We have marked in the Bill what seem to us very significant differences by providing a separate offence for members and former members of the services and certain of those who work for them. I take absolutely head-on the fact that the Government do not agree with the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, in his speech.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, said, we shall not cause some great hardship as a result of the Bill. We shall not impose a new vow of silence on the intelligence and security services. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy always emphasises when he speaks on this subject, people know when they join that they are entering services that depend for their effectiveness on secrecy. They know that they cannot talk freely about their work. They also know that their own effectiveness and, in some circumstances, their own safety depend on the willingness of their colleagues to respect the trust that is placed in them. That is why we conclude that a breach of trust in that area is inevitaby harmful.
Since the publication of last year's White Paper, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has responded to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, in the White Paper debate in this House by providing a test of harm in the Bill for the disclosure of foreign confidences. I believe there was some suggestion in another place that the test could be avoided, but that is not so. It is important to note in this context that tests of harm make it clear that we protect the information provided to us by other countries, not in the interests of those countries but solely in the interests of this country.
My noble friend Lord Home said this afternoon that the price of leaking official information can be exceptionally high; how strongly the Government agree with that! International relations depend crucially on trust between nations. Actions that lead other countries to believe that we do not respect that trust threaten our interests abroad. That is what we seek to protect in the harm test in Clause 3 of the Bill.

1665
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, will forgive me, although he said that it was perhaps a substantive matter for this afternoon's debate, I believe that the interpretation of the word "jeopardy" is something to which we should return at the Committee stage of the Bill.
Several noble Lords have put questions to me, and in the time available perhaps I may try to reply. The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, raised the question of the letter from the chairman of the British International Studies Association which appeared in The Times newspaper about exchanges between officials and researchers involved with international relations. I assure the noble Lord that the Government believe that there is nothing in the Bill which requires any change in arrangements for briefing researchers or academics on international relations matters.
Such matters appear to have been dealt with satisfactorily under Section 2 and the new Bill is much narrower than that provision. The Bill seeks to penalise only unauthorised disclosures, and those officials who brief researchers and others in accordance with their official duties would not make unlawful disclosures and so would commit no offence under the Bill.
However, the noble Lord went on to ask about officials and former officials who wish or are asked co contribute to policy discussions. Again, the Government do not believe that the Bill prevents former Crown servants from taking part in discussions on public policy or current events. They will he free to comment on such matters as they wish with the full weight of their experience, but, as I am sure that no one would wish them to do, such people cannot make unauthorised disclosures of information obtained when they were serving Crown servants which they know to be damaging to the concerns protected by the legislation. I know that noble Lords in that position will have no difficulty in recognising the importance of that point or of making a full contribution to public debate in the light of it. As regards what is said in this House-a subject about which my noble friend Lord Blake asked me we all understand the operation of parliamentary privilege and that privilege does not change.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, drew attention to the importance of maintaining the confidences entrusted to the Inland Revenue. I am happy to confirm that the Government intend to include a provision in the Finance Bill to ensure that such confidences continue to be protected by the criminal law when this Bill repeals Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
My noble friend Lord Renton raised a point in that context. He was quite right to say that the Bill would not apply to the disclosure of Budget proposals or Cabinet documents that do not relate to matters in the six categories to which the Bill applies, but that does not mean that they will be unprotected. As my noble friend Lord Bethell said, while my noble friend Lord Renton was temporarily out of the Chamber, disciplinary proceedings can still be brought against civil servants who do not keep such matters
1666
confidential. What is happening is that the sanction of the criminal law will no longer apply.
My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel raised the question which I know has attracted the attention of many of your Lordships this afternoon about writing and hooks written by Crown servants and former Crown servants. My answer to my noble friend is that Crown servants, or more likely former Crown servants, may seek authorisation to make disclosures relating to their work.
I should just make clear on this matter with regard to the position of the members and former members of the security and intelligence services that if a former member of one of those services finds that he or she wishes to make disclosures subsequently relating to his or her work, then the person concerned must not do so unless he or she receives authorisation from the former service to do so. In practice, cases where it has been possible to give authorisation in the past for the publication of accounts of the operations of the security or intelligence services have been few.
My noble friend referred to the book of Sir John Masterman. Similarly such authorisations will in future be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances. We believe that this is right if the nation's secrets are to remain properly protected. I hope that I have given the answer which my noble friend was seeking which was that the same avenues will remain open as have existed before.
The noble Lords, Lord Ardwick and Lord Hemingford, both spoke about the position of journalists. Perhaps I may briefly say that the present law, as we all know, makes any unauthorised disclosure of any official information a criminal offence. Journalists who publish such information will do so presumably in the hope that they will not be prosecuted. I do not see that there is much comfort to the honest journalist in that and it only brings the law into disrepute.
As for international relations, we are not extending the law, we are narrowing it by introducing harm tests. I should be enormously surprised if journalists were to think that in some way they ought to make unauthorised disclosures of official information which they know will put or are likely to put in danger this country's interests abroad or which endanger the safety of British citizens abroad. Those are the tests under the Bill. Once again, I realise that these are matters to which noble Lords will probably wish to return. I thought that I would say that this evening before we leave the Bill. Perhaps may say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that under the Bill members of the security and intelligence services are Crown servants.
I hope your Lordships will agree that the Bill is a significant measure. In contrast to Section 2 of the present Act, it carefully targets the areas and identifies the circumstances where the protection of the criminal law continues to be required. It identifies what needs to be proved, provides defences relevant to the offences created and leaves decisions to the jury. It promises a more effective and soundly based law on official secrets than this country has ever had before. Perhaps most important of all, it will ensure

1667
that those secrets which need to be kept are kept effectively. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1989
8.14 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this order, perhaps I might at the same time speak to the other draft orders on the Order Paper: the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1989, and the Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1989 which were also laid before your Lordships' House on 17th and 30th January.
The draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1989 has been laid under Section 148 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. This legislation requires the Secretary of State for Employment to review in each calendar year the upper limit on the amount of a week's pay. Once this limit has been decided payments and awards under the employment protection legislation can then be calculated. The awards concerned are: redundancy payments, the basic and additional awards for unfair dismissal and debts that can be paid under the insolvency provisions of the 1978 Act.
