Sitting of 28 February 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  NEW WRIT
  For Mid-Staffordshire, in the room of Bentley John Heddle Esq., deceased.—[Mr. Renton.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Lothian Health Board
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Lothian health board; and what was discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have not had an official meeting with the chairman of Lothian health board recently, but my Department has been in regular contact with the chairman of the board in recent weeks.
    Mr. Strang: When will the Secretary of State come clean about the crisis in the Health Service in Lothian? What cuts in the service will have to be made if it is to balance its books by the end of the year? Why has not the Secretary of State published Mr. Cruickshank's report, and when will he admit that the present crisis is a consequence of the Government's failure, year in, year out, to provide money for the additional number of old people and for advances in medical technology?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, Lothian is one of the better-funded health boards in the United Kingdom. If other boards throughout Scotland and south of the border are able to contain their expenditure within their budget, it is obviously reasonable to expect Lothian to do the same.
    I should be unhappy about publishing the recent report into Lothian's finances without the agreement of the board itself. At present, we are working on the main priority—trying to find a way of ensuring that the board contains its expenditure within the resources provided for it and without unacceptable consequences for patients, whom the hon. Gentleman and I both want to be protected.
    Mr. Eadie: The Secretary of State must know that it has already been established that the health board has been underfunded for many years. Why does he criticise the present board, all of whose members are his nominees? Can he reply specifically to the charge that the extent of the deficit means that there is now a crisis in the Health Service in Midlothian, which will result in hospital closures and cuts in medical staff numbers?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have already said that I see no good ground for crisis closures. We all want a proper study to be made of the circumstances that have led to the overspending. We are announcing today a significant increase in the board's cash limit for the current year, to enable it to make any payments that fall due in that year. We now await the board's proposals—arrived at in consultation with the chief executive of the NHS in Scotland—for dealing with the longer-term problems.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the current situation in the Scottish fishing industry.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend discussed the industry's: problems recently with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The Government will be monitoring the situation closely and will, as always, keep in regular contact with the industry.
    Mr. Macdonald: When will the Government act to prevent an increase in fishing activity off the west coast of Scotland as a direct result of limits imposed on east-coast fishing? Does the Minister agree that such an increase is harmful to conservation and to the fragile communities that live on the west coast, and will he undertake to act immediately to stop such encroachments?
    Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but, as he will appreciate, there are certain historic rights of access on the west coast. He will know that we have already taken action: for example, we have proposed that fishermen should radio in when they cross the 4 degree line—a suggestion which came from the fishing industry. We are waiting for a report from our scientists on the position relating to nephrops. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall keep the matter under close review, and give consideration to whatever action is necessary.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Why are the Government so opposed to the introduction of a decommissiong scheme? Would not that be the best safeguard for the future of the industry, and the contribution that it makes to our economy and to the future of the many fishing communities around our coast?
    Mr. Lang: I welcome my right hon. Friend back to Scottish questions. He will know that we have considered the matter carefully and that the last time such a scheme was tried, it was not successful. It would be a very costly exercise; it would probably take out the least efficient fishermen and would not be the best way to resolve the problem. However, we are aware of the difficulties and are continuing to keep in close touch with the European Commission on these matters and on how to reduce overfishing.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister recognise that the Scottish fishing industry has been severely hit, not simply because the weather is worse than usual, but because of the new regulations for unemployment benefit? Many of those employed in the Scottish fishing industry do not earn an income as they are not working, and do not get

    259
    benefit. Under the new circumstances, will the Minister give further consideration to aiding the Scottish fishing industry?
    Mr. Lang: I shall certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman said. He will be aware that last year the total income of the Scottish industry was only 3 per cent. lower in cash terms than the previous record year, and in previous years the income of the industry rose substantially.
    Dr. Godman: With reference to the thoughtful question put by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), why do not the Government show the same sympathy to fishermen as they express when farmers are in trouble? When will the Government introduce a maritime counterpart to the set-aside scheme? Is it not the case that vis-a-vis the multiannual guidance programme obligations, some 200 to 300 fishing vessels will have to be stripped from the Scottish fishing fleet within the next two years? When will the Government play the game by introducing a fair and reasonable decommissioning scheme for the industry?
    Mr. Lang: I have already answered the question about a decommissioning scheme. The Government's concern for the fishing industry has become apparent from the close and detailed attention that it has received from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in recent months. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the success of my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend at the Council meeting last December in securing a good deal for this country.

    Lothian Health Board
    . Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take following the investigation of the finances of Lothian health board by Mr. Don Cruickshank.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Discussions are continuing with Lothian health board.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is not it intolerable that the future of the National Health Service in Lothian should be decided by Mr. Cruickshank and by Peat, Marwick, McLintock behind closed doors? Will the Minister confirm that the value in real terms of the increased allocation for Lothian health board next year is just £8 million, which will be completely swallowed up and wiped out by the repayment of the loan to deal with the present crisis in Lothian health board? Meanwhile we still have a staffing freeze, closures of theatre units and beds and rock bottom morale in the Health Service in Lothian region. Can we have a proper review of the needs of the Health Service in Lothian and will the Minister ensure that the service is funded in accordance with those needs?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring under a misapprehension. I cannot confirm his figure for the resources for Lothian because it is not correct. The hon. Gentleman talked about the resources available to Lothian health board and took no account of the 1 per cent. that will be available from efficiency savings,
    260
    to which I know Opposition Members are opposed. As for the Peat, Marwick, McLintock report, the hon.Gentleman should know that decisions about priorities in Lothian health board will be determined by the health board, not by the chief executive, not by the consultants. The chief executive and the consultants are endeavouring to be helpful because the board has spent more than the resources allocated to it, which was discovered at a very late stage in the financial year.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does not the Minister realise that the Secretary of State has appointed a man to preside over the Health Service in Scotland who, when chairman of Wandsworth health authority, presided over the loss of more than 100 beds and a hospital, and ward closures?
    Those cuts led to no savings, but caused much harm to patient services. Even with the loss of Bruntsfield hospital and Elsie Inglis hospital, the current round of funding leaves Lothian health board with fewer resources than it needs. Its resources do not match medical inflation, and that will result in further ward and hospital closures.
    Mr. Forsyth: It is true that the chief executive of the Health Service in Scotland was chairman of Wandsworth health authority. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to acknowledge that the resources available to the Health Service in Scotland are about 25 per cent. higher per head than south of the border. Lothian is the second best funded health board in Scotland. It has benefited from the considerable expansion of services, including phase I of St. John's hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), which is the biggest single investment project in the Health Service in Scotland. I should have thought that, from time to time, Opposition Members would recognise the strength of the Health Service and help to raise morale instead of constantly pointing to the difficulties that the chief executive and others in the management of the Health Service are attempting to cope with.

    Storm Damage
    . Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance has been offered to the Highland region following the recent storms and floods.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): On 8 February, my right hon. and learned Friend confirmed that the provisions of the Bellwin scheme would be available to all authorities. We now await reports from them of expenditure that they think likely to qualify for special financial assistance. I can also announce that the Government are satisfied that additional assistance is justified for the repair of elevated flood banks. The rates of grant available under the farm and conservation grant scheme (national), which are normally 50 per cent. for the less-favoured areas and 40 per cent. elsewhere, are being increased to 75 per cent. and 60 per cent. respectively. Those rates will be available for six months from 1 March.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware of Highland region's dissatisfaction and concern about the operation of the Bellwin formula, following its experience last year? In particular, will he reconsider the Scottish Office's refusal to offer grant for work on the river bed of the River Ness that is essential for the preservation of Waterloo bridge? Does

    261
    he agree that the time limit that he mentioned is unreasonable because it is an arbitrary cut-off point for grant, when essential work may take longer?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point. In relation to the River Ness, under the Bellwin scheme we allowed as eligible expenditure all the emergency costs of road and transport services up to 31 March 1989, amounting to over £300,000. The Bellwin scheme meets the cost of immediate works, but longer-term repairs should be built into local authorities' budgets. We have provided an additional allocation for water and sewerage of almost £500 million over the next three years.
    Mr. Kennedy: May I underscore the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that, based on last year's experience, the Bellwin formula does not take adequate account of the distinctive geographical problems that Highland region is facing? The Minister spoke of enhanced grants for flood banks, which were also announced last year, but will that cover the major expenditure that will be necessary in Fort Augustus, not only to shore up existing flood banks but to instal a completely new flood bank and other flood prevention measures which are now essential following evacuations there for the past two years running?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give a specific reply to the details of the hon. Gentleman's last question, but he was incorrect in the premise on which he based his first question. Aid is given above a threshold which, broadly speaking, is lower, the smaller the population. The amount of financial support also reflects the scale of the immediate emergency work necessary to safeguard life and property, and that may also be lower in heavily populated areas. I agree that updating of the threshold is required, and we hope to make a statement on that to local authorities shortly.

    Community Charge
    . Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many poll tax payers in Scotland will qualify for transitional relief; and what is the estimated average relief per qualifier for 1990–91.
    Mr Rifkind: I expect that about half a million people will be eligible for transitional relief in Scotland. Estimates of average relief for 1990–91 have not been made.
    Mr. Ross: Is not the chaotic nature of the poll tax summed up by the fact that this relief was introduced half way into year one of the poll tax in Scotland and the fact that, despite all the right hon. and learned Gentleman's claims for it, only 10 per cent. of poll tax payers will benefit from the relief, at an average rate of 50p a week?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to my answer. I said that it is estimated that half a million people are likely to be entitled to benefit. That is 10 per cent. of the population of Scotland but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, all those under 18 are not liable for the community charge. A bit of elementary arithmetic would have enabled the hon. Gentleman to work that out for himself.
    Mr. Salmond: Has the Secretary of State taken the time to read the speculative article in The Economist last week, which suggested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Prime Minister will shortly hold a press conference to announce that the poll tax cannot be satisfactorily amended and must be withdrawn and that they apologise to the people for inflicting it on them? Does not a combination of political resistance in Scotland and political panic south of the border mean that the poll tax is now on the rocks?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Economist is better at analysing the past than predicting the future. Implementation of the community charge in Scotland is being greatly assisted by the valuable co-operation of Scottish National party-controlled Angus district council. As it is the only nationalist-controlled local authority in Scotland, I know that the hon. Gentleman will warmly welcome the fact that it is co-operating in the implementation of the community charge.
    Mr. Harris: Has my right hon. and learned Friend been able to glean from the Opposition whether transitional relief will form a part of their cracked scheme for a roof tax? Has he had any representations from the seven members of the Labour party, at least, who are refusing to pay the community charge? Are they equally against the roof tax, as are many Labour party members in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: There is clearly an important distinction between the proposals. Under the Government's proposals, relief is paid to those who are currently paying the charge. I understand that, under the Labour party's roof tax proposals, relief would come to elderly pensioners in respect of their estate only when they died. That is a rather grotesque alternative proposal, which is rightly rejected throughout the Scottish community.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State accept that the difficulty of operating the transitional relief underlines the administrative nightmare that now surrounds the poll tax? Does he recall that the administrative costs for 1988–89 are estimated by his Department at above £31 million and that local authorities have already had to find £10 million to organise the rebate system? Does not the ever-deepening chaos, combined with the essential injustice of the poll tax, press the case for speedy abolition? If the Secretary of State is so concerned about a roof tax and the interests of the home owner, should not he turn his mind to the most damaging roof tax of all—ever-escalating mortgage costs, for which he is responsible?
    Mr. Rifkind: The administrative costs of the transitional scheme are being reimbursed to local authorities, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As for his remark about the roof tax, if he does not accept criticisms from Conservative Members or from the rest of Scotland, he might at least listen to the Labour party in Paisley—[Laughter.] I am interested in the Opposition's reaction. We have been told that Labour's controversial roof tax plans have been blasted by the Paisley Labour party and that it has told the hon. Gentleman to think again. If the hon. Gentleman will not listen to the rest of Scotland, he might at least listen to those protests from his party, including the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who has given him advice on the matter.
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be advisable if I were called because those remarks were not——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is still plenty of time.
    Mr. Buchan rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The mere fact that the hon. Gentleman's constituency has been referred to does not mean that he is automatically called.
    Mr. Buchan: It is my constituency and my party—
    Mr. Speaker: I know.
    Mr. Buchan:—and it was a lie.

    Trunk Roads
    . Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make a statement on the Government's conclusions following the consultation on primary trunk routes south of Edinburgh.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I hope that the Scottish Office will make a statement soon.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that substantial concern has been expressed in the consultations on the review of primary routes south of Edinburgh, about the inadequate provision for additional dualling on the Al? In my constituency fears have been expressed about the lack of improvements or proposals to increase provision for the A7 south of Hawick. Given the importance of those matters, not only to my constituency and the Borders, but nationally, will the Minister undertake to meet the appropriate hon. Members who are interested in them before he comes to a final conclusion on the review?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. I give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman that I shall be only to glad to meet him on that subject. We are anxious to reach the most appropriate decision in due course. I understood that he made that request with regard to the A7. I am aware of the joint technical report on the A1, by Northumberland county council, with Lothian and Borders regional councils. We have studied the report and shall certainly take it into account. I am aware of the initiative and interest of the relevant Members of Parliament. We shall take their views fully into account.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind my representations to him about the importance of the A7 from Edinburgh through Hawick to Carlisle? Is he aware of the value of that road to the Borders textiles industry and to tourism? Will he do all that he can to improve that road, particularly south of Hawick, including remedying bad corners and building new bridges?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The matter is under immediate consideration. We have consulted fully on it and we hope to make a statement, as I said earlier.
    Mr. McFall: In view of the conclusion of the report by the university of Louvain that poor infrastructure will be responsible for Scotland and, in particular, Strathclyde regional council, coming bottom of the league—along with the Basque country and south Yorkshire—of economic development after 1992, what does the Minister intend to do to remedy that disgraceful position?
    Lord James Douglas-HamiltonIn Scotland, for roads, £ more per head is spent on each person than in England and Wales. A substantial number of improvements in the infrastructure are planned. We have proposals for motorways throughout Scotland, many of them in the west central belt, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Those proposals will cost £50 million and will go forward.

    Transatlantic Flights
    . Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the effects on tourism of permitting transatlantic flights from Edinburgh and Glasgow airports; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: Many of the responses to the Government's consultation paper on Scottish lowland airports policy addressed the possible effects on tourism of an open skies policy. All the points made have been assessed and are being taken fully into account in the review now being concluded.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend accept that the capital city of Scotland should have international gateway status and that Glasgow, as European City of Culture, should also enjoy such status provided that international standards can be met? That does not mean that I have anything against Prestwick. What I resent is Prestwick's monopoly. That is a view shared by the Scottish tourist board.
    Mr. Lang: I hear my hon. Friend's views. He will know that over 1,100 submissions on the matter have been made to the Government. They have all been carefully assessed and the Government hope to publish their findings soon.
    Mr. David Marshall: Will the Minister come clean and tell the House what was the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Secretary of State for Transport on the review of the Scottish lowland airports policy? Will he be even more honest and tell the House whether the opposition of the Secretary of State for Transport in Cabinet to gateway status for Glasgow and Edinburgh airports is delaying the decision that should have been made months ago and is acting against the best interests of Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have to contain his impatience for a little longer. He may rest assured that when the announcement is made, it will have the unanimous and wholehearted support of the Government.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Has my hon. Friend read the submissions from the Scottish tourist board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board on the benefits to Scottish tourism of an open skies policy? Does he agree with them or not? Has he read the submissions from the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Consumer Council? Those organisations have no parochial axe to grind on the economic benefits of giving gateway status to Glasgow. Does he or does he not agree with those submissions?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify that important industry, the future of which can affect the future of the Scottish economy. It is estimated that the value of tourism to Scotland was about £420

    265
    million last year. Any improvement to that figure as a result of an open skies policy is something of which we would wish to take careful account.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Robert Hughes—question No. 8.
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The three hon. Members who were called on the last question were all from one side of the argument. No one—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to bear in mind the fact that I am constantly being urged to speed up Question Time. If I called every hon. Member who had an interest in every question, we should, I judge, get down only to question No. 3. I call Mr. Robert Hughes.

    Warrant Sales
    . Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the criteria for not pursuing warrant sales for poll tax defaulters to that which applied to rates defaulters before the poll tax came into force.
    Mr. Rifkind: The collection of the community charge, including any use of poinding or warrant sales, is a matter for local authorities.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that the paraphernalia and mechanisms of warrant sales should be used as the ultimate and last resort as a method of debt collection and not as the first resort, as seems to be the case with the many authorities applying for sheriff warrants even where there is genuine confusion, genuine error and genuine hardship on the part of people who are late in their poll tax payments? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that there really is absolute discretion for local authorities to deal with each case on its merits so as to avoid the cares, the danger and the hardship facing so many people in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt—I do not think that there is any controversy—that if warrant sales are to be used, they should he used only as the very last resort. Opposition Members should not confuse the issuing of summary warrants with the holding of warrant sales. Many tens of thousands of summary warrants are issued, but in the past that practice has led to only a few warrant sales being necessary. This is a matter for individual local authorities, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that the local authorities also agree—that warrant sales should be used only if all other methods of seeking payment of a legitimate debt have failed to produce results.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I declare an interest, Mr. Speaker, as I am wearing a free pair of trousers in the comrie and strathearn tartan—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am in no position to comment, but carry on.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: This is intended to boost the tourist industry in Scotland. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the roof tax were introduced, the number of warrant sales under the community charge or the previous rating system would multiply by thousands and ruin the tourist industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: There is certainly no doubt that the Labour party's roof tax proposals would hurt pensioners
    266
    and others on low incomes as they would be expected to pay the same tax as people in comparable properties next door whose incomes might be much higher.
    Mr. Canavan: If the Government refuse to grant time for the Bill to abolish warrant sales introduced by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), will the Secretary of State consider tabling an appropriate amendment during the passage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which is currently before Parliament? If the Secretary of State is so smart and insolent as to try to ridicule those people who have not paid the poll tax and who are refusing to do so, will he declare his own interest here and now by telling us exactly how many thousands of pounds he will gain annually as a result of the change from rates to poll tax?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am not gaining thousands of pounds. The whole premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is false—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] I and the vast majority of people in Scotland are paying our legal taxes. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan ) is refusing to pay his lawful taxes and, as a result, is adding to the burden on his constituents, who will be obliged to pay the sums that the hon. Gentleman is refusing to pay. If the hon. Gentleman is a man of integrity, he should not expect his constituents to pay his taxes on his behalf—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members not to barrack in that way from a sedentary position. It does not do our reputation any good.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in the case of all taxes of whatever kind which are required to be paid by the individual on demand there is an element that is difficult to collect? That was certainly true of the rates. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree also that the Scottish National Party provost of Perth and Kinross and the Scottish National Party administration of Angus district recognise this and that that is why they are using whatever measures are available to them under the law to collect this tax?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, indeed. Many members of the Scottish National Party are honest, law-abiding citizens. It is unfortunate that their parliamentary representatives in the SNP cannot aspire to such a reputation. Clearly, those representatives do not have the integrity of the many members of their party who are, indeed, obeying the law of the land.
    Mr. Maxton: Is it not feeble of the Secretary of State that, when attacking our roof tax proposals, he manages to find just one branch of one Labour constituency in the whole of Scotland to call in aid, whereas, in respect of the poll tax he refuses to listen to the people of Scotland, to his ex-fellow Cabinet Ministers and to fellow tory MPs, who would like to see the tax withdrawn as soon as possible? Why does he not stop the cruel farce of the poinding of goods in Scotland, or at least make some effort to alleviate it by withdrawing now the 20 per cent. minimum payment of the poll tax? Why does he not at the same time make a promise that anybody entitled to a rebate who has not claimed it may do so now and have it backdated to 1 April 1989?
    Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he should be aware that the Paisley

    267
    Central branch of the Labour party has attacked his party's roof tax proposals. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was forced to call on the Financial Times as the only organ of popular opinion which had so far supported the roof tax. When the Labour party has to call upon the Financial Times as its main supporter we know that it is on the run.

    Maternity Unit, Elgin
    . Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has now received supporting the development of a greenfield site for a specialist maternity unit in Elgin; and if he will make a statement on projected time scales for the announcement of his decision.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: In addition to representations from the hon. Lady and from the chairman——
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient. [Interruption.] Why does not the hon. Gentleman sit down and try again on question No. 10?
    Mr. Buchan: Because it is entirely irrelevant.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Well, there will be other opportunities.
    Mr. Forsyth: In addition to the representations that I have had from the hon. Lady, I have had representations from the chairman of the local health council, Mrs. Roma Hossack, as well as four letters from other organisations and individuals.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister agree that he has received also 2,000 letters as part of a campaign organised by the Maternity Unit for Moray campaign? An additional 1,000 letters will be sent to him from my office shortly. Does he agree that this indicates the very strong feeling in the constituency that a greenfield site should be developed? Does he recall that, in discussions in Elgin in September 1988, he made it clear that this would be a matter not of debate about finance but of the delivery of good health care in my area? Does he agree that his right hon. and learned Friend said in June 1989 that money would be found? Can he now tell us that money will be found for this development, and may we be told the time scale involved?
    Mr. Forsyth: I do not know whether it will come as a shock to the hon. Lady when I tell her that if she examines those letters carefully she will find that they are addressed to her and not to me. I hope that she will reply to each of them individually. Although the letters were not addressed to me, I fully acknowledge the extent of the support that exists for the provision of proper maternity and other services in Moray. The hon. Lady will know that we have received the option appraisal from Grampian health board. I have not yet had an opportunity to study it, but it is being looked at by officials. A hospital on a greenfield site in Elgin would cost around £25 million. It is therefore a major investment proposal. I shall certainly see that it is looked at as speedily as possible. The hon. Lady will appreciate, however, that in view of the scale of the proposal it requires detailed and careful consideration.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that, as well as the letters that he has received, I have also expressed my
    268
    support for the proposals for the maternity unit at Moray? I know the area well] as I was educated there and I am pleased to support the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), because she has supported me in the campaign for Prestwick. She is aware that security, safety and environmental considerations are also important. Will the junior Minister ensure that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State takes account of that in the lowland airports review?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Lady is as ingenious as the hon. Gentleman in putting her message across, it will no doubt be received with some force.
    The question relates to the Moray maternity unit, on which views are held on both sides of the House. The proposal certainly enjoys considerable support in Moray. I was left in no doubt about that when I attended a public meeting with demonstrators outside who said, "Thanks for coming, Mike"—the first time I have ever encountered a demonstration welcoming me to a public meeting in another hon. Member's constituency.
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 11—Sir David Steel—[Interruption.] I was thrown by that piece of ingenuity. We now come to question No. 10.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the operation of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 in relation of the recovery of poll tax arrears.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am satisfied that the powers available to levying authorities in Scotland to collect arrears of community charge are adequate and appropriate for this purpose, as they were for the collection of arrears of domestic rates.
    Mr. Douglas: Having regard to the Minister's legal background, does he acknowledge that anyone surveying the poll tax legislation without realising that he would have to resort to the rigours of poinding and warrant sales is too negligent to hold office and that anyone who did know must have little social conscience? Does he accept that the poll tax legislation is designed to intimidate, embarrass and humiliate the poorer sections of our community? There will be a massive demonstration in Glasgow on 31 March. The people of Scotland are surely entitled to use people power to show their repugnance for the legislation and in the regional elections in May to eliminate the Tories and their supporters from every office in the land.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, more than 1 million people in Scotland at present receive rebates. That is extremely important and it is especially designed to help those who are not well off. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman who feels so strongly about this matter—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) should refrain from shouting.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Evidently the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear the reply.
    The most resented aspects of warrant sales were removed by the 1987 Act—anonymity has been brought

    269
    in, certain exemptions have been made to the range of goods affected, and redemption has also been introduced—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is shouting from a sedentary position, but under the community charge virtually everyone makes a contribution to local authority services. It was an absurd system to assume a link between services used and the size of a person's property—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should not address me as though I am James "Buster" Douglas when I am merely the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West trying to answer his question.
    The individual in a large house pays the community charge required of him by way of a contribution to local authority services, but he also pays through national taxation. I pay my taxes, but the hon. Gentleman is refusing to do so and is urging his constituents to defy the law. The hon. Gentleman is himself paid by the taxpayer, so that is grossly irresponsible.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Interjections from a sedentary position lead the Minister to reply to questions which he was not asked when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was on his feet.
    Mr. McAllion: The Government's regulations force local authorities to recover poll tax arrears from single people claiming income support who have an income of less than £35 per week. Those claimants are the only group of debtors in Scotland not covered by the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. Is the Minister proud that the Government have singled out the poorest in society for the most severe poll tax treatment? Does he not understand that although he can make the poor pay the price of the poll tax now, the voters will make him pay the price of the poll tax when he next faces them?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is for local authorities to decide what method of collection to use. In many cases it will be arrestment of earnings or of bank accounts. It could be by deduction from income support. It need not necessarily be through poinding, warrant sales or summary warrants.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) would have done better to declare an interest in the question as he is not paying his community charge? Does my hon. Friend also agree that it ill behoves any hon. Member, who has been elected to pass laws, to advocate the breaking of laws which he does not want? It makes a mockery of the whole purpose of democracy.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is rendering a disservice to his constituents, who may end up having to pay extra on their community charge if privileged people such as Members of Parliament who are paid by the taxpayer refuse to pay their own community charge.

    Commercial Rating
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from those who offer a bed and breakfast service about the effects of the commercial rating of bed and breakfast premises.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have had numerous representations mainly from those who run small bed and breakfast establishments in rural areas. As announced yesterday, I intend to bring forward regulations to ensure that small bed and breakfast establishments with six places or fewer, or open for fewer than 100 days per year, should be treated as domestic property and thus not liable for non-domestic rates. I am consulting interested parties on details of the scheme.
    Sir David Steel: That answer surely illustrates that nothing concentrates the mind of Ministers more than a question on the Order Paper. I have been in correspondence with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about this since last August, with precious little result, pointing out yet another flaw in the poll tax legislation. It would be churlish of me not to welcome what the Secretary of State has suggested. Releasing from commercial rating bed and breakfast establishments with six beds or fewer will help tourism in rural areas, but will he reconsider the 100-day limit as it makes no sense in areas which provide a modest service all the year round?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful for the welcome that the right hon. Gentleman has given to what I announced. He has made representations on the matter, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and other hon. Gentlemen on both sides.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: And hon. Ladies.
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, hon. Members on both sides of the. House—hon. Gentlemen and Ladies. The limit of 100 days is intended to distinguish between bed and breakfast establishments that are run essentially as commercial businesses, where non-domestic rates should apply, and bed and breakfast activity that is marginal to the main purpose of the accommodation.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend. accept that in Pitlochry, and around the highlands of Perthshire and Angus, his decision on establishments with six beds will be welcome? He knows that there has been great concern because of the impact that the legislation could have had. It would have meant the withdrawal of a facility which is essential to the tourist industry in those areas.
    Mr. Rifkind: I was very conscious of the problems for the tourist industry in rural areas. That is why we thought it appropriate to make the changes that I have announced. They will be welcomed by the tourist industry and by many tens of thousands of people of modest means who get some additional income through bed and breakfast establishments of the kind indicated.
    Mr. Wilson: I am tempted to wonder whether the Secretary of State is serious. How many bed and breakfast establishments does he know of in tourist areas in Scotland which operate for fewer than 100 nights per year? Will he be suggesting to them which nine months of the year they should close? Will he police them with inspectors? Will another aspect of the poll tax be to have inspectors going round to check that bed and breakfast businesses are open for fewer than 100 nights a year? The idea is ridiculous.
    Does the Minister accept that the property tax on bed-and-breakfast establishments is another Tory roof tax, as is the standard community charge on second homes? Is not the vast increase in mortgage rates the most

    271
    crippling roof tax of all? Is not it Scotland's singular misfortune under his rule to have a Tory poll tax and several Tory roof taxes?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework on the first part of his question, or he would know that a very large number of bed-and-breakfast establishments will be exempt from non-domestic rates within the 100-day cut-off period. On the latter part of his remarks, I can only suggest that if he is interested in the welfare of his constituents he should accept that under the Labour party's roof tax proposals not only owner-occupiers, but all council tenants will pay the roof tax. I note that the hon. Gentleman nods. He will appreciate that the council tenants who suffer most will be those living in property recently renovated by local authorities so that the market value of the properties has doubled overnight.
    I know that the hon. Gentleman is nervous about the unanimously hostile reaction that the Labour party has received to its roof tax proposals. That is no doubt why it has decided to put off any comparable announcement south of the border. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is considering using Scotland as a guinea pig for the roof tax.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: The provision of bed and breakfast in tourist areas is extremely important as it provides quality accommodation at reasonable prices, as is true in my constituency of Sherwood where millions of people come to visit our famous forest. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour plans to end derating will bring immediate hardship to those providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation in agricultural areas?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is a feature of the Labour party's rural policy that, when it published its Scottish rural policy document last week, it did not highlight the fact that it wishes to end the derating of agricultural land. As my hon. Friend rightly said, that would devastate not only the farming communities but those who depend on the agriculture industry for the well-being of Scotland's rural areas.

    British Steel
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of British Steel; what issues were discussed; and when he next expects to meet him.
    Mr. Rifkind: I last met the chairman of British Steel on 26 October 1989 when we discussed matters relevant to the steel industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman actually telling us that despite the crisis that has hit confidence among steelworkers in Lanarkshire, he has made no attempt to hold a meeting with the chairman of British Steel? That is a disgrace. Will he seek an urgent meeting with the chairman and ask why, with a current capital investment programme of £397 million, not a brown penny has been directed to Lanarkshire? Will he also ask how it can be that over the next four years, with 46 rigs to be built for the North sea requiring a new steel demand of 740,000 tonnes, British Steel can continue to place a question mark over the steelworkers in Lanarkshire?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have had continuing contact with British Steel since last October. The hon. Gentleman's question related to an actual meeting and I gave him the correct answer. On the more substantial part of his remarks, we all share his hope that British Steel will produce new investment for steel plants in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will work closely with those at Ravenscraig rather than distancing themselves from the general view in Scotland that through co-operative efforts the best prospects can be achieved for the future well-being of the steel industry in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman knows that his party is out of kilter with Scottish opinion and that its short-sighted approach has found no favour with the work force at Ravenscraig.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that an immediate decision is pending from British Steel on its plate strategy and especially on the future of the Dalziel plate mill? Is he further aware that the modernisation of that mill is the only fully viable route by which not only the future of platemaking can be pursued economically, but a long-term future secured for other developments at Ravenscraig?
    Mr. Rifkind: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's obvious interest in this matter. I agree that the decision in favour of a new plate mill at Dalziel would be of great benefit to the long-term interests of the steel industry in Scotland. We welcome the report produced by Glasgow university last week, which put forward a commercial and not an emotional argument on why there was a good case for that investment in Scotland. We hope that British Steel will scrutinise that report and reach a judgment based on the commercial criteria which can properly be applied to such issues.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), who believes in independence in Europe, that there is a European prohibition on state aid for primary steel making? Will he further confirm that British Steel has made it absolutely clear that in the event of its no longer wishing to operate Ravenscraig it will offer the plant for sale to another buyer?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly true that the European Community forbids any member Government or member state to give taxpayers' support to new investment in primary steel producing. My hon. Friend is also correct that when the industry was privatised British Steel made it clear that if at any time it had no further interest in its assets, particularly at Ravenscraig in Scotland, it would consider an alternative offer for the acquisition of those assets.
    Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State has made it clear that he had a good deal of sympathy with the arguments in Glasgow university's report, which was prepared for the Strathclyde regional council, about the possibility of developing the plate mill at Dalziel. Will he say a little more about how he intends to progress that matter? The Minister of State was reported in the Scottish press on Tuesday as saying that
    "he expected to be in contact with BS executives 'in due course'."
    Does that mean that Ministers will be personally involved in those meetings? At what level of British Steel does he

    273
    expect the meetings to take place? Can he also say something about the time scale because there is a worry that "in due course" may suggest an over-leisurely approach when in fact decisions by British Steel may be imminent. That is a matter of great urgency. I hope that the Secretary of State will be specific about what he intends to do.
    Mr. Rifkind: I understand the force of the hon. Gentleman's question. We believe that it is important that British Steel should be aware of the Scottish Office view on these important matters. British Steel's future plate mill strategy is of importance to the Government. I certainly wish to ensure that, well before any decision is reached by British Steel, it has the views not only of the Glasgow university report but of everyone, including the Scottish Office, about the merits of the various options under consideration.

    Drug Education
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on drug education in schools.
    Mr. Lang: Programmes of drug education are undertaken by all education authorities in Scotland. The Scottish Education Department has collaborated in the production of curricular material for schools, and makes a specific grant available for the in-service training of teachers in health education, including education about drugs.
    Mr. Rathbone: That is welcome news, but can my hon. Friend reassure the House that particular help will be given to those schools in areas where drug misuse is greatest—for example in the Edinburgh, Leith constituency? Has he been in touch with the organisation called Life Education Centres which does a marvellous job in parts of England but which, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet done anything in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in these matters. Indeed, he is chairman of the all-party drug misuse group. I am aware of the good work done by the organisation to which he referred. There are several organisations in Scotland that take a close interest in these matters, and in the Scottish Office there is the Scottish health education group. We ensure that a number of initiatives are targeted at particular age groups, and packages of materials are made available to all secondary schools in Scotland.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Minister accept that drug abuse and addiction are connected with high unemployment? If we look at any place in Scotland and Britain we find that that is the case. Will the Minister come with me to my constituency and visit the group that he mentioned?
    Mr. Lang: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, relating drug abuse to high unemployment, is right. It is important, however, that we target our campaigns as effectively as possible. As part of that, we are developing teacher in-service training, on which we have spent about £600,000 over the past four years.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of my correspondence with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for health about the concern of the drugs advisory committee on Grampian health board that the area has not been selected as a priority area for new drug prevention schemes? Although fortunately the area does not face so immediate or great a problem as some other centres of population, does my hon. Friend agree that money spent on prevention before the problem manifests itself is much better than money spent afterwards on treatment?
    Mr. Lang: I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend. All education authorities in Scotland have nominated a senior official to co-ordinate these matters. I hope that that is happening effectively in Grampian, as elsewhere. I shall look into the matter.

    Community Charge
    Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many extra staff have been employed by regional and island councils in Scotland to deal with the administration and collection of the poll tax.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No information is held centrally on the number of extra staff employed by local authorities on community charge work.
    Mr. McLeish: After the Government's hypocritical and, indeed, near-hysterical response to Labour's alternative, will the Minister accept that the collection of the poll tax in Scotland has involved a scandalous misuse of scarce public resources? Will he concede that Labour's alternative will be simpler, fairer and much cheaper to collect?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The extra cost, as compared with the collection of rates, is £14·5 million, but we consider that justified in terms of greater fairness and accountability. With the roof tax there would be an army of valuers, assessors, monitors and statisticians. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who said in The Scotsman that the
    "Labour party policy document on the roof tax must rank high in bidding for the top prize for confusion and obscurantism".
    Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. First we have an application under Standing Order No. 20.

Storm Damage (Government Assistance)
3.32 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the time limit on Government assistance towards storm damage costs."
The matter is specific, in that it refers to the terms of the Bellwin scheme, under which, after councils have met a certain threshold cost of damage repair, the Government provide 75 per cent. of the further costs. We all know the limitations: many things that we think should be covered are not—for example, the 4 million lost trees. There is no help with replanting trees or with homes that have been engulfed, and pensioners receive no help with rebuilding fences and walls.,
Today I am concerned only with the time limits of the scheme. Under the Bellwin scheme, except in north Wales, only work completed by 31 March this year qualifies for Government assistance. Even if the damage took place on 30 March, the repairs would have to be completed by the 31st. Many areas in all parts of the country have suffered from the recent storm chaos. Homes have been engulfed by floods; there has been severe damage to buildings, sea defences and communications. We cannot be sure that we will not face more such damage in the next couple of weeks.
The matter is urgent because councils are already at their wits' end trying to complete January's repairs. Now they have been hit by these most recent storms, when their own direct labour organisations and the independent contractors are already tied up trying to deal with previous remedial work. Councils have only four weeks from Saturday to find contractors, negotiate contracts and complete the work.
It is not possible to comply with their arbitrary deadline. Storms do not tidily occur well before the end of the financial year, so that full cost of uncompleted work could fall on next year's poll tax payers. Councils and victims of the storms need this arbitrary and unrealistic deadline lifted, and we should debate the matter urgently.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the time limit on Government assistance towards storm damage costs."
As the right hon. Member knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what he has said on this matter, but, as he knows, the decision that I have to take is whether to give the matter precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that in this case the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed in today's Hansard a written answer by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) in reply to a question from me in relation to possible local income tax rates in Scotland. I received that answer at 7·15 last night, after leaving a Committee. I know that it was not available on the board at 6 o'clock because I took other mail from the board at that time. I have here a news release from the Scottish Conservative party in the name of Mr. Brian Meek, the leader of the Conservative group on Lothian regional council. It starts by saying:
"Commenting on the approximate rates of local income tax released today".
That clearly relates to the question and answer that are in Hansard today and which I received at 7·15 last night. The press release is timed just after 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon.
It is quite clear that the Scottish Conservative party and Mr. Brian Meek were given before I got it the information that was meant for me. That is a serious breach of parliamentary etiquette. It is not the way in which Ministers should act.
It also raises the more important constitutional issue of the very worrying relationship between the Scottish Office press department and the Tory party press office in Scotland. While a mistake may have been made on this occasion, it could only have been made if the press office in the Scottish Office gave special privileges to the Tory party in Scotland that it does not give to any other political party in Scotland or to any organisation there. I should be grateful for any help and guidance that you can give me on this matter, Mr. Speaker.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is correct in thinking that a mistake was made yesterday. I am glad to repeat to the House the apology that I have already made to the hon. Gentleman. There was a breakdown in communications. It was believed that the written question had been answered and that the information was in the public domain. I therefore very much regret that the written answer did not arrive on the board until 6.45pm last night and at the Library at 6.30 pm. I shall take steps to ensure that this mistake is not repeated.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain after that apology whether there is much more to be said.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not making something out of nothing. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for his apology. He made it in personal terms which I entirely accept. However, I am genuinely worried about the possible repetition and what is suggested about the methods that are used. It would be in the interests of everyone if we accepted the principle that a written answer is the property of the hon. Member who put down the question until the time that the answer is in his hands. We want an assurance that the Scottish Office

277
will look closely at its methods and make very sure—cast-iron copper-bottomed sure—that the Scottish Conservative party is not getting the kind of flier that clearly occurred in this case.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will hear Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I sought yesterday at Question Time to catch your eye on five questions but was unsuccessful. Having listened to your response to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) when he disrupted questions today with points of order, may I take it that, if I had disrupted questions yesterday, you would have given me advice as to the question on which I might be called?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is being a little too sophisticated. She obviously does not come very often into Scottish questions, during which there is a good deal of chat between both sides of the House.
Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that the Leader of the House is in his place, because this point concerns the transfer of questions from the Scottish Office to other Departments. It is difficult to understand what is going on. You were kind enough to call my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), who had questions on the Order Paper for answer today. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston tabled the following question:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many old age pensioners in Scotland"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this not just an extension of Question Time? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I say to the House and to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that I am constantly being urged to speed up the rate of progress in Question Time, and I try to do that, in the interests of those who have questions high on the Order Paper. I cannot possibly expect to get in every hon. Member who wishes to be called.
Several Hon Members rose—
Mr. Hogg: The point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, is about the transfer of this question by the Scottish Office to another Department. If I repeat the question to you, I think that you will agree that it is pertinent to the Scottish Office and has nothing to do with any other Department. It was:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many old age pensioners in Scotland are liable to pay only 20 per cent. of the poll tax."
That question was transferred. Neither I nor my hon. Friends understand that.
That decision was conveyed to my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston in a letter from somebody called Catherine McGoldrick. That is a highly improper practice. The question was in order and should have been dealt with by the Scottish Office. It is not acceptable for Scottisl. Members to be treated in this way when other questions are being tabled by English Members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his say. This is not a matter for me to understand, either. I do not transfer questions—that is a matter for the Ministers concerned. I am not responsible for such things.
Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding what you said about Scottish Question Time, because of the numerous points of order from Opposition Members, we reached only question No. 14, which is unfair for those in the first 25. Will you make it clear to the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, that all points of order will be taken after questions, not during them?
Mr. Speaker: Points of order are taken at the correct time, which is after applications under Standing Order No. 20. Points of order arising during Question Time must be taken then if they need my immediate attention. I am sure that the House will accept however that, in a way, they are self-policing.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to reflect further on the inevitable difficulties caused to our procedures if, as is the case, a junior Minister in the Scottish Office is also chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland, because he is covering the same geographical area. In those circumstances, what confidence can hon. Members have that other political parties in Scotland are being treated equitably with the Conservative party by the Scottish Office?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This relates to written questions. An interesting suggestion was made—that written questions should be the property of the hon. Member who has tabled the question until such time as that hon. Member has possession of the question. You will be aware that hon. Members often do not pick up written questions until late in the day, and that questions are also supplied to the media. Therefore, before making a decision on that suggestion one must recognise that that system would not work because of the way that this place operates, and consequently that is a request which cannot be honoured.
Mr. Speaker: The point that was raised was about the availability of the question—that the question should have been available at 3.30.
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are aware that I would not raise a point of order with you unless it arose out of a serious intervention, as was the case at Question Time. It was suggested that I had an interest to declare. Normally I would have brushed that aside, but in view of the strictures levelled by a senior Committee of the House on the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and the fact that our proceedings, especially at Question Time, arc well televised and noted by the electors of Scotland, I wish wholeheartedly to declare my interest, which is——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not necessary for interests to be declared during Question Time.
Mr. Douglas: My integrity was impugned by a Conservative Member. I am happy to declare that I am withholding payment of the poll tax, as is Mrs. Douglas. We are doing so in the interests of standing beside those who cannot pay.
Mr. Speaker: Order. What I say to the hon. Member—I say it to the whole House—is that if we have supplementary questions from a sedentary position, Ministers tend to answer them, and that delays our proceedings.
Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) raised the question of the treatment of defaulters under the community charge. He is a well publicised defaulter. Should he not have declared his interest?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order for me.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 16 MARCH
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Timothy Raison

Mr. William Hague

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 9903/89 on accounts of insurance undertakings be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Security Service Act 1989 (Amendment)
3.47 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Security Service Act 1989 to provide that a complaint may be made to the Security Service Tribunal in respect of the actions of the Service whether or not the complainant has been the subject of inquiries by the Service; to widen the orders of reference of the Tribunal to include investigation of complaints about any activity of the Service, provided that the Tribunal shall be satisfied that such complaints are neither frivolous nor vexatious; to require that reports on certain categories of investigation shall be laid before Parliament; to give Members of Parliament a right of access to the Tribunal in matters directly affecting them or their constituents; and for connected purposes.
The long preamble to the Bill represents an honest, serious stab at lessening the chances of the recurrence in future of what generically we can call the Colin Wallace affair. In plain language, an enhanced social service tribunal might act as some deterrent to the kind of thing that happened to the Wilson and Heath Governments in the 1970s—set out by Wilson in his evidence to the Royal Commission on the press in May 1977—happening to a Kinnock or, for that matter, to a Baker, a Patten or a Heseltine Government in the 1990s.
I have never indulged in blanket criticism of the security services. The late Sir Maurice Oldfield and others have been friends but, equally, prima facie it seems that elements of the security services have run amok. The proposal in my Bill is about making all elements of the security services accountable.
The tribunal route to accountability has its attractions. The tribunal is a filter. It can refuse to countenance the frivolous or vexatious. Equally, when confronted by a book such as Paul Foot's "Who Framed Colin Wallace?"—or, in my opinion, Captain Fred Holroyd's "War Without Honour"—the tribunal would surely say, "It is our job to look at this stuff properly." The cases should not be time-limited; the tribunal should be able to investigate as far back as it deems necessary.
The tribunal is already in existence, so I am not suggesting setting up some expensive new apparatus. Its members are men and women with the necessary familiarity with the security services and their modus operandi. Lord Justice Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, Mr. Justice Simon Brown, Sir Richard Gaskell, last year's president of the Law Society, and Sheriff John McInnes are all familiar with security matters. In the Wallace case, a tribunal should call Sir Percy Craddock, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and Sir Christopher Curwen, security co-ordinator, to ask the reasons for their advice. It should also call Mr. Dennis Payne.
The tribunal members are presumably considered sufficiently reliable to handle delicate and highly classified information. Assuming—and it is a whopper of an assumption—that the House of Commons really wants to find out the truth of what occurred in the Wallace affair, I am not enchanted by the alternatives. You yourself judge, Mr. Speaker—rightly, in my view—that the Privileges Committee is not a suitable body to conduct an investigation of what happened a quarter of a century ago and 15 years ago, and the subsequent concealment.
Should any hon. Member be interested, I can explain further—from personal experience of being hauled before the Privileges Committee and questioned by the late

281
Duncan Sandys, Elwyn Jones and others—why the Privileges Committee should not become involved in a Wallace-type affair. I can also explain from personal experience, having given evidence before the Franks committee for one hour and 55 minutes, why I do not believe that such a committee—the committee considering the Falklands consisted of the Lords Barber, Lever and Watkinson, Sir Patrick Nairne and my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds. South (Mr. Rees)—is the ideal set-up.
At one time, I supposed that the Security Commission was a good vehicle for an investigation, but a friendly letter from its distinguished chairman and Law Lord, Lord Griffiths of Govilon, made it clear that he could act only on a reference from the Prime Minister. The House can judge how likely it is that that would be forthcoming. As for the type of inquiry held under David Calcutt QC, I heard the master of Magdalene college, Cambridge, say on the radio that he would stick precisely to his terms of reference, and that only the decision of Parliament could widen its scope.
Nor am I happy about the investigation by the Select Committee on Defence. Select Committees have many virtues, but politicians who want to keep their political noses clean with colleagues—of any and every party—are not the most impartial of investigative inquiry practitioners when the political chips may come down. None of us who heard it in the Committee Room will quickly forget the supercilious stonewalling of Sir Leon Brittan when he was asked direct questions by members of the Defence Select Committee.
As for parliamentary questions, whether on account of the Osmotherly rules or plain bloody-minded obstruction, the cat-and-mouse saga on Wallace suffered over the past three years by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and myself is a disgrace to parliamentary democracy. All we ask for are some truthful and candid answers, but the resolution of the issue by means of parliamentary questions is about as likely as a quick solution to Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.
Let me give some examples of the advantages that a tribunal would have. Were Army intelligence services and MI5 really unaware of homosexual abuses at the Kincora boys home before 1980? Did General Leng order his intelligence staff to alert the police as early as 1974, after they had shown him a dossier naming the men and boys involved, and, if so, what happened? Those are some questions that the tribunal could ask; I share the widely reported distaste of Sir Michael Quinlan at the fact that nothing was done.
The tribunal could ask whether Colin Wallace's document of 8 November 1974 was a forgery, as suggested by the Hughes report. I understand that Judge Hughes is very embarrassed about that. It could also ask whether the Prime Minister's office is vulnerable to burglary, which is not a trivial question. On 24 July last year I asked the right hon. Lady:
"how many documents were received in relation to Colin Wallace and sent by or on behalf of Colin Wallace to No. 10 Downing street for onward transmission to the Hughes inquiry into the Kincora boys' home; how many were sent on to Judge Hughes; and what are the reasons for the difference between the two figures."
The Prime Minister replied:
"A file of papers relating to Mr. Cohn Wallace was submitted to my office on 1 November 1984, but was returned to the sender on 24 November. No complete record of the
282
documents was retained. No question arose at that stage of the papers being intended for onward transmission to the Hughes inquiry. When it was subsequently requested that the papers should be sent to the inquiry, such documents as had been copied and retained were duly made available." — [Official Report, 24 July 1989, Vol. 157, c. 439.]
The tribunal should be empowered to examine such questions as whether that short answer contains three grave errors of fact.
First, in his letter of 30 January to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), the Minister of State for the Armed Forces conceded that the Ministry of Defence "have no reason" to doubt that Mr. Wallace's assertions that the file was not returned to him and that a copy of the file was returned. I do not want to get thrown out for had parliamentary language, but if I were to say the category that that would come under, I should be suspended for five days.
Secondly, that means that the original was retained, so a complete record of the document was retained. A similar comment applies to that.
Thirdly, we now hear from several Ministers that no documents of any importance were made available to the Hughes inquiry. Indeed, Judge Hughes made it clear that he did not see any documents from the Prime Minister's office.
What happened to the originals of those documents? The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that no explanation has come to light. Governments really ought not to lose documents of that sensitivity. A tribunal such as I suggest could examine whether the files were stolen from No. 10 Downing street; and if so, by whom and for what reason. The copy which was returned to M r. Wallace's friend, Mr. Holroyd, was passed to his Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Southend, East (M r. Taylor). The hon. Gentleman subsequently reported to the police that the file has gone missing after being locked tip in his House of Commons office. It reappeared mysteriously several days later, 30 miles away in the hon. Gentleman's constituency office.
All those matters should be looked at. When Monday's issue of The Times reported that the Cabinet Office is solemnly engaged in an examination of the bizarre allegation that MI5 has been using premium bond cheques, supposedly issued by ERNIE for paying freelance agents, it is really high time that the House of Commons did something.
My proposal is sensible, cautious and practical. An honest tribunal of distinguished people and capable lawyers should be able to look at the Wallace case, the Holroyd case and, if necessary, the extraordinary business of ERNIE paying out money—as printed on page 2 of The Times, which is supposedly a major paper of record—and to find out what is going on in this country. My proposal for a tribunal is democratic; it is not unduly expensive, it is practical and effective.
Question put and agreed to.

SECURITY SERVICE ACT 1989 (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Tam Dalyell, supported by Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Robert N. Wareing, presented a Bill to amend the Security Service Act 1989 to provide that a complaint may be made to the Security Service Tribunal in respect of the actions of the Service

283
whether or not the complainant has been the subject of inquiries by the Service; to widen the orders of reference of the Tribunal to include investigation of complaints about any activity of the Service, provided that the Tribunal shall be satisfied that such complaints are neither frivolous nor vexatious; to require that reports on certain categories of investigation shall be laid before Parliament; to give Members of Parliament a right of access to the Tribunal in matters directly affecting them or their constituents; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 April and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

Royal Air Force
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
3.58 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Nineteen-ninety is the year of the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. Throughout the year, in different parts of the nation, there will be formal commemorations of those events of 1940, culminating in a major parade and fly-past over London in September. In these circumstances it is a particular privilege to be able to make my own tribute to the courage, determination and skills of the Royal Air Force, past and present and the House will carry that anniversary in the forefront of its mind during our debate this afternoon.
I suggest two reasons in particular. The first is the uncertainties in the international situation. For the first time in that period—indeed for longer, because it was clear from the time of the Munich crisis who our enemies were and where the battles would be fought—the familiar certainties of a clearly identified threat, a traditional confrontation, appear to have diminished.
The policies that the West has collectively pursued, and the international institutions that we have developed, have guaranteed us peace and security and freedom and prosperity. The people of eastern Europe now want to share our success. The challenge facing the West is how to accommodate their aspirations without jeopardising our own achievements and, above all, our security.
While the apparatus of Communism and of the Warsaw pact is disintegrating, we retain firm foundations on which to build. We have robust and healthy institutions—the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, the Western European Union and the European Community—within which we can co-ordinate our work towards a stable and lasting security order in Europe.
Political and military changes must go hand in hand. The current negotiations on conventional armed forces in Europe are of particular importance. They are an indication of the good faith of the East in reducing its overwhelming superiority in conventional armaments, and a CFE agreement will be a major step towards the new order that we are seeking.
The second reason is even more relevant. As everyone knows, the battle of Britain was a very close-run thing. There were two points when the attrition rate of aircraft and skilled aircrew was such that our survival—and thus the survival of western democracy as a whole—was in jeopardy. That crisis can be directly linked to the neglect—founded in optimism, in parsimony and in political cowardice, for some of which the House of Commons cannot escape blame—of the early 1930s. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was a Tory Government!"] Certainly; I do not deny that. With that recollection in our minds, I am sure that the House would agree that we must—with the Royal Air Force of all the services—guard against a repetition of those mistakes.
I propose to refer, first, to the operational achievements of the RAF in the past year, then to discuss the procurement aspect for the future, and finally to touch on certain personnel matters.
The Royal Air Force continues to play a full part in the United Kingdom's military commitments outside the

285
NATO area, with forces stationed in Belize, Cyprus, the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong. Aircraft of the air transport forces maintain regular support to those garrisons.
In addition to those continuing commitments, Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft have deployed to Oman on a series of training exercises with the Sultan of Oman's armed forces.
In March last year, the United Kingdom was asked by the United Nations, at very short notice, to send personnel to Namibia. A six-man air operations team was dispatched, and, for the first three months of its deployment, it helped oversee the arrival of military and civil aircraft bringing in the various national contingents and their equipment and supplies.
This year, Royal Air Force aircraft will again be deploying to the far east to take part in a major exercise under the five-power defence arrangements. Those arrangements bring United Kingdom forces together with those of Malaysia. Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Royal Air Force participation will include Tornado F3 and GR1 aircraft, together with tanker support, and underlines our continued commitment to the arrangements and the importance that we attach to the area.
In addition, the RAF has played a significant role in disaster relief. Following the passage of hurricane Hugo through the eastern Caribbean, it was involved in the provision of urgent assistance to a number of the Leeward Islands which had suffered damage. RAF Hercules shuttled over 49,000 lbs of freight and 400 passengers from Antigua to Montserrat and St. Kitts. In addition, those aircraft carried personnel of the Bermuda defence force to the British Virgin Islands to assist in the restoration of essential services there.
The Royal Air Force has also taken part in relief work in the United Kingdom following the January gales. RAF Hercules performed the particularly valuable task of carrying electricity-generating equipment to parts of the country left without power. Since Monday, when a sea wall was breached at Towyn, north Wales, four RAF search and rescue helicopters have airlifted 75 people from the town. RAF mountain rescue teams have also joined the police in helping more than 500 people to safety.
The RAF continues to play a vital role in more traditional search and rescue operations at home and abroad. In 1989, some 900 people were rescued in the United Kingdom alone. Some hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller)—who is not in his place—have expressed concern at the recent redeployment of military SAR assets. As we expected, coverage over the country as a whole, particularly at night and in bad weather, has been improved. I am glad that these misgivings have proved unfounded.
The House will wish to congratulate the RAF on its achievements over the past weekend in going to the aid of injured passengers aboard the stricken Cypriot ferry the Baroness M. Following a call from the ship to the Cyprus marine radio station, the RAF rescue co-ordination centre in Cyprus scrambled three Wessex helicopters of No. 84 squadron and a visiting Nimrod from No. 201 squadron. Fifteen casualties were winched from the ship and taken to Larnaca international airport for onward transport to hospital.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Can my hon. Friend confirm whether the RAF has been able to establish the nationality of the gunboat that attacked this unarmed ferry on the high seas? Obviously that information would be of some interest to the House, not least from the point of view of the safety of other shipping in the area.
Mr. Clark: My understanding is that the gunboat carried Syrian markings.
The year 1989 was a special one for the Red Arrows. It was the team's silver jubilee year and it culminated in an open day air show, held in October at Scampton. Royal Air Force aircraft and display teams from France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland, as well as the Red Arrows, displayed their skills to an enthusiastic crowd, some of whom had come especially for the event from distant parts of the world. On those occasions when it is possible to send the Red Arrows abroad, they act as a marvellous demonstration of the quality of British aircraft as well as the excellence of the pilots who fly them. Such displays have a wider role to play in enhancing British prestige and trading prospects in those places.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): The hon. Gentleman has outlined a background of a diminution in international tension. Would it not be ironic if that resulted in an increase in low-flying sorties over rural areas as many of these aircraft are relocated from German air space to United Kingdom air space? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the present level of low flying in the rural areas of Scotland is unacceptable as it is, and that any increase in Scotland is out of the question?
Mr. Clark: I am well aware that low flying is a matter of great concern to a number of hon. Members, especially those whose constituencies are directly affected. I propose to touch on that matter. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with my comments, I shall refer to it again, if the House grants me leave.
The House will be aware of the importance that we attach to the safety of all display flying. Last year, we completed a comprehensive review of military flying regulations aimed at ensuring that the RAF would continue to entertain the public as safely and professionally as possible. None the less, every year tragically sees a number of major accidents involving RAF aircraft, in some of which some service men are killed.
As the House well knows, every accident is exhaustively investigated, and we make every effort to ensure that the lessons learned minimise the risk of recurrence. There is no accident level that we regard as acceptable; we are always striving to make military flying safer. But we also have to ensure that our aircrew receive the experience and training that they need to perform their operational roles. Well-trained, experienced pilots are an essential element in enhancing flight safety.
I am sure that the House will be pleased to learn that 1989 was an exceptionally safe year for the RAF in terms of both the absolute number of major aircraft accidents and the more significant measure of the major accident rate per 10,000 flying hours—0·31. This confirms the long-term trend in major RAF accidents, which has been downwards for many years.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Before my hon. Friend leaves the matter of safety, will he comment on the conclusions of his review? Does he agree, that it is

287
dangerous for aircraft to carry out tight turns over crowded areas, and that such turns can better be carried out over runways?
Mr. Clark: If the crews are properly trained and fly at the highest levels of skill and competence, as we believe they do, it does not make any difference whether a tight turn is carried out over open country or an urban area. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a tight turn, providing that the proper procedures and skills are deployed. I am confident that they always would be deployed.
Mr. Allan Rogers: I am amazed at the Minister's answer to his hon. Friend. I understood that the RAF had issued instructions to its display teams that they should not do tight turns over crowded areas and that the RAF recognised the danger of such operations where there is a likelihood, as in Ramstein in Germany, that a plane could plough into the crowds and kill. Would he check on that? I thought that the RAF had issued such an order.
Mr. Clark: Aircraft do not plough into crowds simply because they are making a tight turn. Several factors are involved in a failure of a catastrophic nature such as the hon. Gentleman cited. Every accident is subject to a full inquiry and has different characteristics, although we deplore all accidents.
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met the newly formed all-party group on low flying last autumn. The Public Accounts Committee last week considered a report from the Comptroller and Auditor General. My Department has co-operated fully with the extensive inquiry conducted by the Select Committee on Defence. We await the outcome of these investigations and will certainly give them the most careful consideration.
Mr. Salmond rose——
Mr. Clark: I should prefer it if the hon. Member developed his arguments in the course of his own speech, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Salmond rose——
Mr. Clark: I have concluded my survey of operational matters and I should prefer to move on to the procurement aspect. I shall listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says if he proposes to remain for the rest of the debate.
As the House knows, the RAF has several major programmes of equipment modernisation under way.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a real point of order?
Mr. Salmond: The Minister said earlier when he did not reply to my intervention that he would make some substantive comments on low flying. His remarks were so insubstantial that many hon. Members may have missed them.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It may be a point of frustration.
Mr. Clark: I explained that the Department has been co-operating fully with an extensive inquiry. When the outcome of those investigations is to hand, we shall give it our consideration and a further statement will be made.
288
On 23 January, in reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), I made a series of points on the European fighter aircraft—in particular the selection of the radar. I should like to reinforce what I said then and, in particular, reaffirm our whole-hearted commitment to the project.
An effective air defence is essential for the security of the United Kingdom. The EFA will be, in the late 1990s and beyond, the leading air defence fighter of its generation. Work on the prototype aircraft is proceeding well, as is the development of the engine and the selection of equipments. The key to EFA is its ability to detect, track, identify and attack hostile aircraft. The radar must meet all our specifications, however exacting. Continuing and fruitful discussions on this subject between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his German counterpart last month give me confidence that a decision is near to hand.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Clark: I shall complete my remarks on this subject before I give way.
I share the concern of many that the Ferranti Defence Systems' ECR90 radar should receive the recognition that it deserves. To this end, the anticipated acquisition of FDS by GEC should dispel any reservations our partners may have had concerning Ferranti's financial viability. In doing so, the competing bids will be considered on their respective merits.
To bring about this restructuring in so short a time was a remarkable achievement well illustrating the flexibility and the capacity for long-term strategic thinking by British industry. This has been widely welcomed by hon. Members representing the constituents concerned.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of Ferranti, is not it outrageous that Sir Derek Alun-Jones, the chairman of Ferranti, should receive something like £0·5 million—I believe that it is £497,000—in a golden handshake when the track record of that company over the past 12 months is appalling, especially in relation to the company's acquisitions? Is not it the taxpayer who ultimately picks up the bill for this, because the taxpayer is Ferranti's primary customer?
Mr. Clark: The extent to which Ferranti shareholders, who have seen the value of their investment decline by over two thirds in the past year, share this view is for others to judge.
The only sour note in this affair was struck by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) who searched desperately round, to the considerable embarrassment—I suspect—of some of his Scottish colleagues for grounds on which to oppose and criticise. The actual phrase he used was "dirty dealing", and he did his best to spread alarm and despondency with various accusations, all of them shown to be quite groundless. I shall look forward to his comments, if he feels inclined to make any, on how he sees the present situation—
Mr. Martin O'Neill (Clackmannan): I said that at the time, when I felt that it was justified in the sense that the disclosures trickled out and there was a lot of anxiety and many legitimate questions that had to be answered. In the main, those questions have been answered in the discussions and meetings that we have had with Mr. Dunn of Ferranti and with Lord Weinstock.

