Sitting of 18 June 1990

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

    Local Management of Schools
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of education spending has been held back from local management of schools by each local education authority in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Sir Wyn Roberts.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your felicitious greeting and I thank the House for its generous approbation.
    The average figure is around 33 per cent. I will circulate the figures for each local education authority in the, Official Report, and I will place a copy in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, the most Welsh of all Welsh hon. Members, on a richly deserved honour that is warmly welcomed throughout Wales.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that 33 per cent. is too high. What steps will he take to urge all councils to follow the example of my local council in trying to ensure that as much money as possible makes its way to schools? What assurance can parents obtain that their own local schools will have a fair crack of the whip, bearing in mind that major repairs and capital works are still excluded from LMS schemes?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is quite right. Of course, about 10 per cent. is allowed to be held centrally under LMS schemes as submitted to us, but that leaves a considerable amount at the discretion of local authorities. On average, authorities have held back about 22·5 per cent., but that masks a wide variation from 17 to 27·5 per cent. Certainly, as LMS schemes proceed, I should expect to see a rapid reduction in the proportion of resources retained centrally. I am sure that governors, headmasters and so on will be looking forward to seeing LMS statements produced by local authorities which show just where the money is going.
    Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister accept that in rural Wales, particularly in Powys, formula funding is beginning to cause extreme hardship to village schools and that some
    668
    may close as a result? Will he review the situation so that more resources are made available for the funding of village schools under LMS schemes?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The totality of resources available for education has not been reduced at all under LMS schemes. Through LMS schemes, we have tried to ensure that as much of the money as possible is spent directly at the chalk face. With regard to small schools, about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, a factor called the small schools protection factor could have been built in, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's local authority would take such a factor into its scheme.
    Following is the information:

    Percentage of general schools budget retained by LEA

    Clwyd

    35·84

    Dyfed

    38·57

    Gwent

    32·04

    Gwynedd

    34·84

    Mid Glamorgan

    32·71

    Powys

    32·58

    South Glamorgan

    24·81

    West Glamorgan

    31·77

    The details of this information have been extracted from each authority's LMS scheme submission and are not strictly comparable because the information has been supplied using different price bases. Precise figures will be included in the LEAs' first LMS budget statements, which are currently awaited.

    Brymbo Steel
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to maintain steel making at Brymbo steel.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to secure the maintenance of steel making at Brymbo steel.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): At my request, the Welsh Development Agency has been exploring with United Engineering Steels all the possible options for the future of Brymbo steelworks.
    Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for getting Welsh Development International to market Brymbo steel world wide. He must know that potential bidders may be put off because they may think that United Engineering Steels will want to close the plant rather than allow it to compete. Will he take this opportunity to say that no potential bidder, person or business should fail to show an interest or be prepared to make a bid, no matter what steel business they are in? There must be a possibility, whatever happens, that United Engineering Steels will be prepared to sell Brymbo as a going concern.
    Mr. Hunt: I should make it clear that I have asked the Welsh Development Agency to explore all possible options—and I stress the phrase "all possible options". I know of no circumstances in which United Engineering Steels has