The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to review the limit on the amount of guarantee pay due to an employee in respect of any day on short time or temporary lay-off, and the duration of such payments.
In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must consider first, the general level of earnings in Great Britain at the time of the review; then the national economic situation as a whole, and any other matters he may consider relevant. Although there is no statutory obligation on the Government to consult about these limits it has been our practice to do so. Again this time we have consulted widely.
In general employers opposed any increase at all on the grounds of the extra costs imposed on industry. However, if there were to be an increase they suggested that it should be modest and no higher than the rate of inflation at the time of the review. Employee organisations, on the other hand, were in favour of rises at least in line with the rate of increase in average earnings.
Taking these various points into account we propose to increase the ceiling by roughly 5 per cent. This means that the ceiling on the amount of a week's pay will move from £164 to £172 and the limit on the daily amount of guarantee pay from £11.30 to £11.85. As I have already said, the Secretary of State has to review the limits on the duration of guarantee pay. Guarantee pay is awarded to employees in certain circumstances when they are not given work throughout a particular day although still required to work under their contract of employment. Payments
1668
can be made for up to five days in any three month period. None of the organisations consulted saw a need to change the limits.
I now turn to the second draft order. This is the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1989 which has been laid before the House in accordance with the 1978 Act. It revokes the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation) Order 1986 and it raises the limit to £8,925-which is an improvement of 5 per cent. This limit is not subject to annual review but may be altered from time to time. It was last raised in April 1987 and we thought it right that it should go up again this year.
The compensatory award addresses the employee's loss suffered as a result of unfair dismissal, including his loss of earnings from the dismissal to the date of the tribunal hearing, future loss of earnings, loss of benefits, such as pension and other entitlements. The limit also applies to compensation payable now and again involving unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a trade union. The proposed increase is in line with those proposed for the limits covered by the first draft order.
I come finally to the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1989 which has been laid before the House in accordance with Sections 73(4B) and 75(7) of the 1978 Act. This order affects the limits on compensation in cases involving dismissal for trade union membership or trade union activities and affects the limits on compensation in cases of non-membership of a union; the awards were introduced by the Employment Act 1982. These special provisions were introduced in order to protect the individual's right to choose whether or not to join a union. The limits are not subject to annual review, but may be updated from time to time.
We have decided that the limits on these awards should be increased by a percentage similar to the limits on the other awards. Therefore the minimum basic award will go up from £2,400 to £2, 520 and the limits which apply to the calculation of the special award will be increased from £11,950, £23,850 and £17,900 to £12,550, £25,040 and £18,795 respectively. I commend these orders to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, that the order laid before the House on 17th January be approved. [6th Report from the Joint Committee]-(The Earl of Dundee).
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining in such detail the upratings and the reasons for them. We do not offer opposition to the orders; but, on the other hand, I should like to take the opportunity of making a few remarks. I have referred to Section 148 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. As the Minister has said, it would be possible for the Minister to have been rather more generous in the uprating than he has been because the general level of earnings in Great Britain at the time of the review was substantially more than the 5 per cent. which is now proposed in the order. The Minister is also entitled to take into consideration the national economic

1669
situation as a whole. We are repeatedly told in this House (and this often leads to some discussion) that the economic situation in the country is improving and has improved substantially over the past year. For that reason it would have been possible to have been rather more generous in the upratings.
The Minister is also entitled to take account of other matters, and it is interesting to. note that employee organisations believe that the upratings should run in line with the general level of earnings rather than simply at the 5 per cent. which I suppose was the rate of inflation at the time of the review. As we now know, the rate of inflation is substantially more than 5 per cent., and is likely to be 7 per cent. within the next few weeks or so.
The other point I should like to make in connection with the issue of limits is why there have to be limits. I know that that is provided for in the 1978 legislation introduced by the last Labour Government. All that is true, of course; but, on the other hand, it was the first time we had had legislation of that kind. At some time in the future we ought to be considering whether it is not something which could be left to the tribunal to assess in the light of each case which comes before it.
Although this is provided for in legislation, I should like to mention the substantially larger amount of compensation that can be obtained by way of special award in connection with actions regarding trade union membership. This amount is substantially more than the limit available if an employee successfully sues an employer for unfair dismissal. It seems that there is no real reason to allow a substantially larger amount in those circumstances than in circumstances where an employee sues an employer. With those few remarks, I offer no objection to the orders and they are supported from this side.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I shall be brief and join in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for the clear way in which he has explained the orders. They provide, as he said, for increases in compensation for unfair dismissal and in redundancy payments under the Employment Protection Act 1978 of about 5 per cent. in every case. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has said, this is less than the current increase in the rate of inflation and much less than the average national increase in earnings. Like the noble Baroness, I think the Government might have been rather more generous in their conclusions than they have been to the employees concerned.
As I understand the position, things will get a little worse; for although this is not the moment to debate it-we shall have the opportunity when the Employment Bill currently going through another place comes to this House-under that Bill it is proposed that redundancy rebates to employers having fewer than 10 employees will no longer apply. That surely can only serve to damage small businesses. I feel I should take this opportunity to give notice that my noble friends and I are likely to oppose the relevant clause (I believe it is Clause 13 of this year's Employment Bill) when the time comes for us to discuss it.
1670
Subject to those somewhat stringent qualifications, we on these Benches are prepared to accept the Motions that are before us.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for their comments and their welcome to these orders. The noble Baroness questioned the advisability of having limits at all. It is not the Government's intention that there should be a statutory right to unlimited redundancy payments or unfair dismissal awards regardless of earnings. Employers have a right to expect some protection against astronomical claims and to remove the limits would make employers more reluctant to recruit, and that would reduce the number of jobs available.
The noble Baroness suggested that if there are to be increases why not make them in line with average earnings? The increases are a fair compromise having regard to the needs of employers and employees. We must avoid adding unnecessarily to the burdens on business and guard against taking any action which might lead to the recruitment difficulties that I have just mentioned. I accept the comments of the noble Baroness that economic indicators should always be born in mind. and to that extent a case can be made out for aligning to them. However, in context it is surely preferable to strike the kind of balance which I have just described.