289
I and others have been unreserved in our satisfaction at the outcome of that extremely worrying period which, given the Minister of State's characteristically languid approach to these matters, filled us with great alarm at the time. We now recognise that, in difficult circumstances, this is probably the best possible deal that could have been achieved. We have had assurances from Lord Weinstock, to which we shall seek to keep him, and we are happy to have that opportunity.
Mr. Clark: I am flattered by the hon. Gentleman's reference to my style and am gratified by his apology.
The first Harrier GR5 squadron is now fully operational at RAF Wittering and was declared to NATO at the end of last year. The second, at RAF Gutersloh, is due to be declared later this year. This aircraft has a greatly improved capability and performance over the Harrier GR3, which it is replacing. Delivery of the first Harrier GR7, the night attack version of the GR5, is expected later this year. All Harrier GR5s will eventually be converted to GR7 standard. In addition, we intend, subject to the satisfactory resolution of contractual and other details, to order 14 new Harrier two-seat training aircraft. Those aircraft, known as the T-10, will meet the rigorous training requirements of the Harrier GR5 and GR7. They will also have a full operational capability.
Progress continues to be made on the enhancement—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Minister any idea of the costs of the conversion of the GR5 to GR7? As a Minister, he will know better than anyone that such conversions can be technically difficult and extremely costly, and that they are not quite as simple as they might seem.
Mr. Clark: There is a note of it. As this is a point on which the House will wish to be enlightened, if the hon. Gentleman will remain in the Chamber until the conclusion of the debate, I shall certainly give that information then.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): May I say how welcome it is that the Royal Air Force is to acquire the Harrier T10, so that the training aeroplane is now compatible with the GR5 and the GR7, which the crews will have to fly? Are the GR3s to be retained for service in Belize, or will Belize have an all-GR5 and GR7 force?
Mr. Clark: I think that, in the fullness of time, it will be an all-GR5 and GR7 force, but plainly that cannot happen overnight.
Progress continues to be made on the enhancement of our air-to-air refuelling capability and the replacement of the aging Victor tanker fleet. Air-to-air refuelling increases the operational range and endurance of combat aircraft, allowing them to be deployed more flexibly. I can report that contracts have recently been placed for the conversion of a further 13 VC10 aircraft to a tanker role.
The Royal Air Force utility EH101 helicopter programme is currently in the project definition phase. This involves examining in detail the RAF's foreseen requirement against a range of options and establishing the costs and risks associated with each. The results of this work will provide the basis for decisions on the next stage of the programme.
I note that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who frequently questions Ministers on this subject, is not in his place. I recognise, of course, that
290
Wednesday is very late in the week for an SLD Member of Parliament to be in the House of Commons. I am sure that we all appreciate the urgency of the right hon. Gentleman's commitments outside.
Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre): Can my hon. Friend indicate when a decision on the EH101 utility version for the Air Force is likely to be taken?
Mr. Clark: I cannot give such an indication. We do not yet have enough information on which to base a decision. I am quite certain that it would be wrong to make a decision before we are entirely satisfied as to the specification and whether it meets our requirements.
The RAF attaches special importance to the morale and well-being of the Air Cadet Force.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I should like to put a point to the Minister before he leaves the question of procurement. He has not said anything about the LAH evaluation programme on which he has embarked and on which, he will agree, I have pressed him more than once. Of course, I understand why he is not yet in a position to say when he expects to complete that study. Can he say a word about the matter now? He will know better than most people that recent developments have pointed up the importance of the mobility factor to the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The LAH is a subject to which, with the whole question of balance in helicopter mixes in the battlefield, we are devoting great attention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said that a variety of broader deployment options and procurement options are being considered. Certainly, this programme, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has a strong collaborative element, must be given very careful consideration in the context of an altered look at the whole question of the tactical deployment of helicopters.
I am delighted to report that we have recently placed orders for 53 modern gliders, to be known as Vigilant. Deliveries are scheduled to begin next month and to be completed by the end of this year. The Vigilants are self-launching gliders and will replace the existing fleet of Venture motor gliders, which are nearing the end of their useful life. This modernisation programme maintains the size of the glider fleet at over 140 aircraft and will ensure improved availability of gliders for student use.
The Bloodhound mark 2 air defence missile system has been in service with the Royal Air Force since 1964. Although Bloodhound continues to give useful service, it is becoming more difficult to maintain. There are no plans to withdraw Bloodhound from service immediately. However, to ensure more cost-effective management of the Bloodhound force into the future, we plan this year to concentrate it at only two locations. These will be RAF West Raynham and RAF Wattisham. The system will consequently be withdrawn from RAF North Coates, RAF Bawdsey, RAF Wyton and RAF Barkston Heath. Hon. Members in whose constituencies these stations lie will have received letters of explanation from me.
Mr. Wilkinson: What progress has been made to define the requirement for a medium-range surface-to-air missile to replace Bloodhound? When does my hon. Friend expect to be able to announce progress on this important matter?
Mr. Clark: If such a requirement is determined, it would probably be filled by buying another system off the shelf, as it were. We are at such an early stage, however, that it would be premature to go into this matter in any greater detail.
It is important to mention two major infrastructure programmes. We have nearly completed a programme to provide hardened aircraft shelters, which, as the House knows, are designed to increase the survivability of aircraft at airfields. That work has been funded largely by NATO.
Another of our major priorities, to which I shall return in a moment, is to enhance the quality of life for service personnel. In this context we are intending to improve the entire stock of married quarters and single-service living accommodation in the next 10 years. This, we believe, will contribute substantially to improving the conditions of service life.
No speech about the Royal Air Force would be complete without a reference to its most important asset—the personnel who make up the service. In the past year, the trained strength of the Royal Air Force has fallen by about 4 per cent. There are increasing shortfalls in some officer branches as well as in ground engineering and support trades, but the shortfalls are manageable and the Royal Air Force maintains the ability to meet its operational commitments.
Applications for voluntary release of trained personnel remain higher than we would wish, although I am glad to be able to report that there are now some signs of improvement. We have devised a major revision of the terms of service for airmen for introduction this year, designed to provide greater flexibility and reward longer service. A revision of the terms of service for officers is also under consideration. Greater flexibility is also being incorporated into the rules governing the return to service of ex-airmen and women.
We are continuing to improve conditions of service by reducing turbulence, increasing job opportunities for wives, promoting greater job satisfaction generally, and improving working and living conditions. I remind the House of the extensive married quarter improvement programme currently in train.
One particularly important development has been the decision, announced last July, to broaden employment opportunities for female aircrew. As a result, the RAF is now recruiting female pilots, navigators and air engineers, with first-year targets of 25, 10 and four respectively. Some have already begun their training, having been selected according to the same criteria as men. We have found the response to this major change in policy most encouraging.
Mr. Dalyell: We all know that there is concern about naval wives. Has there been any consultation with Air Force wives about such recruitment?
Mr. Clark: We are dealing with a completely different situation from that envisaged in sending women to sea in ships. Women are being recruited to use their skills in a number of callings from which they have hitherto been excluded. I wholly applaud that development.
Mr. Dalyell: I asked the Minister whether there had been any consultation. Is the answer no?
Mr. Clark: I cannot imagine on what basis such consultation would be promulgated.
Mr. Bill Walker: Those of us who have direct connections with the RAF and who have visited RAF stations, have spoken with the wives; we have found that many of them believe that the change of policy is interesting, as many of their daughters are interested in joining the service.
Mr. Clark: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, and I regard it as a progressive step.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend intend that women pilots should fly combat aircraft, or will he keep them strictly to flying transport aircraft or aircraft other than those in wartime use?
Mr. Clark: Personally, I would have some reservations about that, but it is a matter that we shall look at as the situation develops. We shall weigh up all the factors that emerge as their skills as pilots are tested and evaluated.
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister has said that he has some reservations. I get the impression that the proposal has been ill thought out. What are the Minister's personal reservations?
Mr. Clark: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman four times already, and I will give way to him four more times, if he wishes. I always appreciate his interventions. My reservations—I emphasise that they are personal; perhaps I am over-fastidious—relate to women going into combat and flying combat aircraft. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I associate women's special gifts with activities other than the taking of life. If a person goes into combat, the ultimate purpose is to kill the enemy, as those of us who were in the services know. I would be uncomfortable in considering that function being subject to disciplinary instruction to a woman.
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister said that he would give way to me four more times, but I shall take up only one of them. What is the considered view of the Air Staff? Does the decision have the agreement of the Air Staff? The House is entitled to know what the advice from the Air Staff is.
Mr. Clark: This is a totally different subject. We are talking about a subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson)—women in combat. That is a long way even from the consideration, never mind the considered views, of the Air Staff. I told the House about the recruitment of pilots, navigators and air engineers. It is a long way into the future as to whether the skills that emerge should be used in combat.
Mr. Viggers: I share the concern of my hon. Friend about sending women into combat. Will he explore that comment further, asthat is exactly what will be happening in the Royal Navy?
Mr. Clark: We do not know what will happen. I do not want to get involved in that. There are differences between piloting a single-seater aircraft in combat, or piloting a bomber which will deliver a weapon system, and being a member of a crew of up to 1,000 in a situation, whether in combat or otherwise, which does not involve a woman in pulling the trigger, dropping a bomb or directing a missile.
I should like to conclude this review with a tribute to the Royal Air Force Reserve—the regular Reserve, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the RAF Volunteer

293
Reserve. We are profoundly indebted to them for their motivation and commitment, and for their competence and skills.
I should in particular make reference to the unstinting efforts of Air Chief Marshal Sir John Barraclough as honorary inspector general of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which have done much to achieve the current high standards. I welcome as his successor my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who will, I know, maintain the same high level of service and commitment.
Finally, I come to a subject that profoundly concerns all our personnel in all three services. The threat posed by terrorists of the Provisional Irish Republican Army continues to demand great vigilance from our service men and women and their families. Last autumn saw the particularly brutal murder in the Federal Republic of Germany of Corporal Maheshkumar Islania and his six-month old daughter, Nivruti—a dreadful event, which brought home to us all the depths of wickedness to which terrorists are prepared to descend. None the less, our people in all three services remain steadfastly determined to resist and overcome this threat, and we are taking a wide variety of measures designed to increase their security and to encourage their awareness of the threat and of how it can be countered.
I end on that sombre note, but I shall seek the leave of the House to address various points which may be raised by hon. Members, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye at the conclusion of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
4.35 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I join the Minister in paying tribute to the few who flew during the battle of Britain. As he said, this year is the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain, and I am sure that throughout the country tributes will be made in appropriate ways. Opposition Members would like to be a part of those tributes.
Significantly, in working-class areas—and, indeed, throughout the country—there are a great many cenotaphs and memorials commemorating those brave people who went forth from the mines and factories, put on uniforms and fought to defend our freedoms. I join the Minister in paying tribute to those people and their families. I am pleased that this year the Government decided to treat war widows in a slightly better fashion. It was a step in the right direction.
The Minister was right to say that the battle of Britain was a close-run affair. That was because of the desperate state of our defences. I admire his usual honesty in acknowledging that there was a Tory Government in power at that time. Of course, I could mention certain instances that would highlight the paucity of our present air defences, but I must get on with my speech.
The announcement that women are to be trained to fly fast jets is a step forward. However, the problem of whether women should be used in combat requires greater discussion. The Government introduced the measure to allow women to go back to work in the coal mines—something which, coming from my background, I find appalling. Like the Minister, I also have reservations about women being involved in combat.
I am assured by the specialists in the Labour party—none of whom is here today—that women are capable of flying in combat roles. The physical constraints involving
294
G-forces and tight turns—although not necessarily over display areas—might be the only reason why they could not fly in combat.
I join the Minister in condemning the cowardly indiscriminate bombing attacks on British service men and their families. There was a spate of bombings some years ago in Wales. I know one of the people who were responsible, and he received a long gaol sentence. He came from my village. Many say that such people are brave men, who are courageous in their cause. When that man was released, I told him that I could think of nothing more despicable or cowardly than to put a bomb in a left-luggage compartment at a railway station and then to walk away. In that instance the bomb was directed against people in Cardiff who were returning after work to the valleys. There is nothing brave about dumping a hag. The sooner that the people who give succour and support to terrorists realise that those are cowardly rather than brave acts, which require no physical courage, the better. Opposition Members condemn such actions and join the Minister in paying sympathy to the families of those who may have suffered as a result of such cowardly attacks.
Last Thursday the Western Mail—which I know the Minister does not read because it circulates only in Wales, although a few copies find their way into the House—carried a report of a rescue operation by a RAF Sea King helicopter operating out of RAF Brawdy in west Wales. Some 240 miles out in the Atlantic, the 20 seamen were rescued in the most appalling conditions in which, almost certainly, they would have lost their lives. The skill and courage of the pilot and aircrew was outstanding.
I commend, in particular, the bravery of the winchman, flight sergeant Graham Philips, who was washed overboard. If it were not for his lifeline back to the helicopter, he would have lost his life. It was RAF Brawdy's second long-range rescue in just a few days. The previous incident was in the same area of the Atlantic when a disabled ore carrier had to be disembarked.
Among our lifeboat crews, the helicopter crews of the search and rescue squadrons have an envied tradition of selfless courage and humanitarian acts. They deserve the commendation of the House for their bravery. I mention those incidents, first, to praise those who participate, but also to highlight some aspects of the future of sea and air rescue and the procurement of helicopters.
Some time ago the Government proposed the privatisation of sea and air rescue. Against a background of massive protests from both sides of the House, the proposals were modified or withdrawn. When he winds up, will the Minister give the present status of those proposals? There are fears that the Government will resurrect them and consider privatising the service. I warn the Minister that if the Government do so, he will encounter the same problems as he did before from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
If the Government are not to privatise the search and rescue service, what will they do about re-equipping the squadrons with new helicopters? The present Wessex helicopters are coming to the latter part of their operational lives. A decision must be made soon on their replacement; indeed, across a range of other helicopter requirements, a decision is required.
I reiterate the question of the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans): when will the Government place a firm order for the EH101? The Royal Navy pre-production aircraft,

295
with a full mission system, has been flying since 24 October 1989. The anti-submarine variant, as currently specified and contracted, is going well. I understand that the RAF's intended Utility EH101 is well within schedule. All that is needed now, three years after the previous Secretary of State said that the Ministry of Defence was looking for 25 RAF and 50 Navy EHIOls, is for the Government to make a decision.
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman, with his interest in helicopters, will realise that we should purchase, not a particular helicopter, but the right helicopter, the best helicopter for the task that has to be performed. I hope that he will say that that is his view and what our Royal Air Force needs. We must be careful not to lock ourselves into a position where we never buy the right equipment.
Mr. Rogers: I think that that question would have been better directed to the Government than to me, because they have to make the decision, not me. I am rather alarmed if the hon. Gentleman, who I think is a member of the Select Committee on Defence——
Mr. Walker indicated dissent.
Mr. Rogers: No, he is not. Perhaps that explains—if I might say, in the kindest way—his ignorance on the matter.
Mr. Michael Mates indicated assent.
Mr. Rogers: I see that the Chairman of the Select Committee is nodding.
I should explain the position to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), although I am sure that the Minister will do so in his wind-up speech. The Government have made a decision on the EH101. In 1987, the Secretary of State said that the Government were going to purchase 25 EH101s for the RAF and 50 for the Royal Navy. The helicopter has gone through project definition and pre-production trials. I think that nine have already flown. It is now merely a matter of integrating the mission system. One can go along that line, preparing for a project to come into operation, but at some stage a decision has to be made. Unless it is made now, the manufacturers and people involved in the industry will have a big gap in the middle of the 1990s when they will not have any orders. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Tayside, North is proposing that we should buy, not the Apache, but the Black Hawk or some other shoe horn variety. I am sure that they have all been considered, but I should have thought that the EH101 was, if I may repeat the expression that has already been used, a cast iron, copper-bottomed decision. The question is, when? That is what we are asking.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he thinks the Government should do? Should the Government make a decision in favour of the EH101?
Mr. Rogers: Yes. The helicopter is important and the EH101 is vital to the industry. The requirements are known. The current contract available on the EH101 is a target cost-incentive contract which, when it was signed in March 1984, was hailed as a great step forward in defence contracting. At that time Sir Peter Levene extolled the
296
virtues of the new process of procurement. One of the signal parts of such a contract is that the cost is shared between industry and Government. Certainly, the industry has already put its money where its mouth is and invested millions of pounds. It is now up to the Government to come up with firm orders so that it can proceed with production.
In Question Time some weeks ago, the Minister said that last October the Government entered into negotiations with the company for a maximum price contract. I do not see why we have to go on and on talking like this. The Chairman of the Select Committee is present and the Select Committee said, and it was implicit throughout the recently published report, that it was about time a decision was made.
Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the EH101 and the need for air mobility, does he believe that this helicopter is the right one to purchase in view of the fact that it will also have to fit in with the various RAF transport aircraft to back up that air mobility?
Mr. Rogers: The operational roles of many of those aircraft are, I presume, under constant review by the Government. The Opposition have been asking for a major defence review for a long time. I should have thought that with the changes that are happening, particularly in eastern Europe, the Government should have a formal defence review. I accept that the position is dynamic and not static, but a decision has to be made. Unless we plan ahead, we shall not have the equipment for our service men, to whom the Minister paid great tribute today.
Mr. Bill Walker: I am sorry to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman. Has he made any assessment of whether the EH101 is capable of being transported in the aircraft that the Royal Air Force has at present and looks like having for some time, particularly the Hercules?
Mr. Rogers: Unfortunately, such questions——
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside): They should be directed to the Minister.
Mr. Rogers: Yes, they should be directed to the Minister, not me. I operate with a book and a pencil, and make visits. I certainly do not have the Civil Service to back me up. I should have thought that the Minister was the person to answer the questions. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North is interested in getting the answer, I am sure that the Minister will give it to him when he winds up.
I was disappointed to hear that the Government cannot award a contract for a new nose radar system for the European fighter aircraft. I had understood from a reply in an Adjournment debate to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) in January that everyone thought that Ferranti would get the ECR90 system. I should have thought that today was an admirable opportunity for the Government to make that announcement.
Mr. Alan Clark: That is not a Government decision.
Mr. Rogers: That is a daft statement. If the Government say that they will support the British electronics industry, in the form of the ECR90 system, the contract will go to British industry. To maintain that the

297
Government have no part in the procurement process is nonsense. The British and European technology involved in such a decision would ensure jobs for thousands of workers for several years. That would be a good decision, on which we would be prepared to congratulate the Government if they took it.
The contract for the nose radar is relevant only in the context of the development of the European fighter aircraft. All hon. Members are anxious that the EFA should be developed, preferably in its dual-capable role, undertaking air-to-air and air-to-surface missions.
Mr. Michael Jack: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the radar, crucial though it is, is not entirely in the gift of the British Government? EFA is a collaborative venture, and announcements must be made on the basis of collaborative discussion.
Mr. Rogers: I understand that, but if the Government are forceful enough, they can easily influence the outcome of the decisions. The German-led MSD-2000 is a project in which British technology will not lead; it is an adaption of an American system. Incidentally, the Foxhunter is still not in operation after 10 years—that is farcical—merely because American companies have been withholding the intellectual rights to their equipment. The more operations led by British companies, the better. The Government should have faith in British companies.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rogers: Not for the moment; I want to get on.
Mr. Wilkinson: On Foxhunter?
Mr. Rogers: I am coming to Foxhunter later, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can wait until then.
The EFA's primary function as an agile fighter will fill a gap in RAF armaments. The Americans and the Soviets now have planes in operation that can outperform anything that we have—the Americans have the F15, the F16 and the F18, and the Soviets have their highly capable Fulcrum and Flanker. Both countries are actively offering those top range aircraft for export.
I want to take this opportunity to state the Labour party's wholehearted commitment to the conventional arms reduction talks and to what we hope will be an eventual treaty. The Opposition unequivocally support arms reductions. The CFE talks will, of course, affect the future size and shape of our air force, and the future RAF will be much smaller. If it is, the need for modern flexible equipment with a multi-role capability becomes even more important. Recently the German coalition partners, the Liberals, expressed opposition to the EFA, and I believe that Herr Genscher even stated that if they had any influence in the next German Government, they would withdraw from the programme. Certainly, delays causing cost overruns will make the programme a prime target for German defence cuts, even if only to buy an updated version of the American F18.
The Government continually reiterate their commitment to EFA and we have no reason to doubt that commitment, but we are anxious, given the Government's record of mismanagement of procurement, that this could well result in another hugely expensive procurement disaster. We accept that an order may be placed for fewer
298
aircraft, but that factor could undermine the viability of the whole enterprise. Will the Minister confirm that his answer to my question on 15 January was correct? He said:
"There has been no change in the declared production offtake of 250 aircraft."
Will he also elaborate on the rather brief answer that
"our aim remains to bring EFA into service in the mid-1990s"?—[Official Report, 15 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 125–26.]
Perhaps Conservative Members who have mentioned EFA missed that answer in Hansard. In what year in the mid-1990s are we likely to have the EFA? I found the Minister's answer intriguing.
It gives us no pleasure to outline the Government's ineptness in procurement, but their deficiencies exist. One has only to read speeches of the past few years to detect the big gaps in the Government's policies. In 1988, for instance, the then Minister of State said that, although there had been difficulties with the aircraft's Foxhunter air-intercept radar, radars to an agreed interim standard had been fitted.
In reply to a question yesterday the present Minister of State said:
"Work on improving Foxhunter is well in hand. Radars to an agreed interim standard continue to be delivered for installation into the Tornado ADV by the RAF".
That denotes a marked lack of progress, even by this Government's standards. Nothing has changed in three years. Yesterday's reply went on:
"These will shortly be followed by radars to the full technical standard".
I know that time has no meaning in the context of Foxhunter, but can the Minister hazard a guess as to what he means by "shortly"? Does he mean this year, next year or next century? Surely at some stage the Government must get to grips with the continuing scandal of a radar that is neither ready nor available for our aircraft.
Mr. Mans: Would the hon. Gentleman like to take this opportunity to correct his earlier statement on Foxhunter—that its delay was caused by the intellectual property rights on American parts in it? Does he agree that that is wholly false? Delays to that radar have nothing to do with American components being held up.
Mr. Rogers: Yes, I shall withdraw my statement. I was referring to UKADGE——
Mr. Wilkinson: The one is on the ground, the other in the air. Get this sorted out.
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman does nothing in the House but talk about when he was in the RAF, so I should not hope to be as expert as he is. I have already explained to the House that a mistake was made and I was happy to do that.
Mr. Duffy: My hon. Friend is speaking about radar deficiency. Does he agree that quite the most glaring and persistent deficiency is the lack of a NATO identification friend or foe system? It is true that that is an Alliance problem, but the Government have a responsibility because the lack of such a system has endured throughout their tenure of office and there is no prospect of a change before the end of the decade.
Mr. Rogers: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I should like to return to the subjects of Tornado and Foxhunter. The Minister of State has a battery of civil

299
servants and the whole panoply of the Ministry of Defence behind him. That should help him to answer some questions when he is winding up. Perhaps his civil servants will tell him how many Tornado aircraft are still in storage. At the last count when we looked at the matter at the end of 1988 32 were in storage. That is £500 million worth tucked away in hangars at St Athan in south Wales. They are being stored at a cost of at least £60,000 a year. Have those 32 aircraft been brought into service? Perhaps hon. Members who intervened earlier can press the Government on that issue if they have the gumption to speak against the Government instead of making knee-jerk reactions to everything that the Minister said in his speech.
I shall now deal with intellectual rights and IUKADGE, the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system. There are many contenders for the prime spot in the league table of delays and slippages. I am sure that hon. Members will understand why at times people are confused by the ineptness of the Government, which has led to projects being behind time and cost overruns.
Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rogers: No, because I want to develop my theme. IUKADGE was considered necessary in the 1970s, ordered in the 1980s and is still not available. What is more, it does not seem as if it is likely to be available. The Government evade the issue and refuse to answer questions. They use the old rag of commercial confidence in the same way as many Conservative Members wrap themselves in the Union Jack when questions on matters of national importance are asked.
The saga has been going on for a long time. The consortium of one United States and two United Kingdom firms is not getting to grips with the problem. As Sir Richard Mottram told the Select Committee on Defence, the problem is that there is difficulty in getting the software-related part of the system to work to our satisfaction. Perhaps in his wind-up speech the Minister will tell us when the system is likely to come fully into service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) spoke in last year's debate shortly after his election to the House, and he outlined the fiasco of the air-launched anti-radiation missile, the ALARM system. The Select Committee on Defence had previously identified the fact that it was £260 million over budget and several years behind schedule and said that this was a matter of great concern. Can the Minister tell us the present position and whether we shall ever get the missile?
Other issues can be raised later in the debate, but before I finish I should like to refer to the problem mentioned by the Minister of the loss of trained and highly skilled personnel from the Royal Air Force. Pilot losses are now becoming significant. The Minister tended to gloss over that and I think that he said that it was a manageable situation. The number of pilots leaving before they complete their engagements is increasing year by year. If the Government are managing, they are certainly not managing to reduce the outflow of those very expensively trained pilots. There is a similar pattern in the loss of engineers and craftsmen. Although the Minister says that
300
there is no danger at the moment, surely a loss of such dimensions must pose a threat to the operational efficiency of the service.
The defence estimates show that the number of apprentices taken on has dropped from 264 in 1983 to 136 in 1988. Can the Minister tell the House why that is so, and whether any steps will be taken to rectify the matter? Obviously, some service men have left for better or more lucrative employment. However, that option has always been there. Our service men have not always been the best paid people in society. I have talked to many service men and I think that they are leaving because the morale in the service at present is low. There are many reasons for that. It is not just a matter of pay, although the Government's decision to pay only a 6·5 per cent. increase in April and to hold over 3 per cent. until next January has not helped morale.
The phrase that I heard was that the quality of service life was getting worse, and that phrase was used last year by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Unlike many civilian jobs, there are no extras or perks in the services, such as company cars or expense accounts. The facilities for sport, recreation and leisure are vital for maintaining morale and developing good team spirit. The Wednesday afternoon activities in many camps and units were as vital to the efficiency of the service as any other form of training. Now, sportsmen in the services find that facilities are being cut and that people selected for representative service teams are often precluded from taking part because there is insufficient cover in the station. That is only part of what is happening.
Some hon. Members who served in the Royal Air Force many years ago may say no and shake their head. However, last year the hon. Member for Ryedale gave us an account of his secondment to the Royal Air Force under an experimental scheme, which he said was similar to the industry and Parliament scheme. The hon. Gentleman is not present, but in last year's debate he said:
"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."—[Official Report, 9 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 1078.]
That was a Conservative Member speaking after spending a year with the forces.
On top of all that, we have the imposition of the poll tax, which is especially acute for junior ranks. Service men and women pay rates as part of their quartering charges but now they will be faced with a much higher cost. Will the Minister make some form of recompense to junior ranks for what could be in some cases a 10 times increase in what they now have to pay? Perhaps we can get an answer to that before the end of the debate.
This debate is important. Some people doubt the value of single service debates because they say that we have a defence debate, which very often is not well supported. I happen to think that these debates are important for our service men and their services. Some Opposition Members have a great interest in this, and some Tory Members are ex-service men and have great expertise. Regardless of all

301
that, I hope that the tradition of having single service debates will remain. That is why I have great pleasure in giving this speech.
5.10 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Minister in congratulating the Royal Air Force on the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain—its greatest battle honour. The RAF may be the junior service, but it has a distinguished history. It plays a considerable part in the defence structure of NATO, and particularly in the central front and the second tactical air force in Germany. Without doubt, it will have an important role to play in the future, although I suspect that that will be very different from the one that it is playing now.
I know what an emotive subject low flying is and I understand the concerns expressed by many hon. Members. The Select Committee on Defence, of which I am the Chairman, has been conducting an inquiry into the matter for the past five or six months, and hopes to report to the House between Easter and Whitsun. We have visited RAF stations in the United Kingdom and Germany and I want to say—I am sure on behalf of all my colleagues—how impressed we were with the professionalism, dedication, enthusiasm and the general spirit that prevails in all the RAF stations that we visited. They are all acutely aware of the harm that they cause and the concern about their low flying, but as long as we have aircraft that are required to deliver munitions against a potential enemy, pilots will have to learn in peacetime how to acquire the skills to do so. One example that is so recent that everyone can remember it is the performance of the RAF in the Falkland Islands as a result of the low-flying training that it had done, largely in rural areas.
I shall offer some thoughts about the future. As a result of all the well-known strategies in place in the central front, we have a large Army, a considerable Air Force and a considerable Navy, all devoted to NATO and to the defence of the western Alliance against the threat from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. As each day goes by, it becomes clearer that the threat, although still there, is diminishing. One has a permanent optimism about those changes, which will mean that we can still assure our defence and that of our allies, but at a lower level than hitherto. That must be welcome news for everybody.
However, we shall not be able suddenly to slash our defence expenditure. Of itself, that would be destabilising and, in certain circumstances, could be self-defeating. We should be looking, as most of us are—I am certain that the Government are—at where we shall be within five to 10 years. We should be able to commit a lesser effort, but an equally effective one, against a threat that will reduce but is likely still to be present in some form or another, at least to the end of the century.
In that context, I shall look at the way in which the RAF is deployed in Germany in support of the British Army of the Rhine or, more correctly, the Northern Army Group, if it should come to hostilities. I have said before how ludicrous it is that on the central front in Germany the ground forces are supported by five different national air forces flying some 17 different types of aircraft, all with their own research and development and their own production, and at a vastly greater cost than if it had been possible to rationalise that force early on.
302
We now have an opportunity to take a completely fresh look at the way in which we have carried out our joint affairs and to rationalise. If we do not do that, we shall continue to spend countless pounds, dollars, marks, francs, guilders and all the rest, while nations continue to make their own contributions—some large, some smaller, inevitably—and waste resources that, if pooled, could be used to better effect.
No one knows what will come out of the conventional forces talks except, we hope, some reductions now, and probably some more significant reductions when the next round starts. Nobody knows how we shall best be able not to redeploy but to regroup those forces that will need to stay on the continent of Europe for the foreseeable future. I am sure that we shall be able to make a smaller contribution, but I am certain that it will have to be there in some form to guarantee the new European scene.
To that extent, it is supremely important that we maintain the spirit that has kept NATO together over the past 40 or so years, but in doing so we should not simply be saying, "Let us take away a squadron or two, or a brigade, or a division and reduce the British, German or Dutch contribution." We should look at the totality, and how best we can, together, provide a force that will guarantee the territorial integrity of the NATO nations.
If we do not close our minds to any of the options, we shall be surprised at how many ways that can be achieved. One could internationalise the NATO force. I do not know whether that is the right answer, because that would give rise to many problems. We could group together the ground forces. There will always have to be such ground forces because the nature of an army is that it is there to protect a territory. That could be grouped internationally, perhaps with national brigades and an international division, or perhaps with a national division and an international corps. I am not trying to design a blueprint. I am trying to give some thoughts on how this might happen.
A question will then arise: who is to provide the close air support and fighter ground offensive capability over that force? Continuing to do that with five nations and 17 different types of aircraft would become ever more ridiculous. I hope that the Government will take a radical look at how we, within the NATO Alliance, can change the nature of our contributions so that, by specialising in roles, we can achieve together much more effectively what is now achieved by everyone carrying out the same task.
It is only logical that the Germans should take the greatest part of the role of the air forces over the central front. It is their territory and their air space and they can be best deployed to do that job. Why we insisted, or continue to insist, that RAF aircraft should fly over British forces over the central front is beyond me, and has been beyond me for long time. If it came to war, that would not happen anyway after the first day or two. Nevertheless, we have stuck to the system because we have felt constrained to do so because of national sovereignty problems, defence industrial problems and a whole host of other problems. We have put the whole subject of role specialisation into the "too difficult" category. It must come out of that cubbyhole, be dusted down and looked at in a way that does not foreclose any of the arguments that might be put forward.
If I, or any of the other 50 or 60 hon. Members present, were asked to forecast where we might be in 10 years, I am sure that we would turn out to be wrong. Looking for a

303
way forward, it seems logical that, while we must continue to produce a part of the ground defence support to NATO on the continent of Europe, we must ask whether we need to continue to provide the air support for those ground forces or whether that could be more efficiently and effectively done by the European nations, the Germans in particular, while we return and attend to the air defence of the United Kingdom, which has been one of the most neglected areas of our defence over the years because of the level of our commitment to NATO.
In return for making a lesser effort there, perhaps he could undertake to relieve some of our continental European allies of some of the burdens in the Channel and the eastern Atlantic, which we are better equipped to carry ourselves.
Whenever that argument has been raised, it has been dismissed by Ministers in many countries as not being a practical way forward because of the question of national sovereignty. We have never had national sovereignty over defence since NATO was formed, and I thank goodness for that. We have been able for all these years to dedicate ourselves and most of our forces totally to the NATO structure in advance of hostilities. Yet the suggestion that they would not be our own aeroplanes over our own soldiers was regarded as being a derogation of national sovereignty. I do not see that argument.
In approaching the crucial decisions that we must take for the shape and size of our defence forces for the coming five to 10 years we must consider the question of role specialisation and acknowledge that, while the Air Force has an important job in the future, it should not be dissipated in the way that it has been over the years, in support of our troops in the central front.
We shall all have to readjust our defence commitments among the NATO allies to provide the best answer for each nation. There will have to be some horse trading about production, defence industries and so on—that will happen anyway—so that the changes in reducing the level of forces that we shall need can be done logically, sensibly and, above all, in a way that will give us the best value for money in an inevitably reduced defence budget in which value for money will become even more important.
5.22 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I apologise for not having been in my place for the whole of the Minister's speech. My absence was due to an obligation outside the House, but I informed the Minister in advance that I would not be present to hear all his remarks.
Like others, I join in the congratulations to the Royal Air Force on the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain. Those of us who were born during the war were almost certainly reared on the tales of bravery, courage and commitment that were displayed by many young men in those far-off days. It has become part of the fabric of the history of the forces, not only of the RAF but of the services in general.
We should welcome a single service debate such as this, though it may be difficult to keep one's remarks to one service. That was demonstrated eloquently recently when we debated the Royal Navy. Such is the pace of political change in Europe that there must inevitably be implications for defence policy. Invariably, those
304
implications affect not one service but the overall defence requirement, including the size and strength of the components that go towards it.
The defence requirement should always be dictated by the nature of the threat and, as the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) said, and as is generally recognised in the House, the threat has diminished considerably. What, though, if the old praetorian guard of the Politburo in the Soviet Union were suddenly to reassert itself? Is it feasible or possible for there to be a reversal of what are the current main elements of Soviet policy?
We are obliged to ask whether any Soviet leadership in the 1990s would be willing or able to reverse the downward trend in defence spending, to reverse the demobilisation of substantial numbers of troops, to re-establish hardline Communist regimes by force in eastern Europe, to reintroduce a strategy by which, in any future East-West conflict, the Soviet Union and its allies would revert to a massive rolling advance into western Europe. In short, do we now believe that the Soviet Union is in any position to recreate a hegemony based on a revised Warsaw pact? I suspect that the answer to all those questions is undoubtedly in the negative.
But we must remember that the Soviet Union is beset by uncertainties. Domestically, it is beset by demands for economic progress and human rights and, within the federation of which Russia is the central part, by demands for autonomy in the Baltic states, with the emergence of ethnic or racial conflicts between components such as Armenia and Azerbaijan.
I do not think any of us considers that there is likely to be a resumption of the cold war as we have known it in the last 20 or 25 years. But even with all those uncertainties and even with no reversal of what has happened under Mr. Gorbachev, the Soviet Union will remain a major military power. It will continue to have a vast nuclear potential and, more significantly, because of the nature of the change, unexpected and unstructured as it is, it may be even more unpredictable, it may be alienated, it may be sulking and it may be subject to a sense of injured pride.
If the break-up of the Soviet Union or a slackening of the ties that bind it together occurs as a result of the extraordinary political change that is taking place, who will have access to the substantial number of nuclear weapons that the Soviet Union possesses? In an authoritarian repressive regime, control of matters of that kind is much easier. In a fissiparous chorus of discontented republics, how much more difficult it would be to maintain what we on this side of what was once called the iron curtain would regard as the necessary control.
That analysis leads to the view that the defence policy of this country and of the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance—and in particular the policy that we follow for the RAF—must remain watchful and alert to the threat as it is presently constituted, rather than to the threat as it might have been.
The policy that we follow for the RAF must inevitably depend on political, technological and financial factors. That has always been the case. Those factors must have caused the abandonment of the strategic bombing and nuclear deterrent role of the RAF in the late 1960s. They must have had an effect on the air support role of the RAF, increasing in the 1960s, declining to some extent after 1970

305
and perhaps now requiring to be increased markedly if rapid deployment is to play an increasing role in our overall defence policy.
Will not the factors to which I have referred have an effect on the current strategy of attempting to achieve air dominance in time of war? Those factors should make us sceptical of the need for equipping Tornado aircraft with the SRAM-T—the short-range attack missile—which is at least in the contemplation of the Government. Surely those factors must have some effect on our judgment about whether we should pursue the original requirement of 250 European fighter aircraft. Ministers have recently reaffirmed their commitment in that regard, and I do not suggest that we should be told their precise thinking about the exact number during today's debate, but I cannot believe that they are not reconsidering; it would be less than prudent of them not to.
We have heard about the concern felt by people in Federal Germany, who may or may not be in pivotal positions after next December's elections, about the original commitment entered into by Federal Germany itself. Any substantial reduction by the Germans might put in jeopardy the financial viability of the whole European fighter aircraft project. As has been said, the survival of some jobs in the United Kingdom defence industry appears—at least at present—to depend largely on the awarding of the radar contract, but a contract awarded for aircraft that are not built will not bring much benefit.
I do not think that anyone would suggest that we can ignore Germany's progress towards unification or the apparently successful progress towards an agreement in the first phase of the talks on conventional forces in Europe. Nor can we ignore the fact that, if the first phase is concluded successfully, the pressure to move to the second and third phases will be that much greater. German unification will undoubtedly take place; the question that we are all bound to ask is what conditions will attach to it, and how will they dictate the nature of our defence requirements? As the hon. Member for Hampshire, East freely recognised, it seems unlikely—whatever the terms of those conditions—that the RAF will retain its present role and numbers in Federal Germany.
A debate on a single service allows us to raise issues directly concerned with that service. I have raised with the Minister on several occasions the question of the future of the search and rescue operations at RAF Leuchars, which is in my constituency, and I suspect that he anticipated that I would return to it yet again today. As he knows, as a result of the review of search and rescue operations the opportunity of night-time flying has been withdrawn from RAF Leuchars. If an operation begins in daylight, however, it may he finished in darkness: that means that the crews must train in darkness, and therefore retain the capability of night-time flying.
I ask the Ministry of Defence to consider giving more discretion to the co-ordinating centre at RAF Pitreavie. There is, as it were, a chink of light: in answer to a recent question from me, the Minister of State said that night-time operations would be permitted in the event of, for instance, a major disaster. If that is so, those who may have to fly in such operations must receive training to equip them with the necessary skills and aptitudes.
The issue of search and rescue is potentially of great political benefit to the RAF. As the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has said on other occasions, nothing does more for the reputation of the RAF than the
306
notion of the friendly yellow helicopter coming over the horizon to rescue people in difficulty. We have seen yet more examples of the dedication, commitment and bravery of search and rescue crews during the severe weather in the Highlands over the past couple of days.
Search and rescue is provided primarily for military purposes, but its service to the civilian community— 90 per cent. of its operations are for civilian purposes—makes a substantial contribution to good public relations, for which the Ministry of Defence in general and the RAF in particular are responsible. I hope that Ministers will ensure that such operations are maintained at RAF Leuchars, and will consider whether the Wessex aircraft should be replaced by the Sea King, a question which has been raised a number of times since the review.
Mr. Bill Walker: The time must rapidly be approaching when that will happen. The Sea King has all the capabilities for which the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking, and its adoption would solve many of the problems that caused the Wessex to be withdrawn. Like him, I am optimistic about the future of search and rescue operations—especially those at Leuchars, which are so important to my constituents.
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when the debate about the future of RAF Leuchars was at its height, there was some support for the Wessex on the basis that it was more manoeuvrable in the Scottish mountains. That argument was promoted with some force by those with connections with the mountain rescue teams. If, however, there is any question about night-time operations from RAF Leuchars, any reduction in manoeuvrability in the Scottish mountains is a price that I am willing to pay for the sake of Sea King deployment and 24-hour operations.
I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member to await with great interest the report of the Select Committee on Defence. I hope that its conclusions will marry the necessity for low-flying operations with the nature of the threat that we now face. The National Audit Office report on low flying occasioned great concern about the possible prospect of an increase, particularly in Scotland. I know that the Government are sensitive to the matter, but I stress that they ignore at their peril the political consequences of any increase in low flying in certain parts of Scotland.
Some of my constituents—both members of the RAF serving at Leuchars and their spouses—have raised with me the recent introduction of a system of retention bonuses, designed to deal with the problem of premature voluntary release. There is some disappointment among the longer-serving airmen and women that the level of bonuses is not related simply to the length of service. They understand why the system has been introduced, but draw a parallel with civilian arrangements: the longer someone serves his company, the greater the benefits he will derive in terms of salary, gratuity or pension. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot deal with that point this evening, will take into account the feeling that rewards should he related directly to length of service.
Our debates of the past 12 months or so have demonstrated that there is now far more unanimity in our views. Of course there will always be differences between all parties on defence matters, but it would be a curious consequence of glasnost and perestroika, and the end of

307
the cold war in Europe, if they brought about in the United Kingdom a rather less partisan approach to defence than we saw in the general elections of 1979, 1983 and 1987.
I hope that the continuing debate about the defence requirements of the United Kingdom and the future of the North Atlantic Alliance and our relationships in Europe will be open and above board, and that all parties and, indeed, the public will feel that they have a legitimate interest to participate. It is clear that, whatever our defence requirements may be in future, the professionalism and commitment of the Royal Air Force will undoubtedly be at the same premium as they were during the battle of Britain 50 years ago. The changed circumstances and the different relationships between what we once described as the West and the East will no less require and rely for their continuance and stability on the professionalism and commitment of our forces, and the Royal Air Force will continue to make a major and significant contribution.
5.40 pm
Sir John Hunt: After more than 25 yeas as a Member of Parliament, this is the first occasion on which I have ventured to intervene in an RAF debate. I have a feeling that it may be another 25 years before I seek to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in one of these annual debates. I am pleased to have the opportunity to say just a few words on a matter of great concern and importance to my constituents. I refer to the proposed closure of the officer and aircrew selection centre at RAF Biggin Hill.
Mr. Bill Walker indicated assent.
Sir John Hunt: I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) nodding his head, because he was kind enough to participate in an Adjournment debate on the matter last year.
No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will also recall the Adjournment debate on 16 June 1989 in which I reported the dismay and distress which the proposed closure had caused in my constituency and over a much wider area. In recent months, I have received letters from virtually all over the world. It is a sad irony that the proposed closure of RAF Biggin Hill should coincide with the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain, which has already been alluded to by a number of hon. Gentlemen in today's debate. The airmen of Biggin Hill played a notable and historic part in that battle.
In my Adjournment debate last year, I queried in particular the costings of the proposed move to RAF Cranwell, the likely level of capital receipts from the disposal of the Biggin Hill site and the cost of building the additional accommodation required at Cranwell. I am bound to say that in his reply to that debate my hon. Friend the Minister was less than forthcoming in providing specific information on those points. However, perhaps his reticence was understandable when one recalls that the original estimates of the likely capital receipts included the proceeds of the disposal of the married quarters on the site.
It is my understanding that the Ministry of Defence has subsequently discovered that the anticipated demand for officers' married quarters in the Greater London area is now so great that the married quarters at Biggin Hill will
308
have to be retained for the foreseeable future. I should like some confirmation of that later in the debate. If that is so, the original balance sheet in respect of the proposed closure of RAF Biggin Hill is already unreliable and out of date.
The most crucially relevant and important factor to the future of RAF Biggin Hill is the dramatic changes which have taken place in recent months in our relations with eastern Europe and the implications of that for our defence planning, which has already been referred to this afternoon.
The other day, I read that a group of senior Ministers is currently examining how Britain's armed forces can be reduced and reorganised in the light of recent international events. What can be the sense of proceeding with the closure of RAF Biggin Hill and spending millions of pounds on a new selection centre before we have finally established the future needs of the RAF? After all, if the climate of East-West relations continues to improve, as we all hope it will, there is likely to be a significant reduction in our regular forces, with a corresponding reduction in the annual officer recruitment targets.
As we know, the move from Biggin Hill to Cranwell is planned to take place in four years' time. Given the current pace of international events, it would be foolish and irresponsible to persist with that move in present circumstances. It would surely make much more sense to halt the proposed move to Cranwell now, or at the very least to impose a moratorium on new building for which there is no immediate need, until our future defence requirements have been fully analysed and assessed.
Additionally, the prospect of smaller regular forces seems to add attraction to the often-mooted idea of one tri-service officer selection centre. As my hon. Friend will know, RAF Biggin Hill is already in a sense tri-service, in that specialist medical testing for the Royal Navy and the Army is carried out in addition to the aircrew selection work. In the present climate of detente, that is another possibility that should be considered for RAF Biggin Hill before we proceed with that precipitate and unnecessary move to Cranwell.
There is now a compelling case to stop, or at least to defer, the proposed closure of RAF Biggin Hill. We could then continue operating the selection centre there until the future needs of all three services were known. We could then assess the most sensible and economical use of resources in the light of the changed and changing situation. I commend that course to our Defence Ministers, and I hope that they will make some comments on the suggestions I have made, and hopefully express some sympathy for them. I apologise for dealing solely with that parochial point, but it is of great importance to my constituency.
5.47 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: I trust that I shall be forgiven for absenting myself from the debate for an hour or so because of a speaking engagement, but I look forward to being present for the winding-up speeches.
The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) should not apologise for raising a matter which he described as parochial, as it is obviously close to the hearts of his constituents and receives wider sympathy given the

309
history of the base to which he referred. I was watching the Ministers' faces during the debate, and I think that they are beginning to look sympathetic.
In their opening speeches, the Minister and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) rightly condemned the cowardly attacks by terrorists on service men and their families. It says much for their courage that, like their colleagues in the Ulster Defence Regiment, in Army units particularly in Northern Ireland and Germany, and in the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland, those forces have never been deflected from what they consider their plain course of duty. We honour and pay tribute to them for that. I know that we can rely on Defence Ministers to ensure that the maximum protection is afforded to the families of service men wherever they may be posted. Those families and service men will take much encouragement from the all-party support that has been so evident in the debate.
I should like to pay tribute to the Royal Air Force component in Northern Ireland. May I mention in particular the senior Royal Air Force officer in Northern Ireland, Group Captain Hawkins. He is a truly outstanding officer and does a superb job of co-ordinating the flying element, which is a many-sided commitment, and also has under his command the resident squadron of the Royal Air Force Regiment. It contributes greatly to security, not only in the immediate vicinity of the Royal Air Force bases in Northern Ireland but over a wide area of the Province. The ability of those squadrons to establish a good relationship with the other arms of the security forces is noteworthy and encouraging. The Royal Air Force Regiment has developed greatly since it felt able to dispense with my services in 1946.
In the early part of his speech, the Minister rightly suggested that we should continue to make the necessary resources available to all the fighting services, and used the phrase, which I hope was not accidental, "particularly the Royal Air Force", or words to that effect.
The Minister reminded the House of the events of 1940 and rightly and accurately said:
"the battle of Britain was a very close-run thing."
It might easily have gone the other way had the masterminds in the Luftwaffe been aware of the great advantage of low-flying tactics, which would have enabled it to duck under our radar. As someone who has lived for almost 70 years on the perimeter of a Royal Air Force station, I can understand the annoyance caused by low-flying jets, but I accept that it is absolutely necessary.
No one will take issue with me when I say that Fighter Command saved Britain in 1940. But it did much more than that. The Royal Air Force turned out to be the invincible guarantor of the freedom of other nations. In a sense, it provided an effective long-stop.
There is a certain parallel with the position today. As hon. Members have conceded, Europe is in the melting pot. Regrouping is taking place with breathtaking speed. The political crust is breaking up and the balance of power is changing faster than in any decade this century. For different reasons, Russian and American influence is weakening.
The cosy relationships within the EEC are giving way to a degree of mutual suspicion. I put it no higher than that, but there are forces at work that cannot be tamed and will not be harnessed. When the parts of the jigsaw finally come to rest, the power pattern of Europe will look very different from a year ago.
310
The hon. Member for Rhondda challenged the Government to give their ideas on a review of defence policies in the light of the events in Europe. My humble advice would be that, until the European map is stabilised, we cannot sensibly make an accurate threat assessment. The threat in Europe would not necessarily come from the Soviet Union. It would be alarmist to identify any possible new source, but we can re-learn the lesson of 1940. Even with the Channel tunnel, Britain is unlikely to be overrun in a conventional war by a European land power.
I do not belittle the need for an effective and well-equipped Army, and I certainly do not dismiss the importance of the vital role of the Royal Navy, but because of the mobility and strike capacity of air power, we must acknowledge that the guarantor role will inevitably belong to the Royal Air Force.
The air defence of the United Kingdom is very important, but that is only the outward and visible aspect of that wider guarantor responsibility. For that reason, I welcome the determination implicit in the debate that, whatever the attractions of various propositions, the House must never make the mistake of our predecessors in the 1930s and for the second time run the risk of another close-run thing.
5.55 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: It was either by good fortune or good planning that the Chief of the Air Staff brought his presentation team to the House only a few days ago. It was perhaps less good fortune that we were constantly interrupted by Divisions in the House, but it gave many hon. Members the opportunity to see for themselves the present image of the Royal Air Force. I a m sure that they were impressed not only by the quality of life and equipment portrayed but by the high standard of the team that made the presentation.
The main role of that team is to take the Air Force's story around the country and to show it in the community. We know that the Air Force attaches much importance to establishing close relationships with the areas around its bases, but most of the country is not near an RAF base. It is extremely important, therefore, that the service encourages the closest possible relationship with the wider civil community.
A publication entitled "Royal Air Force 89" was recently produced. It will be an annual publication and I congratulate Sir Peter Harding, the Chief of the Air Staff, on his initiative, and Squadron Leader Morris, its editor, on getting the style of the publication exactly right; it is interesting and informative and will, I hope, be widely read. I trust that its publication will continue for a long time.
I have the pleasure of having just started on the armed forces parliamentary scheme between the House and the RAF. I am at the earliest stages of what will obviously be an extensive and interesting programme. So far, I have visited only one flying base—the central flying school—but where better could one start than the oldest flying school in the world, which was formed in 1911. My visit demonstrated to me the superb standard of airmanship in the Royal Air Force—the quality that gives it the edge over the other NATO services.
The main objective of the time that I shall spend with the service in the forthcoming year is to meet and talk to

311
people—not just commanders of stations and units but the pilots, aircrew and those who support the aircraft in engineering, administration and supply.
The Chief of the Air Staff has gone on record as saying that people must come first in the Air Force of today, and I am sure that that is the correct priority. From what I have seen in the few hours that I have spent so far with the Air Force, I have no doubt that the quality of its personnel is as high today as it ever has been.
I should like to concentrate on personnel. The life of a service man is inevitably turbulent. I can think of no other occupation that involves moving one's home so frequently and regularly. That is becoming more significant than it was in the past. We have a higher rate of home ownership, and if one's career requires one to move every two or three years, one will experience considerable problems in establishing a home. I pay tribute to the long-standing efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) to introduce a scheme that will be of advantage to service men in overcoming that problem.
Frequent moves also affect the careers of the wives of service men. Far more wives have occupations than in the past, and while the husband's career is forwarded by moves from place to place, that has the opposite effect on the career of his wife, who must change her job every two or three years. It is difficult to counter that problem.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that particular attention was being paid to establishing a career pattern for wives. Sometimes husbands and wives can serve together in the RAF. I hope that it will be possible to post them either to the same station or to reasonably close stations so that they can maintain a normal family life, with the wife continuing to serve.
Significant changes in allowances were made a little while ago, and some necessary and overdue improvements resulted, but the improvements were basically financed by withdrawals of and reductions in allowances in other directions. The aim was to have a self-financing exercise. Worrying anomalies have been created. I hope that, in winding up, my hon. Friend the Minister will announce that the problem is being addressed and that there will be a review of those allowances.
There are good reasons for increasing the number of civilians in units in the support roles, but one effect is to reduce the number of men and women in uniform available to carry out the secondary duties for which service personnel are needed. I refer in particular to the need these days for regular guard duty to be carried out on all bases. Reference has been made to the cowardly attacks by terrorists from time to time, which are a constant threat to all the service's premises. That has meant that an intensive guard has had to be mounted. The service men on the base are normally the only people available to carry out that duty. As civilianisation expands, the number of people available to mount guard duty decreases, and we are in danger of having a vicious circle.
It is hard to recruit administrative and catering personnel, for example, because of the constant attraction of civilian life. As the job of supplying and providing support in the RAF requires ever-increasing guard duties, it becomes harder to retain people in jobs where there is already a scarcity of personnel. Is there not a case for increasing the strength of the Royal Air Force police?
312
They are specialists in guard duties. I am sure that more RAF police on bases would be some solution to a problem that has resulted from guard duty coming around far too often on some stations.
We should look into the idea of using reserve units to guard bases. Perhaps the current legal problems associated with that can be overcome. I should have thought that many people in civilian life would willingly serve in a reserve unit at their local base and that they could be used in that way. In the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Honorary Inspector General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, I suggest that we could start forming such reserve units in the north-east of England at some of the RAF bases in my region.
On the north-south divide, those of us who come from the north are well aware that life is better there. Costs are often much higher in the south. This will increasingly be a problem in retaining service men, as many of our bases are traditionally in the south. It is also difficult to recruit and retain the necessary civilians, because Ministry of Defence pay rates tend to be less competitive in the south. I suggest that there is thus an argument for building up the service in the north. There will be inevitable changes in the composition and basing of the RAF in the years ahead—there always have been changes, and it seems likely, given the present scenario, that those changes will become greater. We should bear in mind the advantage to the service in having bases in the north in terms of retention and the interests of individual service men.
On retention, a problem exists because a young second pilot on an airliner can start his career at the same pay as his wing commander in the Air Force. Young pilots who have been trained to a superlative level of skill by the Royal Air Force are attracted by the idea of leaving and securing a high income in commercial aviation. Retaining pilots will not only save the £3 million that it costs to train a fast jet pilot but lead to a reduction in low flying.
The House understands the need for low flying. I know from my discussions with the central flying school of the high priority that the RAF gives to the need to cause the least disturbance to the population beneath. It is given a high priority in all training. Much of the low-flying training takes place during a pilot's initial training. By reducing the outflow of pilots from the service, we would reduce the number needing training, which would not only be a cost saving but reduce the amount of low flying necessary.
There is also a problem in retaining those involved in the ground trades. The number of young people who provide a recruiting pool is falling by 25 per cent. The fact that the service is turning increasingly to the role of women is a step in the right direction. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to pilots and aircrew, to which ladies are now being recruited. There has also been a big increase in the number of women employed in the ground trades. Although women are being recruited to aircrew for the first time, women have made an excellent contribution to the ground trades for many years, and it will increase in the future. I understand that 10 per cent. of those working in the ground trades in the service will be women, who will make a very important contribution.
The youth training scheme has been a great success in the Air Force. It is a benefit to the young people involved, 80 per cent. of whom sign on for a career in the service. The scheme provides a useful introduction to the service for people with the right enthusiasm.

313
On that point, the Air Training Corps continues to play an important role in the community and in providing young people for the services. There are squadrons all over the country, with some 40,000 boys and girls serving in the corps. I am proud of my local units and am always impressed by the smartness of the turnout at North Shields and Whitley Bay, which reflects the smartness and enthusiasm of the regular Air Force.
It is my happy annual duty to present the prizes at North Shields. A large number of the prizes are won in regional competitions, and I believe that it must be one of the most worthy squadrons anywhere. It has a splendid record. I was particularly impressed on the last occasion by the fact that the senior cadet was an extremely smart young lady. I pay tribute to the instructors who give so readily of their time in the thousand or so squadrons in Britain. We can all be grateful to them for their work in instilling good citizenship in the cadets and providing the RAF with a large part of its future membership.
I have spoken mainly about people, but I should like to say something on the equipment front. I am a great supporter of the European fighter aircraft. It is essential for the future of the RAF and this counry's defence. The Select Committee on Defence did us a service recently in drawing attention to the fact that we still do not know what we will do about replacing the Wessex helicopter, which is now 30 years old. It is more than 10 years since the Air Staff target for the replacement was produced.
The reason for the delay is the continuing uncertainty about the requirements. If we do not know what we want, it is not surprising that we have not found the answer. But the answer will have to be found and if we wish to retain a helicopter building capacity in this country, as I believe we must, there must be a regular ordering programme for helicopters. If not, we shall no longer have that capacity. We must make up our minds. I know that at times there are disagreements within and between the services about how we should seek to perform that role, but I believe that the time for a decision must soon be with us.
The Air Force provides mobility and flexibility today, as it always has. Air mobility is likely to be more, rather than less, important in the future when, inevitably we shall see fewer soldiers on the ground. The need for speed, flexibility and ability to respond quickly and over distance will be essential. In the RAF we have the necessary qualities.
It is a wise man who could tell the future in Europe in the light of the changes in the past year. Who could have foretold at the time of the previous RAF debate the position in eastern Europe today? This is the first occasion on which we have debated the RAF since the momentous changes in the Warsaw pact. It would be unwise to assume that stability will be with us in the future and that we shall not need to maintain our defences. In the 50th anniversary year of the Battle of Britain, it is only right to remind ourselves that it is absolutely essential to maintain the air defence shield so admirably provided for us by the Royal Air Force.
6.11 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a Scottish Member, I begin by paying tribute to the search and rescue sections of the RAF. Increasingly, our fellow citizens seem to be persuaded to go on hills and mountains at times and in weather conditions when they are asked not to do so. They
314
risk not only their lives but those of the extremely skilful and courageous helicopter crews who are asked and never fail at least to try to rescue them.
I do not know what can be done because it is a difficult matter, but surely some minor sanctions should be exercised against those who risk other people's lives as well as their own. The time has come do something about it. It is not right that the lives of helicopter crews should be put in jeopardy by those who take decisions that they are asked not to take.
I interrupted the Minister earlier on the question of the conversion of GR5 to GR7. I do not know the details of it, but he does. What some of us do know is that conversions have often turned out to be much more technically complex and, therefore, expensive, than is generally assumed. Is the Minister convinced that it is a realistic conversion? He may be persuasive about it and may say that there are no problems, but I should like to know, in the light of the Spey conversions and much that has taken place in the past, whether it makes sense.
My next questions are about the Tornado, which was touched on by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). First, is the SRAM-T insertion, technically feasible? Secondly, what is the strategy behind it? Given the changed conditions, it should be subject to reconsideration. I repeat the question of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. It is an important one, about which some of us were thinking before the RAF debate began. Do we really need 2.50 Tornado aircraft? In the light of political events in the past six months, has there been any reconsideration? I ask a precise question. Has it at least been reconsidered?
Last Friday, at the request of the Minister's former colleague, Christopher Tugendhat, the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, I visited Edinburgh airport and RAF Turnhouse. During discussions, certain skill shortages faced by the CAA were raised. I was told that hitherto the CAA had relied on ex-RAF personnel because they had the skills needed for not only air traffic control but many other skilled jobs in the CAA and in British Airways and other airlines. Is the Minister convinced that sufficient help is given to those who want to transfer their skills from the forces to civil flying? I had always thought that the RAF was good about transfers, but the impression that I formed in that setting, talking to people who knew about the matter, was that it was not quite so easy to transfer these days, financially or otherwise.
I had the good fortune to visit RAF Belize some years ago and I was impressed by the work that the RAF did there. The matter that I raise today is a little different. There are two urgent problems. One is control of drug smuggling and the other is control of the rain forests in certain areas. The problem can be described in the words of the Brazilian Minister for the north, Fernando Cesar Mosquita, who, sitting in his office, said to me, "If anyone creates an airstrip in your constituency, you know about it whereas I do not." The attitude in Brasilia is that if the rain forest is a world problem, the world should help. One of the ways of helping is to provide not only fire-fighting equipment but skilled helicopter crews and equipment. However much good will Governments may show, they cannot do much about the forest unless they have the equipment to do so. Has any thought been given to Governments in rain forest areas who request help from the RAF?

315
My penultimate question is on women in the RAF. Hon. Members who speak from personal experience must be careful that their experience is not many years out of date. Frankly, mine is. I did national service in a tank crew. During all that time in the Rhineland Army, I should not have cared for women tank crew members. Some of us are unhappy, to put it mildly, about recent events involving naval wives. Some of us believe that naval wives have a point. It is not clear what evidence the Ministry of Defence has about women operating in—heaven help us—battle conditions. The same applies in the RAF. In the context of the RAF, one has to assume, whether one likes it or not, the possibility of action.
The questions put by the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) and by me were perfectly valid. My question is simple. I am not jumping to conclusions; I am open to persuasion. What evidence has the Ministry had from the air staff? The air staff must have taken a view on the matter. To put it bluntly, the announcements have been pretty casual. There was not a cheep about it with regard to the Navy until ten minutes to ten the other night. The Minister was a little offhand about the announcement on women in the RAF. It is a departure from previous practice. It could be justified and some of my hon. Friends may be in favour of it, but I repeat my question: what advice has been given to the Ministry of Defence from medical sources and air staff about the feasibility of what it suggests? Until the hon. Member for Newbury asked that direct question, it was not at all clear to me—perhaps the Minister and the House will forgive me if I have got the wrong end of the stick—that some kind of role in any possible action was involved——
Mr. William Ross: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has been looking at the newspaper reports of the United States experience in Panama. Will he ask the Minister what cognisance he has taken of that, and what contact the Ministry is having with the United States military authorities on the issue of how women perform in combat?
Mr. Dalyell: That is what is called a yorker in cricket. However, I am alarmed by the decision and—although I was hesitant to say so—I am alarmed also by the American experience. We are on delicate ground here. I understand that the figure of 35 per cent. pregnancies in the first year was given. If one talks to the American forces, one realises that they are less than happy about that. Perhaps we live in a different age, but there are some very angry people, one or two of whom are in my constituency, at Rosyth. The naval wives deserve some answer.
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is old enough to remember the ladies who flew in the war in the Air Transport Auxiliary. There is no reason why a woman should not fly an aeroplane as effectively as a man. The question that the hon. Gentleman wants answering is, are they ever likely to be put into combat? The answer has been stated clearly—they are not.
Mr. Dalyell: I am on political and other thin ice here, so I shall skate off it quickly. However, the question that one is entitled to ask is, what technical advice—medical and from the air staff—has the Ministry of Defence taken? The House is entitled to know.
316
The Minister will be grateful to know that I come to my last question. It relates to page 2 of The Times on Monday.Under the heading "Officials study spy-pay claim", the article stated:
"A bizarre allegation that MI5 has been using Premium Bond cheques, supposedly issued by Ernie, the electronic 'lottery' machine run by National Savings, for paying freelance agents, is being examined by the Cabinet Office, it was disclosed yesterday."
Is it really being examined by the Cabinet Office? The article continued:
"The claims first came to light when a constituent of a senior Conservative back-bencher approached his MP and alleged that Ernie did more than just select prize-winners each month.
He said Ernie's address at Lytham St. Annes, in Lancashire, was being used as a front by the Security Service.
The man claimed that when freelance operatives—often referred to as 'cut-outs' because their undercover work cannot be traced back to M15—were employed, their pay cheques came in the guise of a prize-winning, tax-free Premium Bond payment."
Lucky them. The article continued:
"There was no suggestion that real Premium Bond prize money had been used.
The constituent claimed he had been paid a substantial sum for working for MI5 and produced a letter from an official at Ernie's office, dated 1981, informing him that he had won a Premium Bond prize.
The bond number was checked and found to be genuine.
Last week the letter was handed over to Cabinet Office officials who agreed to take the matter further.
One official was said to have suggested that the letter could be a forgery. The constituent had been involved in a celebrated court case several years ago and there had never been any previous suggestion that he had worked for the Security Service.
Ernie—Electronic Random Number Indicator Equipment—is the nearest thing in Britain to a national lottery.
Since the first draw in June 1957 more than 30 million cheques, worth about £2 billion, have been sent out to prizewinners. The largest monthly prize is £250,000 and about £5 million remains unclaimed.
Ernie which is now on its third model, takes 75 minutes to select the monthly winners from the 24 million owners of Premium Bonds. Results are published in national newspapers."
My last question is, did the Cabinet Office really spend its time considering this matter? Why did a newspaper such as The Times decide to put that story on page 2? Was it all fiction or is there a grain of truth in it?
Normally, whatever other hon. Members criticise me for, it is not for my parliamentary manners. Normally I sit through a debate, having spoken, but a long time ago I promised to uphold the honour of this House against the House of Lords in a chess match at the Athenaeum——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Very good idea.
Mr. Dalyell: I shall doubtless have won my two chess games against the other place, but I promise, either in defeat or in victory, to return to hear the Minister's reply.
6.25 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): In a characteristically generous mood, at the beginning of his speech my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), congratulated my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on his appointment as honorary Air Commodore of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force——
Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is the honorary Inspector General.
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was formerly the honorary Air Commodore of the Highlands squadron—and probably still is—but now he is assuming what was the four-star mantle of Air Chief Marshal Sir John Barraclough and becoming the honorary Inspector General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I am sure that the whole House was gratified by that news, aware as we are that my hon. and gallant Friend is no armchair warrior. Following world war two service, he was awarded the air efficiency award for his service as a pilot with the city of Edinburgh squadron, No. 603, of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I undertake to award to my hon. and gallant Friend the PE award—the parliamentary efficiency award—if, after due service as honorary Inspector General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, he can get the Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons flying again.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State made a fitting speech for a renowned military historian. Long before I knew that my hon. Friend was to be a politician, I read his book on aces in the first world war, and his book on Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union that was undertaken by the Wehrmacht. My hon. Friend made us look back to the battle of Britain and suggested that it was a close-run thing. He said that he hoped that never again would we face such a close call. I submit that in the battle of Britain the tide was turned not only by the gallant Poles who came in in early September, and flung themselves into the battle from RAF Northolt, which is in my constituency, without ever having been declared operational by Air Marshal Keith Park, but because one third of the crews involved in the battle of Britain were Royal Auxiliary Air Force personnel. Without them, the battle could not have been won.
In an interesting speech, containing good news about the order of the T-10 training variant of the Harrier, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said little about strategy. He did not even vouchsafe so much as a single surmise about the strategic implications for the Royal Air Force of the changes taking place in central and eastern Europe at present.
If I may indulge myself briefly, I should like to speculate a little. It must be our earnest endeavour, by the process of arms control and diplomacy, to seek to eliminate the Soviet armed forces, including, of course, the Soviet air forces, from the territory of what is now the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. If we can do so, we shall ensure much greater security for ourselves in the West. But in that process, which will encompass the real possibility of the unification of the two German states, it is hard to foresee that, for very much longer, Soviet forces, including air forces, will be stationed in what would be the eastern part of the united Germany, or that foreign troops, including British troops and Royal Air Force Germany, will be stationed in what is now the Federal Republic.
The logic of events—this is something for which we must hope—is that there will be a demilitarised Germany, certainly a Germany in which no foreign troops are stationed, and no foreign air forces based. That need not mean that Germany will be any less reliable as a NATO partner. Denmark and Norway do not have foreign troops
318
of NATO stationed on their soil in time of peace. Of course, they have the facilities and the infrastructure for reinforcement, and reinforcement is conducted regularly in exercises by the NATO allies.
I hope that the air staff, among all the scenarios, is at present looking at the possibility of questioning, at some time in the not-too-distant future, the Brussels treaty commitment to station an army of 55,000 men and a tactical air force on the soil of continental Europe—in Germany. Just before the end of last year I inquired of Her Majesty's Government whether the Brussels treaty commitment was under review. I was told, significantly, that it was. That is a very new development.
We could, and should, spell out with some clarity the basic strategic dispositions that will ensue from the changing scene in central and eastern Europe and the process of arms control in which we are engaged. First, it is likely that there will be a premium on the capacity to reinforce, rather than on in-place formations, on the central front. Secondly, there will be a premium on the need for reserves rather than regular forces. The number of regular forces in place is likely to diminish, but we shall need a capacity to reinforce and to expand. Thirdly, there will be a need for reach and/or range. I have suggested a process of arms control which, I hope, would lead to the elimination of Soviet air forces and Soviet ground troops from central Europe. The Soviets still possess formidable air forces with great capability, and we ought to be able to reach far and fast over extended ranges. The quality of air power is a supreme consideration. It is a quality applicable not just to the central front but, of course, to out-of-area operations. In this uncertain world—I am thinking of the middle east, Iran, and so on—there are areas to which we may have to address our military attention in the future to secure our basic national interests.
Having looked at strategy, I want to consider the consequences for the composition of our Air Force. First, there will be an even greater need for flexibility—the basic, fundamental, inherent ingredient of air power itself. Secondly, as there will be fewer forces in place, we shall need to be able to concentrate force and fire power rapidly at the decisive point. Fire power will be at a premium. So will force multipliers—tankers, so far as material is concerned; auxiliaries and reservists, so far as personnel are concerned. In short, we shall probably need a rather smaller Air Force, but one of higher quality and enhanced capability. Certainly there is no case whatever for eliminating the European fighter aircraft from our long-term costings and our future plans.
I should like to consider briefly how withdrawal of Royal Air Force Germany, if eventually it takes place—and, if so, it will be a gradual operation, I am sure—will affect our front line. There are seven Tornado GR1 squadrons and one recce squadron in Germany at present. It must be assumed that they will be brought back and based in the United Kingdom. The existing bases could be maintained for reinforcement and redeployment in time of tension or war if required by our German NATO allies, or if those allies chose just to be members of the Brussels treaty organisation or WEU allies. I think that in the redeployment back to the United Kingdom there will be an opportunity to replace the two Buccaneer maritime attack squadrons with Tornadoes—an overdue replacement and, I think, a sensible one. Secondly, we shall not need to police the air corridors to Berlin. It must be presumed that, following German unification, the four guarantor powers

319
will accede to redesignation of Berlin as a fully German city. There would then no longer be a need to police the air corridors, so the two Phantom interceptor squadrons in Royal Air Force Germany—No. 19 squadron and No. 92 squadron—would be redeployed back to the United Kingdom. That would be a good opportunity to eliminate the Phantom, which is getting rather long in the tooth, from our air defence forces altogether, to get the F2s and F3s, which are in store in St. Athan, and to rationalise purely on the basis of a Tornado air defence variant force for the No. 11 group air defence task.
With so many Tornadoes coming back from Germany, one must wonder whether it would be rational or good economics to equip the two United Kingdom Jaguar squadrons—No. 41 recce squadron and No. 56 defensive support squadron—with the Jaguar. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for them to be re-equipped with the Tornado. As for the Harrier squadrons—Nos. 3 and 4 at Gűtersloh—they would probably come back, too. I am sure that it will be suggested that, in those circumstances, there would be basing problems in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that to be the case. The announcement by Defence Secretary Chaney that the United States is to relinquish certain bases—Fairford, Greenham Common, Weathersfield, and so on—suggests to me that there are sufficient bases in the United Kingdom. There would, of course, be a dramatic foreign exchange saving to the Treasury as a result of such redeployment.
Last but not least, in the modernisation of the Air Force to make it a service with a flexible structure that will enable it to endure into the next century, there is a very real need for reserves. At present, many highly qualified aircrew and ground crew are lost to the service as a result of premature, voluntary retirement, at great cost to the taxpayer. For example, we have to make up numbers by recruiting women into categories other than the normal ones. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I know that women will be fully capable pilots; of that there is no doubt. None the less we need to prevent that haemorrhage of talent. If auxiliary flying squadrons were in operation, they would ensure the economic use of skills currently going to waste.
There are a number of roles that auxiliary squadrons could undertake. First, the United States Air Force is giving up its aggressor squadron at RAF Bentwaters, which is currently equipped with the F16. The Auxiliary Air Force could have an aggressor squadron to practise air combat, probably using the single-seat version of the Hawk, the Hawk 200. Secondly, because we may need to reinforce Germany—that possibility will still exist—and because our main anti-armour component will be air power rather than tanks on the ground, I suggest that a wing of Hawk aircraft, optimised for air-to-ground operations, be constituted for the purpose. Thirdly, I believe that the communications squadron at RAF Northolt could be an auxiliary one manned by personnel who fly airliners or executive jets. Fourthly, there is a need for a cheaper maritime patrol aeroplane to supplement the Nimrods for inshore maritime work. Fifthly, there is a great deficiency of helicopter lift—many hon. Members have already spoken about that—and the old idea of equipping one or two auxiliary squadrons with Wessex until a more appropriate aeroplane comes into service to
320
provide lift for the Territorials should be dusted down, re-examined and taken up. Last but not least, in the future, there will be a premium on air mobility, in the broadest sense, and air transport.
The Royal Air Force will continue to suffer a grave deficiency if it does not have a heavy-lift capability to fly helicopters, for example, to trouble spots or to transport armoured vehicles and so on. Heavy Lift Cargo Airlines has suggested to the MOD that that airline, in its entirety and with its crews, should become an auxiliary squadron of the RAF at no capital cost to the Ministry. That is a most imaginative concept, which I broadly support.
I hope that the Government will seize the opportunities of the hour for some imaginative forward thinking to modernise our Air Force and to adapt it to the changing scene in central and eastern Europe.
6.42 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I want to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) in what I can only say was an extremely good speech. I agreed with much of it, and he is obviously exceedingly knowledgeable on these matters. The hon. Gentleman is realistic about the situation in eastern Europe and its consequences for Britain's contribution to NATO.
I want to refer to the low-flying programme of the Royal Air Force. I have raised this matter on many occasions over the years, but I do so tonight in a different light—not so much from the basis of constituency complaints, as of following the arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood and their consequences for Britain's low-flying programme.
Following a major incident one and a half years ago outside Keswick, the town where I live in the Lake District, I asked the National Audit Office to set up an inquiry into the cost-effectiveness and value for money considerations of the low-flying programme. That inquiry was followed six months later by an inquiry by the Select Committee on Defence on similar matters.
The National Audit Office report was published some weeks ago and we had the pleasure of being able to examine that report and to take evidence on it from senior officials of the Ministry of Defence only last week. Although Sir Michael Quinlan was unable to answer many of my questions, I should like him to know that I hold him in great respect, as I regard him as one of Britain's great civil servants. When he has the opportunity to reply to those questions that he was unable to answer orally during our hearing, I hope that he will do so in some detail, because the public want answers to them. Sir Michael was unable to answer a number of questions relating to the developments in eastern Europe.
Tonight I want to place a question mark over the whole justification for the RAF's low-flying programme. Why do we need that programme now? To establish that need, I can do little more than refer to what was said in the National Audit Office report, when it referred to "NATO's forward defence strategy" when defining the requirement for the programme.
I also want to refer to a number of letters that I have received from Ministers in the past 10 years, in particular a-letter of 26 August 1987 which stated, in justifying the programme:

321
"In the event of an attack on this country or on our allies, our pilots must be ready to retaliate against targets deep in enemy territory."
The operative words are "deep in enemy territory".
Another letter of 3 November 1987 stated:
"I would only say that military experts remain convinced that high speed flight still offers the best chance of evading radar and defence systems to attack targets deep in enemy territory."
Another letter of 19 December 1987 was a reply from a Minister about many of the complaints that have come through my office over the years. It stated:
"Low level, high speed flight still offers the best chance of evading radar and defence systems to attack targets deep in enemy territory."
What is meant by "deep in enemy territory"? That phrase is turned out so liberally from the MOD word processors when replying to the many thousands of complaints received annually.
In a letter of 4 February 1983, the then Minister said:
"In a more settled world, of course, there would be less need for the flying, but it is no secret that the Soviet Union and its allies have greatly increased their military strength in the past few years and are a potential threat to Western Europe."
Mr. Alan Clark: Who wrote it?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was written by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).
Mr. Clark: That was 10 years ago.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Well, that may be so, but that letter defines the justification for the low-flying training programme.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Although potential targets and potential enemy territory will change from time to time, particularly because of developments in eastern Europe, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, during the Falklands conflict, there was a clear need for aircraft to fly extremely low beneath the Argentine radar? During that conflict, our aircraft flew over enemy territory at extremely low levels because of the experience and training gained in this country.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, but the problem is that it is costing us nigh on £4 million to maintain that programme. Not that many jets were used in the Falklands campaign; if the hon. Gentleman examines the information, he will find that no more than a dozen jets were used at any particular time. The hon. Gentleman's argument is no justification for the scale and nature of the programme currently in place.
Who are the "deep in enemy territory" nations to which reference has been made? They are Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany and Hungary, along with the part of the Soviet Union which is called Byelorussia. I think "Byelo" is the Russian for white; it is the area of the Soviet Union referred to as White Russia. Those parts of eastern Europe have all been subject to political change. Let us establish what the change has been.
Let us take Hungary. Hungary is currently ruled by a Government drawn from the Hungarian Socialist party, the reformist successor to the old Communist party. However, that is merely a caretaker operation pending elections on 25 March which the Socialist party is unlikely to win. Hungary has arrived at that stage by a series of dramatic but peaceful transformations. To date, the USSR
322
seems remarkably relaxed about the changes in Hungary, and individual spokesmen suggest that some form of neutrality might be acceptable in due course.
There seems to be surprising unanimity between the main political parties about Hungary's international status and alliances. In January, the National Assembly voted for the complete withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary. Negotiations to that end are well advanced. On 20 February, Gyula Horn, the Foreign Minister said that he would not rule out the possibility of Hungary joining NATO in the long term. Later he clarified his statement by saying that he envisaged Hungary belonging to NATO and the Warsaw pact.
Mr. Alan Clark: I mean well; I hope to help the hon. Gentleman accelerate the pace of his speech. At least he can miss out this bit. There is no training in the Royal Air Force to attack targets in Hungary, from high or low altitude.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: When Ministers were writing those letters, the reference to eastern Europe and its allies was repeated; it appears in letters as late as one and a half years ago. That has been the position which has been put consistently by Ministers over the years. That is what the word processor keeps churning out. Perhaps they should change the programme.
Mr. Rogers: Like my hon. Friend, I am surprised by the Minister's response. I thought that the pilots were being trained to attack countries in the Warsaw pact, and that Hungary was a member of the Warsaw pact. If they are not being trained to attack Hungary, I do not know what the target is. Are there any other Hungaries about?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may refer to countries other than Hungary. Let us take Czechoslovakia. It has undergone dramatic upheavals since November 1989. These followed similar upheavals in the German Democratic Republic and stemmed from the realisation that the unpopular and illegitimate Communist regime, installed in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of 1968, no longer enjoyed Soviet backing. Elections are scheduled for 8 June this year. President Havel has already visited Berlin, Bonn, Warsaw, Washington and Moscow. In Moscow, he signed an agreement on the complete withdrawal of Soviet troops by July 1991. Is Czechoslovakia the target? Is it one of the nations which is situated deep in enemy territory?
Let us take the next one, the German Democratic Republic. Future security arrangements for eastern Germany are being hotly debated in the run-up to the elections on 18 March. Is not it strange that elections are about to take place in all these countries? They are all negotiating the withdrawal of troops; they all want the troops returned to the Soviet Union.
The Federal German Republic will have elections on 2 December. The most likely outcome is that a united Germany will belong to the political part of NATO. Germany might not remain in the integrated military structure of NATO. France has been outside the military structure since 1966, so there is a precedent. Germany will probably remain within the Western European Union.
The preferred solution for eastern Germany is that proposed by Foreign Minister Genscher—that the present territory of the German Democratic Republic will have a special treaty governing military status under which the