    669
    said that it would not be prepared to consider a positive and constructive solution for the future of the Brymbo steelworks.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: The Secretary of State must be aware that only last week Brymbo steelworks achieved a record tonnage from its melting shop and that the work force are extremely hardworking and concerned about profitability and competition, as they have been for many years. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will take that into account when considering negotiations with UES and that he will also bear in mind that the steelworks is not being closed because it is not competitive or profitable. This is a completely different situation. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that into account?
    Mr. Hunt: I readily endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the work force and merely add that the record that was broken last week had been set just the week before. This morning I had the opportunity of inviting in representatives of the work force, who confirmed what the hon. Gentleman has said. I know the Brymbo community and I know that it is a strong and important community in north Wales. I am certainly prepared to do everything possible to help it.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: First, may I offer my right hon. Friend the warmest welcome to his new responsibilities? Is he aware that in a very short period he has already established a reputation as one who will fight hard for the interests of Wales—in conflict, if need be, with market forces which might otherwise allow so fine a work force to be disposed of?
    Mr. Hunt: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go too far down the route that he has opened up for me, save to say that although the ultimate decision about the future of the works must rest with the company, I am determined that the Welsh Development Agency should explore all possible options. Only this morning I received a progress report from its chairman, Dr. Gwyn Jones, who has taken such a personal interest in the project.
    Mr. Raffan: I join fellow hon. Members representing the county of Clwyd giving the strongest in support to the Brymbo work force, whose reputation stretches way beyond the constituency of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance that all options will be explored and I know that he will take on board the cross-party belief in Brymbo throughout the county. Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are all behind him in every effort that he can make to keep the steelworks open?
    Mr. Hunt: If I needed any pressure, I confirm that it has come from all parties. The greatest pressure, however, must be attributed to the community which, as has already been said in these short responses, has established one production record after another and has a reputation for quality. That is why it is receiving such support from all hon. Members.
    Mr. Barry Jones: First, I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Cabinet. It is a great achievement and he now heads a fascinating Department of State. I wish him well in all that he seeks to do for the people of Wales. Nevertheless, does he agree with the Bishop of St. Asaph that the company at Brymbo
    670
    should collaborate in every way in finding a new buyer for a going concern? Does he further agree that it is wrong for an anonymous board of directors far away from loyal, productive Brymbo to have taken a decision which has plunged Brymbo and all its community into uncertainty and dismay?
    Finally, is not it a grave comment on our industrial prospects that the superb and excellent steelworks at Brymbo is being hawked around the embassies of the world for a buyer when it is still highly productive and highly profitable? Given the right hon. Gentleman's detachment from the Cabinet's non-interventionist, market-forces stance, and his assurance that he will help, we now call on him for a supreme effort to help the Brymbo steelworks.
    Mr. Hunt: First, I thank the hon. Member for Ayln and Deeside (Mr. Jones), as I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) and for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), for their warm welcome to me at the Dispatch Box. I regard becoming Secretary of State for Wales as the greatest honour that can be achieved in the House, bar one—[Interruption.] I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding me that that one is your own.
    I met the Bishop of St. Asaph in north Wales last week, when he made the point just made by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside. I accepted the validity of it then, as I do now. We shall not make much progress by castigating the company. I met representatives of the company two days after the initial announcement, when they readily responded to my request to make their books and financial information available to the Welsh Development Agency. I know of no circumstances in which the company has said that it would be at all unreasonable about the eventual solution.

    Employment Training
    Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to maintain employment training in Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Employment training in the future will be delivered by the employer-led training and enterprise councils. I am confident that they will provide a first-class service tailored to local needs.
    Mr. Coleman: On behalf of my Opposition colleagues, I offer congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his honour. He must know that, above the party battle, he enjoys much affection from all hon. Members.
    In view of the proposed closures of the Blaenant colliery and the Brymbo steelworks, will there be special training programmes to meet the requirements of those who cannot be accommodated within their existing industries? Are there likely to be special training facilities available in Neath and Brymbo to deal with the problems that will arise in relation to young people for whom the industrial disasters in Wales will create difficult employment problems?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am well aware that the closure of Blaenant colliery led to 580 redundancies. I am glad to say that, as we have designated that district as an area of large-scale redundancy, this means that there will be immediate entry to the employment training programme for those involved. The programmes's capacity to cope with the numbers involved will depend on the number of