The noble Baroness also touched on the aspect of the orders which gives higher awards when it is a case of dismissal for union or non-union affiliation. As the noble Baroness will recall only too well from last year's legislation, we laid great stress on this and wished to provide that there would be an added deterrent against dismissal for these reasons. I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord again for their welcome.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1989
8.25 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee].-(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1989
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee].-(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved. [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this draft order is to increase the limit on the expenses of a candidate at a local election in Northern Ireland from £135 plus 2.8 pence per elector to a new limit of £162 plus 3.2 pence per elector. The present limit was set just before the last local elections in 1985.
The Government believe that it is only reasonable to increase the permitted maximum before this year's elections on 17th May. They do so broadly to take account of changes in the retail prices index and at the same time to bring the limits into line with those which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has proposed for candidates at local elections in Great Britain.
The main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland were consulted about the proposed increases and all those which responded to our invitation to comment supported the proposal. The order before the House is simple, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved. [10th Report from the Joint Committee.]-(Lord Lyell)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House fully support what the Minister has said. Enabling political parties to finance their campaigns in a sensible manner clearly aids democracy. We wish the order well.
I should like to put a few questions to the Minister. The increase from £135 to £162 is 20 per cent. Has that figure been rounded up or down? The Minister said that it was broadly in line with the rise in inflation. Are we to understand that at every election-in other words, every four years there will be an uplift?
Have any representations been received from political parties indicating that the uplift is needed? The money must be found by the political parties. In order to keep within the bounds of propriety we are merely laying down limits beyond which a sensible campaign should not be fought.
Can the Minister say how the figures compare with those in the rest of the UK? I am ignorant of the extent to which there is a need, although on many occasions I have fought local and national elections in this country and I know that most candidates spend up to the limit. Does the Minister have any statistics showing the extent to which the old limits were needed? How do the figures compare with the amount of money needed to fight elections in Northern Ireland?
I realise that the Minister may be unable to answer those questions tonight. We agree with the sense of what he has done and we shall not oppose the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham. We know of the great interest he takes in Northern Ireland affairs and after his continual work earlier in the week we salute him for that interest.
The figures I have announced will bring into line the amounts permitted to be spent by candidates in Northern Ireland with the figures elsewhere in the United Kingdom. When those of us who work in Northern Ireland refer to "Great Britain" we refer to England, Scotland and Wales. The figure of £162 plus 3.2 pence tallies with what will exist as a uniform rate throughout the United Kingdom.
We have received no representations from the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland with whom we communicated as regards an uplift in the rates. However, we believe it is reasonable that candidiates in Northern Ireland should have the same limit on their expenses as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I understand that the limits of the United Kingdom come before your Lordships' House more frequently than those that I have announced today. At the outset I mentioned that the figures were last set at the local general elections, as they are known in Northern Ireland, when all the councils were re-elected. That was in May 1985. We believe that the figures represent the permitted limits for the elections which will take place throughout Northern Ireland on 17th May this year.
If I receive any further information, or if I have failed to answer any question which the noble Lord asked, I shall write to him briefly and succinctly. I am grateful for his interest, and 1 beg to move.
On Question, Motion agree to.

The Veterinary Profession
8.35 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy rose to ask Her Majesty' Government what action they propose to take to protect the training of veterinary practitioners in the United Kingdom and to promote British veterinary practices in Europe.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on becoming a Government Whip. I know that the responsibilities and duties of a Whip do not make him a particulary popular person. However, tonight he has wonderful opportunity to reverse that charge by seeing the sense of the proposal from this and all sides of the House in respect of one of Britain's oldest and greatest professions.
The quintessential part of my submission is the need to protect the training of veterinary practitioners in the United Kingdom and to promote British veterinary practices in Europe. Alas, the ideal is under threat because of so-called rationalisation. That is a posh word which really means "destruction".
The veterinary work of mankind is of great antiquity. The cure of animals was attempted in the oldest civilisations and the role of British vets in the British Isles since the 14th century has been highly commendable. They were then known as "marshalls". They were the most renowned in the

1673
UK and in Europe with their outstanding history which prevails today.
In 1792 the Royal Veterinary College was created. That was followed in 1823 by the Dick Vet College in Edinburgh. Both granted certificates of competence to practise the veterinary arts. Their value has been inestimable in providing preventive and curative medicine in the veterinary field in general. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was granted a Royal charter in 1844 and I hope that that fact will not be forgotten by the Minister.
The British National Veterinary Association was created in 1882. Its famous journal, the Veterinary Record, was published in 1920. The progress of vets has been of immense value to this country and to many parts of the world which have learnt a great deal from the British Veterinary Association and those concerned with all forms of animal life.
The tremendous record of preventive and curative medicine and surgery covers all forms of animals, including those involved in many sports but which is sometimes forgotten. It covers a vast array of ordinary pets in this animal-loving country. It is an animal-loving country, but it will not be seen as such if some of the proposals contained in the Riley Report are put into effect. It is sometimes forgotten that many of the zoos in this country depend on the British Veterinary Association. People from all over the world come to this country for guidance and help from the British Veterinary Association. In addition, it is providing safeguards for a high standard of food production. I do not believe that anyone-not even Riley-will consider that is not a good thing to do.
In research work, drugs and technical services there is a range of endeavour not wholly appreciated by many people. It should be, because it is of vital importance. British veterinaries are of an extremely high standard. The degree courses are monitored by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons under the 1966 Act. The findings of the Royal College reports are always reported to the Privy Council and I hope that those points will be noted by the representative of our Government.
In recent years there have been cuts in government funding for higher education. That has seriously affected the education of veterinary students. There will he less building, less equipment and it will be difficult to retain skilled staff. The veterinary degree courses must meet the requirements of the EC veterinary profession directives. The excess of European students is much higher than before and can be a very serious threat to British veterinary surgeons and British veterinaries in general. I ask that all those matters be seriously considered.