323
Soviet forces will be allowed to remain, and German and other NATO forces will not be introduced. But negotiations are going on all the time about the removal of Soviet forces.
Indeed, I understand that the position in eastern Germany is so bad that today the Evening Standard wrote this article about a country which is deep in enemy territory and for which we should have such fear and tribulation:
"East German's armed forces, the pride of the Warsaw Pact until just a few months ago, are falling apart as men desert in their thousands and discipline collapses, say NATO sources.
'The East German army has stopped functioning as a military machine', said a senior NATO official with access to intelligence reports. 'It is amazing—unlike anything else in eastern Europe.'
The Western alliance estimates that the National People's Army, which had 173,000 men until the Berlin Wall came down last November, has now shrunk by almost half to 90,000.
'Soldiers are simply not turning up for work, some have emigrated to the West, others have gone to take jobs elsewhere. A lot of them feel the army is useless. That famous German discipline has gone', another source said.
Last week a battalion of East German soldiers refused to take part in an excercise led by some of the 380,000 Soviet troops still based in East Germany, the source said."
Of course, those too are the subject of withdrawal negotiations.
Mr. Allason: Whatever the status of the so-called eastern bloc countries, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that agreement was recently reached within the United States to allow 195,000 Soviet troops to be based in Europe?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Negotiations may have taken place, based on the historic positions in conflict of the parties, but things are happening every week, every day. There will be developments prior to the elections in all the countries to which I have referred. It is clear that major changes are taking place. All I am arguing is that "deep in enemy territory" can no longer include countries such as those that I have mentioned.
I have not referred to Poland, but it is in the same position. Discussions are taking place about the withdrawal of Soviet troops. There are matters outstanding with East Germany, but they will resolve with the passage of time, and there will be a reduction in tension in eastern Europe.
Let us look further. What is beyond the boundary of eastern Europe? We have Latvia, Lithuania, Byelorussia, the Ukraine and Moldavia. Most of those areas of the USSR are themselves the subject of democratic change. That is what the argument is about on the other side of the Urals. Indeed, elections have just taken place in Lithuania and elections are due in Moldavia. In the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, the Ukraine and Byelorussia, elections are taking place in three months. In Latvia and Estonia, there will be elections on 18 March. All these elections are against the background of the nationalist movements developing in those countries, most of which are opposed to further domination of their political systems by the Communist party. They want change based on the western model of applied democracy.
Mr. Bill Walker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we are witnessing rapid political change and enormous political instability. Would he care to cast his mind back to where we started, the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain? Will he reflect on how long it took Hitler to emerge from political instability to a position in which he threatened Europe? How many years did that take?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the clock will suddenly turn back——
Mr. Walker: No.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I misunderstood the implication of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
I have dealt with what I believe to be the major changes in eastern Europe and in those satellite regions that form part of the USSR.
Sir Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)rose——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but I must press ahead.
I have a map of the area to which I am referring. There is the old iron curtain, there is the boundary of the existing——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks must be comprehensible for the Hansard reporters. He must describe exactly what he is doing so that it can be written down.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall do precisely that. This map shows the iron curtain, the boundary between the states that form part of the western USSR and that area of eastern Europe that includes Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. The significance of this map is that it shows also the operational ranges of the Tornado and Harrier jets that are currently deployed on three bases in western Europe—Bruggen, Gutersloh and Laarbruck. One of those bases has a Harrier squadron and the other two have Tornado squadrons.
Taking the maximum operational range—without mid-air refuelling—based on an average load-bearing Tornado, and making a kilometre calculation from the bases where those aircraft are deployed, they only just cross the border from Poland, Czechoslovakia and eastern Germany into the Soviet Union. Their ranges are geared to operate in an area that is now the subject of political change. Most of the operational potential for those aircraft has been offset by the changes in eastern Europe.
The Tornado cannot even penetrate more than 120 km inside the Soviet Union when it is operating on maximum range. It cannot even reach industrial cities in the west of the Soviet Union, because it is built to deal with a problem deep in enemy territory in the satellite states in eastern Europe. Much of its operational capability and role is now defunct because of the changes.
I am not saying that it should be withdrawn tomorrow. I understand that there is some question whether the changes in eastern Europe are long term, or whether there is the possibility of a reverse. My view is that there is not, but there are varying views. All I am asking is that Ministers take that matter into account. If the political conditions are changing, there must be some Government response, especially if the role and capability of the Tornado is interfered with by those changes.
Sir Alan Glyn: The hon. Gentleman was correct when he said that there have been enormous changes in eastern Europe. He has correctly outlined them, and none of us disputes that. However, all those countries would have been unreliable allies to the Soviets. We are now faced with a much shorter Soviet frontier. Therefore, as the hon. Gentleman says, we need different types of weapon. One of those weapons is the atomic deterrent.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the Soviet Union is deperate to cut defence expenditure. It cannot build a modern economy while such a high percentage of its GDP is spent on its defence efforts. It desperately wants changes. Western Europe must recognise that reality and respond accordingly, so that the Soviet Union can convince its public opinion and military institutions, which will probably resist a reduction in internal defence expenditure, that it is justified.
Unless western Europe recognises its responsibility to respond and so enable the Soviet Government, especially President Gorbachev, to sell the principle of reducing expenditure, it will fail in its historic duty. We must not speak that language, because changes are happening. I am saying not that we should unilaterally give up everything—on the contrary—but that we must take everything into account and not take an entrenched position on areas such as low flying and Tornado training just because, historically, pilots have been in a strong position to demand and secure what they wanted.
I shall now deal with aircraft losses. Information is published in America that sets out the truth, which British Ministers have always refused to accept, about the attrition rates for Tornado, Jaguar and other fast jets used by the RAF. I want to know the answer to a simple question that I asked the Select Committee on Public Accounts last week. Why is it that, in 1979, the major accident rate, which includes aircraft losses, per 10,000 hours—as referred to by the Minister in his opening speech—was twice as high in the RAF as it was in the United States air force?
The figure was 1·49 fast jets lost by the RAF and 0·74 by the United States air force. In 1980, why was the figure 1·13 for the RAF and 0·51 for the United States air force—two and a quarter times higher? Why was it two and a half times as high in 1981–1·28 compared with 0·48—and in 1982 two and a third times as high—1·22 compared with 0·52? I am sorry to relate all those statistics, but they should be put on the record. They are published in the United States of America and they should be published in the United Kingdom.
In 1983 the RAF figure was three times as high—1·25 compared with 0·40; in 1984 it was two and a third times as high—0·86 compared with 0·37; in 1985, it was 0·73 compared with 0·29—two and a half times as high. In 1986 we had a good year as the figure was 0·58 compared with 0·33—one and three quarter times as high; in 1987, figures were 0·84 compared with 0·33—two and half times as high. The Minister said that last year's figure was 0·81——
Mr. Alan Clark: The figure was 0·31.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry; I thought the Minister said 0·81. Perhaps we had a better year last year. However, what is coming next year? The pattern of the past has repeatedly been that we lose, or have major
326
accidents involving, far more fast jets than does the United States of America. That includes not only low flying, but flying at all altitudes in fast jets.
If we try to identify low flying, what happens? We are not given the figures, because figures relating to low flying are not published. The Ministry of Defence uses all sorts of answers to try to justify the fact that we cannot have statistics relating to low flying, whereas in Germany the figures are published. Why, in many of those years, were the number of Tornadoes lost—one type of aircraft—twice as high per 10,000 hours in the United Kingdom. with RAF pilots, as in Germany with Luftwaffe pilots? Are the Germans safer fliers? Those are the same aircraft, and the same basis of calculation has been used.
These matters are of great importance because, to some extent, they show that there is something about the British low-flying programme, or the use of Tornado generally, that might make low-flying more dangerous in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Bill Walker rose——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall give way in a moment.
It may be that we are the only country in western Europe that allows low flying down to 100 ft. I wonder if that is it? I wonder if the NATO agreement that we have, whereby we carry out low flying to 100 ft puts our pilots at greater risk.
Mr. Walker: I do not have the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's piece of paper with the statistics. Will he confirm that those statistics cover all fast jet operations in the United States, including the United States navy and the United States marine corps? The United States marine corps flies low and fast, and has more aircraft than the Royal Air Force has in total. Therefore, if those flights are included in the statistics, that would certainly change the figures enormously.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am comparing like with like. Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is not.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman says that I am not, but I know what statistics I have here. I am comparing like with like.
I shall now consider Tornadoes, in comparison with F111s. In 1986, not one F111 aircraft—I understand that in terms of role and capability, the F111 is similar to the Tornado—was lost anywhere on earth. Let us imagine the scale of the United States operations and the use of F111 aircraft and consider that not one was lost.
I understand that the F111 is a safe aircraft, yet over a period of years we have lost 22 Tornado aircraft in this country. The figures vary depending on what extent of damage is regarded as a write-off. There was a story in the national press last year of Tornadoes being holed up in some garage or hangar at a national airport, for whatever reason.
Mr. Rogers: I shall confirm for the record what my hon. Friend said about the aircraft being stored in a garage. In a report, the Select Committee on Defence expressed great concern about the fact that there were 32 Tornadoes in storage in a hangar at RAF St. Athan. The total worth of those 32 Tornadoes was more than £500 million and it was costing £60,000 a year to keep them in storage.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am glad that my hon. Friend is able to confirm that report. I was obviously telling the story as it is.
It is always significant in a debate in the House when a large number of hon. Members rise to intervene. It may be that I have provoked them to think about these matters tonight. I hope that they will chkeck the figures that I have given and the figures that will inevitably be published in the report of the Public Accounts Committee that will be produced when the evidence that has been taken on the National Audit Office report is published. If those figures are given in full, they will justify what I have said tonight and endorse my case.
I do not want to say what I am about to say, but I shall say it; pilots tell lies. I know that because of an incident that took place on 7 November 1988, about 200 miles to the east of the boundary of Keswick, the town in my constituency where I live. Three people witnessed the incident, which was a near miss. None of those who reported the incident to me knew any of the others who had done so. They all reported the incident independently and from three different positions. The letter that came back from the Minister of Defence said:
"As promised in Roger Freeman's letter to you of 7 November, the points raised by three of your constituents about Tornado aircraft activity near Keswick on 14 September have now been looked into.
I can confirm that no airmiss report has been filed relating to any incident over Keswick that day. As you may know, the pilots would have been obliged to file such a report if either of them had felt that their aircraft had been endangered by the proximity of another. It is however, quite possible that your correspondent saw Tornado aircraft executing a navigational or tactical turn, manoeuvres which involve one aircraft crossing over the track of the lead aircraft. In such a manoeuvre the aircraft would be separated by some 500 feet. I can assure you that these manoeuvres are standard practice in the Royal Air Force. Both pilots would have been well briefed beforehand and would have maintained visual and radio contact throughout. Such turns are in fact carried out in the interests of aircraft safety. I hope this is helpful."
The background to that letter is that the pilots concerned told lies. when they were asked, they said that there had been no air miss. They did not file reports because they knew that that would lead to an inquiry. Two of those three constituents may well not be of my political persuasion and all three are reliable people, not known for hysteria. They are level-headed and know what they saw. Nothing on earth will convince them that it was other than what they said in the statements that they gave to officials.
I know that these air misses happen all the time. I have seen incidents; I live under the flight path of one of these aircraft. As I am not there for most of the week, but only the weekend, I do not see many incidents. However, in the summer months I have seen the aircraft coming down the valley over Keswick. Sometimes they come down very low indeed. People write in and complain, and the Ministry sends out officials, who write reports. We all know that the exercise is a waste of time because the pilot says, "I did not do that," and that goes in the record.
We cannot go on like this, on the basis of a Skyguard system, which I understand is some jacked-up, captured piece of Argentine equipment. Perhaps we are now buying new equipment—I do not know; it did not come out in the Public Accounts Committee the other day. Something must be done to catch these people out. It is not just me who complains; all hon. Members who live in such areas are complaining.
328
I believe in a low-flying programme where it is necessary and when it is run properly. I object to pilots who tell lies. No doubt they will have the opportunity to read tonight's debate. I hope that those who have told lies know what I am talking about and realise that people strongly object. If three people see something independently and know it happened, we do not expect a pilot to go back and lie to his senior officers, as happened on that occasion.
There are alternative locations in various parts of the world where such low flying could take place. I have had a letter faxed to me today from Canada, from the leader of the New Democratic party, which I understand is an important party in Canadian politics. To some extent the letter undermines my case, but I intend to read part of it out.
The Canadians object—I did not know this till yesterday—to the fact that some of us are advocating more low-flying training taking place overseas, particularly in Canada. It seems that that idea is causing a great deal of anxiety to the populations of certain areas—especially to trappers, whose activities make an important contribution to the economy of certain northern areas.
The letter ends:
"The New Democratic party has appreciated the solidarity and friendship accorded us by the Labour party over the years. We now ask you to consider our position in formulating your policy on low flying in the dramatically changing international arms context."
The letter objects to any possible NATO decision on increasing low-flying activity in Canada. It also refers to an aboriginal group known as the Innu and questions the low-flying programme on the basis that the changes in eastern Europe obviate the necessity of maintaining the present scale of the programme.
7.21 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: If we followed the line of argument advanced by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) we should ignore the very nature of a credible defence policy for the RAF, the Army or the Navy. The whole essence of defence—this debate centres on an effective air defence—is its insurance policy element. An insurance policy should be taken out against all risks, and we hope that when one of those risks is called in, the policy will cover it. If we extended the argument of the hon. Member for Workington, we could talk ourselves out of having any defence at all, saying that we could see no risk for the foreseeable future, so we should remove our defence forces. That is unsound policy.
At a time of great changes we must, when deciding on the role of the RAF, examine some important underlying concepts—for example, those of technological deterrence and operational deterrence. In a rapidly changing world I should not like to predict in what sort of theatre of operations our Air Force may be called upon to perform its tasks. We have heard in the debate that the European theatre may be less important in the foreseeable future, but I can think of out-of-area operations in other parts of the world in which our interests could be threatened and in which the characteristics of aircraft such as the Tornado—it is built in my constituency—with its low-flying capability might be called into play. An effective Air Force must be effective in all the possible roles that it might be called upon to perform.
Mr. Rogers: Would the hon. Gentleman care to mention any area in which the British Air Force is likely to operate—apart from our present out-of-area commitments?
Sir Hector Monro: Oh dear, oh dear.
Mr. Rogers: Is the hon. Gentleman thinking of going back to the colonies, or of raiding another country? Perhaps the commodore of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force could give us some guidance on this?
Mr. Jack: No one could have predicted that we would need to defend our interests in the Falklands; no one could have predicted the need for the Armilla patrol. There are always possibilities that our defence forces will be called upon——
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend recollect that it was the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who decided that we did not need an aircraft carrier squadron in the south Atlantic, and that it was the removal of that deterrent which resulted some years later in the Argentinians invading the Falklands?
Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for refreshing my memory. The thesis behind an effective Air Force is that it must be effective whatever the demands upon it. Part of our task now, with the conventional forces in Europe talks under way, is to determine the flexible nature and the technology that will be required for our Air Force to meet future demands, seen and unseen.
In my constituency 6,500 people are employed in British Aerospace's military aircraft division. It was refreshing to hear the commitment made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) to the Tornado, to hear his questions about its operational capability, and to hear his commitment to the European fighter aircraft. I hope that those commitments last all the way through the Labour party's policy formulation and that at the next general election it will be able to explain why the party has reversed its policy of trying to run down the defence industry.
The Labour party has talked about some sort of conversion agency. If such an agency came into being not all the objectives that the hon. Member for Rhondda set out in his speech could be achieved, because the agency would undermine the technological base that provided the very weapon systems that he supports. How would he sustain the home-based defence industry without the contribution of its defence exports? In Lancashire we know very well the benefits of, for instance, the Al Yamani project, supplying Tornadoes, Hawks and other systems to Saudi Arabia; but the Labour party made it clear at the last election and thereafter that it would dismantle the overseas sales network for British defence equipment.
At a time when we are—rightly—questioning value for money in European defence, orders for different aircraft systems, some of which will be endorsed by purchase by the RAF, will make the economics of planes such as the Tornado and the EFA come right—at affordable prices, for us and for others. It is very important that the RAF continues to order such planes. I recall the classic example of an American fighter developed by an American aircraft company. The United States Air Force would not buy it, so the plane made no export business.
The hon. Member for Rhondda should also bear in mind the importance of Britain developing its sale of
330
defence equipment worldwide, which helps us to determine defence policy in new theatres of operation. To answer the hon. Member for Workington, sometimes the achievement of such sales is determined by the capability of an aircraft—for instance, in low flying.
Apart from the 16,500-strong British Aerospace work force in defence procurement in the north-west, we also have Rolls-Royce in Barnoldswick and Lucas Aerospace in Burnley. The work forces in those companies are worried about the conventional forces in Europe talks. They are aware of the dramatic developments that have resulted recently in a reduction in the number of combat aircraft to 4,700. As yet it has not been specified which types of aircraft will be involved or what the implications are for future defence procurement, and that causes anxiety.
I contend that there are also opportunities. The CFE talks put a premium on technology—what is left will have to be good. That maxim is certainly mirrored in the Warsaw pact's strategy of developing higher technology planes that pack a bigger punch. We need to know how we shall react to what emerges from the CFE talks.
We must remember that the RAF's strategy in future must be flexible. The achievement of flexibility will largely depend on our ability to develop highly sophisticated technological products, so we need to retain in this country the basic capability to produce such equipment. I was pleased to hear the Minister's commitment to the European fighter aircraft. He is right to say that work on that aircraft is advanced. Five prototypes are currently being worked on in the hangars at Warton.
The need for that plane cannot be overemphasised. The Soviet Union has made it clear that, while it may be reducing the number of aircraft that it has at its disposal, it is generating types that we will find difficult to deal with. Aircraft such as the Blackjack, the Flanker fighters and the Fulcrum are threats that the European fighter aircraft may be called upon to meet. The whole point of having a credible deterrent such as the European fighter aircraft is the hope that it will not have to meet such threats. If we show any weakness and do not proceed with a specific programme, other people could get the wrong idea.
In technology terms the European fighter aircraft is interesting. In real terms it could be argued that the aircraft is cheaper than its previous equivalents. It employs the new technology of carbon fibre in its wing construction and has new forms of mouldings and alloys, all of which contribute to improved serviceability. Those who seek justification for having it will find, for example, that one of the targets is to reduce the amount of time when it is not serviceable. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us when he replies what is happening in terms of the availability of aircraft in relation to maintenance. Can he also give us some idea of the time that will be required to resolve the problems of the European fighter aircraft? It is right that the four nations concerned should look again at the question of radar and reach a conclusion. There are outstanding issues and many of my constituents would like a firm word on those.
I shall now deal with the matter of the delivery of Tornadoes that British Aerospace has on its production line. I am surprised that the Opposition did not reflect on the fact that, in spite of the efforts of the engineering union to mess up production at the British Aerospace plant in Preston, those at Warton in my constituency continued working and there was no disruption in the flow of aircraft

331
to RAF and other customers of British Aerospace. Warton can be justly proud of its role in ensuring the continuity of procurement. It distressed me greatly to see the engineering unions pressing the strike to the limit and posing some fundamental questions on their suitability to continue as a source of labour for components for use in British Aerospace's wider activities. It is about time that the Opposition had words with their friends in the trade unions and told them to exercise more responsibility.
Nobody can predict with precision the future role of the RAF. We may see a need to increase maritime air power. What consideration has the Minister given to adapting existing marques or future planes such as the EFA to fulfil a maritime role? There has been some speculation about what comes next. I appreciate that there is considerable public pressure to reduce defence expenditure, but we must not ignore questions such as what comes next. The lead time on modern aircraft is very long. If we are to maintain our technology base and our leading edge on aviation technology in Europe, with the obvious potential spin-offs in the civil field, we must try to give an early indication, commensurate with CFE 1 and CFE 2, to our aircraft industry so that it can plan properly for technology and materials procurement.
The idea that we can all gain immediately from some form of peace dividend worries me. There would be no dividend from what has happened in eastern Europe if we had not been resolute on our defence expenditure and policies. Neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland place great emphasis on maintaining a credible air defence system to protect the inviolability of their air space and their national security. Such a strong view by neutral countries must reinforce our stance to place emphasis in the coming years on credible air defence. The European fighter aircraft has an important role to play in that.
7.34 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) made an interesting speech that was informative about the Conservative view. Conservatives argue that defence is about liberty and freedom, but the hon. Gentleman uttered a thinly veiled threat to ban trade unions from defence factories. Effectively, he said that in his speech. He eulogised about arms exports. Arms exports have been expanded enormously and it is little wonder that British and European-made arms were used to kill British soldiers in the Falklands war. Conservatives have pushed ahead fast with arms exports because they are interested only in the money, but they should realise that British troops will be at risk from British arms in future wars.
I apologise to the Minister for missing the early part of his speech. I put it down to a failed attempt to improve my sartorial image. I have been trying to avoid bulging pockets by not carrying keys. Unfortunately, I closed my front door and then found that I did not have the keys in my pocket. I wish that I had had an RAF helicopter to lift me over my neighbour's back wall and into my garden so that I could get into my house.
It is difficult for hon. Members to visit Royal Air Force bases and it can be done only on strictly limited conditions. I tried to do it and was snubbed by the Ministry of
332
Defence. I was told that I could not visit when I wanted to. I have a picture from Aviation News magazine of a girl in front of a Hawk. The caption says:
"A bird in the hand … Pilot's Pal Kris Jaynes with a No. 151 (Shadow) Squadron Hawk T.Mk.1 make a fine combination for this year's Christmas cover."
It is clear that calendar girls can get into RAF bases. I appreciate that hon. Members are not as popular as calendar girls on visits, but nominally at least we hold the purse strings and if calendar girls can get in surely we can. Will the proceeds from such calendars be given to the Royal Air Force? That would save the taxpayer a few bob because I understand that such calendars make money.
I congratulate the RAF on its disaster relief work and its search and rescue efforts. My experience from meeting RAF officers is that they have an amazingly high technical standard and great expertise. They are immensely efficient. However, one must ask whether the Ministry of Defence is efficient in managing them or is it inefficient, incompetent and wasteful of public money?
I should like to read to the House a long passage that is worth reading from The Independent of 22 January. It points to that inefficiency and to the need for a major defence review. That was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). It also shows that a peace dividend should be comfortably available from cutting our military hardware. That could be used for peaceful purposes such as the National Health Service and civilian jobs in an arms conversion programme. Only the Tories set their face against that. I have seen reports saying that changes in Europe mean that we have to spend more. That is plain stupidity.
The article in The Independent is headlined:
"Military budgets 'able to withstand £15 bn cut'."
It says:
"The RAF runs too many airfields, requiring duplication of services and more men than any other western airforce operating a similar number of aircraft. Five or six RAF air bases could be closed, including at least one of the major facilities in West Germany. RAF Germany will probably have to lose two of its 12 combat aircraft squadrons under the CFE treaty. Airpower should be reorganised with at least two of RAF Germany's nine squadrons of Tornado bomber aircraft brought back to Britain to replace elderly Buccaneers … the RAF's strength could be cut by about 15,000 men from its current strength of 93,000. These changes could be made with the RAF losing only four of its 28 fast jet squadrons while retaining all its projects for upgrading UK air defences.
Further, the RAF's support helicopter force should be transferred to Army control. Currently, troops ride in helicopters operated by two services, a duplication of effort and something that hinders the development of airmobile tactics, which will become increasingly important as forces in central Europe are thinned out by the CFE accord."
I do not mind whether that is controlled by the Army or by the RAF, but there should not be that duplication. The article also says:
"The RAF's plans to buy a new air-launched anti-tank missile could be cancelled".
That is particularly relevant if the CFE talks result in the scrapping of some of the tanks in central Europe. Another article in The Independent on the same day says:
"A comparison of the Royal Air Force with that of Israel shows the difference between an organisation which evolved through the abandonment of empire and one which grew up to meet a specific threat. Each force deploys about 550 combat aircraft but the RAF uses three times as many people to do it. There is only one general in the Israeli air force but there are more than 50 officers of equivalent or higher rank in the RAF …
Some military experts also believe that the RAF deploys much of its strength too close to the East German border. The

333
bulk of the RAF's bomber force, nine squadrons of Tornados, is based in Germany. The Americans base fighters in Germany to protect ground forces, but put most of their bombers in England and elsewhere, to keep them safer from a Warsaw Pact attack."
So it is bad strategy anyway. My hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Rhondda both mentioned the next point in the article which is:
"The RAF remains pre-occupied with buying aircraft, there being more than 200 of them sitting unused in hangars. This embarrassment of riches provides the visible proof of the RAF's success in pursuading governments that continued purchasing of aircraft is good for the nation's industrial health. While all air forces like to have reserves no other in Nato has such a high proportion of its aircraft gathering dust'.
The RAF would have difficulty manning and sustaining these spare aircraft in a conflict. Spending billions of pounds buying aircraft has not helped the service to man this reserve fleet; there are not enough aircrew, even if desk-bound officers are mobilised, to keep the RAF flying around the clock in war. Stockpiles of advanced weapons for use by these aircraft are so low that, in some cases, they would only last a few days."
What a catalogue of mismanagement. That also shows where there is scope to get the peace dividend from the RAF, let alone from the other forces if they are anything like that.
Mr. Jack: I suspect that that article was written by the same journalist who has been writing knocking copy about the European fighter aircraft month after month. Every time he says something, reality proves him wrong.
Mr. Cohen: The points are set out in detail. I have quoted them and it is for the Minister to respond in detail, point by point. Why are those aircraft gathering dust in the hangars? Why has the Ministry been so keen to buy aircraft and leave them in that condition? Let us have the answers.
The CFE talks will result in reductions, and those reductions will have to include combat aircraft. The Prime Minister tried to block that at the outset by saying that no United Kingdom dual-purpose aircraft would be included. That is why there was such a long wrangle over the definition of what aircraft should be included—a wrangle that put at risk the whole deal. On 28 November last year, The Atlantic News reported:
"The Prime Minister has expressed doubts about including aircraft in the negotiations"
during her visit to Washington. Despite the Prime Minister, it now looks as if a deal can be reached over, for example, air defence interceptors. That is welcome, although, judging from the reports, too many aircraft will still be left.
The Government have also been less than frank about the future of the United States air bases in the United Kingdom. We are told in press reports—not by the Government—that RAF Molesworth is to be used as a huge spy centre, to be transferred here from Stuttgart by the United States. It will be called a joint analysis centre and will have over 700 staff. That makes Britain a front-line target again.
How many of those spy centres are needed? We already have GCHQ and Fylingdales, and now we are to have Molesworth. Only a little while ago, NATO made a fuss about a Soviet Union spy centre. The Soviet Union has shut down that centre, but we go on expanding and having more and more spy centres.
334
The Ministry of Defence is still insisting that RAF Greenham Common has only a military future. On 11 January, it announced that it was pushing ahead legally to extinguish all commoners' rights over the land. That is being done under the Defence Act 1854, which went through Parliament in one day as a part of the Crimean war effort. It is ironic that an Act to facilitate a war with Russia is being used because of peace with Russia. The war is against the Newbury residents, and its aim is to take away their common land. The 1854 Parliament was deeply undemocratic and unrepresentative. The Act has none of the appeal or compensation rights that there would be in modern legislation for land acquisition.
Greenham Common is no good anyway because, under the inspection procedures of the INF treaty, it has to be inspected. It is down only as a standby base. It has the Hilton hotel and a new Tesco supermarket close to its western flight path, and on its eastern flight path it has Aldermaston, the nuclear production facility, so there would have to be immense flight restrictions anyway. Greenham Common should be closed down for military purposes and returned to the people of Newbury. That land is the lung of the area.
At RAF Bentwaters in Suffolk, the F15E Strike Eagle nuclear bomber is to be based, with a stand-off nuclear missile that can be launched into the range that is supposedly covered by the INF treaty. Even McDonnell-Douglas, the producer of the F 1 5E, boasts in its advertisements of it breaking the spirit of the INF treaty.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) for obtaining information through a series of written questions, especially as Congress in America has already approved a £12 million base preparation programme with a nuclear element at Bentwaters. RAF Bentwaters is to be the new Greenham Common. Congress has been told about that, but the British Parliament has not been informed.
The same situation applies to the SRAM-T, the new tactical surface-to-air missile. Congress has been told that SRAM-T is to be fitted to the F15E and to the Tornado. The Congressional Record reads:
"General Leyland: We will put the SRAM-T on the F15E first, then the F111, then the F16.
Senator Cohen"—
who is not related to me but who is equally inquisitive, then asked:

"Any non-US aircraft?

General Leyland: It is going to go on the Tornado.

Senator Cohen: Tornado?

General Leyland: Yes."

Although that information appears in the Congressional Record, we in the British Parliament have not been given it. America is planning to produce 450 TASM—Tornado air-to-surface missiles—and reports say that 160 of them are to be based in the United Kingdom. If that is true, there will be more of those in the United Kingdom than the number of cruise missiles being dismantled under the INF treaty.
In addition, it was confirmed when defence was last the subject at Question Time that the Government are going ahead, with the approval of President Bush, with a new Anglo-French nuclear missile. The whole programme involves updating, modernising and increasing what existed under the cruise programme. So much for Tory claims of disarmament success. Some people in NATO, such as the Tory Government here, are set on continued expansion rather than disarmament. At whom are all the

335
new nukes targeted? Are not those involved in these activities aware of the changed world situation and the potential unravelling of the cold war? Are not they continuing the same old arms race, albeit on only the NATO side?
The truth is that the Tories are frightened of peace. That is why they have already made plans to spend the peace dividend on the next generation of nuclear weapons. If the British public are able fully to appreciate the truth of that, they will resent it and reject the Tory cold war dinosaurs.
7.52 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I assure the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that my hon. Friends and I are determined to retain the peace that we have enjoyed since 1945. Western Europe has been the only part of the planet where forces totally opposed to each other have faced each other for that length of time, yet there has been peace in the area. All the evidence shows that if one can deter, one can enjoy peace.
The hon. Member for Leyton does his cause no good by suggesting that in some way Conservative Members are war mongers. The opposite is true. There are many on the Government Benches, and some on the Opposition Benches—not as many as there used to be—who experienced war. I assure the hon. Gentleman that anyone who has experienced war does not want to see it repeated, and certainly we do not want our children to suffer it. I find offensive the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we are interested only in war.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said that we wrapped ourselves in the Union Jack. As hon. Members can see, tonight I am not wrapped in the Union Jack. I am wearing the Royal Air Force tartan kilt. I am proud of it and I am proud of the years I spent in the RAF. I am equally proud of the years I have spent in the RAF Volunteer Reserve.
In view of the interest in such matters displayed by Opposition Members, I must declare an interest. I am a serving member of the RAF Volunteer Reserve. I do not pretend, and have never pretended, to be an expert. Last weekend, when I was with the RAF, I was with some real experts. One need only be with experts, in whatever walk of life, to realise how little one knows. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Rhondda said, we do not spend our time living in the past.
My information, from RAF sources, is up to date and, I believe, reliable. In this, the 50th anniversary year of the battle of Britain, it is important for us never to forget that the war was a close-run thing. Never again must we ask the RAF to face such a situation. We have a duty and responsibility to the young men and women who give their service to our country to ensure that we give them the equipment to enable them to deter, and we hope that they will never have to use it in anger.
I welcomed the visit last week of the RAF presentation team to the House. The fact that they were coming appeared often on the all-party Whip, so any hon. Member who was interested in finding the true facts could have attended and put questions to the Chief of Air Staff. Opposition Members who wonder whether the RAF authorities have views on low flying and whether advice is
336
given to pilots on the subject could have talked to the RAF presentation team and questioned the Chief of Air Staff. Those of us who questioned them found that they gave clear and lucid answers.
There is a dramatically changing situation in eastern Europe. We welcome the breakdown of Socialism and Communism. We on the Conservative Benches have always been opposed to Socialism and Communism. Some Opposition Members are rather discomforted because their friends are no longer in office. As I say, we welcome the changes that are taking place.
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman does himself no credit by sneering in that way. I reiterate what I said earlier; my hon. Friends and I and people of our background are just as committed, perhaps even more so, to the defence of this country as are Conservative Members. As many people from the mines of south Wales and the factories of Yorkshire and Lancashire as public school boys gave their lives in the last war.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party and Lord Halifax held hands with Hitler. His party ran down British forces immediately prior to the last war. The Conservatives consorted with the Nazis and Fascists at that time. So it ill behoves the hon. Gentleman and his Friends to cast slurs on us. Those of us who come from a Christian Socialist background greatly resent his implication that we are Communists. We are not Communists and the Labour party since the war has been opposed to Russia's imperial developments.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman protesteth too much. We are debating the RAF, which has always recruited from all the socio-economic groups in this country. It is important to remember that. The hon. Member for Rhondda should also remember that, like him, I come from a working-class background. His jibes at me went wide of the mark. The Soviet Union, let us remember, is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I described that regime as being Socialist and I am sure that that is what the Soviet Union believes itself to be.
As we look at the USSR, that massive conglomeration of races and creeds in which the Russians are in a minority, representing fewer than 50 per cent. of the total population, we see the threat that it faces with the growth of Muslim fundamentalism, the impact that that could have on the Soviet Union generally and the possibilities that exist for mischief-making. One is bound to wonder who will have possession of Soviet military hardware in the coming 10 years. The Soviets' nuclear capability is enormous, and their vast, modern, sophisticated air force could well end up in the wrong hands.
We must retain a broad capability. The RAF must be able to expand to meet any threat or need that arises, and in that context I welcome the strong commitment to the European fighter aircraft. We must also consider the possible threat posed by Soviet aircraft such as the Fulcrum, the Foxbat, the Flanker and the Backfire in the hands of nations unfriendly to us, perhaps in the middle east. At some time in the future we may require RAF pilots to fly against such aircraft, for we never know who tomorrow's enemy may be.
We must retain the ability to deploy aircraft rapidly, and we must consider the type of helicopter that should be used in such a role. Although I do not wish to criticise the EH101, which can work for the Navy in its anti-submarine

337
capacity, I believe that the ideal candidate is the Black Hawk, which can be accommodated in a C 130 Hercules for rapid deployment—with Rolls-Royce engines, of course. In case any hon. Members are worried about the future of Westland, let me remind them that Westland will be manufacturing the Black Hawk. As for search-and-rescue services, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that the time has come for us to make the replacement of the Wessex by the Sea King a priority; the left-over Wessex aircraft could be allocated to auxiliary duties.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in his place: I probably derived as much pleasure as he from his appointment as Inspector General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. That is a great honour to bestow on a former volunteer and auxiliary, and Conservative Members, at least, share in it. I am confident that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is in good hands.
When I was in the United States last year, I visited the United States Marine Corps depot at Cherry Point in North Carolina on the anniversary of the battle of Britain. The corps has more high-class jets than the Royal Air Force, which is why I questioned the statistics given earlier by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The general very kindly sent his communications aircraft to pick me up at Washington, accompanied by two air cadets who were on a visit that I had arranged.
I discovered that both the majors who were flying the aircraft were auxiliaries—US Marine Corps reserve officers putting in their annual commitment. I have talked to former regular RAF officers, now flying with British Airways, Britannia, Dan-Air and British Midland, who are willing to serve in the RAAF or the RAF volunteer reserves; as many are former fast-jet pilots, they would surely be useful if more air crews are needed in future.
There is a world shortage of pilots, both civil and military. I have a long-standing interest in the air cadets, and particularly in the volunteer gliding schools run by them; such schools often give young men and women their first opportunity of learning to fly. Let me place on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend t he Minister of State for Defence Procurement—and his predecessor, Lord Trefgarne—for re-equipping the gliding schools with the Grobb 109B, a fine aircraft for such purposes. Some nine airfields now have doubts about their long-term viability, and this may be a good time for us to order more Grobb 109Bs while the production line is still going, at the same fixed-contract price. I compliment the Procurement Executive—which normally receives a good many knocks—on obtaining such a good deal.
There used to be a volunteer gliding school servicing the north-east: it was based at RAF Ouston when that unit was still in existence. I have a particular interest in that unit, because I was the last commanding officer of 641 volunteer gliding school. Sadly, the unit had to close down, because we had lost our home. Now, however, Acklington—a former RAF base that became an opencast coal site—is being restored, and I think that it could be procured for the gliding school. I believe that the price on offer is reasonable.
The RAF will be obtaining substantial sums for other units: the asking price for the Acklington site is a tiny proportion of what it will receive for one of the many sites that it has offered. I hope that the Ministers will not be put off by comments about the site being used only by part-time fliers: that is no way in which to talk about our
338
volunteer gliding schools, which get their staff for nothing and do the job without charging. More important, the unit would be able to run courses during the week, and other units—such as Catterick, which can no longer engage in midweek flying for annual courses—could use it as well.
I should like to place on record my thanks to one individual for what he has done for the air cadet gliding movement. His name is wing commander Jack Alcock and he is due to retire this year. He has done a remarkable job running the central gliding school for the Royal Air Force, and in my view he should be encouraged to extend his service so that he can see through the conversion that will be required to the Grobb 109B.
The Chipmunk and Bulldog have given good service to the Royal Air Force and we should carefully look at them and their replacements. The cost of keeping an aircraft in operation can often be greater than the cost of replacing it and having a massive reduction in running costs. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that our experience with GRP gliders and motor gliders has given us confidence that they represent the way in which all light aircraft will probably be constructed in future.
I must declare an interest as we seem to be living in an era when there is great interest in my activities. At least certain Opposition Members seem to take great interest in my activities. I visited the factory where the Grobb 109B is made. I must declare that I was entertained there and enjoyed some lovely sausages and various other things and I did not pay for them, but I hope that no one will conclude that I was compromised in any way, as we seem to be entering the realms of stupidity in these matters.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the staffing of established units of air cadets and volunteer reserves. The PR flight commanded by wing commander Alex Dickson does a tremendous job, as do all the other flights of the volunteer reserves. As a result of the Taylor report which is now some 30 years old, we adopted a system of appointing retired officers to J-class posts in the operation, running and control of those units. That was done on the basis that it was a less expensive way of staffing those posts. That is no longer relevant. The Conservative party believes in competition and there is enormous competition for highly qualified, capable and able people. We can no longer expect those who retire from the Royal Air Force—and people retire much later than they did 30 years ago—to accept jobs as J-class reserve officers for the salaries that we now offer. I strongly recommend that if we cannot have regular officers in those positions—and I understand why—we should consider using better paid J-class officers so that we can pay people their market worth and get rid of them if they are unsuitable, that is a decided advantage. Alternatively, we could consider using volunteer reserves in the top jobs so that we could get highly motivated people who understand and can carry out the job. My last suggestion is the least expensive; it would cost very little money and circumstances might force us into taking that option.
8.13 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I do not normally speak in defence debates. The last occasion when I spoke about the RAF was during an Adjournment debate on the transfer from RAF Carlisle of the stores ordering facility DDS MI5. That was nearly two years ago and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) joined me in speaking against the transfer of that facility to Harrogate. Two years on it

339
is clear that what we said in that debate was true. It did not save any money; it decreased efficiency at DDS MI5 and very few of the staff transferred from Carlisle to Harrogate. I should like to ask the Government to change their mind and to transfer the facility back to RAF Carlisle. I very much doubt that they would do that. They did not change their mind about the poll tax, so they are unlikely to do so about an RAF unit.
On 18 May 1989, I wrote to the then Minister, now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, asking him what was to become of the excellent office facilities at RAF Carlisle. The Minister described them as "excellent"; I would not have used that description. He said that the Ministry of Defence did not want to give up those facilities which I wanted to be made available for other Government Departments, because at the time there was talk of 30,000 jobs being moved out of London. The Minister replied that the MOD reallocation committee was considering the facility at Carlisle, but it would not be possible to say anything for several months. His letter was dated 18 June 1989.
In my book, "several months" does not mean nine months. If the Minister cannot give me a reply tonight, perhaps he will write to me about the office facilities at 14MU Carlisle. Obviously that concerns my constituents, as there are jobs involved.
My constituents are also concerned about low flying over Cumbria. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has already mentioned the problems that exist. I represent the largest urban area for 60 miles in that part of the country, so any low flying over Carlisle disrupts an urban area.
When I was a very new Member of Parliament I went to see a Defence Minister about low flying and I was given an assurance that there would be no low flying below 2,000ft over an urban area. Foolishly, I accepted that assurance. Then I started to receive letters from constituents saying that aircraft had been flying over a particular estate or a certain part of the city. I wrote to the Minister reminding him of the commitment he had given me that there would be no low flying and asking him to take disciplinary action against the pilots concerned.
I received a reply saying, "We are very sorry, but of course your constituent lived a mile and a quarter from the centre of the city." My constituency is about five miles across, so all my constituents live fairly close in. About 10,000 or 20,000 people live in the area. I wrote back and asked the Minister to define an urban area, and of course he would not. So any assurance from the Government that there is no low flying over urban areas is absolute nonsense—unless of course a pilot does a fly past over the town hall, although the Government would still say that it was on the outskirts of the town.
Mr. Rogers: It is interesting that my hon. Friend should ask the Minister to define what the Government mean by an urban area. In last year's debate, the word "conurbation" was used in the context that low flying should not take place over major conurbations. I asked the Minister to define "conurbation" and I remember that the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), said from a sedentary position, "It is a town." But I persisted in asking the Minister to define a conurbation, and of course he.could
340
not. When I drew to his attention the incidence of low flying over substantial towns and cities such Swansea and Llanelli in south Wales, the point was brought home to him. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is a great deal of low flying over urban areas and conurbations.
Mr. Martlew: I shall give way to the Minister if he wishes to respond to that point.
Mr. Alan Clark: I will respond.
Mr. Martlew: I look forward to the Minister's reply. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that there needs to be a definition, but I am afraid that when I read Hansard tomorrow I will not find one.
Pilots will continue to fly low over urban areas of my constituency. My constituents have every right to be worried about that because, in the past 10 years, there have been four collisions between low-flying military aircraft, three of which were within 30 miles of my constituency. That is a minute or two as the Tornado flies. On 18 June 1988, a Jaguar crashed at Keswick, which is 30 miles away; unfortunately, a member of its crew was killed. On 19 August 1988, two Tornadoes crashed, and four aircrew were killed. At the beginning of January, there was a crash on the Carlisle side of Hexham; fortunately, no one was killed.
Aircrews accept that low flying is dangerous, but the Government boast that there have never been any civilian casualties as a result of such crashes. However, it is only a matter of time before there is a major disaster. As the Member of Parliament for Carlisle, I am concerned that that will happen over my constituency.
It is not long since the Lockerbie tragedy. Carlisle is only 25 miles away, and on the same flight path. If the bomb had gone off two minutes earlier, my constituents would have died. My constituents felt that tragedy with the people of Lockerbie. Where possible, we should minimise the risk of aircraft crashing in large urban areas.
Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman says that low flying is dangerous, but does he agree that it would be much more dangerous to expect Air Force pilots to fly at low levels during times of war when they had not practised during times of peace? Over the past 10 years, the number of fatal accidents has progressively reduced, and we now have the lowest fatality record for many years.
Mr. Martlew: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he obviously was not present when my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said that our accident record for the past 10 years is two and a half times worse than the Americans', who do the same amount of low flying. Given that record, we should consider improving training and should not be complacent. I detected some complacency in the remarks of the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), but we have nothing to be complacent about.
Over the past 20 months, there have been seven incidents in my constituency of civilian and military aircraft being involved in so-called near misses. That causes my constituents much concern. There seems to be more low flying in my constituency than in Scotland or Wales. The bulk of it seems to be from Northumberland to Cumbria, and I hope that the Minister will say that, because of the relaxation in world tensions, the Government will reduce the amount of low flying, but I fear that they will not do so.

341
I wish to place on record my concern that the House was misled on 6 February. In a written question, I asked what information the Government had about construction plans for RAF Bentwaters in Suffolk. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces replied that a post office, a conventional weapons facility and a field training facility would be built on that site. The United States' budget proposals, which were printed on 29 January, show that only a post office will be built. There is no mention of the training or ammunition facility. Under a heading of "Overseas Classified", it says that it will build one conventional munitions facility and one field training facility somewhere in Europe.
That facility will be for the F15E bomber. The Americans say that it will be stationed at Bentwaters, but the Government say that that is not true. On 6 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) asked whether any decisions had been taken on the F15E, but the Minister of State replied:
"no decisions have yet been taken."—[Official Report, 6 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 604.]
Either the American Government are building a base on our soil without telling our Government or, more to the point, the Government do not want to admit that that aircraft will be stationed here. The Germans have said that they will not accept it. They know that it is part of a nuclear expansion because it carries the same warheads as cruise missiles. We are sending those warheads back, yet allowing them to return to be used on the F15E bomber.
I hope that the Minister will put the record straight. I attended expecting an announcement on the F15E. If I am incorrect, I am sure that the Minister will delight in telling me so. I presume that, unless he so states, that new nuclear bomber will be based at RAF Bentwaters.
8.27 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: Before making a few remarks on the Royal Air Force, I should like to comment briefly on the speech by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), particularly his remarks on low flying.
I assure the hon. Member for Carlisle that there is no complacency. Statistics show that over the past 10 or 20 years the Royal Air Force's fatal accident total has steadily declined. That shows that complacency does not exist. Although I was not fortunate enough to hear the speech by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), if his statistics on the United States Air Force were based on the speech that he made last year, they are highly dubious. We must be careful about whether we are comparing like with like—whether we are talking about low-flying accidents, total accidents or the number of accidents per 10,000 flying hours. I shall check the hon. Gentleman's statistics in Hansard because there are many statistics on those matters. The RAF's record of reducing accidents, particularly low-level accidents, is very good.
This debate is different from previous ones. We now have a different situation in Europe. In many ways, one could argue that it is more unstable because we do not know what the future holds. The threat is less obvious, but it is clearly still there, and because of that it is much harder to determine what the future holds, which equipment the Royal Air Force needs and what training the men who use it need.
The debate offers us an opportunity radically to, consider the role that the RAF will fulfil over the next decade. The detente, the reduction in force levels, should
342
allow us to look beyond the parameters that have existed for the past 20, if not 30, years and clearly see the role of the three services. I suggest that, as in the past, air power offers great flexibility because of its mobility and its increasing ability to take large loads great distances and to he available on site before a disturbance occurs. Whatever decisions are made on the future role of the three services, I am convinced that the RAF will play a major role, if not the predominant one.
We need to look outside the NATO theatre. Because the threat is less obvious, the area from which it comes is less obvious. The RAF has a big role to play. The men and women who comprise the personnel in today's RAF are worried about the changes. It is not surprising that morale is not as high as it otherwise would have been. It is important to bear in mind the difficulties of keeping experienced aircrew in the RAF. That is not surprising, given the reduction in unemployment and the priority that is given to people with experience and training in specific skills outside the services. There will be a steady drain of experienced personnel for some time. I hope that it can be stopped, or at least slowed down.
As seems customary at present, I declare an interest in that I am a serving member of the RAF Reserve. My experience is that many people in the service are not fully satisfied with their pay increase this year, and the staging over nine months is of concern. It is interesting to note that, in the past few months, RAF personnel, who have played a commendable role in the ambulance dispute, left to join either the police or the ambulance service. They did so before the recently announced pay rise because they realised that their pay in the ambulance service would be much higher than in the Air Force. Those points show that the pay of the armed forces must be reviewed continually; tremendous work is done by RAF personnel in support of our emergency services.
The application of the community charge or amenity charge, as I think it is called, to people not resident in this country is causing anxiety. It will go into the defence Vote and is considered by many service men to be rather a backhanded way of getting money that the service would not otherwise get. Those problems must be addressed it' we are to stem the tide of people leaving the service in future years.
Equally important, the RAF's personnel department must be much sharper in its dealings with individuals, ensuring that they stay in the service and do not leave for a minor reason, simply because the system cannot cope with the needs of the individual as opposed to the wider needs of the service. Obviously, the wider needs of the service must always take priority, but if it is to retain the personnel that it needs, closer attention must be paid to individual needs.
I have a small example, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) dwelt in a small way. Over the past year or two, there has been a change of policy towards instructors in the university air squadrons and the commanding officers of air experience flights. The RAF has attempted to introduce civilian instructors into those posts. One need only look at what happens to see how wrong-minded it was to suggest that. There has been a reduction in the number of pilots in the Air Force because they have left to take better-paid jobs outside, but at the same time we are trying to encourage civilian pilots to join the service and take jobs at a much lower salary than they would be paid outside. Although there were

343
many replies to the advertisements in newspapers and many people were interviewed, in the case of air experience flights, five people were offered appointments but, over the three months needed to get their security clearance sorted out, four turned them down and found other jobs in civilian life. The RAF must more closely consider the means of retaining the personnel it already has, rather than come up with schemes which, even on the surface, will not work.
We have spent some time talking about helicopters. The Puma is running into severe fatigue problems and needs to be replaced sooner rather than later. It is important to make a decision, whatever it is. Although the Wessex helicopters of the Queen's flight are superbly maintained, they are quite old and cannot go on for ever fulfilling their present role. I understand that the Tornado ADV F3 has also suffered fatigue problems. I should like an assurance, either tonight or in written form, as to whether that is true and, if so, information on what is being done. It is a relatively new aircraft and, given its cost, it is worrying that fatigue problems seem to be cropping up so soon. I shall not dwell on the Foxhunter radar, which has been discussed at some length. If the taxpayer has to pay out about 17 million for a Tornado, it is vital that the aircraft that the pilots fly is demonstrably better than the aircraft it replaced or, more specifically, the Phantom alongside which it operates. Many reports show that in certain situations the Phantom is as good as, if not better than, the Tornado. That worries me, because I believe that the radar has brought that about. This matter must be sorted out soon. I understand that the new Tornado reconnaissance aircraft in Germany is suffering some teething problems, as do all new aircraft. I hope that the problems associated with the reconnaissance pod will be sorted out quickly, because it forms a vital part of the force's viability in Germany.
On equipment, I should like to mention the airborne warning and control system and the offset agreement. Some years ago, it was decided that the offset would amount to 130 per cent. of the total cost of the aircraft. Over the past year or so, the Ministry of Defence has been silent on those offset purchases and on whether Boeing is meeting its commitment and ensuring that a considerable amount of work is given to firms in this country. I should like to know, either in an answer tonight or in written form, where we are with that offset.
As I said, it is clear that the RAF is going through an interesting time, because the threat in Europe is changing, because there are problems with manpower and because of the equipment programme. As I am reasonably close to what goes on in the RAF, it is clear to me that the personnel are none the less in good heart. In addition, many of them look forward to the opportunity to do something different from what they did in the past and the diverse roles that I mentioned earlier.
8.39 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I am in something of a quandary. We are told that one should declare one's interests being and that the declaration in the document published annually is not sufficient. I have an interest to declare but if I do so I shall be accused of advertising. I am talking of the future of the Air Force and NATO and I am
344
author of Jane's "NATO Handbook". If I am accused of advertising, I apologise but it is incumbent on me to declare that interest. I have no vested interest in the survival of the Alliance for the purpose of writing for Jane's, but I wish to counter some of the arguments that one hears on both sides of the Atlantic and of what was the iron curtain. It is argued that alliances have become superfluous and that their withering away is necessary and should be expedited.
I have always championed British membership of NATO and appreciated its critical role in maintaining our security in difficult international circumstances when our national security was in jeopardy for a considerable number of years. To those who argue that the alliances should disappear, I counsel caution in the immediate future. There will be a major requirement for a bloc-to-bloc dialogue to continue.
If events in eastern and central Europe get out of hand, the Soviet Union will get exceedingly angry and worried. In particular, its generals will be worried because they will perceive the Soviet Union's security interests being jeopardised by the disappearance of its cordon sanitaire and expulsion of its ground and air forces from its former buffer states.
It is not in our interests or those of the Soviet Union to allow the alliances to disappear. I hope that in the short term it is not seen to be in the interests of current members of the Warsaw pact who may not view any future military or other relationship with the Soviet Union as desirable. It is important, at least in the immediate future, that we do all that we can—although it sounds a perverse argument—to sustain the Warsaw pact. It is necessary to do so.
The Warsaw pact might disappear but it has already ceased to have much military relevance. I remember a debate in the Hungarian national assembly, at which I was representing the North Atlantic Assembly. I said to Hungarian Members of Parliament that we had an alliance of parliamentarians in the form of the North Atlantic Assembly. Yet we were meeting them as parliamentarians at an assembly of Alliance Members and parliamentarians from individual countries in the Warsaw pact. I asked them why they did not consider forming an organisation like ours so that parliamentarians of one alliance could meet those of the other. The almost unanimous response was that it would take some time to set up such an organisation and in the meantime the Warsaw pact would have ceased to exist. There was not much point in finding a counterpart to us because there would be no counterpart to relate to.
In one sense we might view that with amusement or even delight. But the position is fraught with difficulties. It is difficult to say to eastern Europeans that one of the advantages of totalitarianism and Soviet hegemony in their countries was that tensions, national differences and animosity were kept under control. I am worried that once that hard and heavy hand has been removed and, we hope, all the countries in the region become democratic, the combination of economic crises, political instability, national differences and international differences will make the area one of considerable instability. It will require great judgment by many different powers, super powers, medium-sized and small powers. In the period of turbulence that may come, alliances could be of advantage.
It has been said many times but it is worth repeating that we hope that the evolution to democracy in the Soviet Union proceeds and gathers pace. However, one can never

345
be certain. History is full of examples of good aspirations that are thwarted. In the 1920s the Treasury said that there would be no war for eight, nine or 10 years. That judgment was generated more by financial considerations than realistic calculation of the evolution of Europe.
We need NATO as an insurance policy. Even if the Warsaw pact collapses, there is no earthly reason why we should expect NATO to collapse in sympathy. After all, the Warsaw pact is less necessary to the Soviet Union than NATO is to us. It is almost unthinkable that we could devise our national security policies in a vacuum, unrelated to those of our NATO allies. But it is possible for the Soviet Union to guarantee its security with its own forces. The absence of its forces in eastern Europe and the absence of reliance on its non-Soviet Warsaw pact allies will not necessarily present the same potential disaster for the Soviet Union military as the collapse of NATO would present to us.
It has been said that we need the Royal Air Force because of out-of-area activities. Such activities must not necessarily be construed as rapid deployment forces from Britain, the United States and France charging throughout the world. Those countries have displayed great restraint in the use of their forces out of area. But we must realise that we are partly to blame for the position that we are in now. Third world countries now have substantial armed forces, many of which have been supplied by the Soviet Union and its allies and western industrial nations, such as Britain, France and the United States. We are now dealing with countries that, as part of the natural desire for national self respect, aggrandisement, securing their borders and increasing diplomatic initiatives outside their borders, have become substantial military forces.
The Soviet Union has exported missiles which have been adapted by Iran, Iraq and Syria. According to SIPRI, about 20 countries probably have a ballistic missile capability. Many of those have the capability, some potentially and others actually, to put some form of nuclear warhead on those ballistic missiles. Countries that cannot do that, have the capability to put on the poor man's nuclear missiles—chemical weapons.
The lethal combination of chemical weapons, nuclear warheads and ballistic weapons in the hands of countries outside NATO and the Warsaw pact is potentially threatening to us. The longer the range of such countries' missiles becomes, the greater is the potential danger, perhaps not this year or next year, but at some time in the future.
We must remember that, even if we were in perfect harmony with the Soviet Union and its allies, there would still be a potential threat to western interests. That means that any process of strategic denuclearisation must incorporate not only the super powers, Britain, France and China, but other countries, too. If not, it will be injurious to our national interest to reduce or to eliminate our nuclear weapons because, at the same time, medium-ranking powers, which would wish to be excluded from the process, would almost become super powers, by default.
I am not saying that eventually I do not wish to see a nuclear-free world, but we must view the world situation maturely and realistically. I argue and will continue to argue the case for our Alliance to survive. Integral to its survival is the continuing involvement of the United States. We know of the inclinations of many Congressmen and of many other people in the United States who, historically, have been reluctant partners in NATO. They
346
hark back to the days of United States isolationism. Now, with the pressure of the Soviet Union withdrawing from eastern Europe and with the confusion over Germany's future role, there will be diplomatic, psychological and economic pressures in the United States to call its troops back home. After all, are not those troops in a continent that does not always appreciate their presence?
Although there is a great temptation, such withdrawal would be folly. It would be an economic folly because, with a military presence in Europe, the United States has advantages other than security advantages. Many countries in Europe, including in eastern Europe, would welcome a continuing American presence for reasons of which we are all aware. I refer to what this generation sees as the "danger" of a united Germany. I do not join the chorus of people who are fearful of the Kohls of this world, but who knows what will happen in the future? It is in our interests that a substantial American presence should remain. I hope that the Americans will have the sense to realise that their future is bound up militarily, economically and culturally with that of Europe. They should resist the easy temptation to satisfy and placate public opinion by withdrawing.
The future of Germany is clearly a complicating factor. If Germany should decide that the price of independence and unification is neutrality, it would deal a blow to the Alliance from which it would be difficult to recover. We must recognise that West Germany is overpopulated militarily, with its own armed forces of the Bundeswehr and the British, French and American forces. Clearly, there must be some thinning out of those forces—not just because the threat has diminished, but because there is no reason why the German population should expect to bump into tanks or to have aircraft on low-flying sorties regularly.
However, if the troops are to be thinned out—and some Germans might argue that neutrality is the only way to achieve independence—how will our Alliance survive with a half-hearted or a neutral Germany? There would be no territory. A general would find it impossible to organise any theoretical or practical defence without including the Federal Republic in his calculations. We need only look at a map of Europe to realise that.
We must bear in mind the Soviet interests as well as our own. I have attended meetings with Soviets who have far more reasons than we have to be anxious about the developments in central Europe. I recall chairing a meeting that was attended by distinguished Soviet parliamentarians, including General Akromeyhev, General Lobovov, the chief of staff of the Warsaw pact, and Valentin Falin, who is the head of the international section of the central committee. Falin referred to the newly released figures of the war dead, which amounted to over 25 million people. Clearly, some would say that we have no right to interfere in Germany, but we must say that we have history to remind us that our futures are bound up in their decisions.
I hope that the formula of two plus four will not simply be a process that ratifies anything that the Germans want and that they will have the maturity to realise that Britain, France, the United States, the Soviet Union, Hungary and Poland and many other countries in central, eastern and western Europe have a vested interest in the right decisions being made in the next six to 12 months. We must not only ensure that German security will be guaranteed, but that Soviet security and our security will be guaranteed also.

347
Those are some of the dilemmas. If the wrong decisions are made and we are turfed out of Germany, how shall we be able to relocate our tanks and aircraft? Ministers will have to face horrendous problems and they will certainly earn their money in the months ahead. In many ways, Ministers on all sides of this argument have had an easy task in the past. There used to be a definable threat and their task was how to fund the meeting of that threat. However, there are now so many cross-currents, problems and crises that how to calibrate the different elements in our part of the equation with those of our allies and of the Warsaw pact is an immensely complicated problem that we have to get right quickly.
We must remember the issue of the peace dividend. The public opinion polls are not entirely unanimous about this. Such a poll in The Independent a month ago suggested that the majority of people wanted to maintain the present levels of defence expenditure because of the current uncertainty. Although positive trends are emanating from eastern Europe, there is also an element of uncertainty. In such times it is prudent not to go through the catastrophic 1930s decision-making that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), for which both parties must accept some blame in relation to the situation that eventually emerged.
We must realise that negotiations are taking place. The CFE process is proceeding and an agreement will be reached in three or four months. As part of that treaty or agreement, NATO is clearly thinking hard about how each country will reduce its forces. Perhaps we should not be tempted—indeed, I hope that there will be Governments who will not be tempted—to make cuts prior to an agreement being signed by the members of the Alliance or prior to the signing of a CFE treaty. There have been negotiations and studies by SACEUR—Supreme Allied Commander Europe—which I understand are now to be passed to the military committee and which will then go to the political authorities. Let us get an agreement on cuts in conventional forces; on who is to make the cuts and on where they will fall. We can then agree rationally to a fair sharing of those cuts. Some countries have made their cuts over the decades and know that there is no logical reason why they should make a percentage cut while other countries have maintained a greater contribution. Those countries should be treated more favourably. The temptation is to say, "Let us cut in advance." Public opinion may also say "cut", but we should be cautious. We should reach an agreement in NATO and then sign an agreement with the Soviet Union so that the process will be carried out rationally.
With the diminished threat and with the pressure on our defence budget, we in this country must ask how any CFE or other cuts can be made. NATO will give us some guidance, but I suspect that we shall have to take most decisions unilaterally. It should not be salami-slicing; the process must be carried out rationally. We must ask what troops we require in the decade ahead. Ministers must act with caution and with some imagination.
There are two or three further points that I wish to raise briefly. Co-operation in aircraft development is still very important. On the question of EFA, I advise hon. Members to read the excellent House of Commons brief written by Richard Ware. We shall still need sophisticated
348
aircraft for all sorts of reasons. In the old days, the Spitfire or the Hurricane could be built in a couple of weeks, or perhaps even more quickly. These days, Governments have to make their procurement decisions and then live with them. Having made a decision, a Government will not see an aircraft for 10 to 15 years. I hope very much that the EFA will survive.
I realise that low-flying aircraft are a damned nuisance. I am fortunate to represent an urban constituency where there is not much overflying. Of course, we have other hazards of modern life that people in rural areas are spared. As I express sympathy for people who have to tolerate low-flying aircraft, I hope that they will have some sympathy for my constituents, who have to endure pollution so that people living in more idyllic surroundings may have products and services.
There is no reason why Germany should continue to be subjected to the current levels of overflying, but neither is there any reason for us to expect the Indians of Labrador to suffer the same problem. There is no reason for us to go looking round unpopulated parts of the world to cause anxiety there.
Some progress can be made by way of simulation, but we are not yet living in a world so idyllic that aircraft do not need to be produced. So long as we need aircraft to defend us we shall need pilots to fly them, and I regret that, unless pilots get adequate training—and the increased use of simulators is only a partial solution—we shall continue to have the problem of low-flying aircraft for some time. Here I should refer to the inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee. The Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member, is also conducting an inquiry. We hope that it will be possible to give some advice to Ministers. But there are no simple panaceas, and that is something that those people who think that we should take our problem to areas over the seas, to Labrador or to north Africa, or who think that the Germans should have to put up with it will have to realise. I cannot offer any simple solution, nor, I am sure, can anyone who understands the subject.
We are living in exciting times. Who would have thought, two years ago, that today we would be talking about the Start agreement, and the CFE agreement, about the collapse of the Warsaw pact, or about democracy in eastern Europe? These are, indeed, exciting times, but exciting times require rational decision making, and I hope that we shall see a continuance of that.
9.1 pm
Mr. Rupert Allason: I am very grateful for the opportunity to join other hon. Members in congratulating the Royal Air Force on its fiftieth anniversary of the battle of Britain. Unlike others who have spoken, I am no expert on this subject. Indeed, I am rather pleased about that because an expert has been defined as "'X', an unknown quantity, and 'spurt', a little squirt under pressure".
I should like, first, to take issue with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who made what I thought were some very dangerous remarks in relation to low flying and the range of tactical aircraft in central Europe. In particular, he put heavy emphasis on the term "enemy territory". I should have preferred the term "enemy-held territory". Even if the countries of the eastern bloc that are currently in turmoil do decide to abandon the Warsaw pact, or at least to take on a neutral or non-participatory role in the Soviet system, there will be

349
considerable danger for the West, including the United Kingdom. To realise this, one has to go back only 50 years and consider the turmoil that created the conditions for the second world war, which included tremendous instability in central Europe.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks about low flying worried me. The suggestion that, under present conditions, particular countries in central Europe would be targets is quite ludicrous. Our experience in the Falklands, and the Americans' rather more recent experience in Libya, have shown the tremendous importance of low flying. It is the only way a pilot can really be sure of delivering his cargo to target. What has been said should not be restricted to the European theatre. It is necessary to be broader. Of course it is inconvenient to have aircraft flying low over one's constituency, but it is a necessary evil.
In these times, the definition "enemy territory" is contentious. I think that it is worth pointing out that the agreement that was reached 10 days ago, allowing 195,000 Soviet troops to be stationed in eastern Europe, represents the first legitimisation of any kind of Soviet troops in eastern Europe. The agreement means that, respectively, there will be 195,000 American and Soviet troops in Europe, plus an additional 30,000 American troops stationed on the periphery.
I believe that that agreement was a mistake. If we had kept our powder dry and held our hand a little longer, we would have had substantial cards to play. I am worried that, at this moment, we should legitimise the stationing of Soviet troops outside their border. It does not surprise me that such decisions are taken. I am reminded of my horror on Christmas eve when I heard a Minister say that the West would understand if Soviet troops invaded Romania.
Two RAF bases may become available as the result of the peace dividend—Brize Norton and, possibly, Greenham Common. Brize Norton is an important transport centre and it is strategically located, especially when one considers the overloading of the air corridors and the tremendous air traffic in the south-east. Every year in the summer we consistently see the appalling congestion because Gatwick and Heathrow are overloaded with aircraft.
There is a great desire to shift many of those air movements away from the south-east, and two candidates for that purpose present themselves immediately. One is Brize Norton, which is under-used by the RAF, and the other is Greenham Common, which has terrific facilities and which is to be abandoned by the United States Air Force.
We would be in terrible danger if we anticipated the collapse of the eastern bloc and neglected to order new equipment. There is a tremendous lead time in the sophisticated procurement system and it would be to the United Kingdom's disadvantage to anticipate events too far ahead.
It is also important to consider the security requirements of the United Kingdom and the RAF. The RAF provost police and the Security Service had a grisly experience during the Cyprus trial. I do not want to go into the details of that trial because it resulted in acquittals, but the report on the conduct of the interrogations that took place showed a damning lack of expertise. I have always believed that the Security Service should be enhanced and given greater powers, especially with regard to vetting. It comes as a surprise to many critics of the Security Service and others to discover that it does not conduct positive
350
vetting, that that is done by the Procurement Executive of the MOD, the Security Service believing that security is far too important to be left to the experts.
Those people who are concerned about events in Europe and who advocate using the peace dividend—too quickly for many people—would be well advised to study the article that has appeared in the press in the past two or three days by Oleg Gordievsky. It provides a most terrifying indictment of Brezhnev and the Soviet perception of the Western threat. Until 1982, when Pershing was deployed, the Soviets, according to Oleg Gordievsky, seriously believed that there was a strong possibility of a first strike being made by NATO. That shows the danger of not having good communications and good understanding on both sides. I hope that one purpose of having strong defence, a well-equipped RAF and proper verification procedures will be to allay fears in the eastern bloc.
When one talks about security for the West and about verification, many people believe that verification is an institutionalised espionage system. We have to accept that the Soviets will not be satisfied just with the on-site verification that we have seen at Greenham Common, with Soviet officers arriving at short notice to ensure that cruise missiles had gone or were being removed; they will always need alternative verification which will involve clandestine surveillance, and therefore a role for their intelligence services. Espionage will not end.
Just last year, there was a dramatic development in the strategic balance. Code-named Miracle, the first ballistic missile was brought down in flight by a laser weapon. Such a development can alter the strategic balance between East and West. The Soviets, being anxious about verification and about new developments in this highly specialised technical sphere, will unquestionably continue to indulge in espionage.
I am grateful for the opportunity to congratulate the RAF again. I simply urge the House and Ministers not to spend the peace dividend too early.
9.11 pm
Mr. Rogers: The House is anxious to get on to the Adjournment, but I should like to deal with some important points which have come up in the debate. Low flying was mentioned by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Outside any arguments as to whether low flying is necessary, there are many complaints about the way in which practising is done.
I wish that it was not thought all the time in the House that if an hon. Member makes valid criticisms he is against something. My hon. Friends have put forward genuine complaints from constituents. Anyone who has been hugged, if I may so describe it, by a Tornado at 100 ft. will complain. It is a shattering experience. The Minister may say that people living near an aerodrome know what happens, but holidaymakers in west and mid-Wales, for example, are not used to it. They do not expect it. Suddenly this awful machine flies just over their heads. Anyone who has undergone that experience, as I have, knows that it is shattering. Someone on an airfield can cope with it because he is expecting it, but I can understand the old and infirm complaining about low flying.
We do not want to argue about the merits of low flying, but I ask the Government to implement some of the

351
proposals in the report of the Public Accounts Committee that was published recently. One suggestion was that the Government should examine the control system for low flying. In the past, two planes going in opposite directions crashed into each other over the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours). The only response from the Government was that the pilots should have seen each other, that there should have been visual contact. Pilots now have to submit the information when they want to practise low flying, but no one checks that they are all flying in the same direction. We want more control on those issues. I do not want to argue the theory or principle of low flying, but on 9 March 1989 the Minister said:
"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".—[Official Report, 9 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 1061.]
Will the Minister inform the House—perhaps by placing information in the Library—whether the system is in operation, or is subject to further delays?
One subject that has not been referred to—I hope that the House will forgive me for raising it at this late stage—is ethnic minorities within the services. I applaud the consultative document commissioned by the Government, and recently published by Peat, Marwick, McLintock. Will additional training for recruitment officers be introduced? Will recruitment advertising be reorganised to include a more positive image of ethnic minorities in the services? Above all, what steps are the Government taking to deal with racism in the armed forces? That is a complicated issue and, seemingly, it will take a long time to resolve. There are instances of both verbal and physical bullying and I should like to think that responsible officers are vigilant in that aspect of their duties. I seek the Government's assurance that, where senior ranks are negligent, the appropriate disciplinary action will be taken.
I want to comment on the speech by the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). I am surprised that a man of his reasonableness should deliberately distort what has been said by Opposition Members. He did himself no credit by suggesting that Opposition Members were not prepared to support the European fighter aircraft programme. He knows that to be absolute nonsense and he should withdraw his statement. As I said in my opening speech, we support the project. However, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here to hear me.
Mr. Jack: I shall be precise about what I said. I welcomed the hon. Gentleman's support for the Tornado and the European fighter aircraft, but I wondered how he would square that view with Labour party policy, as it was planning to have a conversion agency that would effectively run down the industry. How can the EFA project be compatible with the Labour party policy of opposition to sales?
Mr. Rogers: The conversion programme is a response to disarmament, not a result of it. Opposition Members meet many trade unionists—some from the hon. Gentleman's constituency—who ask us what will happen if there are cuts. The hon. Gentleman should not mislead the House as there have been substantial cuts under this Government. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare
352
(Mr. Wiggin) was mentioned earlier. Hon. Members should ask him about cuts. I should like to ask him about the cuts in the helicopter industry in his constituency a year ago.
People ask us what we should do.
We must think about turning munition and armament factories towards more peaceful production. That will eventually happen. The hon. Member for Fylde thinks in a Neanderthal way if he imagines that, because we have armament production now, it will never alter. Arms conversion is something that the Government should consider more seriously. If they did, the country's economy would be better balanced.
The hon. Gentleman also misled the House when he said that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who caused the Falklands war. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will want to correct me on that, but I am sure that that is what he said——
Mr. Jack indicated dissent.
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he said, and it is on the record, that the action of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and the removal of the aircraft carrier force from the south Atlantic created the problems that led to the Falklands war.
Mr. Jack: I think that the hon. Gentleman is muddling my remarks, in which I talked about the Falklands scenario and possible out-of-area operations, with those of another hon. Member—possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who intervened in my speech. Those were not words that I used and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his allegation.
Mr. Rogers: I shall withdraw it. It was the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). It is a pity that he is not in the Chamber now, because one of the daftest remarks that I heard during the debate was that that was the trigger for the war. Any cuts in our aircraft carrier force were made in the east of Suez policy back in 1967, which was an awful long time before the Falklands war. The Government's withdrawal of HMS Endurance was a bigger factor than anything else in the precipitation of the Falklands war.
It was nice to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) making his speech. I know that this afternoon he had no intention of speaking in the debate, but he gave his usual scintillating speech on a number of wide-ranging topics. He asked the House to forgive him because he had to go off to play the Lords in a chess match. I am sure that the House will be greatly interested to know that he won one match, but was adjudicated against in the other. I asked my hon. Friend not to ask for an inquiry into the adjudication and he assured me that he will not do so tonight. I admire his skill in getting the premium bond payments to MI5 operatives into the RAF debate. I felt that he would do so.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is not here——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was a good speech.
Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington says that it was a good speech. I do not understand why the Government do not make the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood an adviser. He obviously knows what he is talking about. The Minister should take