    671
    applicants from among the coalminers, but we are monitoring the position carefully through the Training Agency. It is a little premature to talk of such designation in relation to Brymbo.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Minister of State aware that the new programme has reduced the number of places in Mid Glamorgan by 538? Is he also aware that when the community programme was thrown out there were 300 redundancies on Community Action Training Ogwr alone of which I am chairman in Mid Glamorgan? Is he also aware that the underfunding will mean that a number of training agencies will close their books, thus pushing trainers and trainees back on to the dole queue? Is it not time for some stability in the training programme so that trainers can plan their programmes?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's connection with the community training organisation at Ogwr. I am happy that at least all the employment training providers in Mid Glamorgan have re-contracted. I know that CATO did not get all the 250 places that it asked for. It received 217 places, however, which partly reflects the fall in the occupancy rate from 292 to 220 by 9 May this year.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Bearing in mind 1992 and the opening of the channel tunnel, and the ferocious competition to which Wales and Britain will be subjected in the years immediately ahead, does the Minister agree that we need more investment in training? I emphasise the localities of Blaenant, Swansea, Kidwelly, Hirwaun and Brymbo and the problems associated with the loss of 2,000 jobs. We do not want any complacency. Why has the Minister of State accepted a £2·5 million, 7·5 per cent. cut in employment training?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman must not seek to outdo me in stressing the importance of training. I fully agree with what he has said—we have always placed it in the forefront and given it the very highest priority. This year there is a total budget of £144,324,000 for spending through the Training Agency in Wales. That is a little less than last year, but the agency underspent last year. The employment situation has improved and employment prospects are good, despite the small increase in unemployment last month.
    Training is all-important, and we have been highly successful in setting up training and enterprise councils throughout Wales. All are in the development stage and we trust that they will all be up and running before the end of the year.
    Several Hon. Members rose— —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making rather slow progress. I ask for brief questions, and then perhaps we shall have briefer answers.

    Beef
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had concerning the beef industry within Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: I have received a number of representations on a variety of issues concerning the beef industry, including BSE.
    Mr. Davies: In his new capacity as agriculture Minister for Wales, has the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to the financial impact of BSE and the new European settlement on Welsh farmers? Does he agree that it is particularly unfortunate that they should be hit, since, by and large, they were not responsible for the outbreak of the disease? They certainly were not consulted on the negotiations in Brussels, and they have completely rejected the negotiated settlement.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman answer two specific questions—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question please; then we can get on.
    Mr. Davies: In the event of a sustained and substantial fall in prices of cull cows, will the Secretary of State consider introducing some compensatory mechanism? In as much as there is a direct link between the specialist suckler herds and the dairy herds which are infected by BSE, how will he ensure that exports of the former are not affected by the ban on dairy cattle exports?
    Mr. Hunt: I welcome the opportunity to make it absolutely clear, not just to the people of Wales but to the people of the United Kingdom, that there is no risk to public health from eating British beef. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would also make that absolutely clear.
    Intervention procedures are flexible and will meet the situation as and when it arises, as they have already done under the intervention arrangements.

  Investment (West Wales)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the opportunities for inward investment to west Wales.
  Mr. David Hunt: I understand that Dyfed and West Glamorgan have already secured 29 projects involving £106 million worth of inward investment. I have no reason to believe that west Wales will not continue to build on the very satisfactory level that has been achieved.
  Mr. Bennett: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. We were delighted to see him in Pembrokeshire last month when he opened the Pembrokeshire college. He will be aware from discussions on that occasion how important it is to bring inward investment to west Wales, where unemployment rates are higher than in the rest of Wales. Does he agree that the Welsh Office could do more by encouraging trade with Portugal, Spain and Ireland, which would certainly help that part of the country?
  Mr. Hunt: I welcome the opportunity given to me by my hon. Friend of securing discussions with his local authority on the need to promote that part of Wales more actively. I should like to hear more specific proposals about the counties that he mentioned. Dyfed and West Glamorgan have certainly done extremely well in substantially increasing the amount of inward investment compared with last year.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Secretary of State agree that while inward investment is important, protecting existing investment is probably more important? Will he assure the House that the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency will commit their resources fully to trying to preserve, and to find a buyer for, the optical

  673
  factory in Kidwelly which employed 200 people and which has been closed? That factory produced 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom's lenses. Will the right hon. Gentleman and his Department do everything that they can to find a buyer for the factory?
  Mr Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman has already been in touch with me and my office about the specific case that he mentions and I will readily respond to the various suggestions that he has made. I have asked for a full report on the latest position. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I should make it clear that just as the creation of new jobs is important, so is the safeguarding of existing jobs.