There are aspects of the Riley Report and recommendations which are acceptable. At the same time, there are those which are dangerously myopic. It is almost a perfect curate's egg. However, that can have very sad and serious effects on British veterinary standards. British veterinary schools are to be reduced from six to four. I find that lamentable. I believe that thousands nay millions of ordinary people and farmers, who are furious and who know the value of the vet whether in curing animals or in playing a preventive role, find that very disturbing.
1674
No other Community country is reducing its base only the United Kingdom. The proposal only affects our country. I find that that is extremely dangerous.
The Riley Report also made some proposals which seem to improve minor subjects in the curriculum. I shall be perfectly honest. Some recommendations in the Riley Report are completely acceptable to British veterinary surgeons and veterinaries; for example, minor subjects in the curriculum should be increased. However, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord who is to reply that the Riley Report also recommends the strengthening of clinical teaching and that there should be new residences. That will require £30 million. I hope that we shall be told this evening that that money will be forthcoming. If that point is eluded, we can only assume that it will not be.
There is great sadness and bitterness in the veterinary world, and I believe that it is spreading throughout the country, at file threat to close the Glasgow and Cambridge schools. As I said, that is an appallingly dangerous myopic attitude to adopt. Those threats must be withdrawn. As I have said, farmers are furious, ordinary people are dismayed and the veterinary profession can hardly believe that that will happen. If any noble Lord in this Chamber believes that I am exaggerating, I challenge him to come with me to Glasgow or Cambridge and talk to the students. If I am defeated I shall how down and if the Government are defeated they will see that those threats are withdrawn and the Glasgow and Cambridge schools will remain.
We also have to try to understand that many other people are involved in the future of the British veterinary service; namely, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the animal welfare trusts and the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. That is a great charity. I can remember as a young man aiding what was then known as the Poor People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. Miners in South Wales would come up from the pits, fetch their dogs, and go to a carnival in Swansea Singleton to collect money for the Poor People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. I can remember its great blue-fronted shop which was worshipped by people who could not afford to have treatment for their pets.
Under privatisation, some miners had to look after the animals used underground because the pit owners could not have cared less. However, that was the great role of the PDSA. All that would have been useless had the PDSA been unable to recruit veterinaries. The PDSA will vanish overnight if it cannot recruit veterinaries. It is the PDSA's organisation of veterinaries and veterinary surgeons that is important.
Both the Riley Report and the UGC have made some great errors as well as providing some useful contributions. In Cambridge, the university veterinary school is a gem and is rooted in great antiquity. It houses the BVA's animal welfare foundation chair-the only one in the world. That is not bad, is it? Can your Lordships imagine anyone, unless they have a particular hatred for British veterinaries or for Cambridge, deciding that the place that has the only animal welfare foundation chair in

1675
the world should go? Glasgow stands to lose 300 of its students. There will be 300 fewer students and, what is more, there is bound to be a reduction in the specialist staff which supports the training of veterinaries and that world-renowned institution is under threat.
Both the Riley Report and the University Grants Committee make recommendations and they should be listened to. However, in the end it is not Riley or the University Grants Committee which make the final decision. It must be the British Parliament. If we cannot do that, we shall become redundant. That must be clearly understood. Therefore if, as seems to be the case, to save money we are going wantonly to destroy the Glasgow and Cambridge schools, whoever supports that proposition should be utterly ashamed of themselves because those are two proven great institutions which have provided research, scientific application and the training of veterinary surgeons and veterinaries for over 100 years.
With regard to the EC, I believe that we have much to give to Europe and I hope that the British Veterinary Association will give its knowledge and experience to Europe. Our animal health status in the UK is higher than Europe's—and this is a fact—because of veterinary preventive and caring medicine, superb training and the love of their profession by British veterinaries and veterinary surgeons. The public are aware of the excellence of the British veterinary service. Hence, I ask Her Majesty's Government to take all those points and submissions into full consideration before final judgment is made on the Riley Report and the EC.
I also ask the Government to bear this in mind. As I said, I am not hypercritical of the Riley Report. There are some very good points but there are also some dangerous myopic points. Let us throw away the bad and keep the good. Let us also not forget that folly is often more dangerous and cruel than malice can be in intent. Therefore, I hope that when the Government make decisions both on the Riley Report and on the UGC they will read the propositions on both sides very carefully. When I say both sides I mean that they should listen not only to the submissions made by the Riley Report or the UGC but also to representatives of the British Veterinary Association and the British veterinary surgeons. Those people are at the heart of the matter.
Those are the people whose profession, since the 14th century, has been renowned and acknowledged throughout the entire world. People from all over the world have come to this island to learn from our British Veterinary Association. Therefore, I believe we have something to be proud of. Europe still believes that we are the best. In so far as we have much to give to Europe and to the rest of the world, let us in this country show that we acknowledge the greatness of these professions. We must see that in no way are they harmed or degraded, that they are allowed to continue in the same magnificent way to serve this nation in a practical manner and that they remain a fine example for vets to follow not only in Great Britain but all over the world.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I echo every word of the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, to the profession. There is not a word or syllable with which I quarrel. Nor do I fall out with him in any way about the Riley Report.
Although the noble Lord said nothing about numbers in the profession, I feel that I should perhaps be standing in sackcloth and ashes in the light of certain shortages in the United Kingdom profession set out recently by the president of the British Veterinary Association and by my noble friend Lord Kimball. Indeed, within the past half hour I have received an envelope from Cambridge the contents of which start by stating that it is perfectly ludicrous to think in terms of turning out only 302 students every year.
The sackcloth and ashes, of course, are because I was charged with the duty of chairing the second of the five-year manpower review committees arising from the 1975 report. The forecasts of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, in 1975, and those of the 1980 committee, seemed to us in 1985 to be proving reliable. I was blessed with the most competent of committees: the chief veterinary officer in the Ministry of Agriculture, and the president and the secretary of the Royal College, together with representatives of the three agricultural departments.
The exercise was reasonably straighforward. Every veterinary surgeon on the Royal college register was written to and asked to say how many more, or fewer, veterinary surgeons were likely to be working in his practice five years later. The response was substantial, as it had been five years previously. The result of the survey was that 577 more would be required by the year 1990. The same question was put to the veterinary schools about staffing, to the state services, to firms which employed veterinary surgeons for industrial purposes, to the zoos and to the animal welfare societies. All gave their estimates.