353
him on in whatever job he has available to help him on his way. He reorganised the Air Force beautifully. He shuffled the squadrons around—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will get him to join the chess team, he was so good at shuffling squadrons about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington made a substantial speech about the problem of low flying to which I have alluded. I merely reinforce his remarks in relation to the distress caused to people by low flying in their area. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) talked about the same problem of low flying. As I understand it, the definition of a conurbation is a large, densely populated urban sprawl, formed by the growth and coalescence of individual towns and/or cities. Those are the sorts of area where low flying takes place. It is no good denying that and saying that it takes place only over rural and sparsely populated areas. It would not be popular in some of the suburban areas of the south-east or around London.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tayside, North is not here. It is always nice to hear his contribution to these debates because of his RAF background, and he always graces the occasion with his kilt. It is nice to see him wearing it. He says that it is an RAF kilt, but I thought that it was a Douglas kilt. Perhaps it is a Douglas and an RAF kilt at the same time.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on his appointment as Inspector General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I called him the commodore earlier, but that was a mistake.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Tayside, North did not support the development of the EH101 helicopter, and that he came out so heavily in favour of the Black Hawk, which is a fine helicopter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) can testify. We had a trip in one last week in terrible weather and I admit that we felt very safe.
I join in the tributes to the reserve and auxiliary forces and to the cadet force. I am old enough to remember the contribution of the volunteer reserve at the time of the battle of Britain.
This debate, like last year's, has taken place against a background of Government prevarication and inaction. There are procurement decisions that need to be made. It is not a matter of defence policy being industry-led. Certain needs must be met if the functions that we are asking our service men to undertake are to be carried out. The Government refuse to contemplate a defence review. We have yet to see any consideration on their part of the industrial and economic effects of disarmament. The Labour party has called repeatedly for a defence review and on successive occasions we have called on the Government to plan for conversion. The Government's defence policy—doing nothing—is deeply worrying to all who are concerned about the proper defence of this country, and only the election of a Labour Government can ensure proper consideration of those matters and an appropriate defence policy for Britain.
9.27 pm
Mr. Alan Clark: A number of interesting and constructive points have been made. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) drew attention to the fact that while, as he called them, calendar girls can get access to RAF
354
bases, he found such access impossible. If he communicates with me, I shall be glad to facilitate his entry to an RAF base.
The hon. Member for Leyton read at great length from an article in The Independent by Mark Urban. I enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman, and I prefer him being himself to his quoting a correspondent who, most hon. Members would agree, does not enjoy the highest level of credibility—unlike the hon. Gentleman himself.
Similarly, I prefer the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) when he is speaking spontaneously and with sincerity. Then he is at his most effective and convincing. When he is reciting various items fed to him by the graduate of the Bradford peace studies school, or whoever writes the hon. Gentleman's research, he is rather less persuasive. However, I shall do my best to answer some of his points.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clark:I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have been in the Chamber for five and three quarter hours, with one absence of 12 minutes. In my opening speech I gave way 17 times, five of them to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I have been on my feet now for about two and three quarter minutes, and I hope to be able to proceed for a little while without having to give way—
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman should not attack Mark Urban like that.
Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman chooses to defend this journalist. As we know, journalists are extremely sensitive to any sort of attack, in contrast with the way in which they themselves behave—a characteristic of public life with which we are all familiar. If Mark Urban wants to fight his own battle, he can proceed as he is doing at present. I do not see why he should rely on so distinguished an hon. Gentleman as the Member for Linlithgow to defend him.
The hon. Member for Rhondda spoke about the EH101. We cannot place a production order until we are satisfied about performance, cost and contractual arrangements. In particular, as he said we must be satisfied with the arrangements for the integration of the very complex mission systems. The Select Committee on Defence recognised in its report that it would be wrong to commit ourselves to production until we were satisfied on these matters.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of Tornado ADV aircraft in store. There are presently 20 in store at St. Athan and not 32 as the hon. Gentleman said. In its report SDE88 the Select Committee on Defence recognised that storage was the most cost-effective course open to the Ministry of Defence after deployment plans had to be altered when it was apparent that insufficient radars to an acceptable standard would be delivered compared with the plan.
I can confirm that there is no change at present in the United Kingdom's declared intention to take 250 European fighter aircraft. It is too early to forecast the eventual size of our requirement. The hon. Member for Rhondda spoke about IUKADGE, the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system.
We have acknowledged the problems in the integrated command and control system, which is now some three

355
years late because of software problems. The prime contractor recognises his responsibility under the fixed price contract and we remain in close touch to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to rectify the situation.
The question asked about the community charge is certainly important. In general, service personnel, like the rest of the population, are liable to register for and pay the community charge in respect of their sole or main residence. There is no standardised level of charge for service personnel, and that is in line with the principle of local accountability. Those in service accommodation have no choice about where they live, and their community charge liability will effectively be limited to £1 a week above the service average by refund of accommodation charges.
I draw to the attention of the House a commendable guide to how the community charge applies to service personnel and their dependants. It has been issued by the directorate of personnel services in the Royal Air Force and I have given instructions for a copy to be placed in the Library. I hope that hon. Members will find it interesting and helpful.
Mr. Rogers: The Minister says that there will be some equation about payment and that service men would not pay more than £1 above the average. Surely the Minister accepts that the poll tax is substantial and will average well over £200. [Interruption] I am being generous. The maximum that anyone will pay is £1 above the average, but the amount will still be much larger than the percentage that is paid in the quartering charges in lieu of rates. It will still be a big charge, particularly on junior ranks. I emphasise again that a private or a corporal will pay the same poll tax as a general or an air vice-marshal.
Mr. Clark: I have told the House the position as it stands. I am aware of the equation that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. We are looking at the possibility of other solutions, but I can give no assurance about that now.
The House enjoyed two vintage performances by the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Linlithgow. The hon. Member for Workington returned to a subject with which he has occupied a good deal of the House's time in earlier debates. He devoted some 35 minutes to telling the House that things have changed in eastern Europe. I am sure we are all extremely grateful to him for reminding us of that. The change started more or less when I began my period of office in the Ministry of Defence. I leave it to the House to judge the extent to which the linkage is coincidence. None of the letters that the hon. Gentleman has received on this subject will have been signed by me. The phrase "deep in enemy territory" may exist somewhere on a word processor. I shall immediately take the matter in hand and make sure that the phrase is changed to "deep in the territory of an enemy". I hope that he will be satisfied by that.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked a number of pertinent questions, and ended—characteristically and reassuringly, because we all like hon. Members to behave in character—with a highly idiosyncratic, if not batty, suggestion that the premium bond computer was being used to pay secret service operatives. That is interesting,
356
and I am sure that we are grateful for the suggestion, although it is not related to the RAF. I was glad that he used this opportunity to ventilate this important topic.
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister should take this seriously.
Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the cost of the Harrier GR5 to GR7 conversion. I am sorry to give an irritating answer, but this is still subject to negotiation with the contractor, so the answer is commercial in confidence, and I cannot give him the figures.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The figures are known to Congress.
Mr. Clark: If the hon. Member for Linlithgow can get the figures from another source or a technical paper, he should ask for that information.
Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister leaves this point, will he give way?
Mr. Clark: No, I will not.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister will give way.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister allow me to speak?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that, unless the Minister gives way, he must resume his seat.
Mr. Dalye: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clark: No. The hon. Gentleman must recognise, as I have already said, that I gave way 17 times in my opening speech, and five times to him. Since then, he has tried to intervene in this speech to defend the reputation of the defence correspondent of The Independent, and I was glad that I did not allow him to do that. Now he wants me to give way again.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister allow me?
Mr. Clark: No, I will not.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) must resume his seat.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, it cannot be a point of order. I know that the hon. Gentleman must be frustrated, but the Minister has said that he will not give way, so he must resume his seat.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This involves protection. If there has been a statement that the British Cabinet Office solemnly is considering——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This cannot be a point of order. I have no knowledge of these matters. I wish that I had.
Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) spoke about the decision to employ women in the RAF in non-combat roles. This was announced last July and was fully endorsed by the air staff.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): What did you think?
Mr. Clark: Had the hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber—I do not reproach him for this because he nearly always is in the Chamber—he would have heard my view, which was drawn out from me at some length earlier.
The decision was fully endorsed by the air staff. The ability of women to fly aircraft is not in question. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for drawing attention to the distinguished role of women as air transport auxiliaries during the war. The employment of women in combat roles is an entirely separate question. We took a major step in this sphere last July and we need to review the outcome before considering any further extension of women's roles.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow also mentioned the WE177 replacement. We are convinced that there will be a requirement for a replacement for the free-fall bomb, but it is not possible at this stage to say whether it will be the American or French alternative.
The hon. Member for Rhondda raised the question of privatising the search and rescue service. The then Minister of State for the Armed Forces made it clear in a 1988 RAF debate that there were no plans to contract-out the search and rescue helicopter service. I am sure that that will be reassuring to the whole House.
A number of hon. Members spoke about display flying. Modifications that have been made to the Red Arrows routine have been explained by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. These have eliminated formation changes while aircraft are pointing towards a crowd. I can also confirm that no display aircraft may perform aerobatics or manoeuvres above crowds.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) spoke of search and rescue operations from Leuchars. While I fully appreciate why he was not in the Chamber for the start of the debate, I covered that issue in my opening remarks. I told the House that we were satisfied with the greatly improved service in the area concerned, taking account of the Royal Navy and RAF Sea Kings at Prestwick and Lossiemouth and the coastguard S61Ns at Stornoway and Sumburgh. We have no plans to review that deployment.
Questions were asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and others about the replacement of the Wessex. There are no plans as yet to replace that aircraft, which continues to give useful service in a demanding role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth also referred to apprentices. The drop in the number of apprentices, from 264 to 136, is explained by the phasing out of the apprentice scheme by 1991. The scheme was unpopular with potential recruits and did not meet the needs of the service. It has been replaced by an imaginative package for better qualified youngsters and provides early practical experience of operational work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) has been in attendance virtually throughout the debate. I am sorry that I cannot meet his concern about the closure of the historic RAF station in his constituency. I fear that we do not have any doubt that the move of Biggin Hill to Cranwell makes economic sense, and events in Europe will not affect that decision.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy)—who always contributes in a significant way to defence
358
debates and has done so ever since I have been a Member—expressed concern at the length of time that the NATO identification system was taking to put in place. This is an important subject and I fully echo his concern. Discussions at Government and industrial level between Britain, Germany and France are at an advanced stage and I hope that it will be possible to agree on a positive way forward to full development by the middle of this year.
A large number of points were made in the debate and I fear that I cannot cover them all, but all hon. Members have been agreed, whether expressly or by implication, on the skills and professionalism of the Royal Air Force and on its essential role in maintaining our security.
Some hon. Members have said that they hope that members of the RAF will read the record of the debate in the Official Report. I hope so, too, despite the rather unfortunate remarks of the hon. Member for Workington about air crew lying, which were an extremely prejudicial and one-sided presentation of the position. Those who read the report will have a clear idea of the support for the RAF that exists in the House, and I believe that today's debate has been thoroughly useful and worthwhile.
Mr. Michael Fallon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A Minister—moreover, a Defence Minister has been replying to a debate in the House of Commons. It is not yet 10 pm. He has been asked, in the politest and most civilised way possible, a factual question whose import he could easily deny. He could say that The Times report, which the Ministry of Defence has read, is absolutely without foundation—that what has been written in our major paper of record is absolute balderdash.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That may well be so, but what is the point of order for me?
Mr. Skinner: I will tell you what it is, Mr. Speaker. If the Government are now paying out wages by ERNIE, you could be the next on the list. Once the thing gets off the ground, they will come to you and say, "Now look here, Mr. Speaker. We have a new device. We are going to pay your salary and pension with it when they kick you out of this place." Of course, you may leave voluntarily, when the Conservatives lose the next election. If the proposal is to pay you with premium bonds, Mr. Speaker, it will be up to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). as the new Defence Minister, to stop it.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the question is hypothetical for the moment.
Mr. Dalyell rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot answer such questions. His argument is with the Minister, not with me.
Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I said that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton)—had misled the House about the stationing of the FI5E in Suffolk. The Minister has not dealt with my point. In a written answer to me, however, he suggested that the FI5E would be placed at RAF Bentwaters.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That may well be so, but, again, it is not a matter for me. Adjournment debate—Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It will take time out of the Adjournment debate, and that is not fair.
Mr. Dalyell: My point of order concerns a different aspect of the debate—the Minister's behaviour to the House. Ministers make jocular references to matters being for their more senior colleagues rather than for them: tonight the Minister has said to the House, "For heaven's sake, this is not a matter for a mere Minister of State; it is for the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office had better answer for itself." He more or less said, in our hearing, that this was a matter for other Ministers.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister may well have suggested that, but, again, it is not for me to answer. This is a matter for the Minister; it is not a point of order.

Leigh Environmental Ltd.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
9.47 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) rose——
Mr. John Fraser (Norwood): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The Adjournment debate has began, but I will hear the point of order.
Mr. Fraser: I had given notice, Mr. Speaker, that I would present a petition before the Adjournment debate.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's petition will be heard at 10 pm.
Mr Barnes: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that that means that at 10 pm my Adjournment debate will be interrupted by a petition.
The subject that I am introducing for the Adjournment debate concerns the Leigh Environmental plant at Killamarsh. It is not new to the House as I raised the matter previously on 13 March 1989 in a debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, entitled, "North-East Derbyshire (Environmental Regeneration)". It is one of the vast number of environmental problems in my constituency. The Ministry has received numerous letters from me on the matter and I have tabled various parliamentary questions.
I have been seeking the opportunity to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate for some time. It directly affects the interests of a wide section of my constituents and people in neighbouring constituencies to the north of the plant as many people from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) use the Rother Valley country park.
The background to the development of the Leigh Environmental plant at Killamarsh is that initially it was the site of a tar distillation plant. That is of some significance as some of the later developments on that site made use of planning permissions that were given to the tar distillation plant and were rather inappropriate to the new methods and technologies that were later introduced.
The current style of operations began with a firm called Polymeric Treatments Ltd. which is generally known as Polymerics. Polymerics is a branch of Leigh Interests plc. The transfer of its name to Leigh Environmental is merely a transfer within the same company.
Although the Rother Valley country park is to the north of the plant, the rest of the area surrounding the site is a housing estate with some 1,000 residents. The Norwood estate was built in the days of the tar distillation plant without any knowledge of the operations at Leigh Environmental. Had it been the other way around, the new planning conditions laid upon Leigh Environmental would have been much stricter.
Leigh Environmental claims to move waste anywhere in the country between Aberdeen and Plymouth. Although the Leigh Environmental site at Killamarsh is not the largest of the Leigh Environmental operations, it is centrally situated. About 75 people are employed there, but many of them are drivers, and therefore are at the

361
plant only for limited periods as they are involved in the network of Leigh Environmental activities around the country.
Leigh Interests plc, the parent company, has 73 subsidiaries of which Leigh Environmental Ltd. and Polymeric Treatments Ltd. are but two. It has subsidiaries in Switzerland, Canada and the United States. Although it might not be one of the largest companies in the country, it is large in terms of waste disposal and has multinational interests. In 1987 its sales were £43 million which represented £50,000 per worker in Leigh Interests plc. About 10 per cent. of that was profit, so the profit per worker in 1987 was some £5,000, and that figure has obviously been increased by inflation.
The plant's current processes are waste disposal, with permission for landfill at one of the lagoons remaining from the days of the tar distillation plant; solvent recovery, which has caused many complaints about smells and emissions; garaging and maintenance; storage and transit of waste, and there is some problem about what is being stored in the area; and chemical incineration, which produces particular problems.
The incinerators that are at Killamarsh were used first in Nottinghamshire, where they caused many problems for the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). They were purchased from Berridge Incinerators of Hucknall, Nottinghamshire, and they were used for 10 years without planning permission. That led to smells, the destruction of plant life and smoke emissions. Those problems were ended only by Nottinghamshire county council taking High Court action.
Those incinerators are now operating at Killamarsh. They were installed under planning permission given for the tar distillation plant to use Lancashire boilers, which had a lower capacity and were intended for entirely different operations. Derbyshire county council has sought to restrict the incinerators' hours of use, but the company has appealed against that and still uses them until about 10 pm.
That hazard in Killamarsh began at roughly the same time as a former hazard that considerably affected my constituents was removed. That hazard was the practice of breaking open transformers to dislodge polychlorinated biphenyls which were then taken to other plants for incineration.
The local community is concerned about safety and has complained about smells from the airborne emissions, the discharge of chemicals from plant into the sewers and irritation of the skin and burning of the eyes.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Before my hon. Friend leaves the problems of his constituents who live nearby, will he comment on the fact that in some circumstances ratepayers would be able to claim a rate rebate because that plant is so close, but under the poll tax they will be unable to take advantage of that, although they may be saving only a small amount of money?
Mr. Barnes: It is often difficult to claim a rate rebate because of the reduction in rateable values. I shall refer later to when I lived beside the Dronfield-Unstone bypass. When it was being constructed I was given a temporary rate rebate because of the problems that it caused. Such rebates will be ended by the poll tax regime. Whereas in the past people may have been given rate rebates for problems
362
such as opencast mining or mining subsidence, they will not be available under the poll tax. I shall seek to discuss the democratic and constitutional implications of the poll tax in a later Adjournment debate.
The first incident at Killamarsh with which I was associated was the 1986 explosion, which Leigh Environmental described as a fire. The fire and explosion destroyed part of a building housing an aerosol recovery plant. The firm was prosecuted by the factory inspector under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for failing to maintain the safety of its employees. In court, the inspector said:
"Here was an accident waiting to happen."
The firm was fined £1,500—the maximum penalty that could be imposed was £2,000—so the court showed its displeasure by making that decision.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

  South Circular Road
  Mr. John Fraser (Norwood): I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for, through no fault of mine, interrupting his speech about events in his constituency.
  I wish to present a petition on behalf of 3,500 people, principally residents of Tulse Hill in my constituency,which reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland assembled.
  The humble Petition of the residents of Tulse Hill sheweth.
  That it is proposed to alter the London South Circular road by way of a cut and cover tunnel under the Tulse Hill junction and to widen the said road to a four lane standard.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House rejects such proposals to alter the South Circular road and instead to give urgent consideration to the development of alternative and improved public transportation in South London.
  And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc.
  The consultation on the south circular road ends today,28 February, so this is an eleventh-hour plea for the plans not to go ahead. It was a bombshell just before Christmas to find that there was an unheralded plan to convert the south circular into a four-lane highway and to destroy much of the Tulse Hill district in my constituency with a cut-and-cover tunnel while neatly avoiding the Prime Minister's house, only about half a mile further along the south circular road.
  The Tulse Hill tunnel proposals have caused great anger. There has already been an extensive realignment at Tulse Hill to accommodate the south circular road. My constituents find it impossible to believe that this could be proposed, given the shortage of homes and decades of cuts in public transport. Thousands of constituents have written to me——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not make a speech. He is presenting a petition.
  Mr. Fraser: I am coming to the end, Mr. Speaker. Thousands of constituents have written to me and gone to meetings, and I hope that the House will recognise the force of their feelings, which this petition represents.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Leigh Environmental Ltd.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Mr. Barnes: I cannot say that I was rudely interrupted. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) raised an important constituency matter that affects his constituents, just as my subject concerns my constituents.
  Following the 1986 explosion, the Killamarsh residents action committee—KRAC—was formed. I attended some of its early meetings as the parliamentary candidate in the area at the time. The organisation campaigned for a public inquiry into the explosion. Dramatic pictures of the event showed the mass of smoke that was carried over the housing which I have described. Eventually, a deputation was organised, comprising representatives of the parish council and KRAC, and I represented the former Member of Parliament, Ray Ellis. We met the Minister with responsibility for small firms—the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier). Although we did not receive a definite response from him, part of his argument was that the responsibilities were not his but those of the Department of the Environment and that he would send a fairly favourable letter to the appropriate Minister. That occurred.
  In the meantime a general election took place. Following the election, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen was given a job in the Department of the Environment so that the letter that he had sent landed on his own desk. When I first arrived in the House I attempted to ensure that a public inquiry took place and that the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen would respond to the letter. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful because he was operating in a different Department under a slightly different regime from the previous one.
  The next serious incident was associated with the possible arrival in this country of the Karin B. It was due to arrive with a cargo of toxic waste in a bad condition during the August bank holiday period in 1989. The arrangements seemed to have been made involving the Italian Government and Leigh Environmental interests. I suspected that the arrangements also involved the Department of the Environment. The proposal was to bring the leaky cargo on a German ship into Britain. I have never been able to unearth that unholy alliance, but Leigh Environmental was very much to the fore of the arrival of the Karin B. It said that it was willing to handle the problem.
  But for the activity of Friends of the Earth, which alerted us to the difficulty, some of that material could well have ended up in this country and could have been in transit at Killamarsh which is at the northern end of the constituency of Derbyshire, North-East. It is a highly populated area which in the north fits into the Sheffield and Rotherham conurbation. It is dangerous for that type of material to move through such an area.
  At one stage Edward Wilkinson of Leigh Environmental admitted that there was a possibility that the material would arrive in Killamarsh, although it was later denied. Leigh Environmental seemed willing to accept popular criticism of the role that it was playing because it found distinct commercial advantages in showing that it had a market, could deal with the material and was in competition with other firms handling waste
  364
  and toxic material. The firm was receiving free publicity that was bad in environmental terms but was good for it in commercial terms.
  A third incident in 1988 involved solvent smells, which are a regular problem. There is difficulty in checking the smells because by the time that the environmental health officer arrives from North-East Derbyshire district council offices in Chesterfield, it is difficult to trace the smells. However, on 28 April 1988 the pollution inspector, Mr. Tomlinson, was in the area and could be contacted. He discovered what the smells were and attributed them to the firm. Although it was not in his area of responsibility—perhaps his area of responsibility is not sufficiently wide—he persuaded the firm to end its processes at that stage, even though the environmental health officers from the district council could not trace the smell.
  In another recent incident, because of emissions in the area and the danger and smell from them, the headmaster of a junior school kept the children in the school until the area seemed clear. There was a further incident at the end of 1989 in which discharges into the sewers occurred on a wide scale. There was considerable distress among people in the area. The company claimed that the information from the Yorkshire water authority about the samples of the discharges was
  "commercially confidential between ourselves and the Water Authority."
  After being contacted by me, the company offered to supply me with that information confidentially. I refused because that information needs to be known within the community. I recognise that detective work could try to discover aspects of that information. Section 117 of the Water Act 1989 might be applied. If enforcement notices were served, the information would be available on a register under the 1988 legislation on the environment and safety information—or at least it could be. To protect the work force, the 1988 Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations might apply. There is not time to go into the details, but those are all problem areas. We should be able much more readily to understand what is happening.
  The problems of ensuring that the site is well run seem to stem, first, from the fact that a variety of bodies are responsible for its inspection. They include the North-East Derbyshire district council environmental health officer; Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; Derbyshire county council; the planning authority for the area, which is concerned with the operation of the incinerators that I have described, the Health and Safety Executive, the factory inspectors and, for the sewers, the Yorkshire water authority and, presumably, the National Rivers Authority. Therefore, there is a problem of co-ordination.
  There is also a problem with the stretching of planning permission. Leigh Environmental Ltd. is a specialist at attempting to move into areas, taking over and extending former planning permission. That has happened with potential toxic waste disposal at Lumshill quarry near Matlock, which is just outside my constituency of Derbyshire, North-East, although Derbyshire county council has now been able to prevent toxic usage there.
  The collapse of the Killamarsh-Polymeric liaison committee in late 1987 also created difficulties. I understand that the committee was re-established last month. However, that shows the great problems about seeking to gain consultation involving the residents' organised body, KRAC, the parish council and others who

  365
  represent the area. That was always an avenue of considerable tension in the days when the committee was chaired by the pollution inspector. Later, when the previous pollution inspector no longer fulfilled that function, there was a problem about who would chair the body. That problem has finally been resolved by a joint chairmanship agreement.
  Leigh Environmental Ltd.'s reputation in areas such as Lumshill and Doncaster, where there are incinerator problems, means that people are bound to be concerned about the company's activities.
  Therefore, what can be done? First, we need freedom of information legislation to ensure that information such as that collected about the sewers is readily available. We need to ensure that air pollution is closely monitored and understood within the community. There should also be research into the health of the residents of the area to ascertain whether they have been affected in any way by the operations. Are the fears of those in the area well founded or is it said that in some way the smells are "merely" an inconvenience? They are a massive inconvenience and disturbance to those concerned. It is likely that smells from modern chemical disposal plants will cause serious concern in built-up areas.
  There should be improved inspection co-ordination to provide better control of processes. It may be that, under environmental protection provisions, there are opportunities to extend co-operation. The combined findings of the various inspectorates that look into these matters should be readily available to the public, and environmental protection legislation should make it impossible for any undertaking to take over existing planning permission. Such an undertaking should have to start from scratch.
  Above all, it seems to me, better consultation with parish councils and with residents' organisations requires the force of law. I mentioned earlier a case in which I had been involved. It concerned the construction of a road. Under the terms of the operation, there was an obligation to consult the local population. There was a great outcry about the development, and public meetings were held. Exactly the type of arrangement about which I am talking was brought into operation. In respect of environmental issues, that kind of arrangement is necessary on a more substantial and more regular basis.
  It is held by many that nothing is more important than environmental issues. If we all now have something of a green tint, I hope that the Government will take on board some of the matters that I have raised. I hope also that those in the Leigh company who are concerned with environmental issues are listening and that they will respond to the feelings that I have expressed on behalf of the community.
  10.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on securing this debate and on the way in which he has presented the concerns and anxieties of his constituents, particularly those who live in the vicinity of the Killamarsh plant. The situation is indeed complex, and, like the hon. Gentleman, I shall begin my response by setting out a little of the history of the site over the past decade or so.
  366
  As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the site, until 1979, had operated as a tar works. In those days there were a few complaints, primarily about odours. The site was then bought by Polymeric Treatments Ltd. and was operated as a separation and distillation plant for tar and oil-contaminated waste waters, for which it was registered with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, and for other processes involving heating and distillation, the storage and sorting of wastes, the neutralisation of acid pickling liquors, and the use of boilers for raising steam.
  The inspectorate received a few complaints about odours from materials handled and stored on the site. One of the major offenders was a waste water lagoon used to separate oil and tar contamination from waste water. This process had been going on for almost a century, and continued until 1982.
  In 1980 the boiler plant was converted to the burning of contaminated waste solvents. A plant was installed for the recovery of waste paint solvents in 1983. In 1985, the waste disposal licence was extended, and the company was permitted to remove PCBs and to decontaminate transformers and capacitors. All PCBs from this work were removed from the site for incineration elsewhere. Decontaminated steel casings were recycled by the steel industry. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, this work ceased in 1986, and permission was rescinded. An aerosol can destruction plant was also located on the site. In 1986 a fire occurred. The company was prosecuted by Her Majesty's factory and agricultural inspectorate, and the processes and the associated plant are no longer in operation.
  A new chemical incineration plant for slightly contaminated solvents was proposed in 1987 and included waste-heat recovery via steam generation. I should explain that high standards of purity are required for many solvents and those that cannot be recovered economically must be disposed of safely. Estimates of the quantity of waste solvent produced each year in the United Kingdom are as high as 50 million litres. In fact, the history of this site must be set against the need for the country to dispose of the waste that it produces. The regulatory framework ensures that there is effective control over the disposal of all wastes.
  It may help if I summarise the current processes on the site and their regulation. The lagoons are no longer in use and may only be filled with inert material. The neutralisation of acids and the sorting and storage of wastes, other than those that are scheduled processes, are regulated by Derbyshire county council. Solid wastes resulting from acid neutralisation are disposed of on another site. The remaining two processes are more difficult in that they can both give rise to odours. They are solvent recovery and incineration.
  Organic solvent recovery is regulated by North-East Derbyshire district council. This will change under the present proposals in the Environmental Protection Bill and solvent recovery by distillation will be a scheduled process to be regulated by HMIP. The schedule for chemical incineration works was amended in 1983 and the regulation of waste paint solvent incineration was then transferred to HMIP. At that time, improvements were requested for the old plant, but there was little business and the company decided not to use the plant any longer.
  In 1987, detailed proposals were submitted to HMIP for burning slightly contaminated solvents on the site in newly purchased incinerators. The site was registered early

  367
  in 1988 in accordance with the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Act 1906. Three incineration units are on the site. "Best practicable means" were prescribed by HMIP in accordance with the requirements of section 5 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The "means" relate to the operation of plant and limit the emissions from the plant. In addition, HMIP is given details of the analysis of feed materials before incineration of each batch.
  The company has been prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. 1974 following the fire on the aerosol plant and also, in 1982, under the Clean Air Act 1968 for smoke emissions from the boiler plant. However, it has been the nuisance from odours that has caused the local residents most concern and has given rise to the largest number of complaints. There has been a steady improvement in performance of the plant, and North-East Derbyshire district council stated in 1989 that there had been a reduction in complaints about the plant in recent weeks by local residents. Odour nuisances are generally of a transitory nature. The main source of odours has now been traced to the solvent recovery plant and the associated drum-crushing plant. Advice was given by HMIP to the district council on possible improvements. The implementation of the improvements required careful safety evaluation, but I understand they will be completed during April of this year.
  The continued improvement to the site roads and the hard standing will allow housekeeping to be improved, and thereby reduce odours from storage and movement. The infilling of the lagoon for which approval was given in 1987 after a public inquiry will eliminate periodic odour from this source. Yorkshire Water is content that water from the works no longer gives regular odour problems. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I am assured that the smells which were associated with the public sewage system last December were due to animal products and not to the works.
  Inspectors from HMIP have been closely involved both in the regulation of this site and in liaising very closely with other regulatory authorities. In 1988 a total of 55 visits were made and in 1989 a total of 36 visits, including visits to observe reported emissions of smoke or fume. Two complaints have been received in the past few months from the junior school at Killamarsh, when visible white emissions caused by alkali fume from the materials burned were noted. The letter to the district council environmental health department was sent to HMIP for comment and reply, and I am glad that inspectors were able to respond in detail.
  I do not wish to diminish or minimise the concerns expressed by local residents and the school. The matter has received close attention from the regulatory authorities. They are vigilant to ensure that the emissions comply with the licence conditions. In fact, although several enforcement authorities are involved in the site, liaison has been very effective.
  368
  A liaison committee was formed in 1982 with representatives from HMIP and local authorities. Yorkshire water authority was also included as well as the fire services and the Health and Safety Executive. They were all invited to attend meetings, as necessary, for particular items. Meetings were held quarterly until registrable processes ceased in 1987. At that point the HMIP chairman resigned from the committee. However, the committee has recently been reconvened under a chairman from Derbyshire county council, with HMIP again participating. The first meeting has been held, and I understand that another is due in May.
  In October 1989 and January 1990, officials from the county council, the district council and HMIP made joint inspection visits to ensure that enforcement was effective and that there was no undue overlap. Current opinion of all three enforcement bodies is that odours and visible emissions are much reduced and usually are of very short duration. Work is in hand on some outstanding items that will yield further improvements.
  I am pleased to be able to conclude by stating that HMIP has taken a lead in ensuring effective liasion and in giving direction as well as in enforcing regulations.
  Mr. Barnes: I thank the Minister for his contribution. His main argument is that the processes have to take place somewhere and that they are valuable. I do not deny that. The question is whether the whole range of processes should take place in such a plant, given the worries of the surrounding residents. I do not deny that the plant should operate in that area, but because of the problems created by the incinerator and solvent smells, some of the activities should be stopped. Given that the plant is in a built-up, residential area, there should be greater control to ensure that it operates well.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The point that I made earlier is that any industrialised country produces waste of various sorts and that it has to be disposed of. Who disposes of the waste is not my concern, but it is my concern to ensure that high standards control the disposal and that consent conditions are adhered to.
  I can give the hon. Gentleman one reassurance. The provisions of the Environmental Protection Bill, which is before the House, will strengthen the control of operations on this site in particular, and of waste management and disposal in general. I mention that because, although concerns and anxieties exist, we are determined that waste disposal comes within a strict and enforced regulatory framework to protect the public and workers alike.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that the transfer of the solvent recovery plant to HMIP control will be a further strengthening of the control over the plant in question. We will be vigilant to ensure that such plants in his constituency live up to the consents granted under the appropriate legislation. If the hon. Gentleman takes that information back to his constituents and reassures them along those lines, something positive will have come out of the debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Nuclear Power Stations, Calais
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there is any monitoring by Her Majesty's Government of nuclear emissions from power stations at Calais.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. Emission monitoring is undertaken by the power station operating authorities in the country concerned. Her Majesty's Government would be informed under international agreements of any release of radioactive material that could be of radiological significance for the United Kingdom. The national radiation monitoring network, Rimnet will detect any abnormal levels of radiation in the United Kingdom.

  Radiation (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of properties surveyed by the National Radiological Protection Board in each Cornwall district is over the newly declared safety level; and whether the owners of those properties have been informed of the new safety advice.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The percentage of private and council houses surveyed by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) in each Cornwall district with radon concentrations above the new action level are as follows:

  Percentage

  Caradon

  27

  Carrick

  23

  Kerrier

  45

  North Cornwall

  34

  Penwith

  42

  Restormel

  27

  The NRPB is writing to all householders whose survey revealed concentrations of between 200 and 400 bq m —3 to inform them of the change in the action level.

  Watercourses (North West)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many watercourses in the North West water authority area are classified under(a) class 1b and (b) class 2 categories; and whether there are any plans to alter the classification procedure in the future.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The 1985 river quality survey indicated that, of the 5,900 km of rivers and canals surveyed in the North West water authority area, 2,710 kms were in class 1a, 762 kms in class 1b, and 1,239 kms in class 2. The existing classification schemes for rivers, canals and estuaries are being reviewed in conjunction 190
  with the work of developing the system of statutory quality objectives provided for in the Water Act 1989, and proposals will be published in due course.

  Public Land (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which sites in the Bolton area are included in the Goverment's register of under-used publicly owned land; and what is their individual acreage.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department's register has now been superseded for most purposes by individual public sector owners' registers which have been available to the public since 31 October 1989 under codes of practice issued last August. Copies of relevant extracts are available at district council offices

  I have, however, arranged for a list of sites in the Bolton area on the Department's register as at 30 September 1989 to be placed in the Library.

  Hazardous Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) of 8 December 1989,Official Report, column 423, if he will publish in the Official Report the information contained in his letter of reply of 5 December 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  My letter of 5 December 1989 to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) contained the following information in reply to questions he had tabled on aspects of hazardous waste management.

  I said that there were four incinerators licensed to deal commercially with special wastes in Britain. I had no detailed information on the number of large chemical incinerators in the European Community or elsewhere which treated special wastes. I was unable to provide the information the hon. Member sought on the design of the furnace doors of the incinerators.

  Regarding incineration at sea, the disposal of wastes was licensed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My Department did not keep records of the amount of special wastes incinerated in the North sea or in other European waters.

  This Department had held information on the import of wastes for incineration only since October 1988 when the relevant provisions of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations came into force. Since then some 8,700 tonnes of imported special waste had been dealt with at the four commercially available incinerators.

  Information on the amount of waste dealt with at the incinerator operated by ReChem International Ltd. at Ponteg, Pontypool was not held by this Department but by the local waste disposal authority, Torfaen borough council. The results of the PCB sampling in soils and herbage around the plant undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution were (figures in micrograms per kilogram):

  PCBs in Herbage:

  Range 3·0–19·7

  Mean 8·4

  Median 6·6

  PCBs in Soil:

  Range 9·0–19·0

  Mean 13·5

  Median 14·8

  191
  The latest figures (August 1989) indicated levels of PCB in the flue gas of the incinerator to be considerably less than 0·01 mg/cum. The (then) latest figures for Dioxin and Furans (in nanograms per cubic metre) were:

  Number

  2, 3, 7, 8—tetrachlorodibenzofuran

  0·050

  Tetrachlorodibenzofurans (total)

  0·120

  2, 3, 7, 8—tetrachlorodibenzodioxin

  <0·025

  Tetrachlorodibenzodioxins (total)

  <0·025

  Pentachlorodibenzofurans (total)

  <0·025

  Pentachlorodibenzodioxins (total)

  <0·025

  Hexachlorodibenzofurans (total)

  <0·025

  Hexachlorodibenzodioxins (total)

  <0·025

  Heptachlorodibenzofurans (total)

  <0·050

  Heptachlorodibenzodioxins (total)

  0·050

  Octachlorodibenzofuran

  <0·025

  Octachlorodibenzodioxin

  0·050

  The emission figures for both PCBs and dioxins/furans compared very favourably with those published for similar incinerators in Europe.

  No equipment was available to give instantaneous readings of PCB or dioxin in flue gas. However, continuous sampling was undertaken and samples of flue gas were analysed on a routine basis for PCB and on a more random basis for dioxin.

  A number of possible processes were under investigation as alternative methods of incineration of PCBs. The most promising appeared to be those involving exchange of the chlorine atom or microbiological systems. Neither would be likely to prove effective for high concentrations of PCBs, for which high-temperature incineration was likely to remain the only satisfactory form of disposal.

  From the start of commercial production of PCBs in 1929 to 1980 some 1,055,000 tonnes of PCBs had been produced worldwide, of which 66,800 tonnes were produced in the United Kingdom by Monsanto, Newport. Other major producing countries were the United States of America (648,000 tonnes), Japan (60,000 tonnes), Spain (25,000 tonnes) and (Italy (24,000 tonnes). During 1980–84, only France, West Germany, Italy and Spain within the Community continued to manufacture PCBs and after 1984 production continued only in France and Spain. This Department did not hold figures for PCB production after 1980.

  The hon. Member for Carmarthen asked about the amount of special wastes which had been subjected to the Leigh environmental sealosafe solidification process. This Department does not hold information on that which is a matter for the waste disposal authority, Walsall metropolitan borough council. Finally, the hon. Member asked about the import of flyash through Swansea docks. That, again, is a matter for the local waste disposal authority, Swansea district council.

  Empty Council Houses, Stockport
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of empty council houses in Stockport at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  The latest available information was provided by Stockport metropolitan borough council in its April 1989 housing investment programme return (HIP1), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Jet-Skiing
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to give local authorities powers to control jet-skiing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Local authorities already have powers to make byelaws regulating the use of jet ski's under the various Public Health Acts and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Harbour authorities and the National Rivers Authority are similarly empowered.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications to dispose of radioactive waste have been refused on the ground that the volumes in question exceeded the quota set for applications by British Nuclear Fuels Limited; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  No application received by this Department has been refused on these grounds.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the locations of those sites where non-nuclear radioactive waste is disposed of, stating the percentage of the total non-nuclear radioactive waste generated which is disposed of at each site.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 February 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) at column 179.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the volume of non-nuclear radioactive waste held in storage in(a) 1984, (b) 1985, (c) 1986, (d) 1987, (e) 1988 and (f) 1989; what projections exist for levels over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not available in the form requested. Low-level radioactive waste arising from outside the nuclear industry is not normally stored, but is disposed of either locally or to the BNFL-operated disposal facility at Drigg (sometimes via the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) establishment at Harwell) under the terms of authorisations issued by HMIP under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Where appropriate, such authorisations may permit waste to be accumulated on site either to allow the radioactivity to decay before disposal or for other operational reasons. Such accumulations and disposals are subject to strict conditions and activity limits and, although information on volumes of waste etc. is not recorded centrally, operators are required to maintain proper and detailed records. These records, as well as the premises or sites concerned, are subject to scrutiny by HMIP inspectors. Where a suitable disposal route is not available, the radioactive waste may be stored at the UKAEA establishment at Harwell.

  Apart from these local disposals and accumulations, the latest available information on stocks and future arisings of raw radioactive waste from minor waste producers is contained in the 1987 "United Kingdom Radioactive Waste Inventory," a copy of which is available in the Library.
  193
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure public consultation in the site selection process for a single national repository for radioactive waste.

  Mr. Trippier
  UK Nirex Ltd's consultation document "The Way Forward" invited comments on Nirex's proposals for a deep repository for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste. Nirex took account of these comments before recommending that site investigations should be made at Sellafield and Dounreay. The Government have made it clear that a public inquiry will be held into Nirex's proposals for a substantive development.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what volume of non-nuclear radioactive waste was disposed of at landfill sites under the Radioactive Substances (Phosphatic Substances, Rare Earths, etc.) Exemption Order 1962 for each of the last five years; what projections exist for volumes to be disposed in this manner over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The terms of the exemption order do not require such information to be kept either by the disposer or this Department.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the volume of non-nuclear radioactive waste accepted at Drigg for each of the last five years; and what percentage came from(a) hospitals, (b) research and development operations, (c) land decontamination and (d) other sources; what are the expected global levels in volume for the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information on the volumes of wastes disposed of at the Drigg disposal site can be found in BNFL's annual reports entitled "Radioactive Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment", copies of which are in the Library of the House. A more detailed breakdown of the wastes originating from non-nuclear industries is not available.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the volume of non-nuclear radioactive waste disposed of otherwise than at Drigg for each of the last five years; and what percentage came from(a) hospitals, (b) research and development operations, (c) land decontamination and (d) other sources; what are the expected global levels in volume for the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  This Department does not maintain a central record of the volumes of low-level radioactive waste disposed of through local disposal routes or of specific disposal locations. However, a condition of authorisation requires waste producers to keep proper and detailed records relating to their disposals. These records, as well as the premises or sites concerned, are subject to scrutiny by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution inspectors and in cases where a disposal requires special precautions to be taken by a local or public authority, both Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and local waste disposal authorities are notified by the operator of the nature and destination of individual consignments of radioactive waste due for disposal.

  Water Leakage
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria the Director General of Water Services will employ to determine if the level of leakage from water distribution systems is excessive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Water undertakers are under a duty to maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply. It is for undertakers to determine what leakage control measures to take, based on their own cost-benefit analysis.

  How the director general might decide to review this aspect of undertakers' performance is a matter for him.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has in regard to the statement made to the European Parliament on 14 February by the President of the European Council, on behalf of the Council of Ministers, concerning Sellafield.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has noted the verbatim report of the proceedings of the European Parliament on 14 February.

  North Sea Conference
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what participation his Department will have in the North sea conference in March.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will visit the Hague on 7 and 8 March to represent the United Kingdom at the third North sea conference.

  Action for Cities
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the first two years of the Government's action for cities initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is announcing today, two years after she launched the Government's action for cities initiative, that spending on the programmes which come within the initiative is to increase by £0·5 billion, from just under £3·5 billion this year to around £4 billion in 1990–91.

  Also today, I am publishing a new report entitled "People in Cities" which highlights ways in which inner city residents are benefiting from the new opportunities being created in their areas and which emphasises the importance of the partnership and growing co-operation between business, central Government, local authorities, voluntary organisations and local people.

  Other announcements being made include the approval of funding for a new spine road to open up the Bristol development corporation area, the setting up of two inner city task forces in the Wirral and in Derby and a large number of task force and city grant project approvals.

  Today, the Prime Minister and all nine members of the special ministerial team appointed in December to spearhead action in the inner cities are visiting projects and reviewing progress in cities up and down the country.
  195
  I have sent copies of the "People in Cities" report to hon Members with constituencies in the inner city target areas. Copies of the report will also be placed in the Library and are available in the Vote Office.

  Housing, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 8 February,Official Report, column 758, when he expects to announce a decision on applications submitted last October and November for city grant and estate action grant in respect of new homes to rent and for sale on the Lower Grange estate.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Member that announced approval of a £5·38 million estate action contribution towards an £11·5 million scheme to improve over 300 local authority owned houses on the Lower Grange estate on 22 February and that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities has today announced approval of a £2·65 million city grant for the construction of 280 new homes and the refurbishment of 28 flats for sale.

  Parliamentary Rifle Range
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who paid the cost of the newly completed refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster rifle range.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 26 February 1990]: The cost of safety work carried out last year to allow members of the staff sports and social club to continue to use the range was borne on the parliamentary works subhead (class XX, vote 18).

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his estimate of what the rates levied in each local authority for 1990–91 would have been had rates continued will be based on a proportion of grant-related expenditure into 1990–91 or on standard spending assessments; and if he will publish a table estimating for each local authority the sums under each system, the gains and losses and the effect of these on the average rate bill and the poll tax demand.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 26 February 1990]: It is our intention when community charges are finally set to say what the increase would have been in domestic rates had that taken the place of the community charge.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of acres covered by each enterprise zone within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The area of each enterprise zone in the United Kingdom is given in the table.

  Enterprise zone

  Acres

  1. Belfast

  510

  2. Clydebank

  570

  3. Corby

  280

  196

  Enterprise zone

  Acres

  4. Delyn

  293

  5. Dudley

  649

  6. Glanford

  124

  7. Hartlepool

  270

  8. Inverclyde

  1274

  9. Invergordon

  148

  10. Isle of Dogs

  1362

  11. Londonderry

  270

  12. Lower Swansea Valley

  775

  13. Middlesbrough

  190

  14. Milford Haven Waterway

  362

  15. North East Lancashire

  282

  16. North West Kent

  377

  17. Rotherham

  260

  18. Salford-Trafford

  870

  19. Scunthorpe

  260

  20. Speke

  340

  21. Tayside

  297

  22. Telford

  279

  23. Tyneside

  1,120

  24. Wakefield

  220

  25. Wellingborough

  136

  26. Workington (Allerdale)

  215

  1 Excluding water covered areas.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list the numbers of speech therapists employed by each local education authority in England(a) in total, (b) by category of employment and (c) as a figure per 100,000 of the population of the appropriate local education authority area, listing the local education authority areas in the last case in descending order;

  (2) if he will take steps to increase the number of speech therapists who are employed within the education service.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  District health authorities are responsible for the provision of speech therapy services to local education authorities. It is for local education authorities to decide whether in addition they make available any provision from their own resources. Information about the number of speech therapists employed by local education authorities is not available centrally.

  City Technology Colleges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will make it his policy that any agreement under section 105 of the Education Reform Act 1988 which has yet to be finalised will contain a provision specifying that, in the event of the agreement being terminated for any reason, the city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts shall be treated as discontinued for the purposes of the agreement and section 105(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988; and if he will take steps to have such a provision included, by way of amendment, in any agreements already in effect;

  (2) if he will take steps to prevent a city technology college or a city college for the technology of the arts from being converted into a fee-paying school other than by his consent, without there being a requirement that any capital funding previously provided under section 105 of the Education Reform Act should be repaid.
  197
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Section 105 of the Education Reform Act 1988 provides for my right hon. Friend to enter into an agreement with any person to establish and maintain a city technology college (CTC) or city college for the technology of the arts (CCTA). A copy of the model agreement for this purpose has been placed in the House of Commons Library. If this agreement were terminated, for example, because the college charged fees, the provisions of section 105(5) of the Education Reform Act would come into effect.

  Storms
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking in view of the recent storms to ensure the safety of school pupils.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Our first concern has been to ensure that everything possible is done to avoid more deaths and injuries to pupils such as those which occurred in the recent storms. The standing instructions which local authorities issue to schools about handling emergencies, combined with the good sense of head teachers and their colleagues, played their part in helping to minimise casualties. But my Department is writing to LEAs asking them to review their instructions in the light of recent experience.

  It is the responsibility of local education authorities to ensure the safety of their school buildings, but my Department has been working with the Department of the Environment and the Building Research Establishment to establish the causes of the roof failure at the Grange junior school in Swindon. As a result of that investigation the Department is today issuing guidance to all local education authorities, grant-maintained schools, independent schools, non-maintained special schools, CTCs and the PCFC and UFC about the characteristics of buildings with lightweight roofs which may be at risk, inspection procedures and possible remedial measures. I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

  The Government have already announced that the Bellwin scheme will operate with respect to damage sustained in the storms of a month ago. This assists LEAs following an emergency with the costs of immediate repairs to school buildings to ensure their continued operation and the safety of their occupants. In parallel, my Department has written to diocesan authorities and other promoters of voluntary aided schools setting out a simplified claims procedure for repairs required after storm damage and inviting bids.

  Curriculum Returns
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take in respect of the requirements on schools to complete the annual curriculum returns.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 February 1990, c. 167]: My proposals were published today. They simplify those provisions of the Education (Schools Curriculum and Related Information) Regulations 1989 which cover the annual curriculum return. Copies of the proposals have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Child Abduction
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what research his Department has carried out, or is undertaking, regarding the problem of children abducted by one of their parents; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  There is no formal research programme, but the Lord Chancellor's Department is fully aware of the practical and legal difficulties that arise from the problem, and is able constantly to monitor developments through its role as a central authority under the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction and the European convention on the recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody of children and on restoration of custody of children. This brings the Department into contact with large numbers of victims of the problem. It also involves the Department in international discussions, the next of which will occur next week, which promote increased understanding of the problem.

  THE ARTS

    Export Licences
    Mr. Fisher
    To ask the Minister for the Arts what list he maintains of works of art for which Her Majesty's Government would not consider granting an export licence.

    Mr. Luce
    [holding answer 12 February 1990]: Lists have been suggested from time to time, but were never taken forward and form no part of the export procedures.

    Mr. Fisher
    To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will draw up a list of works of art for which Her Majesty's Government would not consider granting an export licence which includes(a) sculptures, (b) drawings, (c) manuscripts and (d) contemporary works of art.

    Mr. Luce
    [holding answer 12 February 1990]: I have no plans to draw up lists of works of art for which Her Majesty's Government would not consider granting an export licence.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Rented Sector
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1978 the weight of private sector and public sector rents in the cost of living index; whether those weights include rates when paid by the landlord; and what will be the effect of the index if the landlord does not reduce the rent to take account of the abolition of rates.

    Mr. Lilley
    The weight for local authority and private rents in the retail prices index, in parts per thousand, has been as follows:

    Weight

    1978

    32

    1979

    32

    1980

    28

    199

    Weight

    1981

    30

    1982

    36

    1983

    36

    1984

    35

    1985

    31

    1986

    29

    1987

    34

    1988

    33

    1989

    32

    The weight is adjusted to exclude domestic rates paid through landlords. The index will continue to reflect actual rents charged.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1978 the weight of (a) rates and (b) water and sewerage rates in the retail prices index together with the implied domestic rate contribution to local government expenditure.

    Mr. Lilley
    The weights in the retail prices index, to the nearest part per thousand, have been as follows:

    Domestic rate

    Water and sewerage charges

    1978

    32

    2

    1979

    28

    6

    1980

    26

    5

    1981

    28

    8

    1982

    33

    8

    1983

    35

    9

    1984

    37

    9

    1985

    36

    9

    1986

    33

    8

    1987

    42

    7

    1988

    43

    7

    1989

    42

    7

    The weights relate only to the households covered by the index and do not provide estimates of aggregate contributions to local government expenditure.

    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
    Mr. Tim Smith
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing, for each of the years since 1973–74, the public sector borrowing requirement or the PSDR expressed in 1989–90 prices.

    Mr. Ryder
    Figures for the public sector borrowing requirement for 1973–74 onwards are given in the table expressed in cash terms and in 1989–90 prices.

    Public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR)1

    Cash £ billion

    1989–90 prices2

    1973–74

    4·3

    21·9

    1974–75

    8·0

    33·8

    1975–76

    10·3

    34·4

    1976–77

    8·3

    24·5

    1977–78

    5·4

    14·0

    1978–79

    9·2

    21·6

    1979–80

    9·9

    20·0

    1980–81

    12·5

    21·3

    1981–82

    8·6

    13·4

    1982–83

    8·9

    12·9

    1983–84

    9·7

    13·4

    200

    Cash £ billion

    1989–90 prices2

    1984–85

    10·1

    13·3

    1985–86

    5·6

    7·1

    1986–87

    3·6

    4·3

    1987–88

    -3·4

    -3·9

    1988–89

    -14·5

    -15·5

    1 A negative PSBR is a public sector debt repayment.

    2 Cash figures converted to 1989–90 prices using the GDP deflator.

    Pensions
    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of those schemes that meet the general conditions of approval of occupational and personal pensions by the Inland Revenue, are such as to permit payment of an amount related to a person's accrued or prospective retirement pension under the scheme, such payments to be made throughout any period in which that person is entitled to the payment of an invalidity pension from the national insurance fund and to cease at the end of that period.

    Mr. Major
    I regret that the information requested is not available.

    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will undertake to instruct the Inland Revenue to establish criteria for the approval of occupational and personal pensions schemes that provide payments of an amount related to a person's accrued or prospective retirement pension under the scheme, such payments to be made throughout any period in which that person is entitled to the payment of an invalidity pension from the national insurance fund and to cease at the end of that period.

    Mr. Major
    As I explained in reply to a question from the right hon. Member on 13 February,Official Report, column 128, the main purpose of occupational pension schemes is to provide a pension in retirement. Occupational pension schemes are voluntary arrangements, and, subject to the conditions laid down to obtain exempt status, individual employers are free to determine the range of benefits that they wish to provide. It would not be appropriate to require them to provide benefits of a particular type or amount.

    Customs and Excise
    Mr. Hanley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the site or sites for the proposed relocation of Customs and Excise headquarters work from London and the south-east have yet been decided; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Ryder
    Having fully considered the work of an internal review team on potential relocation sites, together with the views expressed by staff and the departmental trade union side in a consultation exercise, the Paymaster General and the Board of Customs and Excise have decided that Liverpool and the Manchester area should receive the relocated posts. A synopsis report of the work of the internal review team will be placed in the Library.

    Accordingly, over the next three to four years, some 1,250 VAT posts will be transferred to Liverpool from Southend whilst the Manchester area will receive about 430 posts from London. In addition, I expect these

    201
    changes to produce significant benefits both in terms of costs and staffing. Accommodation costs in particular will be reduced, and the opportunities for recruitment and retention of staff outside the problem area of the south-east will be substantially improved. At least 1,300 of these jobs will be available for filling locally which will give a boost to the economy of the north-west of England in accordance with the regional and inner city policies of Her Majesty's Government.

    In addition, as part of the phased relocation exercise, a further 250 or so existing posts will be transferred from London to Southend to offset the 1,250 posts being moved to Liverpool.

    Soviet Rouble
    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when he last met his Soviet counterpart, he discussed the status of the rouble; and if he will make a statement.

    1989–90 Income Tax and NIC Liability Compared with 1978–79 Indexed Regions

    Average Change Per Tax Unit Liable (+ increase, -reduction) and Percentage Changes

    Income

    Income Tax

    National Insurance Contributions

    Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions

    Average

    Percentage change

    Average

    Percentage change

    Average

    Percentage change

    £ per annum

    £ per annum

    £ per annum

    £ per annum

    Under 5,000

    -120

    -39·9

    -70

    -31·4

    -150

    -36·9

    5,000–10,000

    -330

    -28·6

    +20

    +4·6

    -310

    -21·4

    10,000–15,000

    -650

    -28·5

    +120

    +19·2

    -550

    -19·4

    15,000–20,000

    -950

    -27·7

    +240

    +30·2

    -730

    -17·5

    20,000–25,000

    -1,330

    -27·7

    +330

    +37·6

    -1,030

    -18·3

    25,000–30,000

    -1,830

    -28·2

    +380

    +42·0

    -1,470

    -20·0

    30,000–40,000

    -2,640

    -27·9

    +450

    +45·6

    -2,220

    -21·4

    40,000–50,000

    -4,590

    -30·4

    +490

    +49·1

    -4,150

    -25·9

    50,000–60,000

    -7,300

    -34·0

    +490

    +48·3

    -6,870

    -30·6

    60,000–70,000

    -10,690

    -37·4

    +480

    +48·4

    -10,260

    -34·8

    Over 70,000

    -32,630

    -46·6

    +470

    +48·1

    -32,220

    -45·5

    All

    -1,080

    -31·6

    +150

    +24·1

    -930

    -24·3

    Total tax units liable million)

    22·6

    19·5

    23·3

    Total change (£ billion)

    -24·5

    +2·8

    -21·7

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Accountancy Firms
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the eight inspectors mentioned in his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 27 November 1989,Official Report, column 92;

    (2) if he will name the accountancy firms mentioned in his reply of 27 November 1989, Official Report, column 92; and how much money has been paid to them by his Department.

    Mr. Forth
    Details are as follows:

    Name of Inspector

    Firm of Accountants

    Mr. M. G. Lickiss

    Grant Thornton

    Mr. A. Ridler

    Pannell Kerr Foster

    Mr. H. G. C. Aldous

    Robson Rhodes

    Mr. D. L. Spence

    Grant Thornton

    Mr. M. D. Boohan

    Grant Thornton

    Mr. J. R. Venning

    Robson Rhodes

    Mr. J. C. Morton

    Price Waterhouse

    Mr. A. Sutton

    Price Waterhouse

    202
    Mr. Ryder
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Since becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend has not met his Soviet counterpart. A new rouble exchange rate for tourism and business travel was announced in October 1989.

    Taxation
    Mr. Chris Smith
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average individual cumulative gain(a) in current prices, (b) in 1988–89 prices and (c) in 1990–91 prices to those earning £5,000, £10,000, £15,000, £20,000, £25,000, £30,000, £40,000, £50,000, £60,000 and £70,000 as a result of changes in taxation and national insurance since 1979.

    Mr. Lilley
    [pursuant to his answer of 20 February 1990, Official Report, column 680]: I regret that one of the two tables relating to my answer was omitted. This is as follows:

    The total of moneys paid by my Department to the accountancy firms mentioned could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to legislate to ensure that the accountancy firms who act as auditors should derive more than 50 per cent. of their income from audits.

    Mr. Forth
    No.

    Legal Advisers
    Mr. David Shaw
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dover of 15 February,Official Report, column 391, if he will name the legal advisers referred to; and if he will publish the text of their letter giving the assurances that certain activities had ceased.

    Mr. Ridley
    No. It is not my practice to reveal the contents of confidential correspondence.

    Companies Act 1989
    Mr. Andy Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further plans he has to commence the provisions of the Companies Act 1989.

    Mr. Redwood
    On Monday I signed two orders; one of which commences most of part I (company accounts) of the Act, and certain provisions of part V (appointment and removal of auditors, and written and elective resolutions, amongst others); the other commences most of part VIII (amendments of the Financial Services Act 1986) and transfers functions under the Financial Services Act to the Securities and Investments Board. The dates of commencement are 1 April 1990 for the relevant provisions of parts I and V, and 15 March 1990 for part VIII. The orders provide for various transitional and saving provisions; the provisions in part I relating to preparation and delivery of company accounts will apply only to accounts for financial years starting after 22 December 1989. I have placed copies of the orders in the Library.

    Task Forces
    Mr. William Powell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to make any changes to the location of inner city task forces; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    The Government's inner city task forces have proved highly successful in creating jobs, encouraging training opportunities and stimulating enterprise in the country's most deprived areas. Today, I have published a report, "Task Forces In Action" which shows how task forces are helping to achieve the Government's aim of regenerating the inner cities. Since they began, task forces have committed some £49 million to over 1,700 projects to help the people of inner city communities.

    The task force budget for 1990–91 will be £23·2 million, representing an increase of approximately 21 per cent. on this year's budget. I have today given approval for some 59 further task force projects involving funding of over £2 million.

    Task forces have always been part of a rolling programme, tackling difficult areas and then moving on. I am delighted to be able to announce that I have decided to establish two new task forces: one in the Wirral, one in Derby.

    I am also extending the existing task force, in north Kensington, into a part of the neighbouring borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. These task forces will work closely with the business community and with the local authority to improve the job and training opportunities for those in their area. They will all be starting their work as soon as possible.

    The two new task forces, like the existing ones, are not intended to be permanent. One of their aims is to foster the development of local organisations which can capitalise on the task force work when the task forces themselves leave.

    The task forces in Doncaster and Rochdale have now made significant progress in meeting those objectives, and I have consequently decided that they should close in the autumn. In the meantime, they will continue to build up the capacity of local bodies to take over their work in the future.
    204
    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 April 1990. Funding will also continue to be provided for a limited number of projects after the closure of the task forces.

    I can also add that, over recent months, I have made 44 offers of regional selective assistance totalling over £17 million, which could create or safeguard over 3,200 jobs—most of them new ones—in inner city areas.

    Multi-fibre Arrangement
    Sir David Steel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that any phasing-out of the multifibre arrangement is based on the principle of equal opportunities for all the producing nations.

    Mr. Redwood
    [holding answer 23 February 1990]: The EC is committed in GATT to phasing out the MFA after its expiry next year if a satisfactory overall deal can be reached which benefits the EC as a whole. The United Kingdom has made it clear that the MFA cannot be looked at in isolation and that among other things there must must be a greater commitment to market opening especially from newly industrialised economies. We are convinced that equal opportunities for all trading partners can best be achieved by the development of a more open, viable and durable trading system, pursued multilaterally under the aegis of GATT.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Oppenheim
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the cost to his Department of answering questions tabled by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) since 1 December 1989.

    Mr. Ridley
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has tabled in excess of 160 questions to my Department since 1 December 1989. Detailed information about the cost of providing each answer is not recorded, but the total cost to the Department has probably been between £10,000 and £20,000.

    Shipbuilding
    Mr. Clay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask the United Kingdom permanent representative in Brussels to seek clarification as to whether the guidance given by Sir Leon Brittan in his letter of 15 February to the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) represents the considered view of the European Commission.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Sir Leon Brittan makes clear in his letter of 15 February that the views expressed do not represent the definitive position of the Commission. That could only be given on the basis of a specific proposal put forward by Her Majesty's Government. The letter did, however, provide a sufficiently clear indication of the Commission's thinking alongside which we could judge our own consideration of the merits or otherwise of the proposals concerned. In particular, Sir Leon Brittan has made clear that were we to notify now proposals predicated on the resumption of

    205
    shipbuilding at NESL, that would cause the Commission to reconsider all aspects of the December 1988 notification, including its decision on the enterprise zone. The Government have always made it clear that that is not something we would be prepared to risk.

    Mr. Clay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library any notes from officials arising from discussions between officials of his Department and officials of the European Commission concerning the future of NESL between 22 February 1988 and the present time.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: No. Such notes are confidential. Contacts with the Commission on this matter were explained in a note placed in the Library on 24 July 1989 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton); in a letter I wrote to the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee on 10 October 1989; in the evidence I gave to the Trade and Industry Committee on 18 October 1989; and in the statement I made to the House on 20 February 1990.

    Mr. Clay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will state the specific reasons why the bid by Mr. Nat Puri to acquire NESL in 1988 was rejected.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: I refer to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) on 14 November 1988, Official Report, column 748.

    Wood
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the United Kingdom's trade deficit for wood and wood products during 1989; and what proportion of it was constituted by hardwood.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The crude trade deficit in wood and wood products was £5,898 million in 1989; the proportion represented by hardwood was 5 per cent.

    Moss Side and Hulme Task Force
    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of spending undertaken by the Moss Side and Hulme task force since its inception including projects assisted, number of jobs created or estimated for each project, and cost per job.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Since its launch in 1986, the Moss Side and Hulme task force has supported 96 projects with a total committed spend of around £3·5 million. The projects have also drawn in some £5 million other public spending and around £1 million from the private sector. Total jobs achieved to date are 524, together with 475 businesses supported and 1,942 training places provided. A cost per job figure is not available, mainly because project funding may be directed towards several objectives of which job provision is only one. I will write to the hon. Member with details of projects involving job creation.

    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if participation in employment training is a necessary condition for assistance by the Moss Side and Hulme task force; and if any reference is made to such conditions to applicants.
    206
    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: No. However, projects that the task force considers for assistance must demonstrate clearly that they will offer economic benefits by way of employment or training opportunities for task force residents, and/or encouragement for local enterprise. Employment training is an obvious choice for projects involving training and is used wherever possible. All applicants are made aware of this.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Royal Society Lecture
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will seek to obtain a transcript of the lecture on the environment by Dr. Martin Holdgate given at the Royal Society on 26 February for her Office's library.

    The Prime Minister
    I have seen the transcript of the lecture by Dr. Holdgate and I understand my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be placing a copy in the House Library.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
    To ask the Prime Minister whether, in respect of England, any one Minister has the duty of recording, both individually and cumulatively, the additional costs falling to be paid by community charge resulting from obligations laid on local authorities pursuant to new Acts of Parliament, statutory instruments and departmental circulars.

    The Prime Minister
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment monitors the costs of all central Government initiatives which are likely to have resource implications for local authorities. In assessing the level of total standard spending appropriate for a particular year, we take full account of new burdens on local authorities and the scope for savings.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Treaty of Rome (Revision)
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what comment or dissent was offered by the United Kingdom to the decision of the European Community General Affairs Council of 5 February to ask Ireland formally to request the revision of the treaty of Rome and table framed treaty revision proposals; whether there will be an intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Maude
    The President of the European Council at Strasbourg noted that the necessary majority existed to convene a conference charged with preparing an amendment of the treaty with a view to the final stages of EMU. The Foreign Affairs Council on 5 February considered the procedural technicalities required to gibe effect to the relevant conclusions of the Strasbourg European Council, in particular the requirement to obtain an opinion from the European Parliament.

    We have made clear that, though we believe the convening of the intergovernmental conference was premature, we will nevertheless participate in it.

    Agenda
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there has been any discussion between his Department and the Angolan Government concerning the latest outbreak of hostilities between the MPLA and UNITA; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Maude
    We have expressed our concern at the recent escalation in the fighting in Angola both to the Angolan Government and representatives of UNITA and have called on them to agree to an early ceasefire and negotiations for a political settlement. And on 19 February we joined with our European partners in issuing a statement calling for an end to the fighting and a ceasefire. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library of the House.

    Pamyat Group
    Sir John Wheeler
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any information on the steps taken by the Soviet Government to control those activities of the Russian nationalist group Pamyat which are a threat to human rights.

    Mr. Maude
    There are encouraging signs that the Soviet authorities are prepared to take action when nongovernmental organisations such as Pamyat are in breach of the law. On 15 February the Moscow city procuracy opened criminal proceedings against Pamyat under article 1 section 74 of the Russian criminal code which covers"deliberate actions aimed at causing national or racial emnity or discord".
    On 21 February the Soviet Ministry of the Interior announced that it was investigating an incident at the central house of writers at which Pamyat allegedly broke up a meeting of reformists.

    Anti-Semitism
    Mr. Latham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Soviet Government regarding recent anti-Jewish publicity; and whether he will seek an assurance that the Soviet authorities will discourage such outbursts.

    Mr. Maude
    We have made numerous representations to the Soviet authorities about the plight of Soviet Jewry. Incitement to racial hatred is illegal in the Soviet Union. It is encouraging that the extremist organisation Pamyat is currently being prosecuted under this law.

    Nuclear Non-proliferation
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to meet representatives of the Government of Namibia after 21 March to ascertain if Namibia will sign and ratify the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    Mr. Maude
    It is our policy to take every suitable opportunity to raise non-proliferation issues, and the non-proliferation treaty in particular, with states that are not parties to the treaty.

    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the meeting of the 208
    European Foreign Affairs Council in Dublin on 20 February, the matter of encouragement to South Africa to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was discussed.

    Mr. Maude
    No.

    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the report, "New Concepts In Nuclear Arms Control: Verified Cutoff And Verified Disposal", by Warren H. Donnelly and Lawrence Scheinman, published in February by the Programme For Promoting Nuclear Non-Proliferation.

    Mr. Maude
    A copy of the report "New Concepts in Nuclear Arms Control: Verified Cut off and Verified Disposal" by Warren H. Donnelly and Lawrence Scheinman, published by the Programme for Promoting Nuclear Non-Proliferation, will be added to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office library in due course.

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions the working group on nuclear non-proliferation of the European Political Co-operation Committee met in each year since 1985; which matters were discussed in each meeting; and how Her Majesty's Government were represented.

    Mr. Maude
    The working group on non-proliferation in European political co-operation has met four times in each year since 1985 to discuss matters relevant to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We are represented by appropriate officials.

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), 15 December 1989,Official Report, column 839, what was the outcome of the meeting proposed with the European proliferation information centre, to which he makes reference.

    Mr. Maude
    A meeting with the European proliferation information centre has not taken place, but exchanges of correspondence with the centre about funding continue.

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which organisations have received from his Department a grant in aid in 1989–90 to assist in the fostering of greater public understanding of nuclear non-proliferation issues and the role of the fourth review conference of the nonproliferation treaty.

    Mr. Maude
    No organisation has received a grant in aid in the period 1989–90 for the purpose described in the question. Some funding has been made available to the programme for promoting nuclear non-proliferation (PPNN) for specific purposes.

    Bananas
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what benefits are expected to accrue to African, Caribbean and Pacific and European Community banana producing countries as a result of the creation of the single European market in 1992.

    Mr. Curry
    I have been asked to reply.
    209
    The European Commission has not yet come forward with a proposal for the arrangements to apply for bananas post-1992, and it is not possible at present to say what impact the creation of the single European market will have on African, Caribbean and Pacific and European Community banana-producing countries. The Community has made it clear, however, that to safeguard the interests of these countries will be a major aim of any new arrangements.

    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are for the creation of a common import regime for bananas in the European Community in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Curry
    I have been asked to reply:

    The European Commission is currently considering the possible arrangements for bananas post-1992 but has not yet come forward with proposals. We have encouraged the Commission and other member states to ensure that any new arrangements fulfil our commitments to our Commonwealth Caribbean suppliers and Lome partners, and that they take account of consumer interests and of the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market initiative.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Alcohol
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of public funds have been made available since 1987 by(a) the Department of Health and Social Services and (b) the area health and social service boards to (i) the Northern Ireland Council on Alcohol, (ii) the Council on Alcohol Related Problems and (iii) the Northlands centre in Londonderry.

    Mr. Needham
    The information requested is as follows:

    Board

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    Applications

    Awards

    Applications

    Awards

    Applications

    Awards

    Belfast

    327

    230

    316

    109

    203

    67

    Western

    1,301

    575

    1,272

    398

    1,094

    171

    North-Eastern

    442

    179

    307

    93

    213

    65

    South-Eastern

    330

    130

    266

    82

    247

    51

    Southern

    1,199

    389

    1,005

    303

    767

    192

    Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts
    Mr. Mans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects Lord Colville's report on the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts of 1978 and 1987 to be available.

    Mr. Cope
    Copies have now been placed in the Library and are available in the Vote Office.
    210

    Year

    Northern Ireland Council on Alcohol £

    Council on alcohol related problems £

    Northlands centre £

    A. Funding from the Department of Health and Social Security

    1987–88

    67,676

    23,812

    30,000

    1988–89

    76,721

    28,960

    50,750

    1989–90

    79,275

    26,208

    43,000

    B. Funding from Health and Social Services Boards

    1987–88

    18,264

    —

    45,000

    1988–89

    14,063

    —

    45,000

    1989–90

    18,000

    —

    45,000

    Road Closure, Castlereagh
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates he took the decision to close Alanbrooke road, Castlereagh under the powers granted by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.