A more hazardous exploration was then undertaken on migration in and out of the country. About 400 veterinary surgeons working at home said that they intended to emigrate between 1985 and 1995 and 320 of them thought that they would return within 10 years. To offset that, having also written to those on the Royal College register who were working overseas, 540 replied that they planned to take up veterinary work at home during the next 10 years. While there did not seem in 1985 to be much movement between European Community member states, the 1980 report had drawn attention to the possibility of the other EC countries producing about 400 veterinary surgeons surplus to their combined needs.
The Swann Committee in 1985 had guessed-admitting that it was a guess at a net outflow of 25 veterinary surgeons a year. So we reckoned on a net inflow of the same number. However, it was total speculation because no records of migration in and out are kept. If one adds to the total a figure which takes account of increased leisure and recreation; and of deaths and retirements, and then one divides the result by five, one arrives at the annual increase needed. That is a very simplified

1677
account of what went on for 13 months of very hard grind.
We now come to the supply situation. Not every student who enters the veterinary schools finally qualifies, although the pass rate has increased from 85.5 per cent. to 92 per cent. since 1975. Taking that into account, we debated at great length whether to maintain the intake at 335 a year or to cut it by 10 per cent. to 302. It was the view of the British Veterinary Association stated in its report that the 10 per cent. cut should be made. And that tipped the balance.
However, the difference between 335 and 302 is minimal. It is chickenfeed compared with what my noble friend Lord Kimball and the president of the British Veterinary Association have told us. My noble friend said that 295 graduates entered this country in 1988, and a further 91 in January and February of this year. Provided they are registered, or can register, with the Royal College there is presumably nothing to stop them doing so.
In the Glasgow Herald of 21st January this year the president of the BVA was reported as saying:
"We maintain that by the end of the century we will need the capability to produce 500 graduates a year".
Five hundred a year, not 302 or 335. I am bound to say that I am totally perplexed. Did we all get it wrong the BVA and members of my committee-three-and-a-half years ago? Perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell me when he replies.
I have one final point. A study of the Swann Report will show that in 1975 it estimated the additional manpower needed over 10 to 15 years as being between 975 and 1,625. That is a fairly wide spread. We arc just coming up towards 15 years now. And it is interesting-I do not say it is totally significant-that the total number of veterinary surgeons registered in the United Kingdom in 1975 was 6,729. In 1985 it was 8,906. that is an increase not of 975 or 1,625 but of 2,177. I do not know what the figure is today as 1990 approaches.
9 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I enter this debate with some trepidation. I do not believe there is anyone in this House who does not accept that the standard of veterinary education in this country is of the highest standard. In my view it is the best in the world. The graduates of our veterinary colleges are in demand all over the world. It is true that to gain entry to a veterinary college you need a higher standard of education than you do even to enter the medical profession.
Unfortunately, I was not here on 7th March when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked a Question as regards the proposed closure of the Glasgow veterinary college. I have read with interest the exchanges that took place in this Chamber on that day. The reason I am taking part in this debate is that I was almost horrified at the government response. The response was, "It is up to the UGC". That cannot possibly be so. The Government have a responsibility in this field.
According to the Riley report the annual output of schools is going to be 335. One wonders whether that calculation has taken on board the changes that are
1678
happening as a result of EC integration. A draft regulation is in being to remove all frontier controls. Inevitably that must lead to increased demand for veterinary services in this country if we wish to maintain the kind of standards we have had in the past. I believe that that aspect has not been taken into account.
Reference has been made to the fact that this country having the highest standards of veterinary education, veterinary practitioners are poached or brain-drained to other countries and particularly into Europe. They are popular as tutors m veterinary colleges throughout Europe. At the same time we are importing veterinary practitioners from. Europe, the Commonwealth and other foreign countries. They must have the right qualifications in order to practise here. But it is still my contention that perhaps their standards of education are not quite what we have been used to in this country.
Not only are we facing a demand for more veterinary surgeons as a result of our Community involvement. We are in need of an increase in veterinary practitioners because of the public controversy over salmonella and listeria. There is no doubt about increasing demand. There is increasing demand all over Europe. The harmonisation of inspection measures will be statutory in abattoirs in this country. I do not know whether noble Lords saw the article in yesterday's Guardian. Despite the fact that we have the best veterinary education in Europe our abattoirs are in a sorry state.
Out of a total of 919 abattoirs only 74 are licensed for the export of meat to the EC. That is because we do not have, as a rule, veterinary inspection of our abattoirs, as happens in Europe. It is a crying shame that this country should have a standard of abattoir that is so low. When I was having my supper in the snack bar of your Lordships' House, I could not help feeling that if there are only 74 abattoirs that come up to the standards required for the export of meat to the EC I was obviously eating a steak pie that had come from one of the other abattoirs. When you think about it, it is a little frightening.
All these new regulations relating to the EC will inevitably require the services of more veterinary practitioners in this country. I do not believe that the Government can simply say that it is for the UGC to decide how many veterinary surgeons are trained each year. It is up to the Government to make a proper assessment of the need in this country. I hope they will take that on board.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I feel that I should declare an interest as an honorary associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and as chairman of the Cambridge University Veterinary Trust. The Unstarred Question that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has tabled asks categorically what action the Government should take. I say to my noble friend tonight that I hope the first action we take will be to inform the University Grants Committee in its new form that it will take after 1st April, that the Riley report is based on a false premise.
With all the charm in the world, my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Leaston came to this House and admitted that he had got it wrong. I wish that Chancellors of the Exchequer would come from

1679
another place and make the same confession, but they never would. The House will appreciate that it is nearly impossible to get right manpower forecasting. After all, my noble friend had the advice of the British Veterinary Association at that time. Let us cast our minds back at a time when milk quotas had just been introduced and most of the veterinarians whom he cross-questioned were extremely depressed and doubtful regarding the future of their large animal practices. We should remember the background against which my noble friend was considering this problem of the number of veterinarians and veterinary students that we should need.
I believe that the first thing that my noble friend should do is to say to the University Grants Committee: "You take no action on numbers and the Riley Report until such time as you have a proper and further manpower count of what is likely to be needed in this country".
My noble friend Lord Molloy was extremely generous in his approach to the other recommendations of the Riley working party. What was the second point at which Riley was asked to look? He was asked to look in particular at the style of training to match future developments in the practice of veterinary medicine. I should like to look at one or two of those points. Although the noble Lord was very generous, I am not absolutely certain that the Riley working party had this point right in relation to the Cambridge Veterinary School. I do not believe that it gave due weight to the advance in biological and physical sciences added into the new technology of computing.
Biotechnology-based developments in diagnosis in animal welfare are already in the market place. It is a science in which Cambridge excels and must be expanded. I agree with the Riley working party when it pays tribute to the excellent first part of the Cambridge Veterinary School Tripos. It makes a special point of the scientific basis of the first three years of training of undergraduates in the Cambridge Veterinary School. However, where Riley got it wrong and where the report is incomplete and I hope that my noble friend will draw the attention of the University Grants Committee to this point-is where he says that pure scientific teaching is needed only in the pre-clinical teaching phase. Cambridge certainly believes that scientific education must be maintained in the clinical phase of the veterinary course as well.
The Cambridge Veterinary School is unique in its concentration on biomedical science in and around an area which is exceptionally well equipped to deal with this new and important branch of medicine. The school is alone in England in having a rural location, a farm, a veterinary investigation centre and a good catchment area. It is unique in specialising in animal welfare, nervous diseases, parasite control, immunology and skin diseases. When the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, comes to speak I think he will bear in mind the problems we still have with skin diseases in sheep, particular in Wales and Scotland. Cambridge is supreme in dealing with those problems, with navicular disease in horses and special methods of detecting damaged joints without major surgery. Those noble Lords who will watch racing on
1680
television next week may wonder how many of the horses they are looking at have reason to be grateful to the Cambridge Veterinary School-this point applies to both race horses and jumpers for the work being done on their feet and limbs.
Another important point is the amount of money we raise from industry. The Cambridge Veterinary Trust has just topped £1 million in voluntary donations for a special unit for the treatment of cancers in small mammals. We were just about to start the building. We have had the estimates and we have cut the first sod. The plans are approved. We have had to stop. This was an important development for radiotherapy and related treatment in small mammals. It was being watched by Addenbrooke's Hospital and the medical profession throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
It was rather unique when the head of the Cambridge Veterinary School, Professor Soulsby, sent me a letter which he had received from the head of the marine biochemical research programme of the University of South Carolina. I know that many people have views about American universities but I thought that this was a particularly appropriate letter.
Perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the House and quote from one paragraph:
"As an American academician who has spent some time in Cambridge, I not only realise but am also envious of the concentration of Biomedical brain power in and surrounding that university city. To remove veterinary medicine from Cambridge for any reason … makes no sense".
We would all echo those sentiments.
The second part of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question asks what action the Government propose to promote veterinary practice. We have at the moment in this country a demand from the food industry for the biggest expansion in veterinary knowledge that we are likely to see in this country for a long time. How is that dealt with in the report of the Riley working party? There is one paragraph of seven lines. That is all it receives. We admit that Riley was out of date and did not realise that the demand would be there. The way to provide the veterinarians required by the food industry is to maintain the six schools and not to spend £20 million on redesigning them as four schools as recommended by Riley. At a stroke, Riley proposes to cut by one-third veterinary education of the United Kingdom.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords. my noble friend Lord Molloy has enabled us to debate a subject of considerable importance, for which we thank him. We also thank him for his speech. He and the other noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken referred to the proposal to close the veterinary schools at the universities of Glasgow and Cambridge by the UGC working party under the chairmanship of Sir Ralph Riley. I should like to discuss the wider implications of that recommendation this evening.
Over the past nine years or so the University Grants Committee has had the difficult task, at the behest of the Government, of persuading universities to manage their affairs with progressively reduced funds. As Pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales,

1681
I know how very painful and complicated that exercise has been. It has involved the closure of departments, with redundancies and other economies, and that has inevitably created uncertainty and insecurity on a scale not previously experienced. That fact is relevant to our debate this evening but I do not propose to pursue it further or in any detail at this time.
I should like to say this about the University Grants Committee. It is my experience that the committee has operated with understanding and sympathy, and as it comes to the end of its tenure-I think it is on 1st April-- I wish to thank the chairman, his colleagues and their predecessors for the great service which they have rendered to the universities in Britain.
Every government have an obligation to ensure that public money is spent prudently by those to whom it is allocated, and universities are not exempted from that rule. On the other hand, we have a duty to ask whether the cuts in funding are in the public interest and whether the Department of Education and Science has its priorities right. That is the point of this debate. For example, would the closure of the schools at Cambridge and Glasgow be justified?
Let us look first of all at the reputation of those schools. I shall do so briefly because noble Lords who preceded me have already paid tribute to them. However, if they were less than efficient as teaching departments, or in their research work, it would be appropriate to consider their future. But I must agree with noble Lords that the evidence I have read makes clear beyond doubt that both are centres of excellence with an international reputation.
Let us take first the school at Cambridge. The UGC in its own review in 1986 rated veterinary medicine there as outstanding and its standard of research as the highest. with Glasgow, in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has spoken eloquently from his own considerable personal experience about the range and quality of the work done at the school in Cambridge. Therefore I shall not go into any further detail on the matter, save to say that Cambridge is also the only school which insists on a full honours degree in science before starting training for clinical practice. That means that it is putting a different type of vet into practice, and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons says that it highly values that fact.
The reputation of Glasgow veterinary school is also of the highest order and it is difficult to accept the argument of the Riley working party that just because there are two veterinary schools in Scotland, one of them should be closed. In research and teaching, and also in the care and treatment of animals, Glasgow is internationally known. Moreover, those in other countries who know of that reputation are expressing disbelief about the closure proposal. The UGC working party itself concluded that Glasgow's research is of outstanding quality, that some of it is world-class and that its teaching is innovative. As with Cambridge, its closure would have far-reaching effects. The Secretary of State for Education and Science, Mr. Kenneth Baker, has stressed the importance of excellence in teaching and research in our universities. I must point out to him
1682
in this debate that in Glasgow and Cambridge both arc of the highest quality.