    Mr. Cope
    On 1 November 1989, I signed an order under section 19(2) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 on behalf of the Secretary of State, authorising Short Bros plc to close off Alanbrooke road for security reasons.

    NATO Exercises
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what contributions his Department will make to the NATO exercises due to be held in Norway during March.

    Mr. Cope
    None.

    Education (Maintenance Allowances)
    Mr. Harry Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many claimants there have been for educational maintenance allowances in each education and library board in Northern Ireland for each of the last three years for which figures are available; and how many awards were made for each of these three years.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    The information is as follows:

    Salmon
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the salmon rivers in the Foyle system and show in a table the number of salmon redds counted in each of those rivers in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The information requested is as follows:
    211

    River

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    Camowen

    154

    193

    136

    181

    276

    Culdaff

    17

    19

    nil

    25

    23

    Deele

    66

    73

    32

    64

    87

    Dennett

    23

    15

    23

    60

    107

    Derg

    689

    1,025

    1,071

    1,019

    993

    Drumragh

    51

    158

    98

    81

    167

    Faughan

    203

    411

    188

    329

    659

    Finn

    394

    807

    375

    518

    651

    Glenelly

    46

    380

    nil

    24

    123

    Mourne

    4

    nil

    nil

    nil

    nil

    Owenkillew

    45

    290

    49

    18

    234

    Reelan

    240

    367

    110

    321

    387

    Roe

    718

    768

    891

    729

    1,282

    Strule and Tribs

    27

    101

    nil

    8

    32

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show for Northern Ireland for each of the last five years the number of grilse and salmon taken in each river estuary by nets, the net catch by driftnetting, by coastal nets and by anglers and the sums raised in licence fees for nets and for fishing licences which allow salmon and grilse.

    1984 Number

    1985 Number

    1986 Number

    1987 Number

    1988 Number

    River Estuary Nets:

    River Foyle

    10,560

    14,174

    12,438

    5,298

    16,121

    River Roe

    595

    1,145

    1,354

    551

    818

    River Bann

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Drift Nets

    18,961

    25,539

    32,759

    12,835

    17,996

    Coastal Nets

    13,896

    7,340

    9,426

    8,166

    9,066

    Anglers1

    379

    1,814

    1,172

    390

    960

    Licence Revenue

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Commercial Salmon Licences

    44,628

    47,187

    48,827

    46,309

    47,942

    Game Angling Licences

    138,111

    156,629

    178,563

    194,848

    216,842

    1 Foyle Area Only

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the salmon rivers in Northern Ireland, not in the Foyle system, and show in a table the number of salmon redds counted in each river in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    Lough Erne rivers and tributaries:

    Colebrooke

    15

    27

    4

    21

    48

    Arney

    17

    20

    n/c

    21

    18

    Swanlinbar

    4

    5

    n/c

    4

    13

    Grarvary

    3

    6

    13

    2

    7

    Ardies

    —

    —

    2

    —

    —

    Drumnavanty

    2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Kesh

    9

    14

    n/c

    2

    5

    Ballinamallard

    17

    37

    n/c

    —

    24

    Lough Melvin and tributaries:

    Total

    —

    7

    n/c

    16

    52

    Lough Neagh and Tributaries:

    Lower Bann

    —

    67

    21

    —

    629

    Moyola

    —

    —

    11

    n/c

    112

    Maine

    —

    —

    n/c

    21

    11

    Upper Bann

    5

    4

    n/c

    23

    5

    Blackwater

    206

    71

    59

    19

    20

    Sixmilewater

    8

    27

    n/c

    5

    3

    Ballinderry

    —

    —

    19

    12

    20

    Coastal Rivers and Tributaries:

    Fane

    n/c

    n/c

    —

    42

    19

    212
    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The information requested is listed in the table. The information relates to both the fisheries conservancy board and the Foyle fisheries commission areas and is based on returns of commercial catches of salmon and grilse made to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and the Foyle fisheries commission and on returns of anglers' catches of salmon and grilse made to the Foyle fisheries commission.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The information requested is as follows:
    213

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    Creggan

    n/c

    n/c

    —

    12

    92

    Clanrye

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Cassywater

    n/c

    —

    —

    —

    8

    Whitewater

    23

    77

    59

    87

    91

    Kilkeel

    3

    11

    9

    12

    16

    Annalong

    n/c

    n/c

    13

    6

    8

    Shimna

    20

    63

    57

    11

    3

    Maghera

    53

    46

    48

    14

    7

    Moneycarragh

    19

    44

    41

    14

    46

    Ardelia

    3

    2

    3

    2

    23

    Quoile

    n/c

    6

    n/c

    —

    —

    Blackwater (Killinchy)

    —

    n/c

    —

    —

    —

    Inler

    —

    n/c

    n/c

    —

    —

    Lagan

    —

    —

    n/c

    —

    —

    Lagan

    —

    —

    n/c

    n/c

    n/c

    Glenariffe

    —

    n/c

    n/c

    n/c

    n/c

    Glenorm

    —

    n/c

    n/c

    7

    n/c

    Margy

    6

    —

    —

    n/c

    n/c

    Bush

    146

    285

    172

    278

    650

    Glendun

    n/c

    —

    —

    n/c

    n/c

    Blackstaff

    9

    29

    15

    10

    43

    n/c = No count undertaken.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any research has been carried out in Northern Ireland into the angling effort in hours for salmon or grilse caught; and what comparable information he has for(a) the Irish Republic, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Research has not been carried out in Northern Ireland into the angling effort in hours for salmon and grilse caught. I am not aware of comparable information for the Irish Republic, Scotland, Wales and England.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the number of salmon spawning in each of the salmon rivers of Northern Ireland is sufficient to maintain stocks; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Though there is concern about the reduced numbers of adult salmon returning to Northern Ireland salmon rivers, there are sufficient numbers to maintain self-sustaining populations in these rivers.

    Fisheries Research
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the population of pallen remaining in Lough Neagh; what comparable figures or estimate he has for earlier years; whether any steps are being taken to preserve this fish; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: No recent study has been carried out on the population levels of pollen in Lough Neagh. Neither is any statistical information on population figures available for earlier years.

    The Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland is the body statutorily charged with the conservation and protection of salmon and inland fisheries including pollen in Northern Ireland.

    Fishermen taking pollen are required to hold a licence for a single wall set net or trammel net for the taking of freshwater fish and under byelaw 37 of the Fisheries Consolidated and Amendment Byelaws (NI) 1989 can
    214
    only do so with nets of a mesh size between 25rn.m and 32mm. This prevents the killing of immature pollen and large spawning adult pollen.

    In addition to this, the close season for pollen fishing is 31 October to 31 January and is designed to protect spawning stock.

    Harbours
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the minimum depth of water at the river Bann, Barmouth at low tide; and what is the depth at Coleraine harbour at similar tide point.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The minimum depth at low tide at the Barmouth is 4m and at Coleraine harbour is 4·3m.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the minimum depth of water in the shipping channel to Belfast port at low tide.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: It varies from 5·5m to 9·1m.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the minimum depth of water in the shipping channel to Londonderry port at low tide.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: It is 6·9m.

    Sea Trout
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the number of sea trout spawning in each of the rivers they frequent in Northern Ireland is sufficient to maintain stocks; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Yes.

    Supplies and Services Boycott
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his answers to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 21 February
    215
    concerning firms which will not carry out work for the security forces or provide material for firms which carry out work for the security forces, if he will indicate the reasons why he will not publish the information requested.

    Mr. Cope
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: I do not believe that it would be in the interests of security in Northern Ireland to acquire and publish the information.

  WALES

    Water Supplies
    Sir David Steel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total Government expenditure has been for water supplies in Wales in the last, and current, financial years; and what these sums represent per head of population.

    Mr. Grist
    In 1988–89 expenditure by the Department on water supplies and sewerage services on grants under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts 1944 to 1971 and the Industrial Development Act 1982 amounted to

    County

    1984

    1985

    1986

    1987

    1988

    11989

    Clwyd

    334

    364

    343

    336

    320

    336

    Dyfed

    1,065

    1,088

    1,087

    1,048

    993

    1,025

    Gwent

    93

    139

    151

    220

    204

    236

    Gwynedd

    477

    466

    414

    462

    415

    377

    Powys

    492

    490

    487

    479

    456

    441

    Mid Glamorgan

    84

    34

    32

    60

    89

    63

    South Glamorgan

    96

    48

    55

    90

    103

    98

    West Glamorgan

    103

    64

    53

    115

    111

    101

    Totals

    2,744

    2,693

    2,622

    2,810

    2,691

    2,677

    1 Provisional.

    Bethesda-Arfor Bypass
    Mr. Livsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to build the Bethesda-Arfor bypass during the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Wyn Roberts
    As announced in "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s", start of construction of the A5 Bethesda by-pass is planned in the period April 1991 to March 1994, subject to detailed investigation and completion of design and statutory procedures.

    Llandudno General Hospital
    Mr. Livsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that full emergency services will be retained at the Llandudno general hospital.

    Mr. Grist
    The provision of services at Llandudno general hospital is a matter for Gwynedd health authority in the first instance. Any proposal to implement a permanent substantial variation in service would require full public consultation, including the opportunity for interested parties to appeal to my right hon. Friend.

    Community Centres
    Mr. Livsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will consider increasing the £100,000 ceiling on grants for the building of community centres.

    Mr. Grist
    The possibility of raising the Welsh Office grant ceiling for the capital grants to voluntary youth 216
    £1·36 million. The estimated expenditure for the current year is £1·5 million. These sums represent 47p and 52p per head of population.

    Craft Initiative
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the itemised costs of designing, producing and distributing the craft initiative brochure launched in May 1988.

    Mr. Wyn Roberts
    The total cost of designing, producing and distributing the craft initiative brochure was £14,273·80. Of this, main elements comprised design work costs at £5,395·80, and production costs at £7,935·00.

    Beekeeping
    Mr. Geraint Howells
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beekeepers there are in each county in Wales; what change there has been in the number of beekeepers during the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    The information is as follows:

    services, village halls and community centres programme is being considered in consultation with the local education authorities.

    Environmental Health Officers
    Mr. Livsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of environmental health officers in each of the named districts in Wales in 1974, 1979, 1984 and 1989.

    Mr. Grist
    The number of local authority non-manual staff employed in environmental health in Wales for 1979, 1984 and 1989 is given in the table. Figures are not available for 1974. It is not possible to identify separately the number of environmental health officers included in each figure in the table. Information by authority is not available centrally.

    Number of non-manual staff employed in environmental health1

    1979

    1984

    21989

    Districts

    762

    787

    862

    Counties

    17

    14

    11

    Total

    779

    801

    873

    1 Full-time equivalents as at September for each year.

    2 Figures for September 1989 are provisional.

    Conwy Tunnel
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the original estimated cost of construction of the Conwy tunnel for the A55 road; what is the latest estimated cost for the completion of this work; what were the outstanding payments awaiting to be made by the Welsh Office to the contractors at the end of last January; and whether any contract condition requires interest to be paid on outstanding debts by the Welsh Office.

    Mr. Wyn Roberts
    In September 1986, the original contract price for construction of the Conwy tunnel was £102 million, which is subject to cost price inflation. At that time, the estimated full cost of the scheme, including land, advance works, design and supervision, was £,158·4 million, compared with 164·3 million shown in "Roads in Wales: 1989". Payments are made promptly when due. Matters relating to claims are confidential between the parties to the contract.

    Taxation
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates he has as to the likely effects of introducing a tax based on capital values and incomes on the people of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    I have made no such estimate, but I hope that those who propose such taxes will tell the people of Wales the extent of the tax burdens that will be placed upon them.

    Welsh Office Publications
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last circulated Welsh hon. Members with details of Welsh Office publications; and for what reason the monthly notification system has ceased.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    Owing to a technical fault it has been necessary to collect these details manually. The fault has now been corrected and an updated list circulated. The list for February will be issued in the next few days, and at the end of each month thereafter.

    Kidney Transplants
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many kidney transplants have been performed at the Cardiff royal infirmary so far in the current year; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) how many kidney transplants were performed at the Cardiff royal infirmary in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    A total of 66 transplants were carried out at Cardiff royal infirmary in 1989 and three so far this year.

    Following completion of a Medical Research Council funded study of factors influencing the availability of donor organs for transplantation, health authorities in Wales have been asked to introduce an audit of deaths in intensive care units and to ensure that there are in place written procedures for the identification of donors and for the action needed to produce a successful donation.

    In the light of recent consultation with health authorities on the report of the evaluation of renal services in Wales, Welsh Office officials will be considering with the managing health authority how the renal transplant programme may be further supported.

    Leukaemia
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will publish in the Official Report known figures for the incidence of leukaemia in areas surrounding nuclear power stations in Wales in the years 1979 to 1990; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    Information in the form requested is not immediately available. I will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman shortly.

    Water Pollution
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the reduction of pollution in Lake Trawsfynydd; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    The authorisation for the disposal of waste to the lake is under review.

    Cancer Unit, North Wales
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning a new cancer unit in North Wales.

    Mr. Grist
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 7 February 1990 at column 661.

    Local Authority Housing
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make extra money available to local authorities in Wales to enable them to build houses to rent to take the place of those sold under the right-to-buy legislation; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    My right hon. Friend has already announced a 15 per cent. increase in level of resources available for local authorities to spend on housing next year. It is for the authorities to determine how best to use these resources, taking account of local needs and seeking to achieve value for money, particularly in partnership with other housing providers.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to announce proposals for exemptions from Welsh in the national curriculum.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    I am publishing today for consultation in accordance with section 21(2) of the Education Reform Act proposals for exemptions from Welsh in a limited range of circumstances. The consultation document is being sent to the Curriculum Council for Wales, local education authorities, a wide range of organisations representing educational interests in Wales and, for information, to all schools. Copies have also been placed in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House.

    Welsh Development Agency
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total budget of the Welsh Development Agency in 1988–89 and 1989–90; and what proportion of this was allocated to the North Wales office.
    219
    Mr. Peter Walker
    [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The information is as follows:

    The total budget of the Welsh Development Agency was £113 million in 1988–89 and £130·4 million in 1989–90. Land reclamation, environmental improvement, urban renewal and the factory building programmes are controlled and financed centrally by the Welsh Development Agency. No accurate breakdown of expenditure on these activities is available on a regional office basis.

    Programmes administered by the regional offices include property management, business development unit courses, advertising and regional promotions, investment, rural conversion grants, DRIVE—the development of rural initiative, venture and enterprise—and administration costs. Details of expenditure by regional office are set out in the table:

    Total Regional Office Expenditure on specified programmes

    North Wales Regional Office1 Expenditure on specified programmes

    £ million

    £ million

    per cent.

    1988–89

    13·8

    3·2

    (23)

    21989–90

    11·1

    3·0

    (27)

    1 North Wales is served by 2 of the WDA's 6 regional offices, sited at Bangor (covering North Wales West) and Wrexham (covering North Wales East).

    2 Latest forecast expenditure for 1989·90.

    Nurses' Grading
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many nurses have appealed successfully on regrading; how many nurses await the settlement of their grading appeals; how many appeals on regrading have been heard; when he estimates the completion of hearings for nurses appeals in regrading; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    [holding answer 20 February 1990]: I understand that approximately 7,000 appeals have been lodged with employing authorities at local level in Wales. On the basis of the latest information available to the Department from district health authorities, 1,503 of those appeals have been heard of which 184 were successful.

    At regional level, 628 appeals have been received to date by the Welsh appeals committee. Nine appeals have been heard of which two were successful.

    The Department's officials will be considering urgently with the management and staff sides ways in which the appeal procedures can be speeded up.

    Craft Industry
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the itemised costs of the initial review of the craft industry in January and February 1988.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    [holding answer 21 February 1990]: The review of the craft industry was carried out by Mr. Tony Ball on behalf of the Department at a total cost of £6,212.04. Mr. Ball undertook the study free of fees and the sum of £6,212.04 represents:

    £2,503·76 expenses paid to Mr. Ball (covering travel and subsidence at Civil Service rates)

    £3,268·80 + VAT support costs to Tony Ball Associates—of which:

    £

    Secretarial services:

    1,001.00

    220

    Fares:

    140·80

    Creative work:

    1,680·80

    Printing, photographing, couriers etc.

    447·00

    £439·48 payments direct to hotels where meetings were held.

    Had the work been undertaken at commercial consultancy rates, I estimate that the total cost would have certainly exceeded £25,000. I am grateful to Mr. Ball for completing this major study speedily and free of fees.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Community Charge
    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many old-age pensioners in Scotland are liable to pay only 20 per cent of the poll tax.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    It is estimated that about 190,000 community charge rebate claimants aged 60 and over in Scotland in 1989–90 are in receipt of the maximum 80 per cent. rebate. Claims from couples are counted as one.

    Source: 1. June 1989 count of Community Charge Rebates in Scotland.

    2. Housing Benefit Management Information System May and August 1989.

    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many poll tax payers in Scotland are liable to pay no more than 20 per cent. of the poll tax due to their receipt of the maximum rebate; and what is the average amount they will pay in 1990–91.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The latest estimate for 1989–90 is that 560,000 claimants in Scotland are receiving the maximum community charge rebate. Claims from couples are counted as one. Detailed information is not yet available on the numbers who will qualify for the maximum rebate in 1990–91 or on the charges that they will have to pay.

    Operational Strategy
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in implementing his Department's operational strategy.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The Department's highly complex £1·7 billion strategy for the computerisation of the social security benefit payment system is proceeding as planned. The pilot exercise in 23 local offices has been completed and the systems are being introduced nationally office by office.

    Industrial Injuries
    Ms. Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are affected by the decision in the recent case of McKiernon v. Secretary of State; and what steps his Department is taking to trace them.

    Mr. Scott
    I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 22 February at column 892.

    Residential Homes
    Mr. James Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider raising income support for residents in independent nursing homes or residential care homes.
    221
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The maximum amounts of income support payable to people in residential care and nursing homes are reviewed every year as part of the general uprating of benefits. These limits will all be increased from 9 April at a cost of an extra £100 million a year.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Blair
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Government's proposals on care in the community will lead to any changes in the administration of community care grants under the social fund.

    Mr. Scott
    We have no plans to change the administration of community care grants.

    Disability
    Mr. Blair
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has for the continued existence of the Independent Living Fund in the light of the Government's proposals on care in the community.

    Mr. Scott
    I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 10 January at column 657.

  ENERGY

    Reactor Programmes (Costs)
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), 12 December,Official Report, column 533, on reactor programme costs, if he will place a copy of the report by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in the Library.

    Mr. Baldry
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 13 December 1989 at column 649, which made clear that the report could not be published because of its commercial confidentiality.

    Calder Hall
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if electricity from the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. nuclear reactor at Calder Hall is to be included in the non-fossil fuel obligation; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry
    The initial non-fossil fuel obligation, announced by the Secretary of State on 12 February, has been set at a level which will ensure that existing and committed nuclear plant in England and Wales is contracted for.

    Renewable Sources
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to remove responsibility for research and development of renewable sources of energy from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

    Mr. Peter Morrison
    No. Responsibility for the research and development programme on renewable sources of energy remains with my Department and the 222
    energy technology support unit of the Atomic Energy Authority is responsible for the day-to-day management of the programme. The Secretary of State's advisory council on research and development for fuel and power has very recently reviewed and endorsed the Department's programme on renewables.

    Sizewell B
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to require from the Central Electricity Generating Board details of how much public money has to date been spent on the Sizewell B project; and if he will publish the information in the Official Report.

    Mr. Baldry
    Nuclear Electric will report regularly to my Department, as has the Central Electricity Generating Board, on progress with Sizewell B, including cost estimates. Expenditure on the project to date is a matter for Nuclear Electric.

    CEGB and BNFL
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will outline his Department's responsibilities in respect of the Central Electricity Generating Board and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Wakeham
    In respect of the Central Electricity Generating Board, the Department assists me in the exercise of my powers under the Electricity Act 1957.

    The Government own all the shares in British Nuclear Fuels plc; and the Secretary of State for Energy guarantees the company's borrowing under the terms of the Nuclear Industry Finance Act 1977.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if it is planned to return all foreign nuclear waste to its country of origin in the same quantities of low, intermediate and high-level waste as were imported.

    Mr. Baldry
    There have been no changes to the arrangements set down in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 2 May 1986 at columns 500–01.

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provision British Nuclear Fuels plc makes in its accounts for the costs of disposal of low and intermediate-level wastes which are not chargeable directly to British Nuclear Fuels plc's customers.

    Mr. Baldry
    This is a matter for the company.

    Hinkley B
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on how many occasions within the past 12 months the cooling mechanism, the oil pumps and the servicing machinery at the Hinkley B nuclear reactor have been simultaneously out of action.

    Mr. Baldry
    The Central Electricity Generating Board informs me that on no occasion during the past 12 months has the equipment detailed been out of action simultaneously.

    Energy Imports (France)
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates his Department has made of the level of energy imports from French nuclear power generation over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry
    Future levels of imports and exports across the interconnector will largely depend on commercial decisions by Electricité de France.

    Decommissioning Costs
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action his Department has taken in respect of provision for decommissioning following the reassessment of decommissioning costs by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry
    This is a matter for the nuclear industry.

    Nuclear Power Plants (Output)
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessments he has made of the reasons for the drop in output of British nuclear power plants as a percentage of total power generation between May 1989 and December 1989.

    Mr. Baldry
    Nuclear plants provide baseload power at broadly constant levels throughout the year whereas total generation varies according to demand and is usually higher in winter. Nuclear output was in fact higher in December than in May 1989.

    Nuclear Programmes (Cash Plans)
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what factors account for the difference between the cash plans quoted for nuclear research and development and other programmes, on page 1, chapter 5 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" (Cm. 1005), and the cash plans quoted for nuclear programmes on page 1, chapter 6 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–90 to 1991–92" (Cm. 606).

    Mr. Baldry
    The main reason is an increased provision for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's decommissioning and waste management operations resulting from Government decisions on the future fast reactor programme and from higher specifications for the handling of radioactive wastes.

    Radioactivity
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when and by whom the maximum safe dose of radioactivity for workers at nuclear power stations in Wales has been decided on; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry
    Workers in nuclear power stations in Wales are subject to the same limits for exposure to ionising radiations as all other nuclear power station workers in England and Scotland. The limits are set out in schedule 1 to the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985. The regulations comply with an European Community directive (80/836 Euratom, as amended by 84/467) which 224
    in turn reflects advice from the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). This advice is now under review.

    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has proposals to review the legal maximum dose of radioactivity to workers at nuclear plants in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry
    The Health and Safety Commission has recently issued a consultative document containing proposals for interim action pending receipt of revised international recommendations. The Health and Safety Commission's working group on ionising radiations will in due course consider the revised recommendations and make proposals for further action if necessary.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Rost
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress towards his announced timetable for the privatisation of the electricity industry.

    Mr. Dykes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of plans for the electricity privatisation share issue and related matters.

    Mr. Wakeham
    [pursuant to his reply, 18 December 1989, c. 99–100]: After careful consideration I have decided that subject to market conditions at the time, the sale of National Power and PowerGen should take place on the same day in February 1991. The successful transfer to the private sector of these substantial companies will mark a further stage in the Government's programme of reinvigorating the economy by introducing the discipline of competition. Even while still formally divisions of the CEGB, these two organisations are giving every indication that they intend to compete vigorously in the electricity market which the Government are creating.

  HEALTH

    NHS Accounts
    Mr. Ralph Howell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future publication of annual National Health Service accounts.

    Mr. Freeman
    Publication of the annual series of House of Commons papers on the National Health Service accounts will remain the responsibility of the National Audit Office. Some changes in the format and content of the published accounts will however be necessary from 1991–92 as a consequence of the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

    Durham Health Authority
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give equivalent information relating to the spending of Durham health authority to that given in his replies to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 8 November 1989,Official Report, columns 681–82, relating to Darlington, North Tees and South Tees health authorities; and if he will make a statement.
    225
    Mr. Freeman
    Figures for gross revenue expenditure in Durham health authority derived from the annual accounts of the authority for the years 1982–83 to 1988–89 (the latest year available), are shown in the table.

    The allocation of funding to the districts in the Northern region is a matter for the Northern regional health authority (RHA).

    Total revenue expenditure on Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS)

    £ million

    Cash

    At 1989–90 prices

    1982–83

    26·5

    37·0

    1983–84

    27·3

    37·7

    1984–85

    28·8

    37·9

    1985–86

    30·0

    37·5

    1986–87

    32·3

    39·0

    1987–88

    35·0

    40·2

    1988–89

    37·8

    40·4

    Notes:

    1. The figures have been revalued using the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

    2. HCHS covers total expenditure including that on hospital, community health, patient transport (i.e. ambulance), blood transfusion and other services.

    3. Expenditure on family practitioner service (FPS) is excluded. Such expenditure is accounted for by family practitioner committees (FPCs) and cannot strictly be attributed to particular regions or districts. However, for the years 1982–83 to 1984–85 the Durham Health Authority had an associated FPC and the expenditure recorded in its accounts for those years included small elements in respect of FPC administrative expenses which are not separately identifiable.

    4. All capital expenditure is excluded and revenue expenditure incurred by the Northern RHA for the region as a whole is also excluded.

    Corneal Transplants
    Mr. Hanley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his reply of 20 February, what factors limit the number of corneal transplants which may be performed in the National Health Service.

    Mr. Freeman
    Several factors can affect the number of corneal transplants performed, including the availability of donated tissue and other resources.

    NHS Expenditure
    Mr. John Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown of the capital allocations for acute hospital services, excluding regional specialties, by district, within the Mersey region since 1975.

    Mr. Freeman
    This information is not held centrally. Allocations to districts are a matter for regions and the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the Mersey regional health authority for this information.

    Tranquillisers
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department has taken to ensure that the new generation of five hydroxytriptomide drugs are not addictive and do not have dangerous side effects.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Satisfactory controls already exist under the Medicines Act to ensure that newly developed drugs are examined for safety, quality and efficacy by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM)226
    before a product licence is granted. Effective medicines may cause side effects in some patients and doctors take account of risk-benefit factors when prescribing. Doctors are advised of known side effects by means of a range of sources including product data sheets. All newly licensed drugs are carefully monitored for side effects by CSM.

    Home Helps
    Mr. Thurnham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many home helps are employed to serve the elderly population in the Bolton area; what is the home help-elderly householder ratio; and what is the hourly rate of pay which such employees receive.

    Mr. Freeman
    Information is not available centrally about the number of home helps involved directly with the elderly. However, the total number (whole-time equivalents) of home helps in Bolton at 30 September 1988 was 377; the rate per 1,000 population aged over 65 was 9 8. Information on rates of pay is not held by the Department.

    Disablement Services Authority
    Mr. Ashley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the Disablement Services Authority is adequately funded to enable it to provide(a) lightweight wheelchairs, (b) indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs and (c) special seating to those people who have been assessed as needing them.

    Mr. Freeman
    It is open to the Disablement Services Authority to allocate such sums as it sees fit from within its budget in line with the needs of its services and its policies.

    Mr. Ashley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to monitor the policies of the Disablement Services Authority with regard to the provision of(a) lightweight wheelchairs, (b) indoor/ outdoor powered wheelchairs and (c) special seating.

    Mr. Freeman
    The Disablement Services Authority is a special health authority and in common with all health authorities its policies and their implementation are monitored through the NHS planning and review process.

    Mr. Ashley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received concerning the need for adequate funding to the Disablement Services Authority to enable it to provide(a) lightweight wheelchairs, (b) indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs and (c) special seating to those people who have been assessed as needing them.

    Mr. Freeman
    We have received a small number of letters about powered wheelchairs and special seating. We have not received any representations about lightweight wheelchairs.

    Radiation
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ask the chairman of the Medical Research Council to review the findings of the "Medical Research Council Report: the Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations", Cmnd. 9780, published in June 1956, in the light of the findings of the Gardner report on radiation risks.
    227
    Mr. Freeman
    As I announced in my reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 15 February, at columns 397–98, I have referred the results of the case-control study from the MRC epidemiology unit to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) for its urgent consideration and preliminary advice. I shall ensure that a copy of the 1956 MRC report is made available to the committee.

    Residential and Nursing Homes
    Mr. Blair
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by local authority area the total number of places in(a) private, (b) voluntary and (c) local authority residential and nursing homes; if he will give a breakdown of these places along the lines of the categories used by his Department to decide on limits for payments to people living in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes; and if he will give a breakdown of the numbers of people in such homes who receive income support, by local authority area.

    Mr. Freeman
    The information on number of places in residential accommodation is not available in the form requested. Information at 31 March 1988 about the number of places in(a) registered private, (b) registered voluntary and (c) local authority residential care homes by local authority and by primary function has been placed in the Library. These figures are provisional.

    Information on private and voluntary nursing homes is not collected centrally in the format requested. For the latest information available centrally on the number of beds in each district health authority area, I refer the hon. Member to the publication "Private hospitals, homes and clinics registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984, National, Regional and District Summaries for the financial year 1987–88", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

    The information requested about income support is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but I understand that the information is not available in the form requested. At May 1989 there

    Royal Marsden SHA "Other medical"

    Christie Hospital "Other medical"

    Radiotherapy

    Expenditure on patients using a bed £

    13,088,575

    2,959,075

    4,379,215

    Patient Days

    94,099

    19,386

    55,309

    Consultant episodes

    13,219

    16,510

    6,029

    Cost per day £

    139·09

    152·64

    79·18

    Cost per episode £

    990·13

    179·23

    726·36

    Expenditure on outpatients £

    6,742,122

    533,115

    1,177,563

    Number of attendances

    90,849

    7,415

    34,507

    Cost per attendance £

    74·21

    71·90

    34·13

    Notes:

    1. Patients using a bed includes in-patients and day cases who are admitted to hospital for procedures undertaken during one day.

    2. The expenditure in the table is related to the direct patient treatment costs only and does not include general overheads costs borne by individual health authorities as a whole.

    Regional Allocations
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing the allocations to National Health Service regions from 1982–83 to 1990–91 228
    were 119,000 people receiving income support in residential care homes and 57,000 claimants in nursing homes.

    Mr. Churchill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many in-patients and out-patients, respectively, were treated, and what was the hospital's revenue, in respect of(a) the Christie hospital, Manchester, and (b) the Royal Marsden hospital, London, in the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement about the cost-effectiveness of treatment in the case of each of those hospitals;

    (2) if he will publish the cost (a) per in-patient case and (b) per out-patient attendance at the Christie hospital, Manchester, and at the Royal Marsden hospital, London, in respect of the most recent year for which figures are available; and what are the reasons for the disparity in cost between these two cancer treatment hospitals.

    Mr. Freeman
    [holding answer 14 December 1989]: For the purposes of specialty costing, financial returns from health authorities provided to the Department categorise expenditure on direct patient services according to the main specialty of the consultant in charge of the treatment, rather than upon the specific treatment received.

    Under this categorisation, the expenditure on patient treatment of the Royal Marsden special health authority is categorised under "other medical", which includes medical oncology amongst other specialty functions. Christie hospital, Manchester, however, undertakes work covering a wider range of specialties in addition to those categories which include treatment of cancer, so direct comparisons of cost are not practicable centrally.

    Following is a table of data derived from financial returns held by the Department.

    There are often good reasons for differences between hospitals in particular costs which can arise from differences in the particular diagnoses of the patients treated, the severity of the condition treated and length of time required for treatment, and whether treatment can be provided on an out-patient basis or requires admission to a hospital bed.

    in current and standard prices in the case of each region indicating the value of these allocations in standard prices on a per capita basis.
    229
    Mr. Freeman
    [holding answer 10 January 1990]: The information requested is shown in the tables, at current cash levels and at 1990–91 cash levels using the GDP deflator. The allocations shown relate to the main

    Allocations

    £000s at cash

    Region

    1982–83

    1983–84

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    1989–90

    1990–91

    Northern

    479,616

    539,388

    560,701

    601,519

    639,403

    679,482

    735,253

    817,311

    884,179

    Yorkshire

    537,778

    606,123

    629,450

    676,116

    720,831

    767,080

    829,677

    920,376

    999,322

    Trent

    631,328

    717,046

    746,789

    810,705

    866,468

    926,641

    1,010,146

    1,126,131

    1,227,583

    East Anglian

    269,985

    307,251

    321,224

    345,723

    371,144

    400,572

    437,676

    488,050

    539,690

    North West Thames

    581,173

    626,483

    649,174

    686,495

    723,116

    748,568

    808,071

    895,111

    968,446

    North East Thames

    681,128

    792,648

    806,429

    853,455

    900,051

    933,655

    1,007,139

    1,114,489

    1,197,287

    South East Thames

    628,878

    697,381

    715,293

    756,200

    796,566

    830,504

    897,538

    1,000,077

    1,092,602

    South West Thames

    505,602

    544,658

    558,782

    590,095

    620,117

    690,592

    745,778

    828,304

    900,756

    Wessex

    383,805

    434,435

    454,024

    491,471

    527,732

    564,636

    614,551

    687,346

    757,653

    Oxford

    307,453

    345,704

    357,430

    386,127

    412,181

    440,700

    482,415

    548,386

    595,806

    South Western

    505,602

    528,459

    550,356

    594,068

    634,384

    672,786

    731,564

    818,155

    896,046

    West Midlands

    749,136

    841,616

    875,293

    944,388

    1,015,057

    1,088,488

    1,185,562

    1,316,619

    1,419,349

    Mersey

    395,333

    442,733

    457,822

    486,642

    513,227

    542,546

    585,517

    652,367

    699,175

    North Western

    661,535

    742,325

    771,417

    826,052

    875,174

    928,848

    1,004,859

    1,117,456

    1,199,999

    Total

    7,281,698

    8,166,250

    8,454,184

    9,049,056

    9,615,451

    10,215,098

    11,276,275

    12,330,178

    13,377,893

    Notes:

    1. To allow for consistency of comparison the allocations shown above exclude the special allocations such as the Service Increment for Teaching and Supra Regional Services etc.

    2. 1989–90 is based on the allocations for services provided in the region using the Resource Allocation Working Party Formula (RAWP)

    3. 1990–91 is based on the allocations for resident population, calculated using the new allocation formula, adjusted for the effect of cross boundary flows, so that they are on a comparable basis to 1989–90.

    Allocations

    £000s at constant 1990–91 cash levels

    Region

    1982–83

    1983–84

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    1989–90

    1990–91

    Northern

    728,268

    782,485

    774,894

    788,940

    811,287

    818,742

    826,057

    858,177

    884,179

    Yorkshire

    816,584

    879,297

    869,906

    886,780

    914,605

    924,293

    932,142

    966,395

    999,322

    Trent

    958,634

    1,040,211

    1,032,070

    1,063,304

    1,099,392

    116,566

    1,134,899

    1,182,438

    1,227,583

    East Anglian

    409,956

    445,726

    443,935

    453,443

    470,915

    482,669

    491,729

    512,453

    539,690

    North West Thames

    882,476

    908,833

    897,165

    900,393

    917,504

    901,987

    907,868

    939,867

    968,446

    North East Thames

    1,034,252

    1,149,887

    1,114,493

    1,119,375

    1,142,003

    1,125,008

    1,131,521

    1,170,213

    1,197,287

    South East Thames

    954,914

    1,011,684

    988,542

    991,817

    1,010,699

    1,000,716

    1,008,384

    1,050,081

    1,092,602

    South West Thames

    767,726

    790,130

    772,242

    773,957

    786,817

    832,129

    837,882

    869,719

    900,756

    Wessex

    582,785

    630,231

    627,466

    644,604

    669,597

    680,358

    690,448

    721,713

    757,653

    Oxford

    466,849

    501,509

    493,972

    506,436

    522,983

    531,021

    541,993

    575,805

    595,806

    South Western

    767,726

    766,630

    760,597

    779,168

    804,919

    810,673

    821,912

    859,063

    896,046

    West Midlands

    1,137,518

    1,220,924

    1,209,664

    1,238,640

    1,287,925

    1,311,574

    1,331,979

    1,382,450

    1,419,349

    Mersey

    600,289

    642,268

    632,715

    638,270

    651,193

    653,741

    657,828

    684,985

    699,175

    North Western

    1,004,501

    1,076,883

    1,066,106

    1,083,433

    1,110,438

    1,119,215

    1,128,959

    1,173,329

    1,199,999

    Total

    11,056,822

    11,846,697

    11,683,767

    11,868,561

    12,200,277

    12,308,682

    12,668,895

    12,946,687

    13,377,893

    Allocation per capita

    £s At constant 1990–91 cash levels

    Region

    1982–83

    1983–84

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    1989–90

    1990–91

    Northern

    236·28

    251·30

    249·42

    256·79

    264·64

    267·60

    269·19

    282·08

    289·12

    Yorkshire

    228·01

    244·81

    241·84

    246·99

    254·64

    257·40

    258·60

    266·22

    276·77

    Trent

    210·45

    226·44

    224·43

    229·88

    237·34

    241·47

    243·80

    250·07

    262·45

    East Anglian

    217·97

    235·22

    231·86

    233·10

    240·37

    245·76

    243·55

    240·59

    262·74

    North West Thames

    257·44

    261·89

    260·08

    260·94

    265·37

    259·71

    258·45

    262·78

    274·37

    North East Thames

    279·96

    306·03

    298·59

    297·70

    303·44

    301·25

    299·64

    306·10

    316·12

    South East Thames

    269·07

    281·26

    275·81

    276·77

    281·63

    278·85

    276·31

    281·63

    297·63

    South West Thames

    268·59

    281·05

    262·15

    262·61

    266·47

    281·86

    280·46

    285·31

    300·14

    Wessex

    215·61

    232·25

    225·98

    227·35

    234·41

    237·10

    236·26

    235·32

    255·39

    Oxford

    202·43

    215·42

    208·88

    208·44

    213·11

    216·31

    216·62

    216·83

    232·36

    South Western

    238·12

    236·28

    246·57

    249·99

    257·31

    258·20

    256·58

    258·44

    276·57

    West Midlands

    220·70

    235·65

    233·43

    238·42

    247·53

    253·50

    256·16

    263·10

    272·20

    Mersey

    245·20

    261·83

    259·00

    264·67

    270·96

    272·03

    273·47

    287·57

    291·81

    North Western

    250·99

    266·85

    265·33

    271·65

    278·49

    281·63

    283·44

    294·72

    301·51

    England

    237·95

    253·21

    249·66

    252·78

    259·34

    261·87

    266·77

    267·65

    280·16

    Note. Calculated using actual populations within regional boundaries.
    230
    population based allocations and do not include additional special allocations such as the service increment for teaching.

    NHS Spending (Dewsbury)
    Mrs. Peacock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost per head of spending in the National Health Service for Dewsbury health authority for each year since 1974.

    Mr. Freeman
    [holding answer 25 January 1990]: Following is information for the Dewsbury health authority since its establishment on 1 April 1982.

    Dewsbury Health Authority—Total Revenue Expenditure on Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) Per Resident

    £(cash)

    1982–83

    118

    1983–84

    123

    1984–85

    130

    1985–86

    139

    1986–87

    149

    1987–88

    162

    1988–89

    181

    Sources:

    (a) Annual accounts of the Dewsbury Health Authority for the financial years 1982–83 to 1988–89.

    (b) Mid-year estimates of resident population—1982 to 1988 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

    Total revenue expenditure per resident for hospital services (HS) and hospital and community health services (HCHS) by region

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    Region

    HS £ cash

    HCHS £ cash

    HS £ cash

    HCHS £ cash

    HS £ cash

    HCHS £ cash

    HS £ cash

    HCHS £ cash

    HS £ cash

    HCHS £ cash

    Northern

    153

    190

    162

    201

    172

    215

    185

    236

    203

    261

    Yorkshire

    148

    183

    157

    194

    166

    207

    177

    226

    192

    248

    Trent

    139

    172

    147

    182

    157

    197

    169

    217

    186

    240

    East Anglian

    139

    173

    146

    182

    155

    195

    166

    214

    184

    239

    North West Thames

    163

    202

    169

    209

    178

    222

    189

    238

    213

    272

    North East Thames

    195

    236

    202

    244

    213

    259

    224

    278

    250

    312

    South East Thames

    173

    215

    180

    224

    187

    236

    197

    255

    216

    284

    South West Thames

    159

    198

    164

    205

    173

    219

    184

    251

    203

    280

    Wessex

    138

    171

    143

    178

    152

    190

    160

    206

    176

    229

    Oxford

    126

    159

    131

    165

    136

    175

    145

    191

    161

    212

    South Western

    146

    183

    153

    191

    161

    204

    169

    221

    183

    243

    West Midlands

    142

    178

    149

    187

    160

    202

    171

    221

    187

    243

    Mersey

    162

    199

    170

    209

    180

    224

    191

    244

    208

    269

    North Western

    161

    204

    169

    215

    180

    231

    191

    251

    210

    276

    Sources:

    (a) Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England—1984–85 to 1988–89.

    (b) Mid-year estimates of resident populations—1984 to 1988 (Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys).

    Notes:

    1. Capital expenditure and expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded.

    2. The figures for hospital services include all revenue expenditure incurred by health authorities on all their hospital sites. The figures for Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) cover total revenue expenditure including that on hospital, community health, patient transport (ie ambulance), blood transfusion and other services.

    3. The population figures used make no allowance for people resident in one region who receive treatment in another or for differences in morbidity and age/sex structure of particular populations.

    4. The figures for the Thames regions are influenced by the fact that South West Thames Regional Health Authority (RHA) now accounts for the entire cost of the London Ambulance Service which was formerly shared by all four Thames RHAs.

    Nursing Homes (Prescriptions)
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he has taken to check prescriptions taken to dispensing chemists on behalf of elderly residents in private nursing homes are not misused;

    (2) what steps have been taken to ensure surplus prescribed drugs in private nursing homes are not stockpiled for unauthorised use.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    [pursuant to her reply, 9 February 1990, c. 806]: I regret that I implied that all private nursing homes employed pharmacists. I wish to make the following clarification.
    232
    Notes:

    1. Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) covers total expenditure including that on hospital, community health and other services.

    2. The authority's capital expenditure and all expenditure incurred by the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority on behalf of the region as a whole is excluded. Expenditure on family practitioner services, which is accounted for by family practitioner committees and cannot strictly be attributed to particular regions or districts, is also excluded.

    3. The population figures used make no allowance for people resident in one district who receive treatment in another or for differences in morbidity and age/sex structure of particular populations.

    4. Prior to 1 April 1982 the authority's predecessor health district formed part of a larger area health authority and in those cases district based figures were not collected centrally.

    Hospital Spending
    Mr. Dunn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report, hospital expenditure per head for each of the regional health authorities in England for each of the last five years.

    Mr. Freeman
    [holding answer 30 January 1990]: Figures for hospital services (HS) and hospital and community health services (HCHS) for the years 1984–85 to 1988–89 are shown in the table.

    Prescription-only medicines in private nursing homes can be supplied by a pharmacist only on the signed order of a medical practitioner or dentist. It is for the dispensing pharmacist to satisfy himself that it is a proper prescription for that drug. The supply of medicines to patients in private nursing homes is almost always by means of prescriptions from a general practitioner in respect of individual patients. This method of prescribing helps to ensure that excessive quantitites of prescribed drugs are not being stockpiled. Medicines dispensed to individual patients become the property of that patient and, unless treatment has been completed, are normally given to the patient on discharge or otherwise destroyed.

    233
    The prescribing, dispensing and monitoring of the use of controlled drugs is governed by the Misuse of Drugs Regulations.

    The Registered Homes Act 1984 requires the registering district health authority to inspect private nursing homes at least twice each year to ensure that adequate arrangements exist for the recording, safekeeping, handling and disposal of drugs in the possession of patients. In some private nursing homes a medical practitioner or pharmacist may be retained to advise the person registered as responsible for the home on how medicines should be controlled.

  TRANSPORT

    European Rail System
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what projections his Department has made in respect of the future trends in market share of freight traffic from Europe to the United Kingdom of(a) rail and (b) road; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Portillo
    The Department has made no such projections.

    British Rail (Borrowing)
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on allowing British Rail to borrow money from the private sector.

    Mr. Portillo
    My right hon. Friend is concerned that British Rail should finance its operations in the most cost-effective manner possible: BR has the objective of increasing further the contribution to its business of the private sector, where this enables more cost-effective and competitive services to be provided. BR is normally required to take its loan finance from the national loans fund (NLF), which charges lower interest rates than those generally available in the private sector. BR is permitted to borrow on a temporary basis from financial institutions authorised to take deposits under the Banking Act 1987.

    Cyclists
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the cities and towns in the United Kingdom which have specially designed cycle routes and facilities.

    Mr. Atkins
    This information is not available centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. As part of our programme of research into cycling, the Department has participated with highway authorities on schemes in the following localities:Cycle Routes Programme

    Stockton

    Bedford

    Exeter

    Southampton

    Nottingham

    Cambridge

    Innovatory facilities

    Hull

    Cambridge

    Nottingham

    London:

    Westminster

    Southwark

    234

    Shepherds Bush

    Hammersmith

    Hillingdon

    Ealing

    Canterbury

    Oxford

    Chelmsford

    Preston

    Manchester

    Newark

    Liverpool

    Bristol

    Cheltenham

    Darlington

    The Department is about to publish a revised bibliography of publications on cycling. It includes details on most of the route projects and innovatory schemes listed. I shall send the hon. Member a copy of the new bibliography as soon as it is available. Further copies of it will be placed in the Library.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to investigate the case for incorporating a cyclist awareness section into the driving test for motor vehicle learner drivers; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Atkins
    The Department's advice to learner drivers, and its driving test procedures, already attach weight to awareness of cyclists and to consideration towards them along with other vulnerable road users.

    A6 Disley-High Lane Bypass
    Mr. Tom Arnold
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove of 21 February, what are the reasons for the cost differences between the preferred route (modified brown) on the proposed A6 Disley-High Lane bypass and the brown route.

    Mr. Atkins
    The preferred route is 4 km shorter than the original brown route. It avoids the need for extensive work in the Newtown area and a diversion of the railway at Gowhole.

    Mr. Tom Arnold
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether British Coal registered a formal objection to the construction of the proposed A6 Disley-High Lane bypass along the lines of route of the purple, blue and orange proposals.

    Mr. Atkins
    No. British Coal's comments were submitted during consultations prior to announcement of a preferred route.

    Environmental Adviser
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he used in choosing Professor Hoskins as his adviser on environmental matters; for how long the appointment is; and what payments will be made to Professor Hoskins for his assistance.

    Mr. Atkins
    Professor Hoskins is professor of meteorology at Reading university and is a leading authority on global warming, climatic change and related matters. As such he appeared to my right hon. Friend to be a suitable person to advise him on the implications of these issues for transport policy.

    Professor Hoskins is a part-time special adviser and does not have a fixed-term appointment. As is the normal

    235
    practice with special advisers his remuneration is determined by reference to his current level of earnings and is therefore confidential.

    Beach Pollution (Sussex)
    Mr. Higgins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it has now been possible to identify the source of the dangerous chemicals washed up on Sussex beaches which were referred to in his answer to the private notice question on 22 February,Official Report, columns 1067–72; whether any action is to be taken by his Department against those responsible; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    With the full co-operation of the shipping agent and local authorities concerned, the marine pollution control unit has been able to determine that the potassium cyanide which came ashore on the Sussex coast on 21 February and succeeding days, had been shipped on the MV Fathulkhair which left Sheerness on 31 January bound for the Persian Gulf. It is probable that other items washed ashore came from the same source.

    The vessel encountered heavy weather on her passage down the Channel and whilst off Ushant (in a French area of responsibility) on 2 February lost a quantity of cargo overboard. After putting back into Cherbourg to resecure and survey cargo, the vessel encountered further heavy weather and lost more items overboard between 12 and 14 February against whilst off Ushant.

    As the cargo was lost outside United Kingdom territorial waters and the ship is registered in Qatar, my Department is writing to the Qatar authorities to inquire into the incident and if it is found that the chemicals were stowed improperly, to establish who was responsible and to ask what action they intend to take.

    In any event marine surveyors of the Department will board the vessel when next it arrives in a United Kingdom port to ensure that if it loads dangerous cargo it will be in accordance with the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Regulations.

    Stockport Bypass
    Mr. Favell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work will commence on the A6(M) Stockport bypass.

    Mr. Atkins
    Time will be needed for design work, supplementary orders and a compulsory purchase order. A second public inquiry is likely. Construction could then start by the end of 1992.

    Confidential Road Studies
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances county councils carry out confidential road studies for his Department on trunk roads; how prevalent this practice is; what access elected councillors of the relevant authorities have to such studies; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Atkins
    Agent county councils normally undertake scheme investigation studies for trunk roads, but exceptionally private consultants may be commissioned where a study is large or complex.

    Studies are "confidential" only in that full findings are not made public, but if either a national or regional scheme results the statutory consultation procedures apply.

    Network SouthEast
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received within the last months from the chairman of British Rail in respect of the phasing out of the subsidy to Network SouthEast.

    Mr. Portillo
    My right hon. Friend had detailed discussions with Sir Robert Reid before agreeing with him the objectives for British Rail that were announced on 19 December.

    Stranraer-Euston Rail Service
    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if, pursuant to his statement concerning under-use of the Stranraer-Euston rail service,Official Report, 14 February, column 333, he will give the figures on which he bases his statement.

    Mr. Portillo
    I understand from British Rail that the number of people using the Stranraer-Glasgow part of the Stranraer-Euston sleeper services averages 10 per night.

    Leicester Eastern Bypass
    Sir John Farr
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when work on the Leicester eastern bypass (A6-A46), listed in "Roads for Prosperity", will be commenced;

    (2) if the Leicester eastern bypass (A6–A46) will be constructed to dual carriageway standard.

    Mr. Atkins
    Consultants have still to be appointed for the proposed Leicester eastern bypass and a detailed programme is not available at this early stage. It is hoped to announce a preferred route in 1994, following public consultation, as announced in "Trunk Roads, England—Into the 1990s" on 20 February. The carriageway standard has yet to be determined.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Agricultural Research
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report all successful United Kingdom projects chosen by the European Commission for research and development on agricultural technologies in the Eclair programme; and what proportion of the total projects allocated came from the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Curry
    All projects under the EC Eclair programme have to be joint ventures involving participants in more than one member state. In the first tranche under this programme, the EC Commission has selected 23 projects for contract negotiation in 13 of which there is United Kingdom participation. The projects concerned are:

    (a) optimisation of lignin in crop and in industrial plants through genetic engineering;

    (b) development and production of low temperature storage tolerant potato cultivars;

    (c) improvement of yield and food conservation in salmonids and maricultured fish;

    (d) improvement of storage capabilities of fresh fruits and vegetables through the biotechnological and technological control of ethylene;

    (e) development of improved strains of insect parasitic nematodes for control of insect pests in horticulture and agriculture;

    237

    (f) development of liquid fertilisers based on naturally occurring seaweeds;

    (g) development of a delivery system for the oral administration of vaccines for the prevention of diseases in fish in agriculture;

    (h) development of environmentally safe pest control systems for European olives;

    (i) novel anti fungal proteins; applications in crop protection;

    (j) novel biosynthetic routes for biodegradation of polyhydroxy alkanoates made by genetically engineered strains of bacteria and plants;

    (k) amines: animal monitoring and identification;

    (l) European maize use in the starch industry in relation to growing areas and cultivation techniques; and

    (m) the development of biotechnology based in vitro production of sex-determination, freeze-storage and transfer of bovine embryos.

    Chicken Feed
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outlaw the addition of colouring matter to chicken feed designed to brighten the colour of the egg yolk.

    Mr. Maclean
    Regulation of these colouring matters is a matter for agreement within the EC. The continued use of one of the principal colourants is currently being examined by expert committees both in the EC and also in this country.

    Imports of bananas into the European Community 1984–88

    1984

    1985

    1986

    1987

    1988

    Total

    2,289,843

    2,396,683

    2,635,305

    2,608,659

    2,933,007

    of which

    Community Producers

    tonnes

    712,002

    697,897

    860,494

    681,554

    690,572

    per cent.

    31

    29

    32

    26

    23

    ACP Producers

    tonnes

    335,997

    413,395

    445,065

    456,623

    513,707

    per cent.

    15

    17

    17

    18

    18

    Dollar Producers

    tonnes

    1,204,265

    1,253,589

    1,255,897

    1,366,017

    1,642,595

    per cent.

    52

    53

    48

    52

    56

    Other

    tonnes

    37,579

    31,802

    73,849

    104,465

    86,133

    per cent.

    2

    1

    3

    4

    3

    Source: Eurostat.

    Note:—Eurostat data does not include imports from the Canary Islands for 1984 and 1985 and for imports from Madeira throughout the period Estimates of such imports from FAO data have been added to the Eurostat data to give comparable coverage. In the breakdown such imports. are included under Community Producers.

    Less-favoured Areas
    Mr. Geraint Howells
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of payments permitted under European Economic Community less-favoured areas directive; what are the current rates of hill subsidies and payments; and what conclusions he has reached on his policy in this matter.

    Mr. Curry
    The EC structures regulation (797/85, as amended) currently provides the framework for measures to support farmers in the less-favoured areas. The principal form of support is the system of hill livestock compensatory allowances, though there is also provision for other measures such as enhanced rates of capital grant

    Food and Drink Imports
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what precautions to check imported food and drink for contamination are in operation.

    Mr. Freeman
    I have been asked to reply.

    Imported food and drink are subject to the Imported Food Regulations 1984 which require food to be sound, wholesome and fit for human consumption. Monitoring, as appropriate, to ensure that food and drink meet these criteria, is carried out by local enforcement authorities including port health authorities.

    Bananas
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a chart or table showing(a) the percentage share and (b) the tonnage share of the European Community banana market held by (i) Community producers, (ii) African, Caribbean and Pacific producers, (iii) dollar (Central and South American) producers and (iv) others, for each of the last five years.

    Mr. Curry
    The percentage and tonnage share of the European Community banana market held by (i) Community producers; (ii) African, Caribbean and Pacific producers, (iii) dollar producers and (iv) others in each of the last five years for which complete data is available is as follows:

    in the LFA. Under regulation 797/85, the HLCA rates have to be fixed according to the severity of the permanent natural handicaps affecting farming activities, within prescribed minimum and maximum levels per livestock unit and a maximum payment per hectare. At 1 January 1990, the effective minimum rate in the United Kingdom was £14·34 per cow and £2·15 per ewe; the maximum rate was £71·37 per cow and £10·70 per ewe; and total payments were subject to a maximum of £71·37 per hectare. The current HLCA rates payable in the United Kingdom are:

    239

    Severely Disadvantaged Area of the LFA

    £ per head

    Cows

    54·50

    Hardy Breed Ewes

    7·50

    Other Ewes

    4·50

    Disadvantaged Area

    Cows

    27·25

    Ewes

    2·25

    The maximum payable per hectare is £62·48 in the severely disadvantaged area and £46·86 in the disadvantaged area.

    My right hon. Friend indicated the Government's policy towards the hill and upland areas in his statement to the House on 30 January 1990, Official Report, columns 159–170.

    Food Poisoning
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he proposes to take to reduce the number of food poisoning incidents.

    Mr. Maclean
    The government are seeking through the Food Safety Bill to update and strengthen their powers in relation to food safety. I also refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Mr. Knox),Official Report, 15 February, column 399, which referred to the response we have made to part one of the report of the Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food.

    Industrial Waste
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 4 December,Official Report, column 106, whether he has submitted any further applications to the Oslo commission for licences to dump industrial waste in the North sea.

    Mr. Curry
    Two further sets of information have been sent to the Oslo commission about proposals to issue sea dumping licences for the following wastes:

    Material

    Tonnage

    Fine Organic

    8,000

    Wash water from the synthesis of antibiotic and anti-ulcer medicines

    Tate and Lyle Sugars

    30,000

    Chalk solution from sugar refining

    Dumping of these two wastes at sea will cease as soon as alternative means of disposal are in place. The companies are working to tight timetables and dumping should end within a year.

    Green Currency Gaps
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost of eliminating the green currency gaps; and what would be the resultant cash effect upon United Kingdom agriculture.

    Mr. Curry
    The Government are committed to eliminating the monetary gap associated with the green 240
    pound by the end of 1992 at the latest. The effect of a complete devaluation of the green pound will depend on movements in the market rate of sterling over this period. It is estimated that a devaluation to eliminate the present monetary gap would add about £290 million in a full year to public expenditure in the United Kingdom. This expenditure would be mainly financed from the EC budget to which the United Kingdom, of course, contributes. Such a devaluation would increase farmers' incomes by over £700 million in a full year and add around 1·25 per cent. to retail food prices on average.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Thurnham
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the average increase in the price of food over the last 10 years.

    Mr. Curry
    Over the 10 years to January 1990, the average annual increase in food prices was 5·3 per cent.

    Pesticides
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the review and approval of pesticides.

    Mr. Maclean
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Corbyn) on 8 February,Official Report, column 728.

    Artificial Flavouring
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he plans to take to enable consumers, seeking to avoid the use of artificial flavourings, to make an informed choice in respect of the legal term flavour.

    Mr. Maclean
    Under existing food labelling legislation consumers can choose between food where the flavour is derived wholly or mainly from the named food, and those artificially flavoured. For example the descriptions "strawberry flavoured" or simply "strawberry" can only be used to describe food in the first category. "Strawberry flavour" may be used for food in the second category where the flavour does not come mainly from strawberries. The relevant provisions can be found in schedule 7 to the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 and are fully explained in our free booklet "Look at the Label".

    Bread Prices
    Mr. Ashby
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the average price for a 11b loaf of bread and the average price for an unmilled ton of wheat grown in the United Kingdom for the years 1986 to 1989, inclusive.

    Mr. Curry
    The information requested is set out in the table.

    Average price of1 11b loaf of bread Pence per loaf

    Average price of2 home grown wheat £ per tonne

    1986

    43·0

    111·18

    1987

    43·7

    111·00

    1988

    46·8

    105·14

    1989

    48·8

    105·72

    241
    1 White sliced 8,000 gm. loaf. Source: CSO.

    2 Unmilled home grown bread wheat. Source: MAFF.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require the police to give every victim of violence, rape and child abuse the leaflet which outlines the availability of financial assistance provided by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Arrangements for giving information to victims are the responsibility of individual chief officers of police. However, existing Home Office guidance to the police stresses that people who have suffered injury as a result of crime should, whenever possible, be handed a copy of the leaflet "Victims of Crimes of Violence: A Guide to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme".

    Crime Reduction
    Mr. Lawrence
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the achievements of Her Majesty's Government in reducing crime since June 1987.

    Mr. Waddington
    The measures which we have taken to reduce crime since 1979 are set out in my reply today to another question from my hon. and learned Friend. Comparing the 12 months to September 1989—the most recent period for which figures are available—with the 12 months to September 1987, the number of offences recorded by the police has fallen from 3,893,000 to 3,779,000, a decrease of 3 per cent.

    Mr. Lawrence
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government since 1979 to reduce crime.

    Mr. Waddington
    Since 1979 we have increased police manpower by 24,000 (including civilians). We have given the courts the powers they need by increasing the maximum penalties for certain offences, and by making provision for the confiscation of profits made by drug traffickers and other criminals. We have prohibited certain firearms and other weapons, and taken steps to control the possession of knives in public places.

    Following the successful five towns initiative in 1986, we have set up a safer cities programme to co-ordinate crime prevention activity in high-crime inner-city areas. We have undertaken a number of substantial crime prevention publicity campaigns and over 3 million copies of the crime prevention handbook "Practical Ways to Crack Crime" have been distributed. An independent organisation, Crime Concern, was set up with Home Office assistance in 1988, with the objective of supporting and developing local crime prevention activity.

    Liquor Sales
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a system of licences for wholesalers who sell intoxicating liquor.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    We have no present plans to do so.

    Right of Abode
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long those issued with certificates of entitlement to the right of abode had to wait for their applications to be processed in(a) January 1988, (b) June 1988, (c) January 1989, (d) June 1989 and (e) January 1990 or the nearest available date; how many cases were awaiting decision in the British overseas citizens and right of abode group at each of the above dates; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Information on waiting times and on the numbers of cases outstanding for persons applying in the United Kingdom for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode is not available for the periods requested. On 21 February 1990, a total of 189 applications were waiting consideration in the United Kingdom; the majority were less than six weeks old and the oldest was dated 13 October 1989. In the case of persons applying to posts abroad for certificates of entitlement to the right of abode, information is available only for the Indian sub-continent. Since 1988, such applicants have been interviewed within three months of applying. Information on the waiting time between interview and the issue of a certificate is not available.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were made for certificates of entitlement to the right of abode; how many certificates were issued; how much money was collected in fees for such applications; how many staff, and at what grades, were in post to deal with the processing of such applications in each quarter since January 1988; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    No separate record is maintained of the number of applications received from persons in the United Kingdom for certificates of entitlement to the right of abode. The remainder of the information requested is as follows:

    Quarter ending

    Certificates issued1

    Fees collected2 (£)

    31 March 1988

    340

    —

    30 June 1988

    464

    —

    30 September 1988

    419

    —

    31 December 1988

    652

    —

    31 March 1989

    594

    3,816·00

    30 June 1989

    502

    5,625·00

    30 September 1989

    581

    6,451·00

    31 December 1989

    626

    6,278·50

    1 The figures include new and renewed certificates issued.

    2 Fees were introduced on 15 December 1988 in respect of new certificates only.

    Since January 1988, the processing of certificate applications made in the United Kingdom has required a team of two executive officers, two administrative officers and two administrative assistants.

    In addition, in the whole of 1988, a total of 10,200 certificates of entitlement to the right of abode in the United Kingdom including confirmations of the right of abode, were issued to persons applying at posts abroad. The other information requested is not available centrally for such cases.

    Manchester Airport (Police)
    Mr. Callaghan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers of the Greater Manchester police authority were stationed at Manchester international airport in each of the last five years; and what percentage of the total strength of the Greater Manchester police authority this represented in the same period and at the last available date.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    The information is as follows:

    31 December

    Officers deployed at airport

    Force strength

    Percentage airport deployment of force strength

    1989

    146

    6,965

    2·1

    1988

    138

    6,844

    2·0

    1987

    131

    7,021

    1·9

    1986

    131

    6,725

    1·9

    1985

    131

    6,779

    1·9

    1984

    131

    6,745

    1·9

    Dr. Sinha (Police Interview)
    Mr. Leighton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for a report on the result of the interview of Dr. Sinha at Forest Gate police station on 1 February.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    I understand that following their interview with Dr. Sinha on 1 February, the Metropolitan police still have his case under consideration.

  DEFENCE

    Tendering
    Mr. John Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the impact of improved tendering procedures upon the cost effectiveness of his Department's expenditure.

    Mr. Alan Clark
    Our increased use of competitive tendering, including announcements in the MOD contracts bulletin, continues to achieve substantial savings. It is not easy to quantify these in the absence of any specific indication of the price which would have been achieved without competition. Our more commercial approach to procurement fosters improvements in the efficiency and international competitiveness of the British defence industry.

    Independent European Programme Group
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made within the independent European programme group on the production of complementary contract bulletins by each of the 13 member countries; and what was the outcome of the recent meeting of the independent European programme group at Gleneagles in Scotland.

    Mr. Alan Clark
    The Defence Ministers of the 13 independent European programme group (IEPG) nations met in Gleneagles on 21 February 1990. Nine IEPG nations have now started regular publication of bulletins 244
    of defence contract opportunities; the rest should follow later this year. This marks a major step towards the opening of the European defence equipment market. Ministers also reviewed progress on other aspects of the step by step opening of the European defence equipment market, and the establishment of the EUCLID European research and technology programme. A copy of the communiqué issued after the meeting has been placed in the Library of the House.

    Radiation
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many studies on radiation exposure to the work force at the research, development and operational establishments at(a) Llanishen, (b) Aldermaston, (c) Burghfield, (d) Devonport, (e) Rosyth, (f) Chatham and (g) Vulcan at Dounreay have been conducted (i) by his Department and (ii) by independent authorities since each facility began operations;

    (2) if he will make it his policy to initiate a study into the health effects of radiation on workers and their families based at Llanishen, Burghfield, Aldermaston and the Royal Navy college at Greenwich;

    (3) if he will make it his policy to initiate a study into the health effects of radiation on the work force at the Devonport and Rosyth shipyards.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    Radiation exposures to radiation workers at MOD establishments are kept under constant local review by the radiation protection advisers and local management, and are also scrutinised by the Health and Safety Executive. Such exposures are authorised solely on the basis that they are justified, that they comply with statutory limits, and that they are as low as reasonably practicable. The data is placed on the national register of radiation workers and is included in a current mortality study by the National Radiological Protection Board on the whole of the United Kingdom nuclear industry.

    The committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment has recommended a nationwide study of leukaemia in children of workers in the nuclear industry. The Department of Health is considering how this study might be carried out, and we will co-operate fully as appropriate.

    The following independent studies on radiation exposure in the MOD work force have been published:

    (i) 'Report of an Investigation into Radiological Health and Safety at the Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive) Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston', by Sir Edward Pochin, 30 October 1978.

    (ii) 'AWE Mortality Study', published in the British Medical Journal, No. 6651, Vol. 297 on 24 September 1988.

    (iii) 'Radiation induced Chromosome Aberrations in Nuclear-Dockyard Workers' (a study on Rosyth Dockyard Workers), published in Nature (Evans et al, Vol. 277, p531, 1979).

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications of the Gardner report on radiation risks for the continued use of nuclear materials by his Department.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    Radiation exposures continue to be authorised by the MOD only on the basis that they are justified, comply with statutory limits, and are as low as reasonably practicable. This is a continuing process and I see no reason to change current practice.
    245
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what precautions against radiation exposure will be taken in the removal of the research reactor from the Royal Naval college at Greenwich.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    We will comply with all relevant statutory requirements and radiation exposure will be kept as low as reasonably practicable. The reactor fuel will be transported in a container which will conform fully with the regulations governing transport of radioactive material as administered by the Department of Transport.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Employment Training
    Ms. Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment training trainees are taking part in access courses to higher education as part of their training; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Nicholls
    It is not possible to identify the number of employment training (ET) trainees taking part in access courses. Access courses that satisfy normal ET criteria can help to prepare trainees for a variety of employment and training opportunities including higher education.

    Ms. Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether claimants who are already undertaking a part-time education or training course under the 21-hour rule may have this course included in their employment training action plan, if they wish to participate in the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Nicholls
    Claimants who have undertaken a part-time education or training course under the 21-hour rule may in certain circumstances have the course included in their employment training action plan. In order to be included the course would have to be an integral part of the person's training programme under employment training; be directly relevant to the individual's vocational goal; and agreed as the best method of meeting individual training needs. All other employment training conditions, such as the requirement to complete 30 hours training each week, would continue to apply.

    Claimants not in employment, spring 1988: Great Britain

    Thousand

    (i) Not looked for work in reference week

    (ii) Not looked for work in last four weeks

    (iii) Not available to start work

    (iv) Both (i) and (iii)

    (v) Both (ii) and (iii)

    All persons

    (a) Would like a full-time job

    270

    150

    60

    50

    40

    (b) Would like a part-time job

    110

    70

    30

    20

    20

    (c) No preference

    40

    30

    10

    10

    10

    Men

    (a) Would like a full-time job

    210

    120

    40

    30

    20

    (b) Would like a part-time job

    40

    30

    10

    10

    10

    (c) No preference

    30

    20

    10

    0

    0

    Women

    (a) Would like a full-time job

    60

    30

    20

    10

    10

    246
    Ms. Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether ET trainees may study for O and A-levels as part of their directed training; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Nicholls
    Yes. O-levels or A-levels may help certain trainees to make progress towards their chosen occupation. If so agreed, these qualifications would then be specified as part of directed training within the trainee's action plan.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Nellist
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will estimate from the 1988 labour force survey data(a) the numbers of claimants without paid jobs who wanted full-time jobs, (b) the number who wanted part-time jobs, and (c) the number who had no preference who (i) had not looked for a job in the survey reference week, (ii) had not looked for a job in the last four weeks, (iii) were not available for work within the next two weeks, (iv) (i) and (iii), and (v) (ii) and (iii); and if he will break the estimates down by sex and region;

    (2) if he will estimate, using 1988 labour force survey data, the number of male and female claimants without paid work not required to be capable and available for suitable work in spring 1988, and whose main reason for not seeking work in the survey reference week was (i) looking after family/home, (ii) long-term sick/disabled, (iii) believed no jobs available, (iv) retired, (v) temporarily sick, on holiday, awaiting results of job applications or waiting to start a job already obtained, (vi) did not want/need work, (vii) studying, (viii) not yet started looking, (ix) other reason/no reply/not applicable and (x) all reasons;

    (3) if he will estimate, using 1988 labour force survey data, the numbers of male and female claimants without paid work who were required to be capable and available for suitable work in spring 1988.

    Mr. Nicholls
    The available information is given in the following table. It is not possible to provide a reliable analysis of these figures by region. The requirement to be capable and available for suitable work does not apply to the labour force survey.
    247

    (i) Not looked for work in reference week

    (ii) Not looked for work in last four weeks

    (iii) Not available to start work

    (iv) Both (i) and (iii)

    (v) Both (ii) and (iii)

    (b) Would like a part-time job

    70

    40

    20

    20

    10

    (c) No preference

    20

    10

    10

    0

    0

    Notes:

    Table excludes people who said they would not like a paid job, or would like work as self-employed. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

    Source: Derived with reference to both the claimant count and the 1988 labour force survey.

    Noise and Vibration Inspectors
    Mr. Flannery
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many specialist noise and vibration inspectors are required by the Health and Safety Executive; and how many are currently in post.

    Mr. Nicholls
    Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive's factory, agricultural, quarries, explosives and mines inspectorate are responsible for enforcing legislative provision under which exposure to noise and vibration at work is controlled.

    In addition, the Health and Safety Executive has 11 specialist inspector posts to provide technical support and advice on noise and vibration. Ten inspectors are in post and a new recruit is expected to start shortly.

    Noise Control
    Mr. Flannery
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what penalties, in each case, followed the eight prosecutions in the period 1981 to 1989 relating to the control of noise, referred to in his answer of 26 October 1989,Official Report, columns 598–99.

    Mr. Nicholls
    The following penalties were imposed:

    Health and Safety Executive area

    Year

    Result

    Fine imposed £

    Scotland West

    1981

    Dismissed

    —

    West and North Yorkshire

    1983

    Guilty

    50

    West and North Yorkshire

    1984

    Guilty

    1,000

    Scotland West

    1984

    Guilty1

    —

    East Anglia

    1987–88

    Guilty

    500

    North East

    1987–88

    Guilty

    600

    South Yorkshire and Humberside

    1988–89

    Guilty1

    —

    West and North Yorkshire

    1988–89

    Guilty

    500

    1 Conditional discharge.

    Skills Training Agency, Letchworth
    Mr. Ian Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement about the sale of the Letchworth Skills Training Agency.

    Mr. Eggar
    Further to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House,Official Report, 13 February 1990, column 141, about the sale of the Skills Training Agency (STA), I can announce that we have now accepted a bid from Mr. J. James, an instructor at Letchworth skill centre, for the gas safety training business presently located at one part of the skill centre. Mr. James intends to relocate the business to alternative premises by September 1990.