As my noble friend has explained, there are other factors involved in our consideration of these closures. For example, as two noble Lords have said, there is acute public concern over food safety. That is something we debated fully in this House only last week. Secondly, there are the implications of the opening of the Channel Tunnel and a possible threat to disease security in this country. Finally, there are problems, also referred to by other noble Lords, to he resolved between now and 1992 when the single European market comes into existence. In all of those matters the veterinary services have an important role to play. It is here that the Government have thus far failed to produce a clear policy. In my view they are matters for the Government as a whole to consider in Cabinet, after a most careful study by the departments involved, and not, with great respect, for the University Grants Committee.
As for food safety, the consumer is properly demanding higher standards of hygiene. It seems clear that vets must have a greater part to play; for example, in meat hygiene, food hygiene and health controls from the farmer producer to the consumer's table. The consumer has a right to expect an increased veterinary input into animal welfare and the pollution of the environment. I must pay the highest tribute to the surgeons of the state veterinary service with whom I worked as Minister of Agriculture. I know that they strive to encourage high standards of animal welfare on farms, during transport, at markets, in abattoirs and, if at all possible, on export as well. I note that the BVA has made an important suggestion; namely, that a European animal welfare inspectorate should be established. I hope that Ministers will consult the BVA about that possibility.
As for the Channel Tunnel and the single market, I believe that we can claim that our animal health status is high because we are an island and because our vets have developed great expertise in the control of disease. That state of affairs could be in peril if the Government fail to anticipate and plan for the future. I have a lively awareness of the dangers because I was Minister of Agriculture during he latter part of the foot and mouth epidemic in 1968. I accepted and implemented the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee. I was also Minister during the dangerous rabies outbreak in 1969. I then set up the Waterhouse Committee to investigate that outbreak. My successor, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, implemented its recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Stodart, who was a Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, will recall the problems and difficulties that we then encountered.
Mercifully, there has been no outbreak of either dreadful disease since then; but they, and a number of other diseases, can invade these shores if the Government fail to organise our defences against them. We need more vets not fewer. The evidence suggests that an output of 450 to 500 veterinary students will be needed in the next century and that will he impossible to achieve if we reduce the number of schools from six to four.
Again, with the removal of frontier controls, which is virtually at hand, the health and safety of the

1683
animal population and the protection of the consumer will more and more depend upon the expertise of the veterinarian, and the increased movement of animals between countries will require more testing and examination. A comprehensive and efficient surveillance system will therefore be absolutely vital. Against that alarming background, I must ask whether this is the time to close first-class university veterinary schools in Glasgow and Cambridge. We shall need more vets not fewer. We shall need them with the professional skills which those two great universities and our other four schools can teach them. We need veterinary surgeons in practice; we need private veterinary laboratories; we need the Veterinary Investigation Service as well as a properly staffed and deployed state veterinary service. In those circumstances, to reduce our veterinary schools from six to four could be disastrous. As my noble friend has said, no other Community country is reducing its veterinary base. If the working party goes to Italy or Spain, it might find an argument for closure because Italy has 10 schools and Spain has eight schools. I do not denigrate vets from other countries but we must not be over-dependent upon vets from other countries.
I am not sure whether this point has been mentioned, but in 1988 54 veterinarians from the European Community, excluding the Republic of Ireland, registered with the RCVS to work in the United Kingdom. That is the equivalent of the output of an entire United Kingdom veterinary school. Furthermore, 165 Commonwealth graduates and 47 foreign (non-EC) graduates were admitted to the RCVS register-a total of 295.
Recent experience will, I hope, persuade the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Education to give this entire problem their urgent and personal attention, with the object of ensuring that the veterinary service in this country is maintained at the highest level in numbers and professional skills. The stark fact is that in all areas of veterinary practice more veterinary surgeons are urgently required to work in small animal practices, to work in large animal practices, to meet the growing demand in the field of food hygiene both in research and in salmonella, listeria, and other common food poisoning areas; and in line with the EC directive when in 1991 all abattoirs, cutting plants and cold stores must have veterinary inspectors; and lastly for work in the third world.
At present I am informed by a representative of the University of Cambridge that the United Kingdom does not produce sufficient graduates to meet any of these demands, particularly in the United Kingdom where in 1988 over 290 overseas graduates registered with the Royal College, as I have already stated. It is not the closure of veterinary departments that the Government should be concerned with at this crucial time, but the strengthening and encouragement of staff and students in all six university departments so that the people of this country may have confidence that their interests are being properly protected in an increasingly complex and changing world.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for his kind words on opening this Question. I must say that after the strength of feeling in everything I have heard so far, I feel somewhat like Daniel going into the lion's den without the assistance of a vet.
I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for asking his Question, and for stimulating a debate which has been thoughtful and penetrating. The main strands seem to have been the University Grants Committee review of veterinary education, and the veterinary manpower reviews undertaken by the agriculture departments, and I will deal with them in turn.
Let me begin with the review of veterinary education. I must emphasise that the review was not commissioned by the Government, but by the University Grants Committee. It is one of a series of some 35 subject reviews whose common objective, which the Government endorse, is to strengthen the national provision of teaching and research in our universities. As background to this present review, it should be noted that veterinary education is a particularly expensive subject, requiring a wide range of disciplines to be taught over the length of the course, and a consequent high level of staffing.
The review working party as noble Lords have mentioned, was chaired by Sir Ralph Riley FRS, a distinguished scientist and administrator. Many noble Lords will know he is a former Secretary of the Agriculture and Food Research Council. The review was published at the end of January, and is open for consultation until the end of March. Decisions on the review's recommendations will fall to the new Universities Funding Council, established under the Education Reform Act 1988, which takes over from the UGC on 1st April. Unlike the non-statutory and advisory UGC, the UFC is an executive body, as noble Lords will know. Moreover, noble Lords will recall that, in accordance with their wishes, the Act strictly limits the powers of Ministers to intervene in matters such as these which concern individuals universities.