  SCOTLAND

    Commonwealth Games
    Sir Hector Monro
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has had any discussions with the Scottish Sports Council since the conclusion of the Commonwealth games.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    I met Professor Miguel, chairman of the Scottish Sports Council, informally at the Scotland v. France rugby international on Saturday 17 February at Murrayfield.

    Rents into Mortgages
    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the progress of the rents into mortgages scheme.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Scottish Homes has received approximately 500 inquiries from tenants interested in purchasing their homes under the Government's rents to mortgages scheme.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Eadie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on electricity privatisation as it affects Scotland.

    Mr. Lang
    The new electricity companies, Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric, will begin operating at the end of next month, and their flotation will take place, subject to market conditions, in May or June next year.

    Motorway Crash Barriers
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of motorway in Scotland are without crash barriers.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Only 80 miles are now without central reserve safety barriers. A further 33 miles of safety fencing will be installed this year at a cost of £3·5 million. This demonstrates the high priority we are giving to completing the outstanding work.

    Poinding
    Mr. Harry Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet Scotland's sheriff principals to discuss the poinding of goods by sheriff officers.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    There has been no request for any such meeting.

    Open Skies Policy
    Mr. Michael Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the economic consequences of an open skies policy; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Many of the responses to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport's consultation paper on Scottish lowland airports policy addressed in detail the possible economic effects of an open skies policy. All points have been assessed and are being taken fully into account in the review now being concluded.

    Mr. Allan Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the economic consequences of an open skies policy for Glasgow and Renfrewshire; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Many of the responses to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport's consultation paper on Scottish lowland airports policy addressed in detail the possible economic effects of an open skies policy. All points made have been assessed and are being taken fully into account in the review now being concluded.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Maclennan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Lang
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 7 February to discuss the management of the North sea haddock fishery in 1990.

    European Regional Department Fund
    Mr. Knox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants that Scotland has received from European regional development fund since its inception.

    Mr. Lang
    Awards totalled £857 million between 1975 and 1989. More than 90 per cent. of this came since 1979.

    Toxic Waste
    Mr. Andrew Welsh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from local authorities and environmental groups about the disposal of toxic waste in Scotland.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    A letter from Friends of the Earth (Scotland) was received recently. There have been no other representations during the past six months.

    Local Enterprise Companies
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many consortia bids have been received by groups wishing to run local enterprise companies in Scotland.

    Mr. Lang
    I have received 24 applications from consortia in Scotland wishing to form local enterprise companies.
    250
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the tasks of the training standard advisory services in relation to local enterprise companies; and to whom the former body will be accountable.

    Mr. Lang
    The training standards advisory service, which is at present accountable, through the Training Agency office for Scotland, to the Secretary of State for Employment, will provide advice and an independent assessment of the quality of training provision delivered by each local enterprise company. Under the terms of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill, the training standards advisory service staff in Scotland will become part of Scottish Enterprise, which will be accountable to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will wish to consider in due course how best to make provision for the Highlands and Islands area.

    Health Services (Private Provision)
    Mr. McAvoy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health boards have agreed contracts with private companies for the provision of health services to National Health Service patients.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    Information about the number of contracts between health boards and other providers of health services is not kept centrally.

    Revenue Support Grant
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from rural areas regarding the Government's revenue support grant for 1990–91.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Six district councils in predominantly rural areas have made general representations about the overall level of their revenue support grant for 1990–91. A number of other authorities, some of them in rural areas, have as is usual raised detailed points, particularly in relation to loan charges and non-domestic rate income, on technical matters relating to the calculation of RSG.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the likely level of average community charge payments in Scotland in 1990–91.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Scottish local authorities were required to fix their community charges for 1990–91 by 29 January. The average charge (inclusive of the water charge) is £328, which represents an increase of 9·2 per cent. on the comparable figure for the current year.

    Mr. Stern
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the overall community charge due in the current year throughout Scotland has now been collected; and what percentage of domestic rates was collected in each of the last five years at the same time.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The information requested is not held centrally but it would appear that the general flow of income from community charge payments is broadly the same as under the domestic rating system last year.
    251
    Mr. Ron Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have yet to pay the poll tax in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    While no overall figure is available centrally it would appear that the proportion of people in arrears with their community charge payments is broadly the same as under the rating system last year.

    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the cost to local authorities of the administration and collection of the poll tax in 1989–90; and what was the cost to local authorities of the administration and collection of domestic rates in 1988–89.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The overall cost of administering the community charge system in 1989–90, as estimated by local authorities, is £43·5 million. Community charge collection costs, exclusive of registration work and the operation of the rebate scheme, are estimated to account for £23·3 million of that total.

    The overall cost to authorities of administering the rating system in 1988·89 was £31 million, of which £17·3 million was in respect of rates collection. Separate figures are not available centrally for domestic and non-domestic rates.

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individual pieces of communication have been sent in total by regional and island councils in Scotland to poll tax payers in Scotland since the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 came into operation.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Responsibility for the administration of the community charge is a matter for levying authorities. The number of communications sent to individuals will vary according to the circumstances of particular cases. However the main statutory communications issued by community charge registration officers and directors of finance are:

    1. Inquiry form for completion by responsible person under section 17(5) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended by the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

    2. Notification of entry in community charges register under section 14(2) of the 1987 Act, as amended by the 1988 Act.

    3. Notification of any amendment to or deletion from the community charges register under section 14(5) of the 1987 Act as amended by the 1988 Act.

    4. Demand notice in respect of a person's liability for the community charge, under Schedule 2(2) to the 1987 Act.

    5. Notices in respect of unpaid community charges, under Schedule 2(4) and 2(7) to the 1987 Act.

    Supplementary notices or forms may be issued if the circumstances require this. Additional communications will be sent in the case of people who have applied for community charge rebate.

    Storm Damage
    Mr. Kennedy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce any additional measures he proposes to take to help recompense for the damage caused and the problems associated with recent severe weather conditions; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    I refer the hon. Member to my reply today to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston).
    252
    Mr. Bill Walker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to visit the flood-damaged areas of north Tayside.

    Mr. Rifkind
    I have no plans to visit north Tayside, but my noble Friend the Minister of State toured the worst affected areas on 15 February.

    Scottish Homes
    Mr. McKelvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he takes to ensure the effective management of Scottish Homes.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    My right hon. and learned Friend has set both broad aims and specific targets for Scottish Homes and agreed with the body its first strategic plan. All of these will be reviewed annually to identify, determine priorities and quantify the action which can be taken on specific fronts. In addition, there is in place a comprehensive framework of documents which set out the parameters within which Scottish Homes may operate, where this is required by section 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.

    Responsibility for the effective internal management of Scottish homes rests with the board and with the chief executive as accounting officer.

    Neptune Consortium
    Mr Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's involvement with the Neptune Consortium.

    Mr. Lang
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 26 February 1990, (Official Report, col. 84–85). I would like to clarify one point in that reply. Although the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board informed me about various detailed aspects of the development, including the identity of possible large customers earlier this month, as I informed the hon. Member on 26 February, it had informed me in November 1989 of the possibility that it might wish to involve itself in the development at some future date

    Scotrail
    Mr. Foulkes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the general manager of Scotrail; and what subjects were discussed.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    My right hon. and learned Friend and I discussed various topics relating to rail transport when we met the general manager of Scotrail in the company of the chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, on 31 October 1989.

    CBI
    Mr. Oppenheim
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Confederation of British Industry Scotland; and what matters were discussed.

    Mr. Lang
    I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 20 December 1989.

    Rating (Debt Collection)
    Mr. Dunnachie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of collecting debts due to default on the payment of domestic rates in 1988–89; and what are the current and projected costs for the collection of poll tax debts.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on 15 January.

    Children (Employment)
    Mr. Michael J. Martin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to assist local authorities in their duty to prevent employers from employing schoolchildren in the early hours for several hours per day before they commence school.

    Mr. Lang
    Schoolchildren in employment in Scotland are protected by existing legislaton and by local authority byelaws. Enforcement is, in the first instance, a matter for the police.

    Private Landlords
    Mr. Galloway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to require private sector landlords to reduce bills to tenants to take account of the abolition of domestic rates.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Tenants with registered rents are already paying a rent which contains no element for rates; and assured tenants should have a written statement of their liability for rent, exclusive of rates, which is all they need pay. Any regulated tenant who has not had a rent registered need only do so in order to ensure that the rent does not include rates.

    Acute Services (Lanarkshire)
    Mr. Ingram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received from Lanarkshire health board the report "Acute Services Strategy, Options Appraisal"; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    The board submitted a consultative document on its acute services strategy on 3 November 1989. The public consultation period ended on 31 January 1990. Once the board has reached a final decision on its preferred option, it will make a submission to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for approval in principle.

    Land (Use of Ownership)
    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department has taken to promote the equitable ownership and use of land in Scotland.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    It is not the Government's policy to intervene on matters of land ownership. The function of the land use planning system is to regulate the use of land in the interests of economy, efficiency and amenity.

    Religious Education
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to improve the teaching of Christian-centred religious education in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Lang
    My right hon. and learned Friend expects to issue shortly for consultation a draft circular on religious education in schools.

    Equal Opportunities
    Mr. Norman Hogg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken to implement an equal opportunities policy in his Department.

    Mr. Rifkind
    Since 1984 my Department has had a designated equal opportunities officer who, in addition to other duties, has to co-ordinate policy and advise on all aspects of racial and sexual discrimination. A joint management and trade union group has met regularly to take forward the proposals set out in the programme of action on equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service. Progress has been made on all fronts.

    The amount of part-time working has increased and a much greater use is made of reinstatement. Staff have been advised of progress through office notices and specially prepared leaflets, and training courses and guidance material now give prominence to the anti-discrimination legislation. My Department is currently considering the case for provision of child care facilities and will shortly apply the recent relaxation of Civil Service rules which allow special unpaid leave for domestic reasons to be granted for up to five years.

    Ethnic monitoring of recruitment is undertaken and efforts will continue to increase the ethnic intake to better reflect the proportion in the community. My Department has also undertaken a survey of the ethnic origins of staff as part of the nationwide survey of civil servants. The information is kept up to date by the completion by new entrants to the Department of a questionnaire showing their ethnic origin.

    Legal Reforms
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has conducted into the effect of the proposed legal reforms on rural practices.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 18 January 1990,Official Report, column 418.

    Warrant Sales
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's policy in relation to the use of warrant sales for the recovery of poll tax arrears from domestic poll tax taxpayers.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    My right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that the present powers available to local authorities to collect community charge arrears—including, where necessary, the use of warrant sales—are both adequate and appropriate for this purpose.

    NHS Staff
    Mr. Watson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take to address the wastage of highly trained staff by Greater Glasgow health board, and to provide employment to the nurses who graduated from Glasgow college in November 1989 and the midwives awarded qualifications by the Eastern college of nursing and midwifery in January.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    The number of nurses and midwives completing training in certain areas sometimes exceeds the number of jobs immediately available in the NHS in these areas. This need not imply waste as trained staff are widely required throughout the public and private sectors.

    Applicant households under the Homeless Persons Legislation assessed by Local Authorities as homeless or potentially homeless and in priority need which include a person vulnerable because of old age Scotland, by District, 1978–79 to 1988–89

    District

    1978–79

    1979–80

    1980–81

    1981–82

    1982–83

    1983–84

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    Scotland

    545

    572

    427

    644

    519

    535

    552

    697

    747

    613

    681

    Borders

    Berwickshire

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    1

    1

    1

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    —

    —

    —

    —

    4

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Roxburgh

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    2

    —

    —

    1

    Tweeddale

    6

    4

    5

    5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1—

    1—

    Central

    Clackmannan

    11

    16

    14

    14

    17

    17

    14

    22

    7

    11

    6

    Falkirk

    3

    1

    1

    —

    1

    1

    9

    32

    50

    32

    28

    Stirling

    7

    6

    6

    5

    21

    22

    17

    2

    16

    16

    12

    Dumfries and Galloway

    Annandale and Eskdale

    1

    8

    4

    12

    5

    10

    2

    —

    5

    4

    7

    Nithsdale

    14

    9

    2

    9

    5

    5

    3

    6

    13

    5

    17

    Stewartry

    1

    7

    4

    6

    5

    8

    12

    7

    7

    10

    10

    Wigtown

    5

    2

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    3

    —

    2

    Fife

    Dunfermline

    22

    8

    10

    11

    16

    13

    13

    14

    32

    20

    15

    Kirkcaldy

    13

    4

    4

    11

    3

    6

    8

    16

    14

    17

    23

    North East Fife

    4

    3

    6

    6

    6

    7

    13

    18

    14

    20

    24

    Grampian

    Aberdeen

    21

    13

    10

    19

    22

    25

    31

    62

    34

    39

    63

    Banff and Buchan

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    5

    2

    1

    2

    Gordon

    1

    1

    4

    1

    1

    2

    5

    3

    3

    7

    14

    Kincardine and Deeside

    —

    2

    —

    2

    —

    2

    —

    1

    2

    —

    2

    Moray

    5

    5

    9

    9

    8

    7

    11

    13

    12

    4

    12

    Highland

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Caithness

    —

    2

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Inverness

    6

    12

    5

    18

    13

    24

    13

    9

    9

    7

    7

    Lochaber

    1

    1

    1

    —

    2

    —

    4

    1

    2

    2

    2

    Nairn

    1

    4

    2

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    2

    —

    1

    Ross and Cromarty

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    2

    Skye and Lochalsh

    —

    1

    1

    2

    2

    4

    5

    3

    3

    3

    4

    Sutherland

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Lothian

    East Lothian

    3

    4

    4

    14

    15

    13

    17

    21

    32

    9

    20

    Edinburgh

    24

    30

    31

    23

    26

    18

    25

    32

    57

    38

    52

    Midlothian

    2

    4

    1

    44

    1

    2

    —

    —

    —

    6

    2

    West Lothian

    5

    6

    —

    16

    3

    3

    2

    4

    1

    3

    3

    Strathclyde

    Argyll and Bute

    19

    16

    7

    10

    12

    11

    13

    13

    16

    10

    7

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    2

    5

    5

    1

    Clydebank

    1

    —

    3

    3

    5

    1

    12

    11

    10

    19

    18

    Clydesdale

    9

    8

    1

    3

    3

    —

    —

    3

    4

    13

    7

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    2

    2

    7

    7

    6

    —

    20

    19

    10

    3

    11

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    —

    —

    —

    1

    2

    1

    —

    1

    1

    2

    1

    Homelessness
    Mr. Dewar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a table showing the number of applications to local authorities under the homeless legislation for all cases where the household was deemed to be in priority need because of vulnerability due to old age; and if he will provide this information for every available year since 1977 and for each local authority and for Scotland as a whole.

    Mr. Rifkind
    The homeless persons legislation did not come into effect until 1 April 1978. There are therefore no figures for before that date. The number of applicant households assessed by local authorities as homeless or potentially homeless, and in priority need for reasons which included a person vulnerable because of old age, for the years 1978–79 to 1988–89, are set out in the following table.
    257

    District

    1978–79

    1979–80

    1980–81

    1981–82

    1982–83

    1983–84

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    Cunninghame

    20

    14

    13

    8

    16

    11

    12

    13

    10

    10

    5

    Dumbarton

    5

    16

    13

    5

    11

    5

    15

    23

    26

    28

    24

    East Kilbride

    10

    5

    8

    14

    9

    13

    5

    15

    7

    5

    8

    Eastwood

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Glasgow

    103

    163

    123

    104

    145

    131

    101

    125

    130

    90

    112

    Hamilton

    20

    31

    12

    86

    9

    11

    13

    19

    10

    11

    13

    Inverclyde

    4

    10

    10

    30

    13

    11

    18

    14

    28

    18

    13

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    2

    2

    3

    4

    1

    4

    7

    11

    7

    —

    13

    Kyle and Carrick

    36

    20

    15

    24

    20

    24

    46

    28

    25

    25

    28

    Monklands

    16

    9

    5

    12

    6

    6

    4

    7

    12

    10

    5

    Motherwell

    14

    12

    13

    21

    14

    30

    10

    12

    15

    10

    8

    Renfrew

    53

    34

    7

    8

    9

    20

    8

    17

    7

    13

    4

    Strathkelvin

    5

    12

    23

    32

    15

    16

    9

    5

    13

    7

    13

    Tayside

    Angus

    11

    12

    10

    8

    6

    6

    8

    6

    10

    18

    11

    Dundee

    14

    4

    2

    3

    1

    4

    5

    23

    15

    10

    7

    Perth and Kinross

    30

    34

    23

    35

    33

    26

    34

    53

    55

    46

    34

    Orkney Islands

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    2

    —

    1—

    1—

    Shetland Islands

    3

    6

    —

    —

    2

    2

    2

    1

    5

    2

    2

    Western Isles

    12

    8

    4

    6

    3

    2

    3

    1

    5

    2

    2

    1 Not available.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homeless children there are in(a) Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    This information is not collected centrally.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies have recently been carried out by his Department on higher education students annual and monthly expenditure on(a) accommodation, (b) food, (c) transport and (d) other necessary items in (i) Glasgow, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Scotland.

    Mr. Lang
    No separate Scottish studies have been undertaken, but a survey of students' income and expenditure covering Great Britain as a whole was commissioned in 1989. The results of the study provided benchmark information on the financial position of students during the 1988–89 academic year. The report of the survey, by Research Services Ltd., was published in November 1989 and copies have been placed in the Library.

    Schools (Self-Government)
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any organisations seeking to encourage schools to opt out of the local authority education system have applied for any financial assistance from his Department.

    Mr. Lang
    No.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish a Scottish self-governing schools trust; what meetings have so far been held to this effect; and who has been involved in the discussions.

    Mr. Lang
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans.

    Cash Limits
    Mr. Allan Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make further changes to the cash limits for 1989–90 within his responsibility.

    Mr. Rifkind
    Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVI, vote 27, Hospital and Community Health Services, Scotland, will be increased by £16,237,000 from £8,697,000 to £24,934,000 to take account of increased expenditure by health boards. This increase will be partially offset by savings of £4,500,000 elsewhere within the Scottish block. The balance will be charged to the reserve.

    Training Schemes
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how standards of quality are maintained on the employment training scheme and YTS in Scotland; and what comparable studies he has made of major European competitors in their provision of training.

    Mr. Lang
    The Training Agency ensures standards of quality on employment training and YTS by requiring all employment training training agents and managers and YTS managers to become approved training organisations. In awarding approved training organisation status, the Training Agency verifies the design and delivery of the training as consistent with the aims of employment training and YTS. Furthermore the training standards advisory service provides an independent advisory service which has as its main role to assess the overall quality of training provision and to undertake evaluations of individual projects.

    There is a lack of internationally comparable data on training volumes and expenditure. National surveys have been carried out in most countries, but their coverage and the definitions used often differ widely. The Scottish Office itself has made no study of provision of training in major European countries, but "Training in Britain", a report produced by the Training Agency, does make reference to training in France and Germany. In addition, a study is presently being carried out by the European centre for the

    259
    development of vocational training and the Commission of European Communities to obtain systematic and comparable data of training expenditure at the European level, but results are not yet available.

    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to publish the recent survey of training within the tourism sector undertaken by the Scottish tourist board; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Lang
    No decision has yet been taken. I shall write to the hon. Member.

    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the procedures by which the employment training scheme is monitored by his Department in Scotland.

    Mr. Lang
    The monitoring of employment training in Scotland is undertaken by the Training Agency which is at present part of the Department of Employment. My officials in the Industry Department for Scotland liaise closely with the Training Agency on employment training issues.

    Lothian Health Board
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the terms of his loan to fund Lothian health board's deficit.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    Subject to the approval of Parliament, I am providing additional resources to enable Lothian to meet the overspend of its 1989–90 cash limit. This is a short term measure which will add to the board's cumulative deficit in 1990–91. I have asked the board to prepare proposals designed to bring its underlying income and expenditure into balance in the medium term. In the light of the decisions on the board's proposals I will consider with the board the management of its cumulative deficit.

    Dounreay
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make an announcement concerning the application by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to drill two boreholes at Dounreay.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    This planning application is the subject of an appeal which is currently before my right hon. and learned Friend for decision. I expect that his decision on the matter will be issued shortly.

    Housing
    Mr. Norman Hogg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has received from Councillor Gordon Murray of Cumbernauld concerning housing modernisation and improvements in the Balloch, Ravenswood, Seafar North and Carbrain East areas of Cumbernauld new town; if he will place a copy of his response in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    During my visit to Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council on 16 February, Councillor Murray gave me a letter about the distribution of resources for housing projects within the district. I do 260
    not consider it appropriate for me to place a copy of Councillor Murray's letter in the Library, or a copy of the reply.

    Mr. Norman Hogg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria his Department applies to district councils seeking grants for housing modernisation and improvements; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The Scottish Development Department does not give grants to district councils for this purpose. Capital allocations for local authorities' housing capital programmes are determined each year, within the aggregate public expenditure resources that can be made available, on the basis of the relative needs of individual authorities.

    Mr. Norman Hogg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent advice his Department has given to district councils on the allocation of grants for having modernisation and improvements; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The Scottish Development Department issued a circular to local authorities on 16 January advising them of an amendment to the scheme of assistance for eligible owners of houses designed as defective under part XIV of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The Department also issued a circular on 14 June 1989 concerning the preparation of housing plans by authorities and the relationship of these to capital programmes.

    Radon Gas
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on levels of radon gas in the Aberdeen area.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Measurements of radon gas levels in homes in the Grampian region have been carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The average value found in a representative sample is 16 Bq m-3 (becquerel per cubic metre of air). In Aberdeen city and in parts of Kincardine and Deeside district, additional measurements were made. The average for Aberdeen city is 18 Bq m-3 and the average for Kincardine and Deeside is 105 Bq m-3. These values are to be compared with the average for the whole of the United Kingdom of about 20 Bq m-3. The NRPB estimates that between 0·3 per cent. and 1·0 per cent. of homes in the Grampian region will exceed the new action level of 200 Bq m-3 advised by the NRPB.

    The NRPB, on behalf of the Scottish Office, is carrying out further measurements in those areas where high levels have been discovered. These measurements are expected to be completed by the end of the year. In the meantime, the Government will continue to offer free radon measurements by the NRPB, available on demand to any householder in an area with potential for high radon levels. Also, grants continue to be available, through the present improvement grant system for any remedial action which may be necessary.

    Innerclyde Enterprise Zone
    Mr. Clay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library an explanatory note and any other relevant documents setting out the terms on which the Commission of the European Communities approved the designation of the Inverclyde enterprise zone.

    Mr. Lang
    [holding answer 27 February 1990]: In accordance with usual procedures, the Government's
    262
    intention to create a new enterprise zone in Inverclyde and the European Commission's decision to raise no objection to the proposed measure were dealt with in an exchange of letters between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Commission of the European Communities. It is not normal practice to publish such correspondence. The Commission's approval was subject to the standard terms and conditions regarding observance of the Community rules and regulations applicable to such measures.

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

The Kurdish People: Welfare
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to support the interests of the Kurdish people.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we take a close interest in the welfare of the Kurdish people. We shall continue to monitor their treatment and to make clear our concern for their rights within existing international boundaries.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. However, is he aware that there is now clear scientific evidence that Kurdish refugees from Iraq have been poisoned by chemical warfare agents? Can he say what representations the Government have made to the Iraqi Government, either unilaterally or through the EC Middle East Working Party, about those outrages? Can the Minister also say how many Kurds from Iran, Iraq and Turkey have asked for asylum in this country; how many have been granted asylum; and how many have been refused it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we utterly condemn the use of chemical warfare. We played a leading role in the drafting of UN Resolution 612 which followed the barbaric acts at Halabja. The poisoning to which the noble Baroness referred was the subject of an article in the Lancet, which I have seen. The tests do not show any consistent evidence of the poisoning of bread supplies. Therefore we cannot condemn Iraq on the basis of unsubstantiated evidence. However, we have made clear on numerous occasions, both unilaterally and through other channels, our detestation of Iraq's record of abuses of human rights.
So far as concerns the granting of asylum to Kurds in this country, we are fully committed to the United Nations 1951 refugee convention and its protocol. There is no question of turning away any genuine refugees. I am afraid that I do not have the figures which the noble Baroness requested in terms of the specific numbers from each of the three countries concerned. I shall try to find the answer and let the noble Baroness know.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, further to my noble friend's supplementary question, is the noble Lord prepared to go further and say that the evidence is clear that the treatment of the Kurdish people is one of the tragedies and atrocities of this century, and that tens of thousands of Kurds have
730
been persecuted, tortured and killed in Iran, Iraq and Turkey? Will he say what is the Government's response to the evidence from Amnesty International and other sources that Kurdish refugees are being returned to Turkey without screening or any processing of their applications for asylum, with dire consequences for them? Can he also say exactly what happened in the case of the four Turkish Kurds who sought asylum at Manchester airport on 20th June? Was that case referred to the Home Office? What happened to those Kurds?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, naturally we are concerned at the treatment of Kurds in all of the countries to which the noble Lord referred. We have made strong representations in all cases. I am not aware of the incident at Manchester airport which he mentioned. I shall try to find the answer and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is true, as Kurds claim, that they are discriminated against in Turkey itself? For example, is it true that they receive less pay for serving in the army than Turkish troops for doing exactly the same job?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure about the specific example given by my noble friend. However, there is no doubt that the Turks do not allow Kurds to use their own language. The Turks must be fully aware of their obligations under the concluding document of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. I understand that the subject is under discussion in Turkish political circles. We should let those discussions take their course and hope for a favourable result.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Government confirm that while they refused to see the Dalai Lama, apparently in the hope of appeasing China, they have received the Health Minister of Iraq without any protest whatsoever:
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, we have made clear our attitude to Iraq's abuses of human rights. We continue to trade with Iraq. I am not sure what was the purpose of the Health Minister's visit, but I am sure that it is not a good idea to cut off Iraq completely. It is better to maintain dialogue.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, despite Turkey's far from perfect record on the treatment of the Kurdish people, can the Minister confirm that Turkey has been under a particularly heavy burden in the form of refugees from the greater inhumanities of Iraq? Can he say what our Government have done regarding financial help in order to ease the position and make the Turks give better treatment to those very unfortunate refugees?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. We are pleased that the Turkish Government have provided humanitarian assistance both to the Kurdish and the Bulgarian refugees who have come into Turkey. The Government have donated a total of £800,000 of aid towards those causes.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the treatment of the Kurds in Iraq has amounted to an extremely serious case of genocide and, in Turkey, is a blatant violation of the Lausanne Treaty to which Britain was a principal signatory? If so, will the Government initiate appropriate action?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the United Kingdom and other Western countries took the lead in co-sponsoring a firm and unambiguous resolution on Iraq at the last meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Naturally, we are disappointed that an Iraqi procedural motion meant that the resolution was blocked. Iraq is in no doubt about our concern over human rights abuse. We shall continue to pursue the issue bilaterally and in international fora, including the EC. Ambassadors in Baghdad made a collective protest to the Iraqi authorities last June.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, will the noble Lord comment on the situation in Turkey to which I referred? The treatment of the Kurds there violates the Lausanne Treaty.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we expect the Turkish Government to treat all their citizens with due regard to the terms of the relevant international conventions to which Turkey is a party.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not wish to appear ungrateful to the Minister. However, does he think that £800,000 is enough for the many thousands of refugees who have poured in? A sum of £800,000 will hardly re-roof this palace. Does he consider that sum to be generous?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, I consider it a generous contribution from one country. We are not the only people who should be expected to contribute to such funds. If everyone else contributed £800,000, it would add up to a good deal.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister say whether Britain's exports to Iraq have risen in the past year? If so, does he agree that that is hardly a way to express condemnation of the human rights violations of a country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that we have condemned Iraq's human rights abuses unambiguously and on many different occasions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the treatment of the Kurds is against the teaching of the Koran, will the noble Lord say whether any protests have been made to him or to his right honourable friend by the Moslem community in Great Britain?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have not heard of any.

Engineering Industry: Support for Training
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps have been taken to ensure continuing support from the European Social Fund for engineering industry training, and with what success.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, we have written to the European Commission asking that the successor bodies to industry training boards, including that for the engineering industry, be allowed to continue applying to the European Social Fund on the same basis as the existing boards. We are awaiting the Commission's response.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, is there not a problem that we may not be able to qualify for European Social Fund money if we abandon, as is the intention, the grant and levy system which we have at present? I understand that one of the qualifying bases for obtaining European Social Fund money is that there must be an input of public funds and the grant and levy system qualified in that regard.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness will no doubt be aware that the levy system allows for exemptions and that is does at present qualify for European Social Fund money. The clarification that we seek concerns the situation under the new regime and we shall have to await the response.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the Minister go a little further and agree that it would be highly damaging to this country's interests if the Government's decision to convert the Engineering Industry Training Board into a non-statutory organisation were to result in any reduction in the financial support that we receive from the European Social Fund?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords, but it is up to the European Social Fund to decide exactly how much money should be handed out to all the people who would like money from the fund. Generally speaking, the amount of money that is received from the European Social Fund as a proportion of the total amount of money that is spent on training in the engineering industry is very small. A couple of years ago the figures were some £5 million from the ESF compared with over £2 billion spent by the rest of the industry.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that funds from the European Social Fund must be matched by either an equivalent or a percentage sum and that the source is irrelevant? It need not be the Government; it could be a private source. If the engineering training board was a private statutory company, it could match the resources.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is only partly right. I understand that the rules require that the funding must be matched by public sector finance. However, there is some discussion as to what exactly "public sector finance" means. We are trying to show that, whether it is a privately led organisation or one which is totally subsidised by taxpayers' money, the industry training board should still receive social fund money.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, why is the Minister so equivocal? Is there not simply a conflict here resulting from the doctrinaire approach to training adopted in this country about which many of us have commented? What will happen if the noble Lord does not receive the reply that he expects from the European Commission?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord has got it quite wrong. We are not being at all doctrinaire; we are being exactly the opposite. We are moving away from a statutory organisation to one which is far freer and market-led by the industry. That is not a doctrinaire approach. We hope to receive a response from the Commission fairly soon and we shall have to review the situation at that stage.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is just as much a doctrine to believe in the free market—a doctrine which I happen to share with him—as it is to believe in public ownership? It is not a matter of being doctrinaire. One is not only doctrinaire because one believes in socialist doctrines. There are other, better doctrines, in which we all believe.
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. I shall not quarrel with the noble Baroness over semantics.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is there any question of money not coming from Europe if the engineering industry does not have as many training places for women as it has for men?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the engineering industry is totally non-discriminatory. I am sure that it will continue to support women in the engineering industry as much as it has done in the past.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that unless there is a substantial increase in the training of apprentices in the engineering industry in this country up to something like it was a decade ago, we shall be in no position to take advantage of the single market that will be in existence from 1992? Bearing that in mind, if we do not get the funds from Europe, will the Government look at this matter as one of urgency and themselves provide funds or more money toward that end?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is precisely because training provision has failed over several decades that we have elected to go into the new regime. We have had in this House many debates on training and we believe that in future in the 1990s training provision in this country will be far better than it has ever been before.

Scottish Electricity Privatisation
2.50 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the vesting date or dates of the Scottish electricity generating companies.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, the Government have decided that the Scottish successor companies will begin operating on 31st March 1990, when they inherit the assets and liabilities of the two Scottish electricity boards.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but can he now tell the House why the Scottish generating boards which apparently previously were at the top of the sell-off queue now find themselves at the bottom?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I seem to recall that on previous occasions on other issues we have occasionally been called guinea-pigs and sometimes that name can be applied to certain Bills which come before your Lordships' House. In this case it may well be that we are not a guinea-pig. What does matter and what is important is that the whole industry in Great Britain will be floated within a period of six months and within the lifetime of this Parliament. Perhaps I should add that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has still to announce the details so far as concerns England and Wales.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, can the Minister say what the logic is of putting at the end of the queue the privatisation of the Scottish electricity industry when it is a relatively simple operation of two integrated companies compared with the complicated business of the whole industry south of the Border? Has he seen the comment of the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board who said that early birds get the best investment opportunities? There is a limited amount of investment available in the industry. Why should the Scottish one be relegated to the end of the queue?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am sure that with the noble Lord's undoubted knowledge of the market place he would rather make haste slowly and get the thing right. I am encouraged by the remarks of Mr. Donald Miller yesterday as regards the flotation of his company and also the North board.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, are we to understand that noble Lords opposite have now been converted to privatisation and want it to be hurried on as fast as possible?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I do not think that I need answer that particular comment except to say that it is encouraging to find support for privatisation from all sections of this House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, would the Minister care to explain to his noble friend Lord Lauderdale that our opposition to privatisation is much more consistent than his? We have constantly voted against the Government's measures for privatisation whereas the noble Earl has not done so. Given that the Secretary of State for Energy has 47 advisers in respect of the privatisation of the electricity industry in England and Wales, including one personal public relations adviser, paid by the taxpayer, can the Minister say how many advisers the Secretary of State for Scotland has, and does he also have a personal public relations adviser?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, north of the Border we are always very careful to have the right advice from the smallest number of people who have knowledge of the situation. If I may say so, I am well aware of my noble friend's views on electricity privatisation and welcome the healthy debate that we had when the Bill passed through this House.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister say what effect if any the separation of nuclear power from the Scottish electricity boards has had on the privatisation programme and indeed on their prospectuses?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, first of all I should say that what is most important as regards the nuclear situation in Scotland is the price that will be paid by Scottish Power and Hydro Electricity. The price set in the supply contract to those two new companies will take full account of our commitment that tariffs should not rise in real terms as a result of the new industry arrangements. I have to say that good progress is being made on these matters.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, now that the Minister has given an indication of the sell-off date, can he tell the House when the licensing document is likely to be issued? I ask not as a supporter of the sell-off, as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, seems to think I am, although I am a well known opponent, but rather I am concerned about the consumers of electricity in Scotland and about the workforces of the two generating boards.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I know of the noble Lord's very distinguished chairmanship of the Hydro Electric Board and his knowledge. He made it very clear during the passage of the Bill. However, I was very glad to hear that he supported the idea of two privatised companies rather than one in Scotland. In answer to his question about licences, they will be published very shortly.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the privatised board which will succeed the Hydro Board will have an obligation to provide electricity supplies to people in the Highlands where the obligation is more social than economic?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as to the tariff, the noble Lord knows very well that there is an equality so far as the Hydro Board is concerned.
736
Only a tiny number of existing dwellings remain unconnected, generally where costs are grossly uneconomic. The costs of connection to new dwellings need to be met by the individual consumer if he deems it economic. We believe that it is unfair for such costs to fall on the wider body of consumers. However, the noble Lord knows that we have come a very long way in bringing electricity up the most difficult glens and over the most difficult countryside there is in the United Kingdom.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do I take it that the answer is no, that they will not supply to remote areas whether or not it is deemed economic?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, so far as each individual case is concerned it is considered on its merits and so far as possible help is given. But at the end of the day the individual consumer will have to bear the cost.

The Community Charge and Private Tenants
2.58 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will state, in respect of the tenants of privately rented housing accomodation for which they are now paying landlords a gross rental including local authority rates, what enforceable rights they have on becoming individually liable for the community charge to secure a reduction of their rents commensurate with the rates for which their landlords will no longer be responsible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords tenants' rights will depend on the type and terms of their agreements but most tenants paying rate-inclusive rents can secure a rent reduction following abolition of domestic rates. A substantial majority are still covered by the Rent Act and can have a fair rent registered which will be exclusive of rates.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, with great respect, that does not answer the kernel of my Question. Will all tenants be free from being cheated by landlords to whom they now pay rates in with their rent and will they have to continue to pay rates to the landlord as well as the poll tax to the local authority? Will that be regarded as criminal behaviour on the part of those landlords? Can we have a straight answer and not one about publications? Can we have a yes or no on behalf of the millions of people who are so threatened?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord refers to the position of licensees. That is a figure which we approximate at some 100,000 people. I should point out that in the current and existing circumstances, if there were legislation which did what he asks the Government to do, the landlord could still be in a position immediately to raise the rent back to the figure that it was previously. The assumptions of rateable value and rates would not change so far as the licensee was concerned.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many employees who occupy tied cottages for which the employers pay the rates? The employees' wages are commensurate with the benefits of those who live in tied cottages. On that basis, will my noble friend give any indication or assurance of what the Government may be able to do to encourage those responsible for negotiating wage structures for people living in tied cottages, in particular agricultural workers, clergy, firemen, police and so on, so that their wages will take into account the poll tax to be met rather than the employer having the benefit of not having to pay rates? Some measure in this direction will be most necessary.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, by its very definition, the relationship between an employer and an employee as implied by a tied cottage makes it very different from any other form of residence. There are varying forms of tied cottage. There are arrangements whereby sometimes the tenant pays the rates, in which case the tenant would be a beneficiary under the new system in one sense and could lose in another. Because there are different forms of tenancy of tied cottages most employers who I have come across in this situation are arranging a system whereby they finish up with a net effect that is the same as before. However, if the owner of the tied cottage does not wish to equalise the matters as they were his employee will be more than able to say, "In that case I do not wish to continue in your employment".
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when dealing with this subject last week in another place the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that the Secretary of State for the Environment would be making a leaflet available with points of guidance in it in order for the tenant to be able to protect himself from a landlord who may exploit the situation? Will the Minister urge the Secretary of State to make these leaflets available as a matter of urgency in view of the track record of some landlords?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct in attributing the remarks to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The leaflet is about to go out. However, better than that, on the bottom of the form of every bill that goes out with the community charge notification will draw the bill payer's attention to the fact that he can receive guidance from the Department of the Environment on this point.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that we now have the experience of Scotland for the past 12 months to guide us on the way in which landlords will or will not treat their tenants? Will the Minister confirm that it has been estimated by reputable sources that at least £40 million has been garnered by unscrupulous landlords who have failed to act as the Minister and his colleagues would wish them to do? Bearing in mind that for England the estimate has been that in excess of £90 million will be lost, will the Minister
738
demonstrate the same urgency in threatening recalcitrant landlords as he seems to in looking after the interests of other people—for instance, those landords who may have the poorest of the poor as tenants and those who have two homes on which to pay the community charge?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is my understanding that the figure of £40 million to which the noble Lord refers was based on an assumption that all private tenants paid their rates with their rent to landlords in Scotland. The fact of the matter is that 40 per cent. of tenants in Scotland pay their rates directly to the local authority. The figure has to be treated with a certain amount of care.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a very special problem here for students? This year not only will they lose their housing benefit but on 1st April every student in the country will be liable to pay from £50 to £100 as their share of the poll tax. Will he make it absolutely clear that after 1st April no student in lodgings need pay that element in his rent which is attributable to rates?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is important to remember that we made a great reduction for students when we introduced the legislation.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the taking advantage of tenants by landlords who are paying no attention whatever to the change from rates to the community charge is very bad indeed and that the leaflet and its attendant publicity are the best help yet?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is important to remember that the vast majority of tenants are protected by law. If they go to court and are successful, the courts will not enforce that part of the rent which they believe was represented by the rates.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister recall that we have already had instructions in a DSS leaflet, document, paper (whatever one calls it) issued in January 1990 to local authority associations? That document stated that it is highly unlikely on the basis of the experience in Scotland last year that landlords will reduce charges to take account of the abolition of rates. That is the Government's advice which was given in their own document in January this year.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one further question. Have the Government made any estimates of the effects on housing benefit of this landlord racket, as it was called? From the experience of Scotland it will cost £7·5 million extra in housing benefit. How much extra in housing benefit will it cost in England?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have the figure with me today. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that he sounded uncharacteristically unkind about those who live in tied cottages? Very often they are the people who especially deserve extra consideration. Will he not go back to his office and return with a kinder attitude than he has shown this afternoon, which is quite out of character with what we usually receive from him?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope that I have not given that impression. I have considerable experience of tied cottages and am very sensitive to the problems that are involved. That is very far from what I hope my answer indicated. I was trying to indicate to my noble friend that it is a separate question, because there are, as they say, many horses for many courses in the different ways that agreements have been reached in the past.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for a moment and point out to noble Lords that we have been on Questions for 31 minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has been trying to intervene. I suggest that it might be appropriate if he asked his question and then we passed to the next business.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the leaflet to which the noble Lord referred was promised in this House when we raised the issue on the legislation passing the poll tax. At that time it was promised that the leaflet would be ready and would go out with the poll tax demands. Will the noble Lord give an assurance that that leaflet drawing tenants' rights to their attention will be distributed with the poll tax demands?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is not possible to distribute the leaflet with the poll tax demands. The leaflet has to go out before the demands. However, as I said earlier, there is a clear statement on the bill that goes out drawing the payer's attention to what guidance he can get.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister saying that tenants of private landlords who have to pay rates have also to pay the poll tax?
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whether the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, puts his question, or indeed is able to put his question, is a matter for the House. I rather interpreted the view of the House that your Lordships wished to move on.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's short debates standing
740
in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 12 minutes. In that of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit. But I know that your Lordships will be confident that noble Lords will keep their speeches within limits compatible with the spirit of these short debates.

European Parliament Electoral Reform Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to reform the law on elections to the European Parliament; to base the electoral system for such elections on proportional representation; to unify the electoral systems of Northern Ireland and Great Britain for the purposes of such elections; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bonham-Carter.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Higher Education
3.11 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan rose to call attention to the case for a policy for higher education; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, today I am asking the Government what their policy is on higher education because no one in the universities, polytechnics and colleges appears to know.
The Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary responsible for higher education are too young to have been required to undertake military service. Mr. Baker undertook military service but, as he became an instructor in the Libyan army in gunnery, he may have forgotten one of the lessons that the army teaches its officers. It is this: always tell the troops you command—whether they are in a platoon or, as in the case of Lord Montgomery, an army group—what your plan is; what your intentions are; where you expect to go; what hardships there are on the way which must be endured; and why that is the best way to reach your objective.
At the beginning of the 1980s everyone knew what the Government's policy was. They were determined to cut public expenditure and as a result 450 dons were retired early. But when Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was, became Secretary of State, the tone of faint regret turned into a snarl. He waved Mr. Corelli Barnett's book in the faces of his officials and told the universities that they were idle, teaching the wrong subjects and doing little to make Britain more prosperous. So tenure was abolished and universities were forbidden to take more students. Academic

741
salaries were cut in real terms, presumably in order to make teaching in higher education less attractive and to drive graduates into other occupations. Is that now the policy of the Government?
They may well have in mind two reports written in the 1960s by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, in which he pointed out that the universities had Peloponesian habits; like Pelops they ate their own children. In those days 50 per cent. of graduates in physics went into universities or into teaching following academic careers and only 10 per cent. went into industry. But that can hardly apply today.
No one, certainly no former vice-chancellor, can have criticised more than I the failure of universities and polytechnics to respond in the 1960s and early 1970s to Government's hints and nudges. In those days, when money was still pouring into higher education, the slightest check to the flow brought moans that morale was shaken and the rate of the brain drain was alarming.
But today morale in higher education really is at rock bottom and the brain drain is not an illusion. Dons are not ready to accept Mr. Jackson's blithe reassurance that as many members of staff are draining back to our universities as are draining away to America and elsewhere. The dons are not reassured because the count neglects the quality and age of those leaving compared with those who are returning.
I believe that the Government's policy is to give top priority to the teaching and training of 16 year-olds. If that is so, why not tell the universities and polytechnics that funds must go first to JTS, YTS, ET and now BGT? There are so many schemes that they now resemble alphabet soup. But can the Secretary of State encourage universities and polytechnics by saying, "Yes, this effort has top priority but I have extra funds for the work so you will not suffer"? How many of those schemes are financed from the votes of the Departments of Employment and Trade and Industry? Should not the college have top priority? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the colleges are providing sufficient full-time courses leading to the higher national diplomas as well as for diplomas and certificates for part-time students? Or does he envisage the polytechnics increasing their share of such
The Government are being urged to reward the polytechnics for the admirable way in which they have accepted many more students with hardly any increase in staff. Naturally, polytechnics and their advocates—such as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford—have argued that they wish them to be funded on the same level as universities.
On that issue my mind goes back to 1962. I then urged that the colleges of advanced technology (CATs) should be upgraded to universities. I thought that technology should be given the same status as pure science and that we needed to encourage the new universities to follow the example of the CATs and introduce sandwich-course degrees.
Following the Robbins Report the CATs were upgraded. What happened? Not a single university introduced sandwich courses, the CATs dropped
742
their diploma work and their costs escalated enormously without a single additional student being educated.
We must have some cheap higher education. Do not let the ship which is carrying all the additional students—who last night we said were so important to our economy—run aground on the rock of parity of esteem. Have the Government considered giving encouragement to the polytechnics now that they are admirably undertaking the work for which they were set up; that is, the national diploma and the three-year degree courses? Have the Government considered giving the polytechnics priority over universities in the DES capital programme? If so, are they prepared to tell the universities and the polytechnics that that is their
The universities deserve recognition for the way in which they have changed during the past decade. They have at last responded to government requests that they should introduce more vocational studies. How do the Government intend to finance universities? The last Secretary of State appeared to have worked on the dubious principle of "pull devil, pull Baker". In other words, he set up as chairman of the new Universities Funding Council the noble Lord, Lord Chilver. The noble Lord seems to believe that all should be left to market forces, whereas the head executive of that body, Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, is a convinved dirigiste. Are the Government expecting that student demand will determine which universities will flourish and which will be left to wither? Will students be allowed to take their fees with them and study what they will, where they will? Are universities to do as was forecast; to bid against each other for students? Will the university prepared to take more students at the lowest cost be the one favoured by the
I hope that in her reply to the debate the noble Baroness will not shelter behind the existence of the UFC. I am sure that she will not. I understand that these days the vice-chancellors are in and out of the Secretary of State's office almost every month. The Government must have a policy towards universities. What is it? Perhaps the noble Baroness can reassure some of us by announcing that market forces and student choice are not regarded as being the best ways in which to finance universities. If vouchers come in, the numbers opting for science and engineering will inevitably decline. If universities are to operate on trends, then what they are famous for—scholarship and learning—will perish.
Is it the policy of the UFC to fund research in universities according to the results of the inquiries into the excellence of departments which have been made in past years, at great inconvenience, no doubt, to universities? Of course, many dons have sneered and protested at the methods of those inquiries in determining excellence. However, numbers of dispassionate observers believe that by and large the inquiries got it right. Can we now assume that the half dozen or so institutions will receive preferential treatment in research allocations but that outstanding departments in other universities will receive an indicated increment for research in the UFC grant? You cannot have 50 Caltechs or

743
Berkeleys in Britain, and if you try to do so, you will end by having none.
However, I must ask: do the Government value Nobel prizemen? I must ask that because now the cliché seems to be gaining ground in government circles that such research is self-indulgence and that only vocational research matters. If the Government want an example of what a powerful scientific mind can bring to bear on a problem, let them read the devastating speech made last night by the noble Lord, Lord Swann. He exposed the phoney reasoning in the White Paper which was attempting to make a numerical assessment of the so-called social rate of return of university studies.
Why do the Government so often give the impression that they despise the humanities? The national heritage is not just country houses and works of art. It is also our literature and cultural traditions. As a historian, I am old-fashioned enough to believe that history teaches us not only how society works but also statesmanship. The humanities teach us how to distinguish between merit and the meretricious. Perhaps that is why governments are not too keen on the humanities.
I have spent a good part of my life most unsuccessfully trying to persuade universities to change their ways. I know how dispiriting that is. Therefore, I have more sympathy with Ministers from both Front Benches than have most academics. Whatever change is proposed, an outcry follows. Last night the outcry was on loans. In 1967, two years after I entered your Lordships' House, the subject of outcry was the introduction of a differential between overseas students and home students made by Mr. Tony Crossland. The howl that went up then was at least the equal of what happened last night.
I must finish by reverting to my theme and my military metaphor. Ten years ago the universities and polytechnics were fed hard rations and put on the square to be drilled, chivvied and shouted at by Mr. Robert Jackson who was promoted to the rank of regimental sergeant major. The time has now come to replace the RSM on the square by the commanding officer.
The new Secretary of State has the advantage of being a Scot and therefore prejudiced in favour of education. Could he not meet the directors of the polytechnics and then the vice-chancellors and tell them what is his strategy and listen to their comments? I know that in all good faith last night the Paymaster General told us that the Secretary of State had consulted the vice-chancellors about the scheme. I have had an opportunity of looking at the correspondence. It seems that what happened was that in January the Secretary of State wrote to the universities and asked them for their views on the loan scheme. The universities then replied. In a letter dated 3rd March 1989 they said that they had other ideas in mind, one of which was the graduate tax. It was to that letter that they never received any response so I am informed. Of course, I am not for one moment suggesting that the Paymaster General was in any way trying to delude the House on this
744
matter but it is precisely on that kind of issue that I really believe that the Government could improve their record.
The Government have a political philosophy and principles. However, that is really only one reason why they come into conflict with the universities. Could the Government not try to help and inform those in higher education? Could they not put the men and women who are in higher education in the picture? I use a World War II expression. You will not make them happy. Times are far too hard. You are asking them to change their ways and to take more students. You are having to curtail the activities on which they like to spend their time such as research and learning. However, you have to convince them that that is right. If you try, you may perhaps win their respect. At the moment, you have lost it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Prior: My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, but I do so with a good deal of trepidation because he has a lifetime of experience in higher education and particularly university education and I have practically none. When I was up at Cambridge I believe that the noble Lord was a tutor at King's. At that time one of his pupils was Mr. Simon Raven, the novelist. He and I have shared an interest of one sort or another in Mr. Simon Raven and his writing ever since. Sometimes we have wished to disown him, but on other occasions we have perhaps been quite proud of what he has said.
One thing I know is that anybody like myself taking part in a debate of this nature is bound to be shown up for his lack of knowledge because this is a veritable minefield and the more that one delves into it, the more difficult it becomes to decipher. Therefore I shall spend a few moments saying something from the point of view of an industrialist and how I look at higher education in that regard.
I do that because the Council for Industry and Higher Education was set up somewhat at my instigation after I left government some five years ago. It seemed to me all the time that I was in government—and it certainly seemed to me with my interest in industry—that there was a very considerable gulf between what industry thought about higher education and what higher education thought about industry. In a very quiet and economic way the council has tried to examine the points of view of both and to try, wherever possible, to bring both closer to each other.
The purpose of the Council for Industry and Higher Education is based on the identification and acceptance of common objectives for developing higher education so as to produce a more highly and broadly educated nation—and from what the noble Lord said, that must of course include humanities—and one which is able to compete with the most successful and advanced industrial economies.
The fact that we have had two debates on successive days on higher education should not be thought of as a mere quirk of the parliamentary

745
timetable so much as an intense interest and concern about what is happening and needs to happen. I know that the noble Lord has some sympathy for Ministers. I only pity my noble friend who has to reply to the question which the noble Lord asked. Thank goodness I am no longer a Minister!
Although there is no evidence from the past to support the view that more higher education leads to more economic growth—over the past few years one could perhaps make out that the contrary has happened—most people believe that educated and highly educated people are the key to success in the market place of the future.
The Council for Industry and Higher Education, which consists of a majority of fairly tough industrialists, put forward a strategy to change our higher education system from one geared to a small minority to a more open system which will bring many more people to a higher general level of education than they now attain. It also stated that larger numbers, more widely recruited, were needed with a diversity of learning opportunities at different stages in their lives, and a broader education balanced towards maths and technology as a foundation for later specialisation. It should not be entirely maths and science based because industry requires people who are well educated and able to think for themselves rather than simply having specialist knowledge. There is therefore a need for those people.
Playing the numbers game for a moment, the latest figures show that there will be a growth in employment of around 7 per cent. in the years up to 1995, but a growth in the need for graduates of 17·5 per cent. Graduates will therefore be needed. The Government suggested a doubling of numbers in 25 years; having suggested that, they started to edge away from it, but at least they made the suggestion and should be kept to that rather minimum undertaking.
That growth has to happen against a falling supply, so we need to attract into higher education those who are less qualified academically and those from different social classes than the majority come from at the moment. It is a fact that social groups 3 to 5—if one can define them—are apparently 68 per cent. of the population, but only 7·5 per cent. of them qualify for higher education. There is therefore something definitely wrong there.
We need to attract more part-timers, more older people and more people from the ethnic minorities. How do we do that? We need to change the culture—this is where Parliament and the Government come in—to make higher education for us and not just for them. A house, a car and a college education must become the natural aspiration of all people. We must move from an elite to a mass system, though I do not doubt that there will always be some elite, and I certainly think that there should be.
That means pupils staying on at school after 16. Incidentally, there is a great improvement in that regard, and that is helpful. It means there must be courses relevant to the life and work of the people we wish to attract to them. We need to attract women
746
and mature students and also those who qualify by vocational routes. With regard to women, if, by the year 2000, we could equal the number of women obtaining two or more A-levels—which at present happens in Scotland—we could add a quarter to the total number of people in England and Wales going on to higher education. That speaks well for the Scottish system and for women within the Scottish system who are actually at the top of the whole system, as no doubt my noble friend. Lady Carnegy of Lour will point out. Through a whole range of access courses we could improve the uptake of people attending polytechnics and universities.
The system also needs—and this is where I part company from the noble Lord—to be more customer-orientated. In the past it has been too producer-orientated and some change towards what the customer requires is needed. It has been happening, but needs to go further.
How will we pay for all this? It is very important not to fudge that particular issue. I simply do not believe that any government of any party will ever find the money required to expand the university and higher education system, as much as many of us believe is necessary, entirely from the taxpayer without other sources of money becoming available. That is just a con on the public to believe that that is likely to happen. It has not happened in the past and I do not believe it will happen in the future.
How will we bridge the gap that there is bound to be? There is still room for greater efficiency in the system, though as the noble Lord pointed out there has been considerable improvement in the past 10 years and in some respects perhaps the squeeze has gone too far. There will certainly be a need for some extra government money; the polytechnics in particular will require some new capital investment.
Yesterday we discussed student loans. I see no alternative but to encourage student loans, and I think they have an important part to play. There may also perhaps need to be some switch from block grants to fees so that students can obtain more money from local authorities and rely less on central government. That has the great advantage that it would be demand-led in technical Treasury terms and perhaps not be so objectionable as otherwise it might be. We need new methods of teaching. We will need to make much better use of distance learning than we have so far.
Industry can help, but it will need the assurance that it is not just there to fill a hole which the Government make in advance. Industry wants to feel that it is putting additional money into the system and not substituting money for that which the Government would otherwise put in. In this regard the professions and the City should be encouraged to do a great deal more. Professions and businesses—the commercial sector—are now taking more graduates than the whole of industry, yet they contribute practically nothing towards the cost. There is a great deal more to be done there and I hope the Secretary of State puts a lot more pressure on the City and the professions to play a larger part.
There is perhaps room for more research money; but basically the Government have preserved the

747
research element going to higher education reasonably well. There is also the problem of morale. In politics one becomes used to people telling one that morale in a certain organisation is bad. In my political life I have rarely known morale in any organisation to be particularly good. However, I think morale is bad at the moment, particularly in the universities. We have to recognise that. I am not certain that remarks made yesterday by Mr. Morgan of the Institute of Directors were designed to improve matters very much. I do not think one can blame the establishment, the university establishments and the Bishop of Peterborough for everything that has gone wrong over the past 20 years.
There is a strong case for more and better higher education, but it requires the co-operation and understanding of us all if we are to have the improvement we need. Some of the good will that exists between industry and higher education must help to mend the breaches and promote the keen, able and dedicated to get on with their job.
I conclude by saying to all noble Lords that I have enormous confidence in the Secretary of State. He is a sound, sensible Scot. If he is not listening or has not listened in the past, I am certain that from now on he will listen. He is the type of man who wants to steady the whole system and build confidence back into it. For those reasons I wish him every possible success.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him a question; I did not want to interrupt him during the course of his speech. Did I hear him aright that his ambition is that every person in this country should have a house, education and a car? I stress "and a car". If I am right has he spoken to the Secretary of State for the Environment about the effect that that is likely to have on the environment?
Lord Prior: My Lords, I do not have any objection to answering that. Very nearly everyone has a car now. However, I want people to regard a car, a house and a college as all being important parts of their future careers and aspirations. That is what is important. If after having obtained a car they prefer to travel by train, that will suit GEC even better.
3.42 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Lord though I hope not to follow his example and overstep the time limit. Of course I may also overrun but I am simply stating a fact.
I was glad that in referring to morale the noble Lord appeared to draw a distinction between the universities and the polytechnics. I say nothing about the universities because it is many years since as a college tutor I was qualified to say anything about them. However, as far as I can see morale in the polytechnics has never been so high. The noble Lord, Lord Annan—to whom I shall be referring, I am afraid, in a way that will not altogether please him—said on a previous occasion that the
748
polytechnics were the success story of the 1980s. Therefore, let us be clear in that respect: morale in the polytechnics is extremely high; morale in the universities remains an open question.
This House is replete with men of academic genius or at any rate talent. I need only look across the Chamber to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, my old college friend the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and on the Bench below me my noble friend Lord Peston. There is also the noble Earl, Lord Russell, although he appears to have fled the Chamber. The place is full of professors or noble Lords who ought to have been professors if they had had their rights.
Among them all no one has exceeded the academic achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. He comes before us as a supreme elitist. He was Provost of King's College at the age of 40 and perhaps has never quite lost that point of view. At any rate he will not have any use for the poor old polytechnics and I regret that I must disagree with him totally in his whole approach to the subject. He went out of his way, if I may put it in that fashion, to say that there should be no parity of esteem.
I am desperately anxious not to follow the example of the exalted noble Lord opposite and overstep my time, so perhaps I should say at once that I am arguing today for parity of esteem, parity of funding and parity of opportunities. Therefore, there can be no meeting point between the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and myself. He will of course have the final word and no doubt will make some concession or alternatively try to debunk me. We shall see. At any rate that is the position.
We must bear in mind that the polytechnics cover more than half of all higher education and yet the noble Lord who has selected this subject for debate has gone out of his way to say that they should not have parity of esteem. That message will intensely anger the polytechnics. I do not suggest that there will be any loss of morale, rather the adrenalin will flow more strongly through their veins when they hear that pronouncement.
I need to give the House some facts about polytechnics and if during the course of that a noble Lord intervenes to ask whether I am reading my speech I can only say that I shall wait until he delivers his speech and apply the same treatment. There are certain facts about the polytechnics and it is as well to read out the figures rather than appear to be making them up as one goes along.
I am sure we are all aware—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will agree—that the standards of polytechnics are now as high as those of the universities. Their degrees have the same value. Both groups are partly funded by the state. However, parity of esteem is not to be conceded by, so to speak, the champion from King's College. That is the situation we face today and there is no getting round it.
I refer to the old universities and what I call the best colleges. When I was at Eton with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I knew of only one college anyway. That was King's College, Cambridge, because that is where all the Eton scholars

749
went—except the noble and learned Lord. At any rate, we knew about King's College and I understand why they see themselves as being on a pinnacle. They look down on these wretched interlopers who nevertheless have had success, albeit on a lower level altogether. I am bound to say that that is the impression left by the noble Lord. I am speaking warmly on behalf of half the higher education in the country which will be very much affronted by that way of looking at the position.
I now give a few facts. Of course we have this binary line. As I said on a previous occasion, I have a slightly guilty past in this respect because when I held a responsible position in this House I defended it when I did not know what it amounted to; but that was 20 years ago. Today I believe that all who have looked into the matter agree that the binary line has had it. It is the binary line that is at the root of the trouble. While it exists we will have this distinction between the universities and the polytechnics, all to the advantage of the universities.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and most noble Lords who spoke last night that we must have far more resources devoted to the universities. However, do not let me convey to the Government the impression that a gain for the polytechnics should necessarily be a loss for the universities. Taking the amount allocated by the government of the day to higher education, all I am suggesting is equality of opportunity—the right to compete on equal terms. One either concedes that or one does not, but it is not being conceded at present. That is a fact.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, was quick to concede today and has done so on previous occasions that the polytechnics have greatly increased their intake. In 1989–90 the polytechnics increased their intake of students by 24 per cent. Their reward is to see funding per student for next year, 1990–91, cut by a further 2.6 per cent. That is the way the polytechnics are being treated.
In 10 years the funding per student in polytechnics has been reduced by over 20 per cent. but in universities funding has marginally increased. That discrepancy is increasing the whole time at the expense of polytechnics. I am dealing entirely with facts, whatever conclusions one wants to draw from them. I shall not go into detail because there is no time. I merely want the House to realise the way that steadily, as time goes on, the polytechnics, which are the success story of the 1980s according to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, are being discriminated against.
The polytechnics have suffered years of neglect in funding, building repairs and equipment purchases. It is estimated that over £700 million is required to put the buildings into good order. Obviously the polytechnics need far more help than they are receiving.
The universities have been able to stay more or less equipped, but the polytechnics are having a very hard time compared with the universities. There is not an ideal standard, but I am comparing the polytechnics with the universities. The polytechnics do not receive enough funding to replace outdated equipment. These are policy decisions which can be
750
altered tomorrow. I hope I have not said anything offensive to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, but I am ready to believe almost anything that he said, including the fact that because a man is a Scotsman he is going to make a better Minister for Education. I see no reason to believe that at all. I am wearing an Irish rugby union tie and no one would think that because I am an Irishman I would be better as Minister for Education, or even if I were a Welshman. We on these Benches have been accused of being run by the Welsh "Tafia". These racial discriminations are not helpful.
I am quite ready to wish the new man luck but I doubt whether he will be anything like as good as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I hope that I have made at least one convert in the course of these remarks. The new man has the chance to provide equality of opportunity between the two sectors, the first represented by King's College, which probably looks down on all the other colleges, even Trinity I should think. The second is represented by the polytechnics. They will rise bursting to serve the community. I hope that this Government—and no party issue can possible be involved here—will see the light. I feel that there is no man in this country who if he once became converted would be more like St. Paul than the noble Lord, Lord Annan.
3.52 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, it must be more than 20 years ago when, with great temerity and as a much younger man, I attacked university education as being inefficient and not meeting the nation's needs. This I did after a Reith lecture given by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, which was largely in favour of what the universities were doing. Believe it or not, this was at a time when it was seriously thought that whatever was taught at a university and however badly it was taught, it was self-justifying because it was taught at a university or an upgraded polytechnic.
Much has changed since then, but I think that periodically we should look at the aims of higher education and consider how well we are meeting them. I suggest to noble Lords that there are three main headings: first, to train future academics and research workers (in the main that is what universities have always done fairly well); secondly, to teach students disciplines which are likely to be useful to themselves and to the nation when they are employed afterwards; and thirdly, to enlarge students' minds to fulfil their academic interests and, it is hoped, make them more rounded people and better citizens.
I would like to consider the last two aims in more detail. I question whether we have fully exploited what I term methods of instruction. Most certainly, even experienced lecturers can improve their techniques. Brief seminars and discussions for the staff are needed. Some universities have decided to do that and others are still lagging behind. I am sure that for most students, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said, mixed courses are desirable. For example, to spend three years studying economics is wrong unless the student is likely to become an

751
academic. Some other added disciplines are required. For example, some knowledge of management skills and even a superficial knowledge of accountancy are useful and important.
Under this heading I believe that sandwich courses are all important. During their academic work students should become acquainted with the harsher and often less satisfactory life outside. In the University of Surrey all disciplines, even music, have to adopt the sandwich course to a greater or lesser extent.
I now turn to the much more difficult third aim. It had been hoped that education would make people more reasonable. I mean that it was hoped that educated people would take a more reasoned and balanced point of view whatever their political persuasion. That has not been the case. Here I stick my neck out. Many lecturers on subjects within this category have come direct from university with no experience of life outside.
I want to put forward a long thought-out personal view which to me is of great importance. Surely, one purpose of education is to teach people to think clearly. By that I mean that they should first logically consider the arguments for and against a course of action and only after doing so should they weigh the factors using their experience and emotional views. But they must be able to analyse the reasons for their weightings. So often people adopt a reverse procedure. They decide what they feel and then look around for the arguments to support their view.
I believe that the approach I have described could easily be taught under the banner of some recognised discipline. One would start with an historical situation which today has little emotional content and build up gradually to some issues which are highly controversial and emotive. If the approach I have described was more common, much of the bitterness and misunderstanding would be eliminated in discussion on controversial issues. I would like to continue with this theme in more detail, but I believe that if I have interested noble Lords at all in this matter then I have probably said enough.
I wish to make one further point which I have made many times over the years. Though I was at Cambridge and took a degree there, the best mental training that I ever received was at the Army staff college. I believe that universities might take that to heart. Finally, I make the point that I believe both universities and technical colleges have slightly different roles to play in higher education. The rather more down-to-earth approach of technical colleges is better for some students rather than that of the more sophisticated university teaching methods. We now require both.
I hope that greater status will be given in the future to the technical colleges and, at the same time, to the teachers and not just the researchers. Some people have said that part-time researchers are impossible; in other words, women who might do this simply could not be employed. My reply to that is in that case most of the university professors and lecturers should be sacked.
4 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for his stimulating introduction to this debate. I wish to make reference to one aspect of higher education in medicine. I refer to the provision of funding for clinical teaching and research centres, the facilities of which are funded by the National Health Service and the Department of Education and Science through the universities.
For many years there has been a very happy relationship between the two departments concerned. This allowed for the creation of medical teaching centres where the medical school was embedded in the hospital. I was concerned with the development of these centres in the 1960s. One thing that made it possible was the knock-for-knock principle between the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Science and amicable agreements on the sharing of capital costs with the University Grants Committee. The universities and the National Health Service both derived enormous benefit from this close relationship in relation to education, research and service to patients.
Two things have happened in recent years which could possibly jeopardise the relationship. There were the recommendations of the Croham Committee about university funding and the creation of the Universities Funding Council to replace the University Grants Committee which operated substantially on block grants. There was also the Government's White Paper, Working for Patients and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. The Bill proposes very substantial consideration and recording of financial details within the health service. The University Grants Committee had arrangements with the Medical Research Council about overheads. Will those arrangements continue with the Universities Funding Council?
Because of these changes, the Government set up a steering group chaired by the Permanent Secretary in the Department of Health, Sir Christopher France. The group examined the position with the intention that good will and constructive relationships would not be jeopardised, but at the same time recognising that many previously informal relationships might have to be more explicitly defined and better quantified. The first report of the steering group in June 1989 indicated that a further range of matters should be examined before the group presented its final recommendations. Will the Minister indicate whether it is possible to give the House further information about these matters? They are vitally important for the future welfare of the health service, student training and medical research in this country.
I remember vividly my first visit to the Stanford Medical Centre in California. As we went through the front door of the building, I asked the dean about the enormous object which confronted us. He told me that it was the computer which was there to help to divide the costs between the university and the city. Nowadays of course computers are much smaller. This is a complicated business. For example,

753
a patient admitted to hospital will first be seen by staff who are health service employees. He may then be taken to the wards to be seen by a professor of medicine who is paid by the university. The equipment used for investigating his illness may be provided by a charity, while the person supervising the use of that equipment may be funded by another charity. It is important that some agreement on these matters should be reached which recognises the enormous input into the medical centres by charitable foundations.
Will the Minister also indicate how these matters will be conducted in the new amalgamated medical schools in London? What is the relationship of the governing bodies of the schools to the National Health Service? Will she be kind enough to indicate whether any of the difficulties that we fear have in fact occurred in the complex London situation?
4.5 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for raising this subject for debate. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was rather severe on the noble Lord but I am sure that he will be well capable of looking after himself when he comes to reply. So I shall not dwell on that aspect of the matter.
I have only one main point to make. I regret that in this House both today and yesterday there has been an inordinate degree of personalisation about the Department of Education and Science. Some noble Lords have spoken as though Mr. Robert Jackson is a kind of demon figure, while on the other side my noble friend Lord Prior said that the Secretary of State has an advantage because he is a Scotsman. Noble Lords should remember that both Ministers merely represent the Government. Can anyone imagine that the proposals on student loans and so on would have gone to the House of Commons let alone come before your Lordships' House had not the Prime Minister, with her passion for detail, approved of them? I think that it is personalising the matter to dwell too much on those people.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, is surely right—by which I suppose I mean that I agree with him—that there is not at present a policy for higher education, and that there ought to be one. What we get from the DES is very much on a piecemeal basis. We hear announcements of plans to double the numbers of people in higher education and of methods of financing higher education, to one aspect of which we devoted eight dreary and sometimes rather cantankerous hours yesterday. We do not get a clear declaration of what the Government actually have in mind as the purpose of higher education, or a clear definition of the role which particular varieties of institution are intended to play.
I have never been quite clear what the relationship is supposed to be between universities and polytechnics and which functions they are supposed to perform and which functions they actually do perform. I was interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said on this point but I am still none the wiser about exactly what they are meant to do. I know that the polytechnics have now been freed
754
from LEA control, something which most of them greatly welcomed. I know that they have their own machinery for funding. I know too that they are a much cheaper form of education. The cost per student is less than two-thirds of the figure for university students. But what do they actually do? How do they differ in function?
I always thought the difference was roughly that courses in polytechnics were vocational, technical and practical whereas in universities courses were academic, though there are obvious exceptions such as medicine and law in universities. I thought this until I was told on good authority three or four years ago that one of the London polytechnics—I cannot remember which—had the largest intake of philosophers among all the institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom. I believe that this is no longer true today but it certainly suggests that there was at least until fairly recently a curious blurring of the edges.
I read in the press only the other day of a director of one of the polytechnics declaring that what he would really like is for the polytechnics to be renamed as universities. I had a lot of sympathy with his reasons for wanting this. He said that most employers did not even bother to interview polytechnic graduates, and that the CNAA degree was not understood as a qualification in large parts of Britain by employers, let alone abroad where he said that it cut no ice at all.
Perhaps I may say at once that I regard this as a deplorable state of affairs—that is, if is true, for I have no means of checking the position. However, if it is the case, the polytechnics have every cause to feel that it is very unfair. No wonder they would prefer to have the cachet of the name "university", if that matters, and, presumably, the power to award their own degree which would be implicit in that change.
But polytechnics were not set up to be a kind of second tier of universities and I imagine that the Government have no intention of changing the situation. They were intended to have a purpose and function of their own, distinct from that of universities but of an equal status with them. They should have parity of esteem, as has already been said. That was a famous piece of jargon a few years ago but, nevertheless, it means something.
I think we need a clear definition of the role of polytechnics and the respects in which it differs from that of universities. Such a definition should not be an obscure leaflet tucked away in a pigeon-hole in the Department of Education and Science; it should be a lucid document with wide publicity in the world of higher education. It should be a document issued after suitable consultation with other education organisations and it should be issued in the end on the authority of the Secretary of State. One would never get agreement among vice-chancellors, principals and directors. There is no hope whatever of that. However, he should at least consult closely and produce a document which makes clear what really are their roles. At present they are very blurred and it would be a help to all of us who are interested in higher education to know what they are.

755
I should like to make just two further points before I sit down. They concern the universities. I believe that sooner or later in the field of science, and in particular scientific research, the Universities Funding Council will have to take on the invidious task—that is, if it has not done so already—of selecting some universities as centres of excellence and concentrating its resources upon them. Other forms of research such as those that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and myself have been engaged in—namely, historical, literary, philosophic and even economic—are relatively inexpensive. They do not cost a lot of money. However, scientific research is enormously expensive and becoming increasingly more so. A mass spectrometer—I do not really know what that is, but I read about it somewhere—costs £1 million. Therefore, even if it was considered to be desirable, you could not scatter such equipment all over the place.
As a student of humanities, I do not think that I am in any way criticising or denigrating science research. I do not share the view of the wife of the head of an Oxford college who in 1926 found herself sitting next to Professor Lindemann, who some noble Lords may well remember. He was then a young man in his early thirties who later became Lord Cherwell. Incidentally, he is the only professor who has ever played tennis at Wimbledon. The wife turned to him after a long pause and said, "I suppose, Professor Lindemann, that anyone who has read Greats can get up science in a year or two". It was a remark which that somewhat acerbic character did not lightly forget or forgive.
If only on cost grounds, I suspect that the way ahead will lie more and more with the establishment in the field of science of what are called interdisciplinary research centres, or IRCs. An example is Oxford's first such body which was recently set up, the Oxford Centre for Molecular Sciences, and which was opened by the Prime Minister last July. I believe that it will be necessary for the Government in their various manifestations—namely, the UFC research councils and so on—to concentrate resources more and more in a few places and grasp the rather disagreeable nettle of frankly saying that some universities will simply not receive this form of funding.
Having said that, I must wholeheartedly agree that the university system as a whole is suffering from gross underfunding. It may be that universities were over-generously treated in the years of post-Robbins euphoria. Certainly there was a good deal of waste at that time; but there is not any now. Cuts are reaching the stage of seriously impairing the ability of universities to carry out their functions, though why Oxford University thought it could improve matters by denying the Prime Minister an honorary degree passes my comprehension. No sillier act has ever been performed by a great university anywhere.
The Government's only policy seems to be to urge universities to raise money from industry, banks, business and so on. But, as the Chancellor of Oxford University, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said in an earlier debate on higher
756
education, it is quite unrealistic to expect such fund raising to have more than a marginal effect. Oxford's aim of £200 million by no means covers all that is needed. Moreover, Oxford and Cambridge have quite exceptional advantages for fund raising, although they also have one or two drawbacks.
Comparisons with America are misleading. There the whole culture and tradition are different and a system of tax breaks makes painless giving possible in a manner which would only get through here over the Treasury's dead body—a phenomenon we are unlikely to see. I think that there is no alternative but for the Government to view with more sympathy and understanding the real problems of university finance. It is as simply as that: to spend more money. We do not expect the Treasury scrooges to produce a turkey, but even a partridge or a brace would be a help.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, whatever may be our differences on education policy—and I do not propose to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his passage of arms with the noble Lord, Lord Annan—there is one aspect upon which everyone seems to agree; namely, that the number of those staying on in full-time education after the age of 16 is insufficient and that our student population as a whole is insufficient to provide the skills that we shall need to survive the full implementation of the Common Market and competition from newly industrialising countries with labour costs lower than our own.
If that fact is accepted, it is certainly worth setting indicative targets for student numbers, as Mr. Baker did, and which the noble Lord, Lord Prior mentioned. However, we shall not achieve them or anything like them unless we first manage to eliminate, or at any rate much reduce, the many disincentives to higher and further education which still exist. Today, therefore, I want to devote most of my speech to the twilight zone between school and higher education, between further and higher education and between mature students and their goals. These are shadowy areas in which there are many trip wires, hurdles, conflicting signposts and other impediments. I am convinved that there must be clearer and better marked trails through this labyrinth and much less problematical support mechanisms for those who enter it.
I am not denying that there are well established educational high roads in this country: there is the royal highway from good A-levels at a private sector school, grammar school or middle class comprehensive or the more prestigious secondary schools. With a combination of two or three A-levels above a certain threshold, the red carpet treatment is more or less assured. Universities have encouraged the trend to high quality specialisation at an early age. Whether the AS level, the half A-level, will make significant inroads into university admission policy remains to be seen; the signs are not particularly encouraging. The royal high road is unlikely to change much and it may be appropriate for high flyers. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Prior said,

757
we shall never do, nor should we, without some measure of elite.
However, as soon as you leave the well kept verges of the royal high road you enter the shadowy realm to which I have alluded. First, in order to secure a place in any institution of further or higher education a student of modest financial background and with average ability needs to stay on at school into his seventeenth and probably his eighteenth year. Although the education is still nominally free—the Secretary of State has to provide it up to his nineteenth birthday—there are plenty of subsidiary costs to switch off people from poorer families.
At sixth form college level outgoings on travel, meals, books and materials for some courses can easily reach £30 a week. This minus of £30 has to be compared with an almost equal plus on YTS. I have made this point before and I make no apology for repeating it. When I criticised the YTS in the debate of noble Lord, Lord Peston on 31st January, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was aggrieved and said that it was a triumph, or words to that effect. Only a few days later, suggestions were made in the press that the Prime Minister was minded to wind it up and save for other purposes the £1·1 billion that it costs. That would remove at any rate those letters from the "alphabet soup" of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. If this is in the prime ministerial mind, it strikes me as very sensible because—pace the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—YTS has not lived up to expectations. There are plenty of claimants for the money in the education and training field
One claim could be made for an educational maintenance allowance at 16-plus—something which the SDP has always advocated—to improve the staying-on rate in post-compulsory education. Others argue that a blanket provision of this nature would carry a heavy deadweight cost which would unnecessarily reward those who would stay on anyway, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Prior, said, the staying on rate is in any case improving. The argument is that it would be better to target money on more specific courses. If that line is followed, then I would put in a plea for BTEC lower national diplomas and their equivalent which at present attract grants from local authorities on only a very patchy and discretionary basis, if at all.
There has also been talk of training vouchers of £1,000 or so for school leavers. If that is a serious option, I suggest that they should be education and training vouchers so that they could be spent on academic studies or vocational training or a combination of the two. I hope that when the noble Baroness comes to reply she will give us an inkling of what is in the Government's mind in this confusing area. The desired expansion of the student population will not happen if all the potential channels into higher education—particularly the non-traditional ones—are not flowing much more freely than at present.
I turn now to the rather complex area of credit accumulation and transfer, which is still in its infancy. An information and counselling service on this, called "CATS", is provided by the CNAA. This is an important field in several ways. First, it builds bridges between further and higher education. The
758
CNAA has agreements with the BTEC council whereby credit is given after the first or second year of a Higher National Diploma Course to those switching on to a degree course. For example, someone who is doing a diploma in graphics and who develops an interest in computers could switch to a BSc in computer science. Such flexibility is valuable because it avoids students getting stuck in the wrong groove and helps them to develop their talents to the full.
The potential of credit accumulation and transfer is, however, probably greatest in its application to mature students, on whom we shall depend crucially for our expansion of student numbers. For them the notion of "portable academic credit", as it is called, is particularly attractive. It is possible to design a programme of study which was full or part-time or done by distance learning or by a combination of these modes and which might incorporate credit for experiential learning or industrial training wherever those could be assessed. The student who moves from one area to another can generally translate credit from one institution to another via the scheme and avoid loss of time or credit. If a break in studies proves necessary, credit for those successfully completed can usually be retained over a reasonable period of time.
All this is admirable. The scheme is subscribed to by 136 institutions of higher education, Including all the polytechnics and some of the universities. It has increasing links with industry. Even so, it is still very small. The advisory service is only on offer (for a fee of £25, I believe) from the CNAA's London office. So far only 1,000 students have contacted the CATS registry and 400 students have joined higher education courses as a result. These were the figures in July last year. Regional centres are being developed but they have not yet been widely publicised, as the council feels that it is not yet in a position to cope with the demand that might come from national promotion. Through its industrial network, CATS programmes are available to many employees through agreement with their firms, but the service to individuals who go shopping in the education marketplace is still very limited.
What else is available? There is also ECCTIS—an unpalatable acronym to chew—which stands for Educational Counselling and Credit Transfer Information Service. Until recently this was run by the Open University but it is now a management consortium funded by the DES with the idea that it should eventually become self-financing. It is much stronger on the information part of its title than on the counselling side, though it has a telephone inquiry service. It has a large database with 60,000 entries covering all post-school further education courses and all higher education courses, including postgraduate degrees but not research. One can undertake one's own search of the on-line database through Prestel or Campus 2000 for a premium of £50. Or one can subscribe for three issues of the disc per annum for £130.
This is clearly of interest mainly to schools and colleges, many of which subscribe. There are also some publications, notably a guide to courses throughout the United Kingdom designed for adults

759
without normal entry qualifications, published in conjunction with the CNNA, and an educational credit transfer handbook. Both are priced at £7·50.
These are useful services but not particularly user friendly to the man or woman in the street, a person whom I have described as shopping in the education market. It strikes me that the time may therefore have come to establish a national framework for credit accumulation and transfer, though it would certainly need a more attractive title than that. Something of this kind was mooted by the now defunct UGC and NAB and was then estimated to cost some £4 million, which might mean £5 or £6 million today. The need to cast more light on what I call the twilight zone is now greater than ever before. It really requires counselling points up and down the country on the lines of the CNAA service.
It would also give us more clout for negotiating transfers with our European partners—something that will become increasingly important with the free movement of labour after 1992. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could say a few words about the Government's view of this.
If the twilight zone needs more light, it also needs more cash. One of the things I learned with interest from scrutiny of the Government's forecasts of the costs of their student loans scheme is that they are based on freezing grant and loan-eligible students at 427,000 from the years 2000 to 2027. That is about the same number as now, well into the next century. This means that most of the expansion for which we are looking will have to come from mature students and by unconventional routes. At the moment most further education and many professional training courses, including social work, attract only discretionary grants. But the local authority grant system is a lottery and will be of even more dubious outcome after the introduction of the poll tax. Furthermore, there is a total lack of grant facilities, so far as I know, for part-time courses, which are ideally suited to mature students' needs. Some mature students are able to finance themselves, others are financed by their firms, but many are not.
Whatever the shape in which the Education (Student Loans) Bill emerges, it will have one large lacuna. It does not address, indeed it ignores the problems of these people. Whether through loan or graduate tax, the same facility needs to be much more widely available than the Bill appears to envisage. It is not appropriate to embark upon discussion today which properly belongs to the Committee stage of that Bill. However, I think it is reasonable to ask the Government what plans—if any—they have to help individual mature students re-enter or embark on higher education.
Given the demographic profile over the next few decades, there can be no doubt that any expansion of higher education will depend crucially on attracting young people into, or mature people back into, it by unconventional routes. The Government owe us an account of how they propose to stimulate this process.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I must add my words of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord
760
Annan. This is a most timely if short debate. We have reached the point where most people in the country understand that if we are to raise our education and training standards—and we must if we are to survive—one major part of the effort must be in higher education. Most people look to the Government to give a clear, strong and positive lead.
My noble friend Lord Prior spoke from his experience in industry. The CBI tells us that it needs an expanding base of qualified people. For example, with South Korea aiming for 85 per cent. of its people being educated at higher education level and France at 75 per cent., there is no time to lose. If our higher education student numbers are to be doubled in the next few years, as everybody seems to wish, we need institutions which are clear about what the overall strategy is and which are enthusiastic about playing their part in it. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about that. I also agreed with him that only the Government can set the strategy; and the very setting of the strategy, giving a lead, will help to kindle the enthusiasms of those concerned.
Over the last decade it has been necessary to bring about many internal changes in higher education: changes in attitudes, in understanding, in how resources are found and allocated, in management structures and styles. These changes have been difficult and painful but much has been achieved. That, it seems to me, is to everybody's credit, and not least to the Government's and the heads of institutions for sticking to their last despite the uphill struggle and unpopularity involved.
Everybody concerned is now a bit weary, even disgruntled. We saw more than traces of that in our debate yesterday. Change will not go away and at every level management must continue strong and firm. But higher education people are now set to move on to a new, more exciting, more satisfying stage. It seems to me that the time has come for the Government to show themselves much more sensitive to this, to make their broad strategy clear and to give encouragement to everyone concerned to play their part.
My view on this matter derives from experience of the Open University, the institution I know best because I am a member of its governing body and its finance committee. It seems to me unlikely that 50,000 extra students—I think that my noble friend Lord Prior hinted at this—can be brought into higher education without a well thought out and structured increase in open and distance learning. This can happen in a variety of ways, but clearly the Open University should play its part. Indeed, the Visiting Committee, which advises the Secretary of State on Open University matters, recently told him:
"We believe that the University is a key element in the Government's armoury for attaining its objectives for higher education and adult continuing education."
The university is most certainly keen to take up this challenge. Its track record suggests that it is well equipped to do so. But unless it knows what precisely the objectives are, unless it can be given positive guidance as to its place in the strategy, and reasonable resources and flexible arrangements for the use of those resources to carry out the strategy, it is difficult to proceed effectively.

761
The accessibility and cost-effectiveness of the Open University are well established. More than 50 per cent. of its students have no A-level qualifications and 10 per cent. have no educational qualifications at all. Although systematic records are not kept, the evidence is that the Open University attracts greater numbers of socially and educationally disadvantaged students than the average of all the other conventional universities. The Open University still has two-thirds of all the country's part-time undergraduates.
The majority of Open University undergraduates pay their fees and expenses out of their own pockets. None receives a mandatory grant. Nearly three-quarters are in employment, some 24 per cent. of those receiving some help with their fees from their employers. Others receive help from local authorities, from their families and so on. Over the years that it takes to get a degree—and of course it takes considerably longer than in a conventional university—a degree costs students several thousands of pounds and the fees are now set as high as the student market will stand.
As to the cost to the taxpayer of all this, the Open University produces over 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom's undergraduates with a government grant of only 4 per cent. of the total they give to the other universities. And cost-effectiveness for the taxpayer has been improving, too. Since 1980 the DES grant has fallen by 13.8 per cent. in real terms, but undergraduate numbers have risen by 10,000.
In addition, there are all the students on the other self-financing courses and there are many more of those than there are undergraduates. For example, the School of Management, now one of the largest schools of management in the country, has 13,500 students. It is undoubtedly a success story. But if the Open University is to play its part in the expansion of higher education the Government really must play their part too. Given that the scope for increases in fees and the raising of other income is now limited, it is simply not possible to sustain and develop the Open University's contribution if the Government's grant does not more nearly meet the increase in costs. Apart from all the other implications, far too much energy has to go year by year into crisis management, into balancing the books, and not enough into strategic planning.
The university also operates within what seems to me to be a quite unnecessary straitjacket of accounting control. It still is not allowed to accumulate reserves. The undergraduate and other programmes' funding have to be kept separate. Much greater flexibility is needed as has been given to other universities. But, above all, the Open University, like all the other higher education institutions, needs, in order to make its special contribution, a clear national strategy within which to work, a positive and encouraging guidance as to its role. I do not think that at the moment it knows what that strategy is.
I hope that my noble friend has listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, and other speakers have had to say. I ask her whether she will remind the Secretary of
762
State, that sound and sensible Scot, that just as in the army there is a part that only the commanding officer can play there is a part in the work of the Open University and of higher education in general that only the Government can play.
4.38 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, after yesterday I feel a little as if I were purveying tickets to "The Mousetrap". However, I reflect that I was an undergraduate at Merton College, Oxford, whose Visitor I am very glad to see in the Chamber today. That is a college which celebrated its septencentenary shortly after my graduation. In that context perhaps we may regard "The Mousetrap" as the novelty that it is and reflect that the show must go on.
The underlying note of this debate has been the expression of a good deal of dissatisfaction most clearly articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, with questions about objectives, and by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, with questions about funding. Indeed, I have been reminded during the debate of the election posters that many of us remember from 1979 bearing the caption "Education is not working". Listening to the debate I cannot help feeling that if those posters were put up now many of your Lordships would give an instinctive assent. that is said not simply as a criticism of government of any political persuasion but also as a reflection on the fact that education tends to absorb our hope for miracles.
My noble friend Lord Hanworth reflected that we had hoped education might make people reasonable. It was a wonderful aspiration. But David Hume was right. Reason is and ever must be the slave of the passions. Some of the dissatisfaction is of course the result of having a hope of things which never can be, but there is also a real dissatisfaction and acute difficulty about immediate and practical questions.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, and if I may I should like to assure him that he did not put a foot wrong in any academic matter. Wearing my academic hat I warmly welcomed what he said about the need for better relations between universities and industry. My only reservation wearing my Liberal Democrat hat is that I am aware of the danger of measures which unnecessarily increase industrial costs. Industry will, I hope, invest in things profitable to itself. I agree with what the noble Lord said—that it should not be used as an alternative to government funding but as additional funding. That is a point of great importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, of course made a speech with practically all of which I agree. But I should like to qualify what he said on one point: the refusal of the honorary degree to the Prime Minister. He said that he could think of no sillier act perpetrated by a university. He might perhaps think of when the same university, to which we both owe allegiance, was consulted by King Henry VIII about his divorce and it told him he could not have it. One perhaps needs to reflect here that there is use sometimes in having an intellectual Light Brigade.

763
I listened also with a great deal of sympathy to what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said about the Open University. It does a good job. I think the figures she gave were of a 13.8 per cent. cut in grant and a 10,000 increase in student numbers. I believe that that is correct. That is a pattern—a more extreme example perhaps—which is common around the country and in which I cannot take great pleasure.
If one thing was clear yesterday, it was that those who spoke to a Department of Education and Science brief were saying both that we need an overwhelming expansion in student numbers and that higher education cannot enjoy a much greater share of the gross national product. I can see the force in both those propositions. Put together they are, as my noble friend Lady Seear has often said, a demand to make bricks without straw. In that context I can see why there was a need to send the magician to the Department of Education and Science. Indeed, I am reminded of the concluding words of Sir Keith Thomas's Magisterial History of Religion and the Decline of Magic:
"If magic be defined as the use of ineffective techniques to allay anxiety when no effective techniques are available, then maybe no society will ever be free of it".
Certain specific points arise here: the attempt which the Government have made in many contexts to hold the public services to increases in spending no greater than the retail prices index when they perhaps compare that with what happens in universities in other countries. I take the case of Japan, which we have often been urged to imitate. In the past 10 years Japanese prices have risen by 34·4 per cent; their education costs, depending upon the quality of the institution, have risen in a range from 47 per cent. at the lowest to 80 per cent. at the highest. It is worth remembering in matters involving quality that we get what we pay for. We tend much too often to talk about education exclusively in terms of quantity. We have to remember that there is a problem of quality as well. If we try to get more for less money, what we are hearing is a prescription for a cut in quality. That causes great anxiety in the academic community.
There are some specific points which call for thought. The number of junior staff the universities can afford to employ is a matter of grave anxiety. I fear, having perhaps faced the pressure to retire from now until I reach retiring age, that when I reach it I shall face equally constant pressure not to retire because there will be no one to succeed me. Last year in English the number of full-time permanent lecturers under the age of 30 in the whole country was six; in sociology it was one. I do not know who that one may be, but I hope that he or she is equal to the burden that he or she will have to bear.
I know that there have been government measures since then to help with new academic appointments, which I welcome. Indeed, I warmly welcome them. On the other hand, the help that is given with those appointments is transitional. It is for three years only. It will not be easy for universities to take over the permanent carrying of that weight.
764
The Government have not always had a good record in deciding how much other people need to spend. Universities can feel a certain amount of sympathy with borough treasurers looking at estimates of how much they should be spending when they fix their poll tax. For most borough treasurers those figures do not appear to be in the real world. We listened to the Secretary of State tell us that whether universities charge fees is a matter for the Vice-Chancellors and nothing to do with the Government. We feel the same scepticism about that that borough treasurers sometimes feel when told that whether they levy additional poll tax is entirely their own affair. That cannot be true unless the initial spending limits are realistic. It is that realism about which we feel some doubt. We also feel some doubt about the effect on long-term academic planning of universities responding to short-term fashions and market forces. It takes a long time to produce a quality academic department where it is needed.
We have recently had in the Wooding Report, which I welcome, a demand for an expansion of Russian and East European studies. The topical necessity of that is something one can hardly question. Listening to television news from Romania and watching Romanians answering the BBC in high quality English, I can only feel shame at what would happen if a Romanian interviewer, or even a Russian interviewer, were to attempt to do the same in this country. What we are seeing in East European studies is the effect of financial stringency and the cut-back of small departments characteristic of the early 1980s.
It will take some 15 years to build up the postgraduates and the trained staff to produce good East European departments which will be available long, long after the current topical need is over. One only hopes that they may be in place in time for the next round, whatever it may be. There is a real difficulty in trying to plan learning because we are planning for a long time ahead. We do not see the need and we are probably suffering now from the mistaken decisions taken 10 or 15 years ago.
Finally, I beg the Minister when she replies not to give us many figures about increases in real terms because frankly when we see what is happening on the ground we cannot believe them.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those of other noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on introducing the debate. Although we are not a vast group of speakers we seem to be a very select one.
I should like to speak to some degree about universities and to some degree about polytechnics. I shall not refer to every noble Lord who has contributed to the debate, not because I disagree with them but because I do not like to repeat arguments that have already been put extremely effectively. Therefore I hope that noble Lords will not be insulted if I do not say that I agree with this point or that point.

765
Concerning the universities, I accept that there has always been some degree of animosity between university teachers and politicians. When I had the honour to advise Ministers in the last Labour Government they were occasionally rather dissatisfied with my colleagues in universities. Equally my colleagues in universities were dissatisfied with the Government. That is the usual relationship. However, it seems to me that something more serious has developed in the past few years. The antipathy between university staff and this Government is undoubtedly stronger than any I have known in my lifetime. I do not say that it is deserved but I believe that it is a cause for alarm. Our universities are a major national asset, independent of politics. It is not a satisfactory state of affairs for the view of Her Majesty's Government held by academics to be as adverse as it is at present.
The problem is partly one of funds. I do not want to go into details; I agree with the noble Earl that we do not want to bandy figures about. It is not entirely a problem of funds, but that does not mean that I know entirely what the problem is. I shall give the House an indication of what I have in mind.
A great many years ago I was a graduate student at Princeton University. I then came back to this country. Most of my colleagues at Princeton thought that I was stupid. They could not understand why I should return when I could have stayed there. I returned because—apart from my normal loyalty to the country—I felt that important things were going on in my subject in this country. I felt that I could be part of a serious academic profession and could make a career. I believed that higher education in this country mattered and that it was important to be part of it. I have never thought that I took the wrong decision.
When I reflect not merely on my Alma Mater of Princeton but more generally on what I now see in American universities and compare that with what I see here I know that today I should certainly not come back under any circumstances. The reason is partly a question of facilities. I do not believe that most people in this country, and perhaps even most noble Lords, appreciate how far behind even our best universities are—and I shall not argue about which—compared with those in the United States. The quality of the libraries in a university like Princeton far exceeds anything that we have in this country. The research facilities for scholars in the humanities as well as for scientists are beyond anything that we have or believe that we could have. I despair of persuading people of the nature of the problem, but it undoubtedly exists.
If one goes to the United States, not merely to the great Ivy League universities but to others which one may feel are not quite so great—although in my view they are—one will see a belief in academic values and a belief that there is still everything to be done. There is not the negativism that now dominates our own universities. That is the nature of the problem.
I do not believe that the problem is entirely one of pay. I was interested to learn that the noble Earl did not take early retirement and that his colleagues did not want him to. I have to admit that when I
766
announced that I was to take early retirement I did not hear a single voice suggest that I should not. I envy the noble Earl. I still teach part time so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I say something about pay because if it were higher I should receive at least a couple of pounds more a week.
On 30th January 1990 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary quoted (at col. 163 of Commons Hansard) figures concerning the growth of real pay in the decade 1979–89. We ought to reflect on those figures. Average national earnings grew at 2·5 per cent. per annum; professors' salaries grew at 1·9 per cent. per annum; university senior lecturers' salaries grew at 1·3 per cent. per annum. I mention those figures as indicative of one aspect of the problem. However, I do not wish noble Lords to believe that I am making a pay claim or expressing a belief that the problem has everything to do with pay. I believe that it is all about attitudes.
I believe that the universities feel that in some sense they are not wanted and that academics are regarded as irrelevant. I shall come to the question of businessmen in a moment, but certainly the Government give the clear impression that they believe that businessmen are far superior to academics in every way. Like the noble Lord, Lord Blake, I deplore personal attacks on Ministers. However, I believe that Mr. Jackson is as puzzled as anyone else by that. It may be a failure of communication, but undoubtedly there is a very serious problem in that relationship.
On the theme of the debate I part company to a certain extent with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Lord, Lord Blake. Certainly the universities want to be encouraged. They want to be made to feel that they are wanted. However, I should not care to have a government which told universities what they ought to do. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, said that the Government should have in mind some purpose for the universities. I wonder whether, on reflection, he meant quite that. My own view of the correct policy for the universities—to use a word which I do not like but which conveys the correct meaning—is for the Government to act as a facilitator. The universities could then get on with their job. As a university teacher—and several others have spoken in the debate today—all I wanted was to get on with my job. I wanted the Government at least not to get in the way and, if possible, even to help. That is the nature of the problem.
I appreciate that this is quite a long moan and I do not usually moan in debates. Part of the problem is growing bureaucracy. During the debates on what became the Education Reform Act we expressed worries about the UFC. The noble Baroness's predecessor promised that the dead hand of bureaucracy would not be extended from the UFC. I can only say that so far that promise has not been fulfilled. I believe that I speak for almost all my colleagues in expressing extreme anxiety about what the UFC is up to. Someone—and in this case it has to be the Government—has to tell it to stop whatever it is up to and become a facilitator. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, it should not be dirigiste; it should abandon the degree of dirigisme which it has adopted.

767
I have one last point about the universities before turning to the polytechnics. As an ordinary teacher I have never been keen on vice-chancellors. I have never understood why anybody wanted to be a vice-chancellor, but there seems to be a mentality which wants to be a vice-chancellor or a principal. The vice-chancellors are the best that we have. I say to the Secretary of State, through the noble Baroness, that one must proceed by co-operation in this area. One must not proceed by threats. One reason is that threats will not work: it is also not the right way to do it.
There has been a slight difference of view over the polytechnics. I am very much closer to my noble friend Lord Longford in that regard than I am to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. My credentials on the subject are quite good. I have been involved with polytechnics since the first. I was on the polytechnics' business studies committee when it was set up and I was very much involved with raising the level of business studies in polytechnics. I was the first chairman of the polytechnics economics committee at the CNAA. I regard myself as strongly supportive of the polytechnics.
Again, I address the noble Lord, Lord Blake. The noble Lord has shown an obvious new interest in the matter. I believe that the polytechnics have earned their laurels. They started a long way back. People might be surprised by their great achievements, but they have achieved extraordinary things. The Government—I supported them in this—recognised that fact by making them independent of the local education authorities. I said then that that was the right decision. However, I would go further; I would now free them totally from the CNAA. That is not to denigrate the CNAA. It has done its job, but the polytechnics could now be free-standing institutions awarding their own degrees.
On the subject of names, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, are right. People misunderstood the quality of the polytechnics. They misunderstand their achievements. It is no big deal. If they want to call themselves universities, let them call themselves universities. I do not see what the fuss is about. There is no doubt that businessmen are somewhat misguided in not appreciating the quality of the polytechnics. It is a similar attitude to that which I have pointed out previously to noble Lords; namely, that they also suffer from the delusion that undergraduates from Oxford, Cambridge and London are better than other undergraduates. That is not true either, but we have managed to get rid of that idea to some extent. I strongly believe in supporting the polytechnics along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Longford. It has been said that the approach is unfair, and I suppose it is. But it is inefficient. I hope that the idea will appeal to noble Lords on the other side: for business not to recognise the quality of graduates emerging from the polytechnics is a waste of resources and should not happen. I hope that the Government will move in that direction.
The polytechnics are under-financed. One problem is that the Government are loath to let the
768
polytechnics move up to the university point because it might mean that they would then have to jump to the same expenditure as universities. I understand the Government's problem. Until they are ready to move over and let us face that problem, it is a problem that they must accept.
Perhaps I may add a word of advice for the polytechnics. They have over-expanded. They have made a slight mistake. They thought that if they expanded to meet student demand the Government would pat them on the head, say, "Well done", and give them more money. But the Government have merely patted them on the head and said, "Well done".
I realise that I have slightly exceeded my time, but I am trying not to delay the noble Baroness whom I wish to hear. However, I cannot resist saying a few words about business in response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Prior. I agree largely with what he said, but I wish to make two points about the relationship between business and students.
As was pointed out in the debate yesterday, students are naturally progressive. In due course large numbers of people with degrees—perhaps even the majority—will end up voting for the other side rather than our side. However, noble Lords on the other side need not worry that students will not one day vote Conservative. However, when they are young, they are often not merely naturally progressive, but they know which is the naturally progressive party. What bothers them about going into industry is that they believe that one can do so only if one supports the Tory party. The association of industry with the Tory party can sometimes be slightly to its disadvantage. I merely place the idea in noble Lords' minds. I do not press it too strongly.
Lord Prior: My Lords, what the noble Lord has just said is simply not true. I might wish that it was, but it is not.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take the point. I do not seek to disagree with most of what the noble Lord said, but my experience is slightly different.
One other point regarding the relationship between business and higher education, which I hope we shall discuss on another occasion as we do not have time today, is the question of who will pay. I repeat the point that I made yesterday in the debate on loans. As the economy has become so much richer, why do we find it harder to finance higher education than when the economy was poorer? I set that as an exam question. I asked it yesterday not entirely as a rhetorical question because I do not know the answer myself.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in his charming discourse. The only excuse that I can give him for doing so is that I have just come from a lunch party at which his leader, Lord Kinnock, addressed—
Noble Lords: Mr. Kinnock!
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I apologise; he is not yet Lord Kinnock. I am always in advance of

769
my time. He addressed the Parliamentary scientific committee in the presence of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not following the general policy in relation to higher education about which I heard only this afternoon from Mr. Kinnock. I am also disappointed that so far in his very attractive 15-minute oration he has made no reference whatever to higher education policy in relation to science and technology except for some chance remarks about business. Surely, in his speech on policy for higher education, he should say something about that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not seem to be doing very well these days. My speech yesterday ran into difficulty with at least one noble Lord, who I see is in his place and who thought it was not good enough. It now appears that my remarks today are not good enough for another noble Lord. It is the only speech that I have. However, I have not in the past been backward in speaking on the question of science and higher education. One cannot talk about everything at the same time.
I should like to make one final remark on industry. I am a little worried about attitudes. What will industry pay for? To return to my concept of the university and the polytechnic, pay is not a word that I want to see used all the time. Perhaps I may give a personal example. All my life people have rung me up to ask me whether I will explain this or that for them. I am now told by my colleagues that if people ring me up from now on, I should ask how much they will pay for that piece of advice. My colleagues also tell me that, if people ring me at the office, I should add that there will also be a 40 per cent. overhead charge. I hope that we do not go too far down that line. My day is over, but I do not want our new generation of academics to be so concerned with pay and with paying that they forget what being an academic is all about.
I am sorry. I have gone on far too long, although a little of my time was taken away. I conclude with one final, simple point. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, reiterated the Government's 25-year doubling policy yesterday. I believe that I heard him correctly, but I should like the noble Baroness to reassure me that that still remains the Government's firm policy.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot resist the temptation of saying that we have had something of a surfeit of debate on higher education over the past 30 hours, starting with the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, early yesterday afternoon, followed by hours of debate on student loans and now this debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I ask myself whether it is too much of a good thing. I think not. This has been a most useful and interesting debate. I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for presenting the opportunity to the House, widening out yesterday's discussions on higher education. However, I stand here rather tentatively before an impressive presence of heavyweights from the world of Academe. A range of concerns has been expressed
770
about the state of and prospects for the nation's higher education. It would be unrealistic to think that higher education, any more than any other complex system, could be problem-free. We must not lose sight of what has been achieved and of the opportunities for further achievement being opened up by government policy.
With an estimated 1,061,000 students currently on higher education courses in institutions in Great Britain—over 50,000 more than last year—numbers are at record levels. This success is a fitting end to a decade of expansion in which student numbers have grown by more than a third, and the proportion of young people entering higher education has increased from one in eight to one in six. This increase in demand reflects the priority which the Government attach to education on schools and further education. I am very pleased that the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Kilmarnock, chose to make their starting point the school sector. The introduction of the GCSE examination with its greater emphasis on learning about practical applications has led to a sharp jump in the number of pupils staying on at school. Additional funds were provided specifically to assist the introduction of that new examination.
In 1988–89 the participation rate for 16 and 17 year-olds in schools increased by nearly 10 per cent. and we expect to see further increases in the years ahead. The Government's technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI, as it is known in our schools), funded through the Department of Employment's training agency, has enhanced the school and college curricula for 14 to 19 year-olds to make their learning more relevant to adult and working life.
In the light of those developments we have seen increasing numbers of young people taking A-levels and going on to higher education. With the introduction of the national curriculum we expect pupils to follow a broader and more balanced curriculum leading to higher standards of attainment at 16. That in turn should produce further increases in demand for higher education during the 1990s.
It is important to note that the expansion of higher education has taken place largely in the polytechnics, colleges of higher education and Scottish central institutions. It is too often assumed that higher education is coterminous with undergraduate provision in universities. In fact, more than half of the nation's higher education is provided outside universities, and over half of the higher education qualifications gained are other than first degrees.
I think that this is an appropriate place to applaud the remarkable achievements of the Open University. We have a product of the Open University who is fairly vocal on the Front Bench opposite. With nearly 90,000 students and 6,500 graduates a year it has done perhaps more than any other institution to widen access to higher education, which is a particular aspect of this debate today. As we all know, the Open University is directly funded by the DES. The level of the current grant for the 1990 academic year is £79·5 million, an 11 per cent. increase over the level for 1989. There are plans for early discussions between the department and the

771
Open University on the subject of the Open University's future priorities and funding arrangements.
It is sometimes asserted, and it has been asserted today by a number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Peston, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Blake, that the Government have starved the system of funds. In fact, public spending on higher education has increased. I apologise for producing statistics. I was begged not to use them but, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, my speech also is the only speech I have. Public spending on higher education has increased by 5·6 per cent. in real terms—a phrase that offends the noble Lord—since 1979. At the same time the system has become more efficient with unit costs per student (a point which has also been mentioned this afternoon) falling by about 3 per cent. in universities (a point noted by the noble Lord, Lord Annan) and by about 20 per cent. in polytechnics and colleges.
The most recent public expenditure settlement provided for a substantial increase in the public resources available to higher education of some £750 million over the next three years. Resources for 1990–91 are planned to be some 10 per cent. higher than in 1989–90. That amply demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to securing the provision of places for all who are qualified and willing to take them and to ensuring that higher education receives an appropriate share of funding.
I must not let pass one other word on the polytechnics. I entirely endorse the view of my noble friend Lord Blake, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and other noble Lords about the need for parity of esteem for polytechnics. The Government's policy is to encourage diversity and, without wishing to intrude on the debate between the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I think that the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was about vive la différence as distinct from parity of esteem, therefore encouraging diversity in higher education and not dull uniformity. Different types of institutions should continue to develop their distinctive roles. For example, basic research is one of the essential functions of universities, while polytechnics make a valuable contribution to research in some areas, particularly those relating to the needs of industry—a point that was very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Prior. Their fundamental mission is teaching. The more effectively that polytechnics can project themselves as providing accessible high quality education of a practical character, the more successful they will be.
Whatever the national provision, there are also those who assert that our higher education system compares badly with those of other countries in terms of funding and performance. Although international comparisons are notoriously difficult, the generally accepted statistics tell a different story. The United Kingdom spends a higher proportion of its gross domestic product on higher education than do most comparable countries. We are also well up by international standards in the proportion of our young people who actually gain qualifications, which
772
is surely a better measure of performance than the proportion simply entering higher education, where our efficient system can seem to give us a low ranking.
Much has been made of the issue of the brain drain. At this point I should like to make reference to that issue. The volume of alarmist rhetoric about the brain drain has not so far been matched by hard evidence. Therefore the Government welcome the decision of the committee of vice-chancellors announced last July to collect detailed information about the numbers of staff coming from and going overseas. In the meantime the best data available from the universities' statistical records show that there has been a net inflow of university staff into this country every year since 1983. I have not seen the evidence to support the noble Lord's assertion about loss of quality or indeed loss of quantity.
Some of the newly established interdisciplinary research centres are attracting excellent staff from overseas as well as providing challenging opportunities for some of our best young scientists. There are no barriers to the free movement of scientists in the West. British academics have always gone overseas and scholars from other countries have come here. Research and scholarship are enriched by that.
The achievements of the higher education system in the 1980s under this Government speak for themselves. I have no doubt that the planning and funding framework established by the Government will promote further improvements in participation, quality and efficiency in the 1990s.
The Government remain committed to a higher education system which plays its full part in meeting the nation's economic, social and cultural needs. We believe that these purposes are best served not by rigid central planning but by increasing the scope for institutional initiative and the system's responsiveness to the needs of students and employers. That has been the main thrust of government policy, consistent with the assurances that we gave to the House during the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988 about an arm's length relationship with the sector. There are three particular aspects of policy that I should mention.
The first is the shift in the balance of public funding for higher education from institutional grant paid through the funding bodies to tuition fees paid for individual students through the awards system. From autumn 1990 this will create a more direct link between institutional income and recruitment, encouraging institutions to increase their efficiency by making full use of marginal capacity. Just anticipation of this change has helped institutions to respond to the demand for places this year. Differentiated fees, which the Government intend to introduce in autumn 1991, will facilitate recruitment to more expensive practical courses—and that is the answer to the point raised by noble Lords about the need to safeguard provision for engineering and technology. I should add that the allocation of funds to institutions is a matter for the funding councils. However, it is certainly the case that the Universities Funding Council will identify

773
separately the funds available for research and will allocate them in a selective way which takes account of research quality in departments, which I believe was a point raised by my noble friend Lord Blake.
This incentive to respond more effectively to buoyant student demand is complemented by the second strand: the inclusion by the funding councils of elements of competitive bidding for places in their methods of allocating funds for teaching.
The third strand is our encouragement of the broadening of the higher education system's funding base which looks set to continue into the 1990s. The Government believe that overdependence on public or any other funding source is not conducive to maintaining the degree of autonomy and self-reliance appropriate to higher education institutions. It was a point well made by my noble friend Lord Prior. Institutions have been increasingly successful in generating income from private sources. However, I wish to emphasise an assurance for which I was asked by a number of noble Lords, but in particular the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The Government will stand by their commitment not to reduce public funding in response to such success.
My noble friend Lord Prior introduced the subjects of wider access to universities for all social groups—a matter that came up in some detail in yesterday's debate—and responding to employers' needs. While student demand is the central factor in the Government's higher education planning, employers' demand for highly qualified labour is also very important. The interdepartmental review of demand for new graduates announced by the 1987 White Paper on higher education, to which the Council for Industry and Higher Education made an active contribution, was completed earlier this month. Its results, which will inform future policy, are currently being considered by Ministers and an announcement will be made shortly.
Some see these market-related initiatives as uncomfortable and even inimical to the very nature of higher education. The Government simply cannot agree. We are seeking to free higher education, not to constrain it. It should have the maximum freedom to make the provision that it judges best to respond to the various challenges and demands. The framework we are putting in place reconciles that with the reasonable requirement that the substantial assistance from public funds is used efficiently and with appropriate accountability.
When the House debated higher education in April 1989 fundamental changes were in progress. Polytechnics and other major higher education establishments had just become independent institutions and the two statutory funding councils, with executive powers to administer the majority of public funding for higher education, had just been established.
Ten months later I am pleased to be able to confirm the successful implementation of those changes. I should in particular draw attention to the way in which the new polytechnics and colleges sector and its funding council have responded to the challenges that they have faced in the new situation.
774
Looking forward, all the indications are that student demand will remain buoyant and that, while the decline in the 18 to 19 year-old population will continue until the mid-1990s, their participation in higher education will continue to increase.
The latest projections indicate that, notwithstanding the substantial decline in the age groups leaving school to the mid-1990s, full-time equivalent student numbers will rise to about 8 per cent. above their 1988 level by 1992, then flatten out until 1995, before rising again to about 17 per cent. above their 1988 level by the end of the century. Those projections are being further reviewed in the light of the record enrolments for 1989–90.
I am pleased to reaffirm—and I have been asked again by a number of noble Lords to do so—the Government's commitment to increases of an order consistent with the aspirations expressed by my right honourable friends for a doubling of participation in higher education. I could say a word or two more on doubling of higher education. The latest projection of student numbers indicates that the participation index for young home entrants to higher education will rise from 15 per cent. in the 1988–89 academic year to 23 per cent. by the year 2000, an increase of over 50 per cent. in 12 years. That is about half-way through the period about which my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Science was speculating. That rate of increase is consistent with a participation index of around 30 per cent. by about the year 2014. But I must emphasise that my right honourable friends have never seen this aspiration as a target to be pursued regardless of all other considerations.
The cost of the present system of student maintenance grants, which accounts for a much higher proportion of higher education spending than in all other countries, would be a serious obstacle to longer term expansion. That is why the Government intend to change it. The Government's loans scheme, in addition to increasing the resources available to students, will share the cost of student maintenance more fairly among taxpayers, parents and students themselves.
I should now like to respond to some of the other points raised in the debate. I welcome the emphasis of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, on co-ordination and liaison among all the sectors of education. There is a great deal of scope for improvement there. On his point on vocational education and training the CBI's vocational education and training task force has made some very interesting recommendations for the education and training of the 16 to 19 year-old age group, including the use of vouchers. The Government are considering all these recommendations carefully. I welcome the encouraging report from the noble Lord and accept the part to be played by credit transfer arrangements and good counselling services. As he acknowledges, these schemes are in place and the Government continue to monitor their development. However, this debate and a reminder will certainly do no harm in that direction.
On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the independence of the UFC, the Universities

775
Funding Council is an independent and executive body which must ensure accountablilty for the substantial public funds that Parliament votes each year for the universities. It has been suggested that it is overly bureaucratic. I reject that charge. The council has established a proper framework for accountability, which is prudent financial management, not bureacracy.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made an important point about Soviet and East European studies and the expansion of such studies in the university sector. A review of Soviet and East European studies was carried out last year. I refer to the Wooding Report which the noble Earl gave notice that he would be speaking upon in the debate. A report containing recommendations was produced by the review working party. The Universities Funding Council and the universities have been considering the implications of the report's recommendations for the university sector. Similarly it will be for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to respond to any proposals arising from the review which involve expansion of Soviet and Eastern Studies in its sector.
However, some of the report's recommendations advocate specific action by other public bodies and government departments. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is consulting those organisations and departments. When the consultation is complete he will consider a further response against the background of the Government's overall policy for funding higher education.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred to medical research. There is no question of medical education being downdraded by the Government's proposals to reform the National Health Service. The Government's intention is that the vital relationship between universities and the National Health Service should be preserved and strengthened. The Secretary of State for Health remains fully committed to maintaining the high standards of undergraduate and post-graduate medical and dental education and research. He recognises that these standards can be sustained only by full and effective collaboration between universities and all levels of the National Health Service. To this end the interdepartmental steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education chaired by Sir Christopher France, on which all interested parties, including the vice-chancellors and the General Medical Council, are represented, has been meeting regularly and has made a number of useful proposals designed to ensure that the quality of medical and dental education research is maintained.
Perhaps I may draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, a press release hot off the press. It was released only today. It is on medical and dental education research and arrangements for improved joint working between universities and the National Health Service. Perhaps I may further say that my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health is actively having meetings with her opposite number
776
in the Department of Education and Science on this issue. I hope that the noble Lord will avail himself of that document.
Perhaps I may apologise to the noble Lord for not being specific on his question on the London issue. I promise to write to him. In the time allowed I have done less than justice to many of the specific questions that have come out of the debate. If I have missed out anything that is still concerning any noble Lord please remind me and I shall do what I can to elicit an answer. I shall certainly write in reply.
I am conscious of the depth of experience in higher education on all sides of the House. I hope that in the time available I have answered at least some of the questions. I have listened to the debate carefully and, as requested by all noble Lords, I shall pass on to my right honourable friend all the points that have been raised.
Whatever else may divide us, we are united in the value that we place on higher education for the cultural, social and economic benefits which it brings to our national life and in the wish that as little as possible should stand in the way of its being able to meet those goals.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I have time to take up only two points. I cannot persuade the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that my views on the polytechnics—for which I have the highest esteem—are not the product of academic snobbery. However, I shall continue to try by using analogies such as the colleges of advanced technology and their history.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that the last thing he ever wanted to be was a vice-chancellor. I thought that his speech was eminently that of a professor. He was not concerned with priorities but just the business of, "We must have it and that is all there is to it, Vice-Chancellor!".
I thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she spoke and met so many of the points which I and other noble Lords have raised. However, I did not find what I was searching for; that was the Government's strategy. I do not know that I am any the wiser but I lay myself open to the reply given by F. E. Smith to a judge before whom he was appearing. He said, "Possibly not my Lord, but considerably better informed".
I believe that after this debate funding for higher education is a little less like a lottery. Therefore, I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Lottery Proposal
5.32 p.m.
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett rose to call attention to the advantages to the arts, sports and the environment of a nationwide lottery; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am happy to have the opportunity to propose the Motion. The

777
notion of a lottery has been so little before your Lordships or the other place that it is an ideal subject for a short Wednesday debate. Such debates are expected to range as widely as possible over the subject in hand and I hope that this will be no exception. I have taken care to draft the Motion so that it is not broader than it need be. Noble Lords will note that it calls attention to the advantages to the arts, sport and the environment of a nationwide lottery.
I have chosen those areas to be the beneficiaries of a lottery because many noble Lords are as devoted as I to all three aspects of our national life. Surely, the arts refresh and recreate our spirits. In some cases, filtered through the great works of art and the great minds of genius, art can teach us more about life than life itself. It can enrich our lives in a mysterious way. Above all, it keeps us inquisitive and fresh.
If that is true of the arts for the mind, surely the same is true of sports for the body. Mens sana in corpore sano is not a particularly fashionable phrase but it is not a bad ideal. Perhaps Juvenal had it right and orandum est indeed say I. Sports also have the advantage of being capable of taking our rivalries and ambitions and working them out in a friendly and pleasant way. One may not know that from some of the sport which takes place today but the majority of sport is played in that spirit. The Olympic spirit is not dead.
The environment feeds us all, the arts and the sports, and makes us what we are. I fear that it is long past the time when one could rely upon the environment simply to be the unencumbered work of nature with man as a small insect crawling within it. Nowadays it is all too apparent that man is an exceedingly powerful and influential insect crawling upon it. We must work to defend and improve our environment. We can no longer rely upon its benevolence.
Noble Lords may ask why I did not propose a lottery beneficial to education, medicine and health, science, transport systems and even law and order. I believe that such elements of our national life are so deep-rooted in the structure of our society that they must be supported by government; that is to say by taxes. They must be a central governmental concern because without them we have no structure to our society.
I have been known to say exactly the same about arts, sports and the environment. However, I have long given up the hope that they will achieve the same automatic funding recognition as the other aspects I have mentioned. They need special support and for that reason I have framed the Motion as it appears on the Order Paper.
There is a history of lotteries in this country. In the 17th and 18th centuries they were common all over the world. In some cases a great deal of good resulted. The building of the British Museum owes a great deal to lotteries. There was a time when the Cinque ports could be repaired only through the benefits of a lottery. The great American universities of Harvard, Yale and Princeton owe a great deal of their foundation to lotteries. The Sydney Opera
778
House, an unparalleled operatic spectacle, owes its existence to a lottery. The Olympic Games held in Canada, Moscow, Seoul and Mexico City, depended to a greater or lesser extent upon funds from lotteries.
The history of lotteries is beyond the scope of our debate tonight. However, it would be unfair not to mention the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, in 1978. Its report is enormously scholarly and almost compendious in the way it deals with all forms of gambling. The Royal Commission reported on gambling in general but also examined the type of lottery with which I am dealing today and by and large approved it. That was 12 years ago but I do not suppose that anything has vitally changed.
Noble Lords will also notice that I used the words "nationwide lottery". I might well have said "national lottery". The important distinction is that I do not mean a state lottery run and governed by the Government. I am well aware that the Government do not wish to run a lottery and I see no reason why they should be compelled to do so. It is perfectly possible to run a lottery privately and without it being commercial in any way.
The only way in which one can determine or guess how successful a nationwide British lottery may be is by looking at the numerous lotteries throughout the world, extrapolating the figures and converting them into figures for this country. That is a very speculative game because it depends upon the size of the country concerned and it depends upon what statistics you take, whether you work or the basis of the population of the country, on its, per capita income or national income. There are all sorts of ways of looking at the matter.
In the USA a great many lotteries are state lotteries—not in the sense I have talked about but in the sense that they operate state by state across the United States. Nearly all our EC partners already have lotteries. The biggest, in France, in Spain and in Germany, are very successful. A single national lottery once it is up and going—for example, in its second year—is likely to produce a gross figure of something in the region of £2·5 billion per year. I make it clear that that is £2·5 thousand million per year. I am assured that is quite a reasonable capability of a national lottery.
Of course, national lotteries need a great deal of administration and very complex technical procedures. Therefore one must assume that about 20 per cent. of the figure will be paid out on the sheer administration of it. Apart from anything else, there needs to be a very large chain of people selling the tickets, very much as phone cards are now to be found in almost every shop in the land. That requires a very large back-up operation. I am glad to say that the technical expertise is to be found very largely in this country. We are already experts in many of the security printing systems essential for a lottery. Indeed, we supply them to other lotteries throughout the world. If 20 per cent. is taken off, that still leaves £2 billion.
The nature of such lotteries is usually that half the remaining money is taken for the prizes. Therefore, the prizes would amount to a very large sum indeed.
I am told that a concave structure is needed. In case your Lordships are wondering what a concave structure is, it means that there are very few large prizes at the top and lots and lots of small prizes at the bottom. So there is the excitement of a very large prize; we are perhaps talking of a prize at the top of £1 million. Of course, that is very rare and it is extraordinary to win that amount. However, there are lots and lots of prizes; for example, perhaps £5 or £2 on a £1 ticket. Those prizes are encouraging rather than profitable in any real sense. However, that is the shape which lotteries seem to take. It seems to work and to create no particular unhappiness.
Having dangled those extraordinary figures before your Lordships, you may ask whether we should have a lottery at all. You may ask whether or not lotteries are evil. If one believes as an article of faith that any form of gambling is automatically evil, then I can say nothing for that is an article of faith. I cannot change an opinion of that sort. It seems to me on balance, however, that so much of life is already speculative and chancy that to take advantage of it for worthy causes is not wrong in simple moral terms.
It is suggested that this sort of activity can become compulsive and a devastating social evil. I do not believe that a lottery is like that. The casino, race track or arcade seem to have an atmosphere which compels you to go on. Once you have lost too much, you go on to lose the rest. I do not believe that that applies to the cool and entirely chance-governed business of a lottery.
It is also a good reflection to think that if you lose £5 at a race track or in a casino, it gives you no satisfaction at all to think that the bookmaker or croupier will be having a good meal on the proceeds. However, if you lose £5 in the lottery I propose you may think that a new wood will be planted, that there will be a new sports ground or that a new orchestra will be maintained. I should have thought that an altogether more comfortable feeling.
It is also suggested that where very large sums of money are involved fraud is automatically involved. I believe that the security systems available to the world no longer make that a realistic proposition. ERNIE has been operating for years without a breath of scandal to his name. I believe that security systems are such that there can be a foolproof lottery which there would have to be in this case.
There is then the thought that lotteries might damage other forms of charitable giving; for example, the small charitable gambling which already exists. Experience from other countries has shown that that is not the case and that lotteries attract new money. Indeed, the Irish lottery, introduced in 1986, led to so many worries that a form of compensation legislation was produced enabling anyone able to show that an existing form of charitable gambling had been damaged to claim compensation. As far as I am aware, there has not yet been a claim.
In much larger terms, your Lordships may ask whether it would damage the football pools which,
780
one must admit, provide an enormous amount of money for the Exchequer. Again, it does not seem that it would. It attracts new money, according to the experience of other countries, which is very considerable.
Let us suppose that one allows that a lottery is not bad and might do good. Who would look after those immense sums of money? I think that those responsible should be independent people. There should be no involvement of arts councils or sports councils, of many of the environmental bodies which are now springing up or of the Government, although everyone of those must be represented. It simply means choosing very responsible and knowledgeable people who know what they are talking about and who are outside the internecine battles which are sometimes waged within those spheres.
That may sound like the famous phrase, "The great and the good". The phrase is usually uttered with a faint edge of mockery. However, we do have great spirits, great minds and great administrators, and thank goodness. I believe in my sense of optimism that there are a very large number of men of goodwill, and I do not believe it is impossible to find an impeccable body of people to control such sums of money and use them for the best.
What should that best be? It is already late and I am within a minute of speaking for too long. I shall however steal a moment to make a few suggestions off the top of my head. The Royal Opera House has recently been involved in enormous controversy about how much money it must use in commercial enterprises in order to back what it has to put into revivifying its stage and so on. None of that would have been necessary with the proceeds of a lottery.
In the early 1970s the National Theatre was costing in the region of £20 million. What would it cost today? I suggest that it may cost £50 or £60 million. I doubt whether we could ever raise that now without a scheme of this sort. There are so many enterprises which should have been off the ground by now; for example, the Roundhouse, an arts centre for the black community, a national jazz centre and galleries for all the reserve collections which now are buried under our great museums. We all know that there are not enough of those collections on view and that we need galleries for them.
On exports of works of art, only two days ago there was a Question in your Lordships' House about "The Three Graces". Millions of pounds are needed to save that; similarly, a Sir Thomas Lawrence picture and a Paul de Lamerie inkstand. They are all going out of the country because of lack of funds to keep them here. I suggest that that would not be a problem if we followed my proposal of a lottery.
The playing fields of England need preserving. Coaching for the young is desperately needed. Indoor tennis and athletics are almost unknown in this country and will continue to be so until we start to provide proper facilities. We need skating facilities. We need sports centres all over the place. Millions of pounds are involved.
Lastly, as regards the environment, let us consider the woodlands. There are storms raging; we now

781
seem to be a storm country. There will be an enormous amount of planting and care necessary throughout the land. We still need more and more parks with the encouragement of garden festivals.
I shall not continue because so many of your Lordships already have schemes in mind. All those schemes need to be endowed as well as created. I suggest that an endowment fund for anything new would be essential. Otherwise, the funding bodies may well say. "Thank you very much for providing the money to build but we cannot now fund it". An endowment fund to go with the building would be essential. Above all, I am talking about capital because there is no capital fund for the arts, sports or the environment at present. Sometimes people say that a scheme of this sort will let the Government off the hook. I suggest that the Government are not on the hook. Indeed I go further; I suggest there is no hook.
We desperately need a scheme such as this. I do not ask the Government to reply at this stage. If the noble Earl, when replying to the debate, cares to rise to his feet and say that he agrees with every word I said, I shall not protest. However, I do not expect that of him. I expect only that we all listen to what, for some of your Lordships, may be a very novel subject and see the climate of opinion. That is exactly what these debates are for.
I recommend a nationwide lottery to your Lordships, not because lotteries are in themselves a particularly good thing or a particularly bad thing, but because in this case one lottery with the legislation necessary for it could make a great deal of difference to the arts, to sport and to the environment. Those things make the difference to our society. With careful growth and really careful nursing we could approach the millenium with confidence and pride. They are the touchstone of our society; it is by them we shall be judged, I suspect. They are what make the difference between a more or a less civilised country. I beg to move for
5.51 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Lord has admirably presented a most excellent proposition. I am enthusiastically in favour of any plan which will make more money available for the arts. The noble Lord's proposal for a national lottery from which a large proportion of the proceeds will go to the arts is therefore quite irrestistible to me. I am particularly glad that he has not confined his remarks to capital, but included endowment, because the problem that arts face at the moment is not capital but an inability to continue at the proper level.
The need for money in the arts is so obvious and so real that I would embrace any scheme, whatever it was, so long as it was practical. The noble Lord's scheme would produce considerable sums of hard cash without taking it away from any particular individual. That, to me, is a great attraction. It is a much nicer way of raising money than taxation. When taxation rises it produces resentment and hatred; when it falls it leads to extravagence.
782
Lotteries, on the other hand, have no such results except that the occasional man who wins £1 million may get into some trouble for it, but usually not; there is no reason to.
Some people believe that increasing support for the arts might encourage laziness and slackness. They remind us that some of the greatest art of all times was produced by artists living in dire poverty, but that means only that their genius survived the garret, not that poverty gave any help to the creative art. Art flourishes in conditions of generous and enthusiastic patronage. When Maynard Keynes founded the Arts Council at the end of the last war, he started something which was meant to and could provide support; for a good many years it did provide such an atmosphere. The moment the cuts began the generosity disappeared and penny-pinching raised its ugly head.
Art cannot flourish in an accountant's world. Artists need the stimulus of the admiration of the patron who gives them a commission to do their particular job, whether it be to write a poem, a book, a symphony or an opera, to paint a picture, to produce a sculpture or even to design a building. When accountants have the upper hand the artists miss the appreciation of an enthusiastic patron, whether an individual or an institution like the Church or the Arts Council. The worst example of that can be seen all around us in the ribbon development we drive through when entering or leaving London. That we must try to avoid.
I do not think there is anything wrong with gambling. I certainly do not think it should be legislated against as such. Like alcohol, it is addictive, but not nearly as addictive as alcohol. However, it is addictive enough to wreck some homes. Most of us know some homes which have been wrecked by gambling. For 99 people out of 100 it is a harmless, fascinating indulgence. It is often maintained that filling in football pools and betting on horses and dogs involve elements of skill and judgment which remove those activities from the category of gambling proper. However, as results are unpredictable and virtually random, it is a superficial argument. I imagine, as was suggested by the noble Lord who opened the debate, that the Inland Revenue would be very unhappy to lose their returns from pools, racing and casinos, not to mention premium bonds. However, I repeat that I have no objection to gambling even in its purest and most undisguised form as in tossing a penny.
I turn to the question of whether there are practical objections to the noble Lord's scheme. cannot see any. The Irish have surely demonstrated that it is not too difficult and, as he told us, so have a large number of other nations. Apparently only Albania and ourselves stand out, but I hope not for too long.
In his figures the noble Lord allowed generously for expenses and prizes and he was therefore talking realistically when he spoke of £2 billion. That is a substantial amount and must not be sneezed at even by this very successful Government.
We are left with the question of whether such a venture, which is neither impractical nor immoral, is worth implementing. The answer is that of course

783
it is. I cannot think of any better way of saving the arts from step-by-step lowering of their standards. As the Government gradually reduce support for the arts, something must be done in substitution. Private giving has done as well as anybody thought it could. It could be greatly increased if we adopted the US system, but that it too difficult for the Treasury to accept, because it is both useful and effective. Meanwhile, in spite of hard and not always unsuccessful pressure from the Minister on his somewhat philistine colleagues, we see crisis on every side of us in the arts.
The noble Lord referred to the opera. The Royal Opera House has a subsidy of 44 per cent. of expenditure as against 92 per cent. in Rome—and so on all around Europe. Last year the Royal Opera House was 89 per cent. filled for both opera and ballet for every day of the year bar Christmas—a remarkable figure—yet it has suffered a 15 per cent. real cut in its Arts Council support over the past five years. It is now reduced to hope rather than hard cash in planning the programmes for the next few years.
Twice as many people went to the opera as watched the Football League Cup; more people went to ballet performances than to Rugby Union football, yet the case of English National Opera is even worse than that of the Royal Opera House. Its annual grant is just over 50 per cent. of income. It sells some 400,000 seats a year. In a study financed by the Arts Council three years ago, Price Waterhouse concluded that a further £2·5 million of public money needed to be invested if ENO was to maintain its work and avoid significant deficits. Nothing has happened since then. It received a 2 per cent. increase last year. Admittedly, it was promised an 11 per cent. increase for next year, but it will not be able to carry on very much longer like that. Kent Opera has disappeared. It was a very good opera company, so that it is to be deplored.
Turning to theatres, the noble Lord referred to the National Theatre. That has undergone an 18 per cent. cut over the past five years. We all know about the RSC, which has had its funding cut by 20 per cent. over the past five years and is now having to close for four months. A week or so ago we discussed the plight of museums and galleries. I will not go into that again, but reference to the debate will show that the British Museum, the V & A, the Tate Gallery and many others are all complaining desperately.
The truth is that the arts have been under-funded for years. An unacceptable state has gradually built up as a result. The arts have made a valiant effort to raise public support but that is now nearing its peak. Meanwhile, more often than not subsidies fail to keep up with inflation and always fall short of the annual increase in salaries which have to rise according to the Government's dictates. Most of the arts are highly labour-intensive, so they are especially hard put for it to keep up standards; yet keeping up and improving standards is the one aspect that matters to the arts themselves, to our visitors and to the people in this country who are patronising the arts more every year.
784
Speaking seriously, I believe our whole artistic heritage is at risk. By "heritage" I mean the achievements of living people rather than, say, old buildings—a subject which will be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Charteris in his contribution.
We should jump at the noble Lord's suggestion to put matters right. I have spoken about the arts but I have no doubt that the needs of the environment and sport are no less pressing and their value to the nation no less essential. At least these three sections of our lives are not concerned with profit and loss alone, or indeed takeover bids or insider trading, but directly and exclusively with the quality of life for everyone in the country.
Clearly there are a number of important details to be worked out; not least who settles what amount goes to whom. Here I differ from the noble Lord because for the arts my idea is that the task of distribution should remain where it is: with the Arts Council and the Museums and Galleries Commission, who, when given enough money, did the task extremely well. I hope that the Government will not simply say, "no" and turn their backs on the only scheme we have ever come across which might save the arts for us.
6.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, as this is the evening of Ash Wednesday perhaps I should start my few remarks on a suitably penitential note. The Churches simply do not have their act together over the issue of gambling in general. We are divided about it. Perhaps I may illustrate that with a little story. Some years ago the secretary of the Churches Council on Gambling was tackled by a certain gentleman who pointed out that gambling is referred to favourably in the pages of the New Testament. In the Acts of the Apostles we read that they drew lots and the lot fell on Matthias. The secretary was not at all put out by that because he immediately replied, "Yes, but whoever heard of Matthias again?" That perhaps does less than justice to St. Matthias but it illustrates the ambivalent attitude to gambling found in the Churches.
I remind your Lordships of the definition of gambling, because lotteries form one side of it:
"The [distribution] of money, or money value, by an appeal to an artificially created chance, where the gains of the winners are made at the expense of the losers and the gain is secured without rendering in service or in value an equivalent of the gains obtained".
I am afraid that that is quite a mouthful from the Dictionary of Christian Ethics but it is a good reminder that we are dealing with the distribution of money—large sums of money—purely by chance.
It is argued of course that gambling is deeply rooted in human nature, and there is not the slightest doubt about that. People have always gambled and I suspect that they always will as long as this world lasts. Why is it, then, that some of us—I do not know if I am alone in this Chamber tonight but I am sure that it is true of the community in general—feel uneasy about the Motion put by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, in spite of the eloquent way in which he put forward his argument and the obvious means that he has put in front of us, which are tremendous?