In making its recommendations, the review took many factors into account. One was the limited number of clinical veterinary teachers in British universities, and the need to balance the requirement for a critical mass of teachers needed for yet more effective teaching and research in each discipline with acceptable staff-student ratios.
All noble Lords have expressed concern that there are inadequate student places to meet the demand for veterinary graduates, and that the recommendations of the Riley review would exacerbate the position. In fact the number of veterinary places has been determined, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston, by reviews mounted by the agriculture departments.
A committee of nquiry into the veterinary profession chaired by the then Sir Michael Swann was appointed by the Government to consider and report on the future role and eduational needs of the

1685
veterinary profession in the United Kingdom. The committee report published in 1975 recommended that the manpower needs in the profession should be reviewed at intervals of approximately five years. A review took place in 1980. The last review, published in 1985, was chaired by my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston. The noble Lord said he felt that he should be standing in sackcloth and ashes. I hope that he will not. We all thank him for his work in chairing the review even if he feels that he may have got it wrong. With hindsight, I think that one could agree that the estimate seems too low. My noble friend's review recommended a reduction in places from 335 to 302. It was recommended that the annual intake of students by veterinary schools between 1986 and 1990 should be reduced gradually to 302. That was recognised by the review as being fine tuning of the highest order.
Both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association believe that circumstances have changed since the last review and that more rather than fewer veterinarians are required for our immediate and future demands. According to the five-year timetable for review of manpower requirements recommended by the Swann Committee in 1975, the next review should start this year. The Government are considering whether to conduct another review and, if so, how. I am sure that all the views expressed tonight will be taken account of by my right honourable friends when they come to consider whether to have another review.
The Riley review did not explicitly address the need for veterinary manpower, but based its work on providing efficiently for the 302 places recommended by the 1985 review. It also allowed for the possibility of some expansion up the level of 335 places.
It has been suggested that too much weight has been given to regional considerations, particularly in Scotland, and to the role that the veterinary schools play in acting as referral centres for cases which veterinary practices feel would be better handled by the schools. Others have said that the review has not adequately taken into account the academic merit of each of the veterinary schools. Noble Lords referred to both Glasgow and Cambridge.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and some other noble Lords suggested that the root problem is under-funding of the universities, and that the Riley review is a cost cutting exercise. I cannot agree with that. The Government grant to the UGC was increased by 10 per cent. in cash terms in 1987-88 and by a further 8 per cent. in 1988-89, and will be raised by an extra £100 million over the next three financial years. These are substantial sums. In any case, the report's recommendations are aimed not at cost cutting but at using the present resources to yet greater effect.
Any review of that kind must weigh carefully a number of different factors in coming to its recommendations. The review in addition has to take into account the role of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which has responsibility under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 for setting the
1686
standards for training and examination, and the European Community's veterinary directive.
The Government fully agree with those who say that any decision about the future of veterinary schools should be soundly based, especially where there are proposals for closure, which are understandably controversial. That is why it is important to use the consultation period which closes on 31st March in order to air all the relevant facts and test the various criteria. I am confident that, in making its decisions on the Riley review, the Universities Funding Council will pay careful attention to the evidence in the report, and to the comments arising during the consultation period-not least from this debate and from the Question which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked earlier this week.
Mention has been made of European Community veterinary surgeons practising in the United Kingdom. Let me make plain how this works. Since 1980, European Community directives have provided for the free movement of veterinary surgeons, and to make this possible, harmonisation of veterinary education standards and qualifications across the Community. Under these provisions British veterinarians can become established in any member state provided that they satisfy the Community requirements on qualifications. Because of the high standard of qualifications in the UK, our veterinarians are able to satisfy this requirement without difficulty.
By the same token, veterinarians from other member states can establish themselves in the UK; indeed, some already work here. In addition to complying with the directive requirements, they must also register with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and comply with the RCVS guide to professional conduct.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, raised the matter of standards in United Kingdom abattoirs. At present each member state is visited every year by the Commission so that standards can be monitored. The results of previous inspections have indicated that standards in the UK are broadly in line with the rest of the Community.
I believe I have dealt with the questions of the noble Baroness on frontier controls. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, also asked about the role of the Government and the successor to the UGC, the UFC, in deciding on the Riley recommendations. The review of subjects is a matter that is well within the responsibility of the Universities Funding Council. The purpose of the legislation last year was to give proper arm's length status to the UFC. It therefore has the power to take decisions for itself. Under the Education Reform Act 1988, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science may attach conditions to the grant which he gives to the council. But these may not relate to any specified institution. The Secretary of State has the reserve power to give directions to the council; but the orders are subject to the negative resolutions procedure in both Houses of Parliament.

1687
I am conscious that I have not done justice to all the points that have been raised in this interesting and wide-ranging debate. However, I undertake to study the record closely and draw the attention of my right honourable friends to all the issues which deserve their attention. Indeed, I am sure that a study of the report of the debate will reward all those involved in the future of veterinary education and veterinary practice.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for what he has just said. Will he be gracious enough to ask his right honourable friends to look at the BVA's official journal the Veterinary
1688
Record, which over the past 18 months has contained pages and pages of advertisements? In those advertisements people have pleaded for vets and veterinary associate people to fill positions which cannot be filled. The BVA journal shows completely that at this moment in time there is a grievous shortage of veterinary practitioners.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall certainly pass those remarks on to my right honourable friends.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.

  INSURANCE CONTRACTS: TERMS
  INSURANCE CONTRACTS: TERMS
  NHS ESTATE
  NHS ESTATE
  BRITISH SUMMER TIME
  BRITISH SUMMER TIME
  TENANTS:RIGHT TO BUY DISCOUNT
  TENANTS:RIGHT TO BUY DISCOUNT
  "WORKING FOR PATIENTS": EVIDENCE
  "WORKING FOR PATIENTS": EVIDENCE
  SALMONELLA AND LISTERIOSIS: CASES
  SALMONELLA AND LISTERIOSIS: CASES
  EDUCATION ACTS: CONSOLIDATION PROGRESS
  EDUCATION ACTS: CONSOLIDATION PROGRESS