785
If gambling were all small scale nobody would stop to ask about the justice of the principle behind it. If it were simply a matter of a few bob changing hands, giving innocent amusement here and there on raffles, and so on, nobody would question whether this was a just or unjust principle. It would not be worth it. In fact, gambling is not like that. Whether you take it in the form of betting, gaming, lotteries or pools—the various forms in which gambling appears—you find that there are very large sums of money in prospect; and what we have heard tonight puts in front of us the possibility of a nation-wide lottery involving extremely large prizes.
When that happens one is forced to examine the principle behind gambling and ask whether it is healthy either for individuals or for a society. In the Christian tradition we would be bound to say that although we live in a universe of chance, on the whole mankind has always struggled to bring order out of chaos. For example, the insurance principle is based on reducing the vagaries of chance. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, asked why we should not take advantage of the fact that there is chance in nature and in society; and why not make use of it and obtain money from it. The difficulty of that argument is that it does not seem to be a proper, rational principle in mankind simply to increase the distribution of money in a haphazard way and by chance.
No one in their right senses would suggest that we should ban something so deeply rooted in society and in human nature as are the possibilities for gambling. It gives pleasure and doubtless is a harmless pleasure for many people. I often attend church bazaars and am asked to guess the weight of a cake or, perhaps, the weight of Sir Cyril Smith. In fact, I know that he has signed a Motion in favour of a nation-wide lottery. That is all innocent enough and doubtless gives pleasure to many. I am frequently caught in my own parishes with a difficulty in that regard. Instead of guessing the weight of a cake or Sir Cyril I feel more ready to make a suitable donation for a raffle ticket but not take it.
The difficulty is that inevitably gambling becomes a bigger element in society step by step. Moreover, gambling rests on a socially unjust principle. If that is true, even though it is deeply rooted in society it ought to be kept within bounds. For example, prizes should be kept moderate in size. I quote again from the Dictionary of Christian Ethics:
"An individual or a community in whose life gambling plays too prominent a part betrays a false sense of values which cannot but impair the full development of the personality or the society. It should therefore be the concern of the state to control the indulgence within reasonable bounds".
It is for that reason that I would not wish to see a nation-wide lottery established. I admit that when I quickly read the noble Lord's Motion I felt that what he was referring to was a state lottery. He has made absolutely clear that that is not the case. Inevitably, however, a nation-wide lottery becomes associated in the public mind with a state lottery. The state would, to some extent, have to participate actively to see that such a big operation was properly conducted.
786
If the Government were to go down that road one would have to accept that they would be giving support to something on which opinion is widely divided in our society today, and not only within the Churches. For example, there is the argument concerning greed. We have all received a briefing paper in which it is said that the suggestion that large prizes stimulate greed would not apply to a lottery which has so many environmental and social benefits, particularly as any donation to the lottery can be looked on as charity. It is said that that is questionable.
To my mind the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, contradicted that in what he said because instead of emphasising that the primary intention of those who took part in a nationwide lottery would be to support the arts he said that the primary intention would be to win prizes, and in some cases very large ones. I quote not from his speech but from his article in The House Magazine. He said that prizes,
"should be in what is technically known as a 'concave' structure"—
and he explained this to us—
"with a few very large prizes (as big as a million pounds) at the top of the scale and a very large number of small consolation prizes at the bottom, with only a few middle sized prizes in between. The psychology behind this is that the very big prizes provide the excitement of a jackpot while the numerous small prizes give a statistically encouraging chance of at least some small winnings".
Who can possibly claim that the prime intention behind giving to a nationwide lottery would not be the encouragement of greed rather than support of the arts? For example, a small stake in a raffle can be genuinely motivated by a desire to help the charity concerned. I do not believe that most people care too much whether they are going to win a bottle of whisky or whatever it may be. However, it is a very different matter indeed when we speak of money prizes of this order.
I have enormous sympathy with all of what the noble Lord said to us about the importance of the arts and of the difficulty in getting money to meet these many admirable causes which are so underfunded. For example, we went on holiday to France last year and my wife and I were enormously impressed—this is nothing to do with the arts, but with sport—that in virtually every small French village there are beautifully set out standard tennis courts. I should love to see that kind of provision in this country. But I am not at all sure that it is right to raise money even for such admirable aims as sport and the arts by producing a nationwide lottery.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said that the full list he could have given is larger by miles but the sums already run into hundreds of millions of pounds. The only feasible way of raising such sums seems to be a lottery and, from the experience of other countries, that method appears to be painless. I question the view that the experience would be painless. What does that really mean? On the surface many things can be painless: for example, the taking of certain drugs in personal life and in society, but the effects can be insidious, damaging and lasting.
I was a little disturbed when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, say that he would accept any

787
scheme which helped to fund the arts. I cannot believe that in his more sober moments he really believes that. I should be quite prepared to give him privately one or two examples of roads down which he would not be prepared to go, but I do not think I should quote them in front of your Lordships tonight.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I believe that the right reverend Prelate would have very great difficulty in finding any.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that he would not exactly encourage a scheme in which the proceeds of prostitution were used to fund the arts.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it was the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who said many years ago, when he was chairman of the Arts Council, that he would receive money for the arts from anywhere, including brothels. I share that view.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has fallen into the same error, but I am not responsible for the views of either noble Lord. The danger is twofold. There is an erosion of the public sense of what charitable giving is all about. It has to do with generosity to causes about which men and women know something and which appeal to their best motives and their sympathies for them to give what they can without expecting anything in return.
I have a fear that a nationwide lottery would be yet another twist to something which is already happening. In many senses we are already a very mean nation. I believe that recent figures produced on personal giving show that to be true. We should be very careful of anything which gives a further twist to that kind of meanness and which means that giving is always associated with getting something, or the hope of something, in return. In the Churches we are faced with a tremendous crisis concerning personal giving and that is an experience which is relevant here. We should love to have these kinds of shortcuts which would relieve us of the burden of the enormous sums of money required to maintain, for example, the Victorian churches in my diocese. Yet I believe that there is no real substitute for the education of people as to what giving really means in order to increase the amount of money given. Within my own diocese the level of giving is not very good at all.
That is one danger. The second is the erosion of a proper sense of taxation and public funding and what they really mean. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has drawn a distinction between provisions that should be properly funded by the state. He has put subjects such as the arts, sport and the environment on the other side of the line. I am sure he will agree that he has not done that completely, but he has certainly tended to do so by saying that these subjects should be funded in other ways.
788
I am not at all sure about that distinction. What is needed is a proper campaign of education by those responsible for both local and national taxation policies in order to help people to understand that these provisions make for a good life in our community. The Government have an important educative role in that respect and so do members of all political parties. It is a tragedy when leaders of political parties simply favour the idea that taxation should be kept as low as it possibly can be without emphasising the positive side of what taxation is needed for in order to improve life in the community.
What is the positive answer to the very strong case which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has put in front of us tonight concerning these tremendous needs in our society for more money? I believe the answer lies in public education and in generating enthusiasm for the causes which exist. I agree that is a slow road and one which offers no immediate relief from the enormous crises that face us in this field. I believe that if we were to go down the road of establishing a nationwide lottery we might be doing damage to the social fabric of this country which we cannot see at the moment, but which will become visible in later years.
6.17 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, on introducing this short debate. Though I am in full agreement with a nationwide lottery, I diverge from his views as to what should be covered by it. I do not believe that the noble Lord will like that, and neither will the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester like what I am going to say now.
If I understood him correctly, if one gives a few pence, though one needs thousands, that is all right, but if one gives thousands of pence, for example, for the fabric of churches, that is wrong. I went to your Lordships' Library before lunch to find a good quotation about lotteries, but I could not find one at all in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. In another book, the only one I could find stated that marriage was a lottery. Some people like that lottery so much that they go in for marriage more than once, and I am one of them.
It is thought that lotteries are something new. There are lotteries in Belgium, France, Italy and Spain which are all Christian Roman Catholic countries. A lottery has done those countries no harm. There are also lotteries in Germany, Holland and even Russia. I am not suggesting that those countries are not religious, but they are not quite as religious as some other countries. We also have lotteries in the USA and Australia. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, only Albania and the United Kingdom do not have a lottery. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, pointed out that we used to have a lottery in this country. However, it was terminated in 1823, though no one seems to know why.
As I understand it, the arguments against a nationwide lottery fall roughly into one or two fairly closely defined areas. We are told that it would encourage the poor to spend money that they could

789
ill afford and that it would upset the various churches, charities and large football pool companies. I lived in Brussels for some 18 months. I always bought a few tickets for the state lottery. I quite honestly did not expect to win a major prize. I would win a few hundred francs and immediately go out and buy some more lottery tickets. In the countries I have mentioned there has been no evidence to show that running a lottery has done anything but good.
The right reverend Prelate was worried about gambling. But let us consider what we gamble on today. We gamble on the football pools, on horse racing and dog racing, on bingo, on one-armed bandits in arcades and in pubs and on premium bonds. We gamble in casinos, at church fetes, at charity functions and even in pubs where there are various draws. One of the biggest gambles is on the Stock Exchange, with people buying and selling shares.
The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 set a limit of £180,000 on the total amount of prize money and a limit of £12,000 on the highest individual prize. Those limits were set in 1976. How much would that money be worth today? It would be worth very little. Unless people are offered the chance to win a big prize they will not go in for a lottery. Why else do football pool companies publicise their big winners? Joe Bloggs who wins £1·5 million is given terrific publicity. People think that if he can do it, so can they. There is nothing wrong with that. What will happen if we in this country do not go in for a lottery? I know personally and I have read it in newspapers that the organisers of continental lotteries will invite citizens of this country to put money into their lotteries. If that happens to any great extent money will leave this country to help the citizens of another country. It will not benefit this country at all. That would be a terrible shame.
I believe that we should have weekly lotteries. We should have El Gordo, which is what the Spanish call their big prize. In English it means "the fat one". Each main ticket should be subdivided, whether into 10, 20 or even 50 parts. If one buys one-fiftieth of a ticket and the big one comes up, one receives one-fiftieth of the top prize. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that such lotteries should be limited to the arts, sports and the environment. I appreciate what he means by "the environment" because he explained it very carefully in his article in the House Magazine.
The arts, the theatre and the opera cater for the few. My wife will kill me for saying this. The mass of the people do not go and probably are not interested in them. If we are to have a nationwide lottery, surely the proceeds should go to the benefit of all citizens, wherever they are, whether they are rich or poor, and whether or not they are interested in the arts. The Arts Council provides money for the opera and ballet which stage productions with extravagant costumes and settings. What is wanted is something more simple. Let us have opera and ballet but let us bring them to the people. Let us not spend so much of the grant on these fancy productions. By all means keep what we have for
790
the few, but I am not interested in a lottery for the few. I want a lottery for everyone.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, specifically stated that he did not want lottery proceeds to go to schools and education. I disagree fundamentally with him. I believe that the vast majority of the money raised by a lottery should go to provide more facilities for schools and to buy highly sophisticated and expensive equipment for our hospitals, equipment which could not otherwise be supplied and which could help the sick and injured. I should like in particular for this money to go towards helping the disabled. They may be supplied with the basic necessities but disabled people have expenses which are not covered by anything else.
I am dyslexic. I have a little friend called Timothy Bakewell who is in a special unit in school. The equipment needed to teach him how to read and how to make his writing legible is expensive. In the case of my little friend I am not talking of someone who is backward. Tim has an IQ of 122. If we spread our net wider we shall help everyone in this country. We shall help not just the rich or the poor but everyone. We can plant our trees and do all those things. We can help to make this country a better place for all its citizens. That is what we require.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, not only on having won the lottery for short debates but on having chosen this subject when he won it. I hope very much that the Government will look seriously at making it possible for a nationwide lottery to be held.
I listened with the greatest respect to the views of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I do not agree with them. We are, for better or worse, a nation of inveterate gamblers. It may not be a good thing that we are, but we are. There is every advantage in diverting that passion into charitable purposes as opposed to gambling on cards or on the horses.
My personal interest as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund is that there should be more money for the arts and for the environment. The task laid on the fund by Parliament was to give financial assistance for the acquisition, maintenance and preservation of land, buildings and objects of historical or other interest to the heritage. I am putting in a firm plug here to say that if we have these lotteries, I hope that the National Heritage Memorial Fund will receive some of the lolly, because we need more money to do our job.
Those of us who work for the fund receive applications from museums and galleries because they need our help to purchase items. We also receive a great many applications from the National Trusts of England and Scotland and the other amenities societies because they wish to take over houses or to preserve our hertiage.
Perhaps I may say something about the museums and galleries. We must remember that their purchase grants have been frozen since 1985. That is nearly five years ago and this is happening at a time when

791
the cost of works of art is rocketing. No one now asks for less than a million for a painting. That is absolutely terrifying. It is no good saying that museums and galleries have got so much stuff stacked away downstairs that they ought not to buy any more. Unless museums and galleries can buy they become fossils. It is absolutely essential that somehow or other they should have the power to increase or improve their collections.
When it comes to the National Trusts and the various societies for the preservation of woods and so on, it looks as if we shall be asked to provide as much assistance in the future as we did during the first 10 years of the fund's existence when we paid out £110 million. At least half of that figure was for buildings, woods, coastline, bogs, fens and flats. What is especially attractive about the lottery idea is the fact that it would tap new money. The amount of money available from generous benefactors, from trusts and from business sponsorship is limited.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund has never felt it right to appeal to any of those bodies for money to top up what the Government have given. The reason is that we think that it would be poaching. The Government have an obligation to keep us in funds, but organisations like the two National Trusts depend entirely upon subscriptions from the public for their survival. If we were to enter into the picture, we would take from them what they should be receiving.
As I said, I think that the lottery would tap a completely new source of money. Therefore I am much in favour of its introduction. I suppose that the greatest help for the arts and the environment so far as concerns my fund knowledge comes from the taxation system, the in-lieu provisions improving the douceur and so on. However, that aspect must be looked at separately.
I have but one further point to make. Even if we have lotteries they will not solve the problem. I know that the Government will remember that they have an absolute responsibility to put money into the arts and especially, if I may say so in a loud voice, into the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by expressing my appreciation to your Lordships for allowing me to intervene in what I believe is called the "gap" of the debate. I did not put my name down to speak because I have an important engagement this evening in Putney and I did not realise that the debate would take place early enough to enable me to fulfil both obligations. I hope that noble Lords will return my impudence with the kindness of allowing me to depart after I have spoken. The reason I must go to Putney is that an important event is taking place there this evening. We are selecting our parliamentary candidate for the next general election. The process is devoted to the important task of enabling Mr. David Mellor to return to more lucrative work at the Bar as a QC after the next election. Therefore, I am sure that Members on all sides of the House will understand that I must be there.
792
However, before I depart I must say that I am in a little difficulty this evening because I find myself in principle on the side of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester but wondering whether in practice some good might come to the arts out of the proposal put forward by my noble friend—I think I can call him that—Lord Birkett. I find myself divided on the issue. I am quite sure, I suppose because of the puritan source from which I come, that gambling is wrong. The Labour Party has always taken that view. Indeed, it has been expressed trenchantly from these Benches in this House and from those in another place from time to time. We have always taken the view that a national lottery is not for us.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out that a large number of Catholic countries on the Continent run lotteries. That is the trouble with Catholics; they get it wrong. They fail to distinguish between what is important and what is not important. They sometimes miss the important matters and seem to favour the unimportant ones. Therefore in principle I find myself agreeing with the right reverend Prelate.
I am quite sure that nothing should be done to break the principle of ultimate government responsibility for the arts. I think that that is a vital and important principle. If the effect of a national lottery were to diminish the feeling of government responsibility and the amount of government investment in the arts, even to prevent it from increasing, then what is proposed is a thoroughly bad idea.
The reason that government support is vital is that it is distributed on a rational basis. The Government devolve upon the Arts Council the function of choice; in other words, it does not happen by chance. It is vital to the arts that this distinction of distributing money on a basis which is judged by people who know about the area to be the right thing to do is vitally important and in my view it should be maintained. It is precisely why the arts in this country have flourished during the period since the war. They have flourished because that method of distribution of funds has been maintained.
I am worried that the introduction of the proposed scheme may destroy this vital basis upon which the arts have thrived for so long in this country. It is why the arts in this country are better on the whole than those in the United States. It is interesting to note that the Americans are now moving back from commercial support for the arts to a larger degree of state intervention. In many cities it will be found that there is an excellent plurality of support from federal, state and city sources. In many cases that matches or sometimes even exceeds the totality of business and individual contributions, which is certainly an extremely vital part of arts support in the United States. For those reasons I am doubtful about the idea of a lottery.
However, whatever we may say, it may well be that we shall move in that direction. I do not know what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will say to us this evening and unfortunately I shall not be present to hear his reply. I shall read it eagerly in Hansard tomorrow morning, or it may be that I shall be able

793
to listen to a recording of the debate later this evening. It is important to discover whether he will maintain the position put forward very convincingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on the last occasion when the subject was debated in this Chamber. She set out the position which has hitherto been held by the Government and did so very effectively. I could not quite discover the philosophical basis of her argument but it was very effective for all that. From our side it stems from a puritan background. Where it comes from on the other side we shall perhaps hear later.
Suppose nevertheless that the lottery is to come. What would be a good use for it? A good use would be for it to go to a beneficiary which is not yet receiving money; it could not then be dissipating government support. That point is vital. A beneficiary which has been almost totally neglected is the buildings for the arts, which are running down. The theatres are running down and getting into bad condition. There is no money to repair them. The museums are running down; the art galleries are running down. In many cases they are in quite a desperate situation. There is no money for this purpose.
Therefore if we could produce a substantial sum of money from a lottery—I am satisfied with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that the money would be substantial—that sum would preserve the foundation on which our arts exist. Unless we have buildings in which to contain areas where people perform or which we can visit in order to see the valuable and enchanting objects which we have, the foundation on which the arts are based will not be there. So if we are to have a lottery it should be dealt with in that way. At present we are living off the fat of past investment and there is not much fat left.
If we do not invest in theatre buildings, no matter how much support we give to the arts, theatre activities will contract. In some places they may have to cease altogether. The only way to remove theatre buildings from risk and to ensure their care to very high standards is to create a really generous capital endowment fund, and this is a possible source for it.
There would have to be safeguards. The endowment fund for each theatre would have to be held and managed by an independent trust. I suggest that the freehold of the site or some substantial part of it should be held by a body such as the Theatres Trust. Here I must state my interest, for I was the first director of the trust and I am now its consultant.
My experience as Minister for the Arts tells me that much of what I have said about the theatre applies, as the lawyers would say, mutatis mutandis to buildings. Many of them are quite splendid but they are now in serious trouble. They house museums, art galleries and cinemas. Here is a cause for a national lottery which could do no harm. It would fill a gap which is not filled by any other means. It would be a good goal, as all of your Lordships would agree, if it could be done in that way.
794
However, I must come back to my roots here and say that fundamentally I do not believe that gambling is right. In the Labour Party our feeling has always been similar to our views about alcohol and perhaps even tobacco: a little of it does not do you much harm. A little wine does not do us much harm. But to have it encouraged on a national scale so that everybody becomes drunk is not a good thing at all. That possibly explains why we take the view that we do.
6.44 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I too am glad and grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has chosen such an interesting subject for his debate this evening. The debate comes at an opportune time because there has been considerable interest and much comment has been made recently about the possibilities of a national lottery. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, made out a persuasive and enthusiastic rationalisation of his case this evening. He gave a long list of mouth-watering opportunities which would arise from a national lottery One could only be attracted by the idea of the retention of pictures which would otherwise go abroad. There would be a greater number of theatres and greater flexibility for work within the theatres. There would be additional woodlands and parks and other benefits which the noble Lord described.
As all speakers have said, no one could possibly go against the benefits which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, described this evening as coming from a national lottery. He had strong support from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I thought that the latter's lust for the arts went rather too far when he even suggested that the proceeds from a brothel could go into the building of theatres. He would not take me with him there, and I am rather glad that a female is responding from these Benches this evening.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I must intervene to ask whether, if the proprietress of a brothel came forward and said, "I have been earning money evilly for years. I want to give you money for the arts", the noble Baroness would not accept it. I should.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am afraid that I see myself in rather a different position from that of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I think I should not be drawn any further down that route.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was suggesting that the noble Baroness would be the recipient, not the donor!
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. It brings much relief to my anxiety. I believe that everybody has agreed that the objective of raising funds for the arts is thoroughly acceptable. It was interesting to hear the historical background which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, gave this evening. It is worthy of note that, as he said, the principle of state lotteries was accepted as far back

795
as 1569, when the first recorded lottery took place under state auspices. It was mainly for the repair of the Cinque Ports. The system went on, as he again said, to cover an important objective: a lottery to buy and house a collection for the British Museum. Then in 1826 there came the last state lottery, following the recommendation of the Select Committee in the House of Commons.
However, even if lotteries stopped there, that has not been the case on the Continent. As noble Lords have said, at present all our EC partners have national lotteries. The total EC sales are now £11·6 billion. Much of this money is used for various good causes. I understand that the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has attracted a great deal of support. I have received a paper written by the Adam Smith Institute and copies of many articles that have been written. The interest and support are certainly there. Arguments have also been made regarding the dangers of powerful European lotteries anticipating the opportunity to fill Britain's void in the European lottery market. That telling point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, this evening.
For my part I wish to make one or two comments about the proposition, first from the gambling point of view. The moral question of gambling has been well covered by the right reverend Prelate this evening. It was difficult to disagree with anything that he said. I also wish to point out how a national lottery would affect other existing forms of gambling and then I wish to examine the fund raising aspect. I shall say a word about the mechanics of establishing a lottery. Finally I wish to put one or two questions to the Minister of which I have given him warning.
As regards gambling, it has been mentioned and it must be said that the United Kingdom has the greatest diversity of legal gambling to be found anywhere in the world. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has mentioned most of the different forms. But, apart from the football pools, which is the biggest, there are premium bonds, horse racing and greyhound racing betting, betting shops, casinos, bingo, gaming machines and a multitude of small lotteries. So one might conclude that the appetite for gambling is already catered for, and that the arrival of a national lottery would undoubtedly take money away from this market, although I noticed this evening that several noble Lords thought that it would be new money that went into the lottery.
Attitudes towards lotteries as a form of gambling have varied over the years. There was a time when it was thought immoral for anyone to be able to gain a large sum of money without any skill or effort on his part. As I said, the right reverend Prelate made a very good case for that. Nevertheless it is evident that a more tolerant attitude has evolved towards gambling, so long as it is conducted under proper control.
On the matter of control, the 1978 Royal Commission on Gambling accepted the principle of lotteries, as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said, but it made some very important points. As regards control, it stated:
"All lotteries must be strictly controlled. Lotteries may be socially harmless but they present greater possibilities for fraud
796
than either betting or gaming, because the punter does not see what is happening to his money. Moreover lottery frauds often go undetected, because most people have little expectation of winning a prize and take for granted the integrity of those who organise the lottery."
That was one of the many very good points that the Royal Commission on Gambling brought out with regard to lotteries.
My next point is the way in which lotteries are viewed from the point of view of fund raising. There is little doubt that it is reasonable and perfectly acceptable that proceeds provided by the public should be used to fund something needed by the public. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, gave some very good examples. My noble friend Lord Jenkins, who has not yet gone, also provided some very good examples of how funds could be used, though I suspected that my noble friend rather wanted it both ways. It was difficult to go against gambling but yet to want to have the proceeds. So he wanted to have his cake and eat it, but I cannot say that I blame him for that.
What I do not think should happen is that money raised in this way should replace any kind of government funding. That is what my noble friend Lord Jenkins and other speakers said. There are many services which must be provided for and controlled centrally. Otherwise injustice and imbalance occur.
Although I know that this debate has nothing to do with the National Health Service, there was an appeal for the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children and so much money was raised for it that, in the end, it was felt quite certain that money was withdrawn from other children's hospitals which needed it as much or possibly even more. So that the system certainly created an imbalance for hospitals around the country. I see a danger that, if the proceeds from national lotteries were used to finance the arts, sports and the environment, government would be under a very great temptation to withdraw funding.
I should like to make one short point about the mechanics of setting up a lottery. A study made by a promotions company showed the necessary stages. First, and most important, the public must be in favour. Next it must be ascertained whether legislation is necessary. Then it must be decided what type of administration would be best to organise and run a lottery. Should it be a private commercial body, as in West Germany, a state-controlled body as in Holland or, as in Ireland, an independent, semi-state body running the lottery? Then there is the appointment of a lottery administration, the making of arrangements for the distribution of money raised, the prize structure and so on. So a very complex mechanism is necessary to produce a fair system which prevents fraud and makes for efficiency. There is little doubt that getting the right answers to these questions is critically important.
I should like to ask the following questions of the Minister. Can he say what representation, if any, he or his right honourable friend the Home Secretary has received from the general public who are either in favour of or against the introduction of a national lottery? Can he say to what extent foreign lotteries

797
are mailing tickets to UK residents? I have heard of examples of this happening and I wonder to what extent it has gone on. Also can the Minister say what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken to prevent these lottery companies operating in this country? Can he say, too, whether there would be a need for new legislation to enable a national lottery to operate in the United Kingdom, or would present legislation be amended?
This is a difficult subject on which to take an inflexible position and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who said that lotteries are neither good nor bad, but they make a big difference. The day of the national lottery in Britain may be brought about either by public acclaim or by outside pressure, through trying to protect ourselves from the intrusion of foreign lotteries.
But may I end by saying something which has not been said this evening? It is mainly the poor who buy lottery tickets. This has been proved by experience in other countries. People buy tickets to win prizes and they do it because they need the money. I was asking an Irish parliamentarian yesterday about his experience in Ireland. He replied: "I would not have them any more. I have seen members of my constituency go to buy their lottery tickets sometimes on the way back from collecting their family benefit. That is where the new money comes from. It comes from people who want to make money out of the prizes. This is the danger."
So if it is the poorer group in society who invest the money, it is surely they who should benefit from the proceeds. It is for that reason that, if there was a national lottery, the proceeds should be channelled for a wide distribution. This is where I agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who would have made the point if he had been able to speak today. It is the charitable organisations and voluntary agencies who could benefit from those funds. Some of them might put money into sport or the arts but, on the whole, they would put money into ways of assisting the people who invested money in these lotteries. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to this debate.
6.58 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this may have been only a short debate, and 0there may not have been so many of your Lordships participating in it, but for all that I have found it most interesting. I was deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, when he said at one moment that he did not want a reply. I should have been happy to oblige, but I thought that it would be discourteous if I took what he said at face value.
What he wanted to do by raising this matter was to hear the climate of opinion, and he has done that. He made a very diverse and persuasive case himself and I heard a number of your Lordships side with him over that. It was interesting to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester offer a cautionary approach to this business of gambling. He agonised over the principles of it and said that it might damage the social fibre of the nation. Each
798
of your Lordships will have to consider whether that is so.
When I heard the right reverend Prelate speak, my mind was taken back to 20 years ago when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, as he then was, who subsequently became the Bishop of London, introduced a debate on gambling. In his speech he happened to refer to the fact that a certain club had opened in London. It was called the Playboy Club. It invited various Members of your Lordships' House to have membership for a year for nothing. The right reverend Prelate had also received that invitation. Together with the invitation came a small leaflet depicting the advantages of membership in glorious technicolour. I remember the right reverend Prelate saying, in that glorious episcopal phrase:
"I wish that such enthusiasm had been put to greater effect".
I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, down the bizarre avenue that he introduced as to whether the arts should be supported by the proceeds of brothels. That extended the level of debate a good deal further even than the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, had intended. I shall explain the present position with regard to the law and policy on lotteries which operate under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. Public lotteries in this country are in general permitted only as fund-raising activities of registered societies, such as charities and sports clubs, or of local authorities.
The law limits the total value of the tickets which may be sold and the amount of the maximum prize which may be offered in any lottery. The limits were increased last September so that in the biggest lottery the turnover may be £180,000 and the maximum prize £12,000. The limits are set at modest levels deliberately for a number of reasons. They aim to prevent the undue stimulation of what is after all a form of gambling—I know that that will meet with the approval of the right reverend Prelate—but they also allow small societies to compete with larger ones. Both because of their small scale and because they benefit charitable or other good purposes, those lotteries are specifically exempted from gambling duty.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the fact that we had lotteries until the early 19th century. I believe that the noble Earl asked why they stopped. The last British state lottery was held in 1826. Lotteries were then ended, not because of the problems of buying lottery tickets, which were too expensive for the majority of people, but because of the widespread illegal betting on the drawing of numbers in the lottery itself. A Select Committee set up in 1808 reported:
"by the effects of the lottery…idleness, dissipation and poverty are increased, the most sacred and confidential trusts are betrayed, domestic comfort is destroyed, madness often created, crimes subjecting the perpetrators of them to the punishment of death are committed and even suicide itself is produced".
The right reverend Prelate might take succour from those words of nearly 180 years ago.
A major difference between lotteries under the current law and major lotteries is that in major lotteries the gambling element is seen to predominate over that of charitable giving. As the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has said, there can be a distinct

799
difference between a state lottery and a major lottery on a national scale. A state lottery is a lottery run by government. That would involve the state in the promotion of gambling, and if that were the noble Lord's proposal—which as he explained, it is not—I am bound to tell him that it would not meet with the Government's approval as it would run counter to our policies on deregulation and privatisation.
The idea of major lotteries on a national scale, though, is different. There could be one or more major lotteries. They would be privately run but they would have to be subject to regulation in order to protect both the punter and the intended beneficiaries. New legislation would therefore be required.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the fact that people in the United Kingdom are receiving lottery tickets from abroad. One might think that if that is so—I understand that it is—it is slightly ironic for a British person to be invited to take part in a lottery to build an opera house in Cologne when it is against the law to participate in a lottery to build an opera house in, let us say, Bournemouth.
The position is that it is unlawful to promote or to conduct major lotteries here, including lotteries based outside Great Britain. Some in West Germany and Canada have been promoted here by post and it can be difficult to curtail that activity. Action is being taken to deal with it. Customs and Excise has impounded quantities of promotional letters which were intended to be posted individually although they were imported in bulk. In addition, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has taken steps to end the attempts by lotteries which are based abroad to circumvent the law here.
The authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany have been alerted to the problem, and information is being exchanged with them with a view to stopping the posting here of invitations to participate in lotteries in West Germany. Similar action is being taken in respect of Canadian-based lotteries. In addition, since the beginning of the year Customs and Excise has impounded 390,000 envelopes containing material on West German or Canadian lotteries. It has alerted postal depots nationally to look for material.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I hope that the Customs and Excise will not impound my winnings, if I get them, from a West Germany lottery in which I take part.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord waits to see whether he is lucky and wins before he comes up with such a speculative idea.
I was about to advise your Lordships in answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness that a trade organisation representative of British domestic postal distribution companies has warned and advised its members not to accept contracts for the distribution of foreign lottery material. Advertisements for some foreign lotteries have appeared in magazines here and the Gaming Board
800
for Great Britain has drawn the attention of the publishers concerned to the provisions of our law. The publishers have undertaken not to carry such advertisements again.
Some people are worried about the position under the single European market. Our present understanding is that the law on lotteries will not be affected by its advent in 1992. A good defence of our prohibition on major lotteries could, if necessary, be made if the prohibition were to be challenged under the Treaty of Rome as it stands. I know that that would not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, because he would not wish us to defend the prohibition: he would wish us to remove it.
It is right and sensible to consider some of the complex factors which a major British lottery would raise. The noble Baroness asked what representations the Home Office had received. In the past 12 months we have received representations about a major lottery from 30 people. Those representations are varied. Some have advocated or inquired about the merits of a major lottery or lotteries and some have complained about the attempted marketing here of foreign lotteries. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that that is not a good guide to public opinion.
The noble Baroness also asked a number of very penetrating questions. She asked: if we were to change the law, how would we set about it? Would the new law allow one national lottery or a number of them? Who would decide who would run and who would benefit from the lottery—the Secretary of State or a lotteries board? What would the criteria be for accepting one application but rejecting others?
If there were more than one lottery the advantages would be dissipated by the other contestants. The large prize money of £1 million or so, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords, depends on huge circulation. The greater the number of lotteries the smaller are the prizes and the smaller the benefits—and the less the attractions. If there were to be one lottery it is more likely that the prize money and the benefits would be considerable, but such a lottery would be a monopoly. The questions would then be: who should benefit from that monopoly and who should be denied that benefit?
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is certain that that monopoly should be granted to the arts, sport and the environment, which were his particular hobby-horses. Those causes are undoubtedly worth while, but I fancy that there would be many other worthwhile causes which would come knocking at the door. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggested some. He referred to dyslexia. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked who would distribute the money. That is a very pertinent question. I fancy that causes such as cures for cancer might be considered suitable targets, as might the homeless, the starving or animals. It would be no easy matter for Parliament or any quango to decide between the multitude of legitimate but competing interests which could bid for that privilege.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, referred to the Roundhouse, the jazz centre, galleries, woods, skating, and retaining pictures which would

801
otherwise go abroad. I got the feeling that if only we had a lottery that would be the panacea for all our troubles and everything would be easy thereafter.
Even if it were decided which area of our national life should be the beneficiary, who would decide which opera house should be built and which should not, or whether a picture should be purchased or an orchestra assisted? Should those have priority over a football stadium? The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, made no bones about it. He wanted money for the National Heritage Memorial Fund. He gets a fair stack already, but that does not satisfy him. He wants more. He banged the drum very effectively for that cause. I fancy that the gentle rustle of sharpening steel would be deafening.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was worried that the Government had reduced their support for the arts. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said that the Government must fund the arts. It is important that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, should remember that we are giving 22 per cent. more money to the arts over the next three years. That is an additional sum. In 1990–91, £175 million is being given, 12·5 per cent. more than at present. That is well above inflation. The noble Lord would be the first to say that that is not enough but I hope he will agree that it is a considerable increase.
Vice and fraud are always just round the corner where any form of gambling is concerned. The whole exercise would have to be carefully controlled. A number of questions would have to be asked: has the draw been fair? Has it indeed been undertaken? Have all the purchasers participated? How many have participated? The greater the number of major lotteries the more those problems of regulation would arise. We would have to be careful too that if the purpose of the lottery was to be charitable in the loosest sense of the term the recipients were chosen because they were correctly deserving and not because they happened to have a public profile which would attract heavy participation in the lottery.
Successive governments, including our own since 1979, have allowed various gambling activities to go ahead, but only to the extent needed to meet unstimulated demand for them. All forms of major gambling here are therefore subject to a variety of controls ranging from restrictions on advertising to limits on the number of outlets. The evidence from other countries is that major lotteries require heavy advertising in order to attract maximum participation. Persistent public promotion might well therefore be a necessary condition if major lotteries are to be successful in this country. An exception of that nature for this particular purpose might be not too easy to defend.
Should a national lottery be free to advertise for example, on television and, as it were, to tout for participants, whereas established gambling interests such as football pools cannot? If football pools and the like were not also permitted to advertise they might reasonably complain of unfair competition. They would say that if there is only a certain amount of money floating about, as it were, in the gambling area it would inevitably be drawn away from those who are not allowed to advertise on television to those who are.
802
The total turnover of all pools, betting, bingo, casinos and gaming machines is about £10,000 million, of which some £2,400 million is what might be termed new money. Of that total the Exchequer takes about £1,000 million. So if we introduce a new form of gambling which has no tax attached to it, not only may all the existing members in the industry suffer but so also may the Treasury. If, in compensation, the lottery or lotteries were taxed, the profits would diminish accordingly.
Much of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, rests on the fact that major lotteries would attract new money only, leaving the expenditure on current gambling by the public unaffected. That is an untested proposition and experience in other countries may not necessarily be a reliable guide. No other country which is comparable to ours appears to have as varied a gambling industry as we have with which any new gambling enterprise would have to compete. It is commonly assumed that a major lottery would divert current spending, in particular away from the football pools. I suggest that there must be a limit to the amount of money which is waiting to find a home in the general area of gambling, although that was not evident from some of the speeches this afternoon.
The possible impact on charitable giving also has to be considered. A major lottery might damage the current modest lotteries which exist at present. The proponents of major lotteries, like the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, say that the evidence from other countries suggests that modest and major lotteries can thrive side by side. That may be so but such international comparisons need to be treated with caution.
There is then the question of whether a major lottery or lotteries might damage charitable giving. The right reverend Prelate said that there was not enough charitable giving in this country and that new lotteries might curtail even further what he believes is already inadequate. Let us assume that money could be attracted to lotteries which are designed for specific charitable or other good purposes. There is certainly some concern that the lotteries would nevertheless draw from a pool of money which charities as a whole could otherwise tap directly and more cost-effectively.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, will feel that I have made a somewhat negative and unhelpful speech. That has not been my objective. I have tried merely to indicate some of the curious slugs which start to crawl out from under this particular stone when one starts to move it. The noble Lord has put forward a very persuasive case for a national lottery. My aim has been to try to point out some of the difficulties which might arise if we were to go down that path. It has not been to question the merits of the environment, the arts or sport. Nobody doubts those. My purpose has been simply to lay before your Lordships some of the complexities which need to be taken into account if we are to look to lotteries to fund some of those requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said that he did not want a reply. I am not giving him a reply; I am

803
stating a fact. I am bound to tell him that the Government have no plans at present to amend the law to introduce one or more major lotteries. However, I can assure him that we shall continue to consider whether, and if so how, some of those complexities might be addressed. The views which your Lordships have expressed this evening will be of great assistance.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I am immensely obliged to everyone who has taken part in today's debate. As the noble Earl said, few though we were, many of the contributions were distinguished and thought-provoking, which is exactly what I had hoped. Obviously, in the few last minutes allotted to me, I cannot comment in general or in detail on what has been said, but there are one or two small points which might just as well be cleared up.
Many noble Lords have been worried that a scheme such as I proposed would encourage the Government—any government—to withdraw their support for the arts, sports or the environment. That was never my intention. I do not believe that that will happen. I should be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that I am talking about capital. Capital does not exist at present. I did not mention it as an example, but, if one wanted to build a home for the Welsh National Opera—at present all it has is a dotted line and no money—there is no way in which one could look to a fund or even to the Government. One might look to the Government, but it would not be fair to expect them automatically to say yes to something which cost about £60 million or £65 million. The fund would not conflict with or get in the way of present or even future arrangements in terms of revenue. That point was made by so many noble Lords that I thought I should make it clear that the scheme that I advocated did not have that effect.
I can reassure all those who wanted the money to go their way, including the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, that that is exactly the way it should go. The objects of the National Heritage Memorial Fund would be exactly paralleled by what I seek to do. It would have been a help to the noble Lord. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that I am talking about theatres and their upkeep.
I also agree with many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in that I recognise how difficult the security and organisational problems are and how difficult it is to choose who will adminsister the scheme in the end. I do not think that any of those problems are insuperable, however.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, thought that it was always poorer people who went in for lotteries. Everything that I have heard points to the contrary. American statistics show that it is the upper income bracket far more than the lower income bracket which go in for them, quite disproportionately so. The social effects predicted by the noble Baroness will probably not therefore come about.
804
There is no way that at this time of night I can contribute to the debate as to what the uses should be. In proposing such a Motion for the arts, sports and the environment, in whichever proportion, I recognise that other people will say that other subjects should be included. The disabled would automatically be included and would receive sums of money under any such scheme. However, there would be no resolution of the problem as long as the scheme lasts. As the noble Earl said, if there are too many lotteries, it spoils the point of having them. Is it fair to have a monopoly or a monopoly that breaks advertising conventions? I recognise those problems. They will have to be solved and I believe that they are soluble.
However, the interesting problem raised by the right reverend Prelate is not soluble. Does the question of lotteries relate to greed rather than charitable giving? There is no answer to that and I do not think that there ever can be unless there is a separate answer on every ticket. My own guess in practical terms is that, if one invents a lottery such as this with £1 tickets, even if there is a million pound prize, one knows that one's chance of winning is so remote that it is a vague pipedream. Even one's chance of winning £2 is likely to be about one in eight. It amounts to charitable giving with a little shiver of excitement just in case something else might happen. That is how most rational beings would look at the matter. I suspect that that will not reassure the right reverend Prelate on the subject of greed, but I believe that that is what would happen.
Finally, perhaps I may deal with the question of competition from abroad. I am interested to hear from the noble Earl what is being done to ensure that we are not overwhelmed with competition. However, I was struck by his recognition that, however much one may legislate, promoting or selling tickets for lotteries abroad will be easy. Whether it is before or after 1992 and whatever the legislation may be, I suspect that it will be difficult to stamp out competition completely. As the noble Earl said, it would be galling if a major enterprise arose in Germany out of British citizens' contributions to their lottery. We should be better off with our own.
That was how I started this evening. I must conclude by renewing my thanks to everyone who took part and to the noble Earl for such a considered reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Planning Protection for Conservation Areas
7.25 p.m.
Lord Raglan Lord Raglan rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what legislative or administrative proposals they have to enable planning authorities to overcome their present difficulties in protecting areas worthy of conservation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, about 10 years ago the Government brought out a paper called Lifting the Burden which indicated that they

805
intended to relax the planning system. They said that there were too many controls and that large sums of money were involved in new buildings which were necessary to wealth creation and to the revitalisation of the economy. They said that the planning system should obstruct new construction in as few ways as possible. They wanted the public to take the view that all potential development was benign in effect, that the system should be made to work faster and that councils must not fuss about what new buildings looked like or where they should be put.
At first, in spite of those pronouncements, things went on much as before. That was because of a struggle spanning two decades over planning policy between the old and the new. Only recently had an uneasy balance been achieved, much of the trouble being that modern architecture was and is, intentionally or unintentionally, inimical to older architecture.
However, over the last four or five years, although there have been few changes in planning legislation, pronouncements issuing from the department have become more and more insistent. The Government have evidently been determined, through administrative means coupled with circulars and planning policy guidance, to change custom and practice. It has not been merely a change of emphasis, more a reversal of what most people involved in conservation, whether amenity bodies, national institutions or councils, had grown to believe that planning legislation was all about and should be achieving.
Perhaps I should explain to noble Lords who are not familiar with the planning system that departmental guidance, as it is called, is the means by which the Secretary of State controls the planning system. Guidance spells out in effect his orders to the planning inspectors. There are 170 full-time inspectors and about 180 part-time inspectors. Those inspectors, who by profession are usually architects or town planners, preside at planning appeals.
Following such guidance from the department, planning inspectors have increasingly overturned conservation-friendly decisions by local planning authorities—the councils—where the latter have tried to defend their decisions on appeal. Councils have been fined large sums in costs when councillors have properly carried out their function as they saw it. As a result, at planning committee meetings they are being made to feel obliged to reach conclusions on conservation matters against their better judgment as they are ever conscious of the risk of costs being awarded against them.
As an example of what has been happening, in 1987 to 1988 costs were awarded in over one-third of all inquiries and 86 per cent. of them were against councils for supposedly unreasonable behaviour. That has been taking place during a period of unprecedented pressure for development, particularly in conservation areas because of their special attraction. As a result councils have been losing the ability to have adequate control of their streets. That, in turn, is resulting in irreversible erosion—incremental erosion is a good description
806
that I have heard—of the quality of environments, which may well have been saved with difficulty some time ago and subsequently carefully defended over decades.
I understand the Government's attitude. Certainly their sentiments sound liberal enough—so far as concerns developers anyway—in embracing the views that I have outlined and forcing them on planning authorities. But they have not paid much attention to the wishes of the general public. For example, aesthetic controls, which have been anathematised by this Government, are demanded of councils by residents. Surely that is not surprising. After all, though designers and developers pursue a necessary occupation, they work privately for themselves on behalf of clients. However, their products are consumed both physically and visually by the citizen at large. A new building cannot avoid impinging on the street scene and that affects people other than those who are building it. I know that that seems a glimpse of the obvious, but it is something that is often overlooked.
In addition, when residents value their surroundings, as they usually do when they live in conservation areas, their own pecuniary interests are likely to be affected as well as those of potential developers. It would be all right perhaps if developers were altruistic but unfortunately not many of them are. Most of them tend to say something like, "Here is a nice site with a fine view of these listed buildings. I have thingummies designed for a ziggurat in my back pocket"—I know that to have happened—"but perhaps as this is a very well known area I shall get an architect to design something with a period gesture. That should sell very well". That is known as robbing the view and is all too common. The sentiment is, "I have a fine view of your place and I don't much care what you think of
This Government have in general, rightly I think, set themselves against producer control, endeavouring to keep the balance right on behalf of the consumer. Therefore I find it all the more strange that they should have been behaving as they have done over planning. It is inconsistent with their philosophy to absolve this particular producer group, whether architect, developer or client, from responsibility towards the quality of the environment as perceived by the residents of an area. They—they say—with the passers-by are the consumers. Context and compatibility are enormously important to them. I may say that nobody knows or should know more about the qualities of that kind of context and compatibility than the local councils, prompted by residents. They probably know much better than the inspectors.
There have been, and I expect will be again, occasions when for one reason or another councils have not done well by their residents. However, in the past residents have known that they could appeal for help to central government and expect some sort of sympathy. That happened in Bath some 20 years ago when the council got it into its head to pull down large parts of the city. If central government had not intervened there would be nothing like so much left of that city as there is today. Now, at the Government's suggestion, UNESCO has deemed the

807
city to be of world importance. A continuing central government commitment to protect the city has been invaluable both to the council and to the amenity bodies.
Nowadays, though, we do not know where we stand. Former government policy has gone overboard and the city is once again open, not this time to demolition but to spoliation of its setting by erosion. Architectural fashion has changed for the better over the years but my civic society has to remain very alert and the Government have been no support at all. Quite the opposite. Not long ago the council, supported by the amenity bodies and local residents, won an appeal to oppose a new building in a central residential area. It won on grounds of lack of adequate parking provision. Yet, in an act of wonderful—and I am tempted to say wilful—perversity, the inspector awarded costs of £12,000 against the council. That was in respect of the architect's estimate of his own costs in supporting his designs against the council's disapproval of them. For the council had had the temerity to include its disapproval of those designs in its reasons for rejection and, according to the department, councils are not allowed to hold views on aesthetics, which is astonishing.
Likewise in Bath, the council, with the full support of residents, resists the conversion of houses to offices in the city centre in order to keep life there. On appeal against one such council ruling, one reason that an inspector gave for allowing change from residential to office use was that the house in question had no front garden. I may say that nearly all the houses in the city centre have no front garden. That is just one illustration of how far inspectors are or have been going in leaning over against even the most sensible of controls.
In doing so thay are causing the character of conservation areas gradually to alter. The only means of remedying such decisions is by application to the High Court. But that is vastly time-consuming and expensive and can only be contemplated when the decision appears to be fundamentally flawed and the potential harm is so great that it simply has to be avoided. That is another instance of how loaded is the system against conservation at present.
I shall only briefly mention the vast number of problems thrown up by the Use Classes Order 1987 because I understand that the Government have its effects under review at the moment. However, let me give the House an example of how the Secretary of State is deterring councils from doing the kind of job that they are supposed to do. Only last week I was shown the result of an appeal in Notting Hill where the council had refused change of use from shop to restaurant for its own good reasons, which it gave. Yet not only did the restaurateur win on appeal; he was awarded £27,000 costs. In other words, costs are being used punitively to steer government policy. I think that that is wrong. I appreciate that there is a certain mordant humour in making councils subsidise opposition to their own planning controls and decisions but it demonstrates a lack of appreciation of the problems that so often accompany development and change of views.
I must also mention what is known as presumption in favour of development. It has always existed as a general principle although not written into legislation. As a free citizen, one is at liberty to put forward a proposal for a planning development. If the planning authority agrees, there is no need for it to say anything. But if it refuses or disagrees, it has to give reasons. In other words, an explanation has to be given if one is stopped from doing something. The principle is not written into legislation because there is no need. However, the Government have tried very hard to turn an unwritten principle into a written precept. They wrote it into a circular in 1980 and again into guidance in 1988, stating also that to refuse permission local planning authorities have to demonstrate that the development would do harm. That is quite hard to do. However, one cannot act upon such a principle where Parliament has decreed otherwise; and Parliament has decreed otherwise in conservation areas. Presumption in favour of development in a conservation area is a contradiction in terms although no one would gather that from the guidance notes or from anything else emanating from the department.
The way in which a Secretary of State can shuffle legislation to one side with one hand while he writes new policy guidance with the other seems to me a matter of great concern. Pushed out of sight altogether has been the developer's duty as laid down by Parliament to preserve or enhance a conservation area, and only public-spirited action in the courts has shown this up, as it did in the Steinberg case. I am told that the department does not like the Steinberg judgment and is doing its best to water down its effects. I hope that this information is incorrect.
I have mentioned Bath. Your Lordships may think that my remarks are prompted only from my experience there. However, I have been hearing complaints all around the country. I have also received many letters of support from your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who is away. However, he told me that I could mention his name in support of my argument if I thought that it would help. I know that it will.
There is deep unease among conservationists at the department's stance. The Government should hold the ring, but instead of that people see them as making onslaughts on those who hold opinions different from those of developers. They are deterring councils and amenities bodies from conserving areas. They have even been trying to impose the view that the look of the building is a matter only for its designers. I seem to differ here from the Royal Town Planning Institute. I see no reason why planning authorities should not set the style of design as part of a planning brief. Why ever not, my Lords? It would save a lot of argument.
When I put down the Question last summer I learned that the chairman of the Kensington and Chelsea planning committee had become so frustrated by the Government's preventing his committee from doing what it saw as its duty that he was resigning in order to campaign to change government policy. Through the borough he produced an excellent pamphlet, a copy of which, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, told me, came through

809
his letter box. I have sent one to the department. It should be helpful.
Councillor Gordon is now the mayor and therefore has withdrawn from campaigning. However, I mention two matters that I have discussed with him. One is that, as things are, councillors are duty bound because of the queston of costs to consider every application as it would be considered on appeal by a probably hostile planning inspector. The other is that in no case does a council stand much chance on appeal if the councillors have reached a conclusion that is different from that preferred and advanced by their officers. So much for exercise of responsibility; so much for independence of judgment. Surely the Government should not impose their views thus but rather should take notice of the widespread dismay that their policies have been causing.
I was chairman of a new town development corporation and of its planning committee for almost 13 years. I know much about the economic importance of new development of factories, of business and of the encouragement of enterprise. Indeed my town gave a lead with a number of ideas in this regard. It is from my experience in a new town that I know that conservation is inimical to these issues. It is a matter of thinking how to handle the question with sympathy, of not imagining that conservation must stand in the way of progress, of respecting old buildings and the people who prefer to live among them, and so on.
The Government's present approach is all wrong. They must rethink it. I hope that they will do so in the light of the debate this evening.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I feel very diffident about following the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who is clearly very much an expert on this subject. I must confess that up until now I have never taken an interest in the subject and am doing so this evening only because I received from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea the brochure to which the noble Lord has referred. I suppose the reason that I received it is that I live in that borough. Most of the very few words that I was going to say have already been said by the noble Lord. However, I shall proceed with what I had in mind to say.
As I understand it, the position is that since national planning control began in 1947 there has always been a presumption in favour of development, as the noble Lord mentioned. That has been going on all the time, not just during the period that this Government have been in office. It was natural enough that there should be such a presumption just after the war, after all the ravages of that war on the capital and on other parts of the country. But this presumption has continued ever since; and I am also told that it has become stronger in the past 10 years.
In Circular 22/80, to which the noble Lord referred, the Government directed local authorities to grant planning permission unless having regard to all material considerations—and I emphasise the
810
word "material"—there were sound and clear-cut reasons for refusal. In January 1988 in PPG 1 the Department of the Environment gave guidance as follows:
"The developer is not required to prove the case for the development he is proposing to carry out but if the planning authority consider it necessary to refuse permission, the onus is on them to demonstrate clearly why".
I now return to the word "material". One of the many considerations which most people would regard as material is surely what the development is likely to look like. Yet the same guidance note in January 1988 stated:
"Matters of detailed design have long been an unnecessary source of contention and delay in the planning system. Planning authorities should not impose their tastes on developers simply because they believe them to be superior".
That appears to mean that the reverse can occur; the authorities can have the taste of the developers imposed upon them.
The general policy guidance appears to be completely at variance with present government policy. The philosophy behind the community tax charge is to make local government accountable to the community. That would make it essential for planning authorities to canvass the opinions of local residents before giving or refusing permission. However, if they do so and the developer appeals it is probable that refusal of permission will be reversed by the department. I understand that that situation occurs not only in Kensington and Chelsea but all over the country.
Usually there are two sides to every question. I shall listen with interest to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Reay. During the past 40 years there have been some odd developments. Many have not been pleasing to the eye and I suspect to some others. If they stem from a fault in the system there must be a strong case for its reform.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I have reached the conclusion that he knows far more about the process of planning authorities than I ever shall. Therefore I shall restrict my remarks to the function of the system as it stands. A system that presumes the right to devleop must have strong bounds placed upon it if it is not to become a means of abusing the environment as a whole.
"Environmental" and "green" issues have become buzzwords and all political parties and interest groups appear to have developed a green hue. I suggest that in domestic areas the Government should do something to make that hue a little more believable. If we continue to damage our environment at the current rate as a result of new development and certain types of agricultural practice, the statements which we make about the environment of other countries—the rain forests are a classic example—will look fairly shallow. It is worth remembering that centuries of development have led to a total change in our natural landscape and that little is left. We must be careful about what we do in setting examples.

811
The value of our environment is difficult to place in terms of the benefits gained from certain developments. It is true that there is a housing problem in the South of the country. I suggest that a more realistic regional policy would take away some of the pressure, but not all. When undertaking developments we must consider the cost of our actions, which affect virtually everything that we do. Every time we develop a greenfield site we destroy some natural ecosystem which has evolved over many years. That is equally true of natural heathland and domestic gardens which have not been subjected to a barrage of pesticides. There is a natural ecosystem of wildlife, plants and animals even in one small patch of land. Therefore, it is particularly worrying when people sell parts of their gardens for the development of, say, new flats. Not only is that land destroyed as a form of natural habitat but there is an effect on the surrounding area.
Many forms of wildlife which used to find a home in rural settings are now moving into suburban settings. The process of farming has destroyed their habitat and often their food source, as in the case of birds of prey. Mice and voles are not now found in such large numbers in urban areas because of the use of pesticides and poisons. Many birds of prey are now moving into urban and suburban environments.
Therefore, we must consider some form of guideline which protects all the different environments. In the current situation, where it is assumed that the developer has the right to develop, the balance is wrong. Environmentally we can no longer afford to develop at will because we are running out of space. Ours is a densely populated island, particularly the southern half, and no longer can we allow people to do as they wish.
In considering the Question—it concerns our quality of life and whether we wish to keep in that certain parts of our environment—we must remember the visual appearance of the environment. Anyone who has looked out upon great lumps of concrete thrown up in large regimented lines knows that that view is not conducive to a feeling of well-being. Indeed, living in such an environment causes depression and is deeply dehumanising. At present the huge grey giants are falling to bits. We should be more concerned with the aesthetic aspect and that is undeniably so when we look at the results of the past.
We must develop a policy which asks why an area is to be developed and what the benefits are. They should be weighed against the cost to the environment and we should ensure that they outweigh the costs. Any damage caused to the environment must not be irreversible.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the House should be extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Raglan for introducing the Question. His speech came from deep and wide experience of the subject. It had the added and uncommon advantage of pulling no punches. He also went into detail where necessary. I do not remember having heard a better speech
812
about conservation, especially urban conservation, for many years.
I have only two points to make, both of which are subsidiary to my noble friend's main exposition. They fit in as points of emphasis as regards what he has said. Since the middle of the second world war the mainstay of our system of conservation of historic environments in cities, towns and villages has been the investigators of buildings of historic and architectural importance. They are a core of people who objectively judge, say, a street for architectural or historic importance and grade it. Naturally they develop immense expertise and a core of general academic knowledge. Naturally and rightly, in taking planning decisions involving such considerations, Secretaries of State have always turned to the investigators for advice. Without them and their advice it is possible that we should have no preservation of historic and architecturally important buildings. If their role were abolished, we should have to invent a different system; perhaps like the French system, which rests on a different basis and is much more onerous for developers to face.
The investigators and the administrators who administer the investigators used to be part of the Department of the Environment. At one very pleasant period of my life I was the junior Minister responsible for them. Naturally, I noticed and paid a great deal of attention when Mr. Heseltine, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, proposed to hive them off into the quango which later became English Heritage.
At that time I was so worried about it—and I would not say that I was hostile, because I did not fully understand why he wanted to do it—that I went to see him. He kindly agreed to talk to me. He said, "I understand your worries but consider this advantage. At the moment I could halve the money for the historic buildings branch of the Ministry, I could halve the grants given for the upkeep of historic buildings, streets and towns without anybody knowing. Once I hive it off and it becomes freestanding, I shall have to publish the amount of money it receives every year. If ever I show any signs of reducing it then I have no doubt that you will kick up a public scandal. That will make it less likely that I shall be tempted to reduce the amount". I thought that was a very good argument and on reflection decided to support what was proposed.
I must say that at that time it never occurred to me that the investigators of the historic buildings branch would be treated otherwise than as the experts in the field who would be turned to first and always, nor that, while the advice could not always be statutorily accepted, it would not always be given greater weight in the matters in which the investigators were competent than the advice of anybody else. It is very sad that that is no longer so.
One has been able to see by mere anecdotal reading of the press that there has been an increase in the number of occasions on which the advice of English Heritage in a question involving the demolition of a listed building or street has been rejected. When I saw that that was the case I tabled a whole series of

813
Questions and wrote many letters to Ministers asking for figures. I asked what was the increase in the number of occasions on which the advice of English Heritage had been rejected. The answer came back that no record is kept. I tried again by asking whether or not it would be desirable to keep a record and the answer came back that it would not be.
I then turned to English Heritage to ask if it kept a record of those figures. It said that it did not but that it could reach a figure, if it judged it worth while, by combing back through all the records—a long and arduous business. I do not know whether they are going to do that.
What is quite clear—and it can be seen again and again from reports of inspectors' findings and from Answers to Parliamentary Questions and letters to Ministers—is that the Secretary of State or his inspector consults English Heritage, receives its advice and consults other parties on the value of a given building and receives their advice. These are very often the statutorily listed amenity societies, and it is very good that they should be consulted. However—and this is new—the department or the inspector goes further and consults intending developers. He takes into account—and I have a very well known case of this in Weymouth—a study of the architectural or historical importance of a given building which has been paid for by the applicant for permission to pull it down. He takes that into account as material.
English Heritage has been pushed downhill so that it is now very little more than an amenity society along with the others. It is consulted among others and its advice may or may not be taken into account. If I and others had thought at the time when Mr. Heseltine invented English Heritage that that was to be its fate, we should certainly have opposed the move and said, "You keep it where it has been for 30 years, inside the department, and listen to it as the Government's prime adviser". All I can say is that what is now happening to English Heritage is something which should not happen to an official body with statutory powers which has been entrusted by Parliament with the duty of giving statutory advice to the Secretary of State.
I now turn to my other point, which concerns the world heritage sites which have been mentioned this evening. It is almost a year since we debated world heritage sites. At that time I voiced my fears about the future of heritage sites. I questioned whether existing planning law would be sufficient to protect them. Let us remember that we are dealing here with places of which there are only 12 in Britain and only about 200 in the world. They are by definition—and a definition accepted and proclaimed by HMG—of world importance.
In the first place they are left to a district council, since district councils now have the planning power and county councils no longer have that. I said at the time that I did not believe that that would work out very well and that the Government should do something to increase the degree of central protection afforded by government to our 12 world heritage sites. I was not quite sure what should be done. However, I made a proposal to use the never
814
yet used system of planning inquiry commissions in each case of a planning application of any significance for one of those sites.
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, answering for the Government ruled out the proposal and said that he was sure that the protection afforded by existing statutory and administrative arrangements was sufficient. I took the precaution of writing to him in time for this evening's debate and received a letter from him today in which he wrote that it was still his opinion that the degree of protection afforded by present statutory arrangements was sufficient.
Later on I went with the Kennet District Council, which is responsible for the world heritage site at Avebury, to see Mrs. Bottomley when she was the junior Minister concerned at the Department of the Environment. With some dash for a very small rural council, the Kennet District Council put forward possible arrangements involving no change in statute law which could be introduced to protect all the world heritage sites in the country. Mrs. Bottomley expressed a keen interest and I thought that we might be on to a winner. However, since then nothing has happened. That is the second constructive proposal which I have put forward which has been rejected.
I do not intend to put forward another proposal this evening. The record is not so favourable to my having a third shot. However, I should like to tell the House what has happened at that one world heritage site since that time and to draw what seems to me to be the moral. There have been four public inquiries in two years. That does not seem very many. However, Avebury is a village with a population of somewhere between 100 and 200 and the parish of Avebury, which is the planning unit, takes in that and another village. I dare say that between them the population is 300. There have been two separate major hotel proposals, both of which would completely ruin that site and deprive it of any right to continue with the designation of a world heritage site. Each of those underwent a separate public inquiry lasting many weeks. Avebury Manor has been bought by a commercial exploiter who has been very rightly ordered by the district council to cease doing what he is doing to the historic buildings and to undo what he has done. He has chosen to appeal against those orders and that has involved a third public inquiry lasting many weeks. The fourth inquiry will be when the Kennet District Council produces its draft parish plan for Avebury, covering the tiny population of roughly 300.
The last time we debated these issues in this House it was very good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, say that English Heritage would be putting forward its own proposals for the management of the world heritage site at Avebury, most of which is owned by the National Trust. However, I have not yet found out whether there has been any progress in that respect and the local planning authority has now put forward its proposals. They are well meaning, but in the opinion of many inhabitants of the village—I live in the next village—they do not go nearly far enough. We said so to the district council and it decided that it would be right to have a public inquiry. It is quite right, but I have not the least doubt that it will last many weeks.

815
What is a population of 150 or 200 expected to do to finance and find the energy and skill to fight four public inquiries, each of which lasted many weeks, in two years? We are flagging. They are flagging; that is natural. I expect that, as pressure mounts from the international hotel chain developers on all our world heritage sites—mark you, it will; it is already happening in Durham, in Cambridge, which is not even designated yet, and other areas—we shall find the force for conserving that which makes it a world heritage site and which stands beside the district council (which is sometimes very small) in its attempts to ensure that it is worth preserving, simply vanishing away through sheer lack of size. That is another reason why the Government should re-examine the refusal they have so far maintained to entertain the possibility of any change in the existing law or arrangements concerning world heritage sites.
8.12 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I echo the thanks which have already been expressed on behalf of myself and the crowded Benches behind me to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for the very expert way in which he has introduced this important subject.
When I first saw the Unstarred Question put down I thought I had to declare interest as a former chairman of the development control sub-committee of the London Borough of Haringey. That would have meant my declaring an interest as a gamekeeper. However, since that time I have this week learnt that a planning application which I put in for my own property and which was turned down by the London Borough of Haringey has now been allowed on appeal by the Department of the Environment inspectors. I therefore have qualifications as a poacher as well as a gamekeeper and I propose to capitalise on both qualifications.
Noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have referred to some of the most important issues which face our country in preserving a civilised way of life. Most of the debate has been about the problems of unsuitable architecture—what the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, calls "robbing the view". The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made an impassioned plea for the preservation of the natural environment and of greenfield sites. I do not want to do other than to echo what he said about the importance of maintaining the natural environment.
In the short time I allow myself I want to talk about the balance of interest and the powers of the Department of the Environment and local planning authorities. I want to consider how best they might be meshed together to reflect the interests not only of residents but of the population as a whole. At the moment it seems to me—it has been emphasised by many speakers—that the balance is wholly wrong. The problem with the relationship between the Government and local planning authorities is that the Government have never been under any obligation to state openly and in risk of contradiction by Parliament what their policies are. What has happened is that there has been a back-door revolution.
816
I paid tribute to Mr. Michael Heseltine when he came out into the open and explained in his paper Lifting the Burden the basis of his policies. At the time I did not agree with what he said, but I thought it admirable that he should be willing to say what he said openly and to raise the matter as an issue of public debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, made clear, the changes that have taken place since that time—they did not take place immediately—have taken place by the back-door. They have taken place in the form of guidance notes for the inspectors rather than in the form of public debate. It is for that reason above all that this question is of such great importance.
We have to remember with regard to planning applications that the cards are always stacked in favour of developers and against planning authorities. The most obvious reason for that is that, once planning permission has been granted for something, that permission can never be revoked, or at least not revoked except at enormous expense and with very great legal difficulty. Once a developer has been turned down, however, that developer can come back time after time, whittling away at the determination of the planning authority and of local people to resist a particular piece of development. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, gave a graphic account of that when he described what was happening at Avebury. I fear that that story is not yet complete and it may well be that the whittling away will result in something disastrous.
In that sense the cards are already stacked against local planning authorities. It is extremely difficult for local planning authorities, which do not have money available, and certainly for local residents, who do not have money available, to resist the very well-heeled developers who have a great deal of money to make from certain forms of development.
The second way in which the cards are stacked against local authorities has already been referred to, and that is the way in which costs are increasingly being awarded against local authorities even when they win the case. It is bad enough for local authorities to have costs awarded against them when they lose a case; after all, they are only reflecting a public wish to protect the conservation areas and the environment. When developers put forward proposals of this kind, they are quite clearly looking to make money out of them. In my view they must take the risks and should pay the costs whether they win or lose the application. That position has now been turned on its head and councils which defend the interests of the electors and local people find costs awarded against them even when they win.
The third way in which it is becoming increasingly difficult for councils to act objectively and effectively—the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, again referred to this and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, also made this point—is when they are told that their decisions are at risk if they go against the advice given to them by officers. In a democratic sense that seems to me to be outrageous. What are councillors for unless they have the ability, on occasion, to follow their own judgment and the judgment of those who elected them to overturn the

817
views expressed by professional officers? I do not denigrate professional officers; I have worked very successfully with them both in a borough council and in the Greater London Council. There are times, however, when it is necessary for the greater good to prevail and the greater good should be capable of being expressed by councillors. There should not be a risk of their case being overturned simply because there is disagreement between councillors and officers.
The fourth way in which councils are hamstrung in the way they deal with planning applications, as I have already hinted, is in the guidance given to inspectors. This guidance goes far too far to enhance the presumption in favour of development and far too far against the presumption which ought to exist that there is such a thing as a heritage, both architectural and natural, which ought to be preserved. After all, architecture is not like the other arts. If one does not like a painting one does not have to go into the art gallery to see it; if one does not like a book, one does not have to open it.
If you live in this country at all you are exposed to architecture, and you are exposed, thank goodness, to a wide range of architecture of many centuries. Some of it over the centuries is good and some is bad—I am not making a point in favour of or against modern architecture. I am certainly not going to enter the debates which have enraged the Royal Institute of British Architects over recent years.
Because architecture is so visible I am reminded of the Coit Tower on the top of Telegraph Hill in San Francisco. It is so ugly that it is said the only way to avoid seeing it is to live in it. There are plenty of examples in this country of similar buildings which ought to be crammed with sensitive people seeking to avoid looking at the place in which they live. Because architecture is so visible there should be a presumption that the advice of such organisations as English Heritage and the Royal Fine Arts Commission—the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made a valuable point in that connection—is taken into account. We should be given the answer to the noble Lord's question regarding the number and proportion of occasions on which the advice of English Heritage has not been taken into account.
There is an extreme view held in some quarters that there should be no such thing as planning control. The City of Chicago is always used as an example. It is said that Chicago is a successful city economically because it does not have planning or zoning controls. I believed that to be the case until recently when I visited Chicago and discovered that that is not true. There may not be strict controls over the aesthetic appearance of buildings but the city has strict zoning controls and has much more concern than we tend to have.
My final and most important point is that planning controls are essential not just from an aesthetic point of view but because of the zoning implications—the implications of new developments on the demand for transport services, water supplies, utility supplies of other kinds, social and educational services and so on. The creation of a balanced community which
818
contains the services that are required in the places where they are needed is the fundamental reason why planning controls are so necessary.
The need for planning controls for conservation purposes is an important case, but it is a special case which should be taken alongside the social reasons for effective, consistent and clearly expressed planning controls. I fear that with recent unpublished decisions the Government may be moving away from the requirements of our society which have been expressed over the years in the form of planning controls.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, your Lordships' House can be in no doubt about the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, to conservation. His speech today was generously and justifiably praised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are equally committed to protecting the best of our architectural and natural heritage, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
With the ever-increasing demands and expectations of our living, organically growing society it would be unrealistic to expect to be able to preserve everything, even everything worthy of conservation; nor would it be natural. For centuries buildings and landscapes have been altered and adapted to cater for the requirements and tastes of successive generations of owners and occupiers. Nevertheless, there is a very great deal in this country that it would be everyone's wish to see everything possible done to preserve. That need has been progressively recognised since the war in an expanding framework of legislation and policy guidance from successive governments. I welcome the opportunity which the debate this evening provides to glance briefly at this topic.
The oft-quoted presumption in favour of development is not, as is sometimes supposed, a recently invented policy to facilitate development. It is a statement of principle which has underlain the planning system for over 40 years, ever since the traditional freedom of a landowner to develop and use his land as he wished first began to be subjected to a comprehensive system of control based upon the public interest.
The idea that local authorities should designate areas,
"of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance",
found legislative recognition in the Civic Amenities Act 1967. We now have some 6,000 conservation areas. They vary in scope from historic town centres—as in Bath where the conservation area now covers two-thirds of the built-up area—to smaller terraces or squares, groups of houses in towns or villages or parks around historic buildings. Many of them are centred on listed buildings but not all: many simply represent good, pleasing architecture in harmony with their surroundings.
For over 20 years there has been a statutory requirement that those who determine planning applications and appeals—that is, local planning

819
authorities and the Secretary of State for the Environment—must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. This requirement was highlighted in the case already mentioned in which a Professor Steinberg successfully challenged a decision by one of the Secretary of State's inspectors. The inspector had allowed an appeal against a refusal of planning permission to develop a site in a conservation area in the London Borough of Camden. The judge held that the inspector had misdirected himself when he identified the issue to be decided as whether the proposed development would harm the character of the conservation area. The judge said there was a world of difference between whether the proposal would harm the character of the area and the correct test of the need to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing it.
That was a significant judgment. It highlighted in a way that had not been done before the need to apply the positive test of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area rather than simply the negative test of not doing harm when planning applications are considered. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, suggested that the Department of the Environment is doing what it can to water down the effect of the Steinberg judgment. I can tell the noble Lord that the judgment of the High Court has been accepted and that planning inspectors have been made aware of the lessons to be learnt from it.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, referred to a complaint which is made in the planning brief, The Need for Reform. As he correctly said, I have seen a copy being a resident of Chelsea, as is my noble friend Lord Cullen. It was issued by Councillor Gordon, the former chairman of the planning committee of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The noble Lord repeated the complaint made in that document that in conservation areas to have a presumption in favour of allowing applications for development is a contradiction in terms and should go. To that I would say that the presumption in favour of development anywhere, as set out most recently in PPGI, is qualified by the requirement to have regard to all material considerations. In the case of conservation areas that must mean paying special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing their character or appearance.
The Government's planning policy guidance, published in the Department of the Environment Circulars and Planning Policy Guidance Notes, puts flesh on the legislative framework of development control. The courts have said that such guidance is a material consideration to be taken into account in decisions about development proposals. I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, implied that there is something "back-door" about this method of issuing guidance. However, the PPGs are published documents. They are distributed to local planning authorities and are available to the general public. They largely reiterate advice previously published in circulars but in a more concise and accessible form.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I am grateful for that explanation. I entirely accept, and would never dream of denying, that planning policy guidelines are available to councils and to the general public. However, that is a different matter (is it not?) from having them subjected to political debate. For example, it is different from having them presented to Parliament by Secretaries of State or, even better, being the subject of legislation. The noble Lord will agree that there have been major changes in the emphasis of these planning policy guidelines. I should have thought this was a matter for debate in Parliament.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not entirely accept that. I shall be dealing with some of the points that the noble Lord raised. I now turn to the subject of aesthetics raised by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Raglan, which is such a subjective matter. It is extraordinarily difficult to provide guidance which is capable of practical application and satisfies a consensus of opinion. PPG1 says:
"control of external appearance can be important, especially for instance in environmentally sensitive area—such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas and areas where the quality of the environment is of a particularly high standard".
We also recommend authorities to reject,
"obviously poor designs which are out of scale or character with their surroundings".
It is pertinent to bear in mind that this advice has to be applied to some half a million planning applications each year, the vast majority of which are resolved locally without, I suggest, undue fuss or bother.
I should like to emphasise to your Lordships the Government's desire that as many planning decisions as possible should be taken locally. In an ideal world they would all be resolved at a local level. In fact, fewer than 2 per cent. of all planning permissions are granted by or on behalf of the Secretary of State. Inevitably, that 2 per cent. includes a number of major or controversial proposals which attract publicity and generate wider public interest.
The allegation is made from time to time that the Government are allowing progressively greater numbers of appeals against local authorities' decisions to refuse planning permission. However, let me give your Lordships some figures. Last year, 1988–89, 35 per cent. of appeals in the city of Bath were allowed, compared with 36·7 per cent. in England. In the first nine monhs of the current year, 1989–90, only 23·5 per cent. of Bath appeals were successful, and the national figure was 34·4 per cent. Those figures suggest that both in Bath and in England as a whole the proportion of appeals allowed is diminishing.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for providing those figures. I suggest that it is perhaps a false reading. In my speech I said that the councils have the Ridley axe over their heads and they are worried that they are going to be done for costs. That is what is making them feel more inclined to give planning permission in some cases rather than otherwise.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I shall be dealing with the question of costs in a moment. I believe that some will find the figures I have quoted reasssuring. Earlier the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, mentioned the case where an inspector upheld an appeal against the change of use of a house to offices in Bath. Each case must be considered on its merits, but since early 1989 all four appeals against the refusal of permission for such change of use have been rejected by the Secretary of State.
I now turn to the question of costs and I shall address some misconceptions about the award of costs in respect of planning appeals. The present appeal costs regime is not intended to punish the local planning authority for a wrong decision when it has been taken as part of the development control process. The purpose of the costs regime is to enable either party to retrieve some or all of their appeal costs when it is clear that either the planning application should not have been refused or the planning appeal should never have been submitted because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
That policy is applied even-handedly. For example, in the last year costs have been awarded in favour of the local planning authority in respect of dismissed appeals for three particularly large proposals for regional shopping-leisure development. These were on green belt sites in the London borough of Bromley, near St. Albans and at Wraysbury, Berkshire. In each case my right honourable friend the Secretary of State considered that the local planning authority and its ratepayers should not have to pay for resisting development proposals which flew in the face of established government policy. Provided local planning authorities are careful to take decisions on their planning merits, by reference to national and local statements of planning policy, there is no reason for them to fear that the result of an appeal will be an award of costs against them.
I should like to turn to the question of use classes and the general development order. The use classes order removes from the definition of development, and so from the scope of planning control, changes of use where both the present and proposed uses fall within the same use class. The order was reviewed and overhauled in 1987. Some of the changes made then have proved controversial, but I believe that the 1987 order largely satisfies the Government's paramount objectives. These were to make it unnecessary to obtain planning permission for types of development that generally do not damage amenity, while retaining effective control over those that do.
The Government have decided that, since the use classes order has been in force for more than two and a half years, the time is right to assess its impact. We have therefore commissioned independent research to provide an objective assessment of the effects of the order. The research is now under way, and we expect it to provide results by the summer.
The general development order grants a general planning permission for a wide variety of minor development, such as house and factory extensions. It has been subject to numerous refinements over
822
the years, but in 1981 the legislation embodied a two-tier approach for the first time. This provided for less generous tolerances for certain categories of permitted development in conservation areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks.
In 1988 the differential between permitted development in these areas and elsewhere was further widened. Specific control was extended to loft extensions and the cladding of dwelling-houses, as well as to the erection of outbuildings exceeding 10 cubic metres in size, in conservation areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks and the Broads.
The department monitors continually the working of the GDO, and is always ready to consider constructive suggestions for further refinement. However, in deciding the limits of permitted development we must always keep in mind that to require planning permission for minor works places a burden both on hard-pressed local planning authorities and also on householders anxious to carry out repairs or improvements to their property.
It has been suggested that when development takes place without planning permission—a complaint made in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea document—or at variance with an existing permission, the local authority should have power to issue an immediate stop notice, without considering the merits of the development.
The Government consider that such an approach would be too draconian. There are, we believe, two better ways of dealing effectively with any unauthorised development which is so unacceptable as to require urgent remedial action. First, we can legislate to improve and strengthen the existing stop notice provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. We already have some proposals for doing that, in a report last year by Robert Carnwath QC. We hope to implement them as soon as we have a planning Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Can the noble Lord say when that will be?
Lord Reay: I do not believe that the noble Lord, or anyone else, would expect me to anticipate what might or might not be in the Queen's Speech.
Secondly, even without new legislation, if a local authority decides that it is essential to compel unlawful development to stop at once, it can use its existing injunctive powers in Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972. Although seeking an injunction is a last resort, local authorities should be aware that this course is available for use when appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, spoke at some length about English Heritage, and he speaks with very great experience. I believe he said that the advice of English Heritage was increasingly rejected. That body is the statutory adviser to the Secretary of State, and I can assure him that its advice is always considered most carefully in deciding whether to call in applications for planning permission, listed building consents for the Secretary of State's own decision and permission to hold a public inquiry.

823
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also referred to world heritage sites. He correctly summed up our view that the existing development control system and the additional safeguards which we already have as regards the built and natural heritage provide adequate protection.
With regard to the proposed developments at Avebury, I can make no comment on the case of the tourist centre at West Kennet Farm, this being at present under consideration by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. With regard to the Elizabethan theme park at Avebury Manor, I similarly cannot comment on the merits of the case, which involves planning and listed building enforcement appeals. I understand that the inspector, who held an inquiry from September to November 1989, expects to submit his report to my right honourable friend shortly.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in saying that he cannot comment on these matters, does the noble Lord imagine that I thought he could? I should like to disabuse the House of any idea that I was unaware that these matters were under consideration and could not be commented on by the very party who had to decide them.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I had no idea whether the noble Lord was aware or unaware of what my reply would be. I did not presume that he knew or did not know.
In conclusion, I hope that some of what I have had to say may have demonstrated the comprehensive nature of the existing primary and secondary legislation for protecting areas worthy of conservation and of the Government's planning policy guidance. The Government are well aware of the need to keep under constant review all the instruments and guidance which provide the background to every decision on a development proposal. In shaping the legislation and publishing advice on development control, the department is fully conscious of the need for the planning system to reconcile many different interests. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government have acknowledged the interests of conservation and are committed to ensuring that full weight is given to this important issue in the planning process.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  FLOOD DAMAGE IN SCOTLAND: ASSISTANCE
  FLOOD DAMAGE IN SCOTLAND: ASSISTANCE
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE HQ RELOCATION
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE HQ RELOCATION
  CFC LEAKAGE FROM REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT
  CFC LEAKAGE FROM REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT
  ACTION FOR CITIES INITIATIVE
  ACTION FOR CITIES INITIATIVE