  Gwent Wetlands
  Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he will be taking to prevent flooding on the Gwent wetlands.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: This is the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority and I understand that the matter is being given due consideration.
  Mr. Flynn:Does the Minister realise that on the same day as the terrible floods at Towyn there was serious flooding in my constituency at Peterstone and St. Bride's where the sea overtopped the sea wall, and at Caerleon and Newport? In view of the certainty of global warming raising sea levels, and because the area has many fine homes and new high technology enterprises, will he guarantee that in the future the area will be fully protected by new flood defences?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am well aware of the public concern and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the National Rivers Authority is carrying out emergency repairs in the area. The Department has already indicated that grant aid will be available. The Department also recently met the authority to discuss further proposed improvement to the existing defences of the Gwent wetlands. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, in the light of the development that has taken place in that area the National Rivers Authority has recommended that the relevant local planning authorities should jointly promote a study of the adequacy of existing defences.

  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority to discuss health provision in the area.
  Mr. David Hunt: I look forward to meeting the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority on 10 July.
  Mr. Morgan: I add my congratulations to the Minister of State on the signal honour that he has received from the Prime Minister, which is normally reserved for Ministers retiring to the Back Benches. Perhaps there is a moral there somewhere of the "didn't she know" or "how could she tell" variety as Dorothy Parker said of President Coolidge.
  When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority, will he say what advice he is giving to health authorities in preparation for April 1991 in relation to hospitals where a large proportion of current patient flow comes from outside their own county
  674
  health authority area so that authorities know how on earth they are to budget for the 50 per cent. of patients from outside the county? The current instructions and guidelines on closure proposals are exactly the same as they were before, but the conditions have completely changed.
  Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman's health authority is adequately resourced for the present situation. The amount on revenue is up by 7·2 per cent. and the amount on capital is up by 122 per cent. In future, these will form part of the discussions in the usual way.
  I regret that the hon. Gentleman introduced a sour note in his welcome to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a good working relationship with the Secretary of State, he should review his last letter—about which I read in the Western Mail before I received it.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: There was an excellent initiative launched in South Glamorgan this morning about the use of donor cards to promote more organ and blood donors. May I urge my right hon. Friend and all Welsh Members to meet representatives of the Kidney Research Unit for Wales Foundation and the blood transfusion service outside the House later to promote their excellent endeavours further?
  Mr. Hunt: I have a letter from my hon. Friend, who I understand is the vice-president of the Kidney Research Unit for Wales Foundation. I am happy that the Welsh Office has been able to support the foundation. I shall be joining hon. Members from both sides of the House on College green after Question Time to promote this worthy cause.
  Mr. Michael: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new office and I welcome also his latter remark. Will he ask his officials to brief him properly on the finances of South Glamorgan health authority? He will find that there is a shortfall of either £4 million or £7·2 million, depending on which view one takes, in the financial resources of the authority.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to that and the tremendous planning problems that the authority faces, the staggered start to Project 2000 is proving devastating to the morale, training and recruitment of nurses in South Glamorgan? As people have worked so hard to meet the deadline of 1991, which was promised by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, is not it essential that it be restored? Would not he get his incumbency of the Welsh Office off to a good start by restoring the start date for South Glamorgan, Mid Glamorgan and Gwent?
  Mr. Hunt: I have the correct figures. As I understand it, South Glamorgan's revenue provision is £188·2 million, which is up £12·7 million. I calculate that to be a 7·2 per cent. increase. It is—[Interruption.] I was told that my figures were incorrect, but I believe that they are correct. The capital provision is £7·9 million, which is up 122 per cent. I ask the hon. Gentleman to do his homework. There is a later question on Project 2000. It will be implemented in accordance with the amount of revenue provision that is available, the financial circumstances and the ability to introduce it properly and effectively.
  If we are to have a good working relationship, I do not want to find falling into my hands letters from the

  675
  National Union of Public Employees instructing the hon. Gentleman to send certain letters. I shall make the letter available to him so that he can show that he is not a puppet on a NUPE string.

  Ozone
  Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish an effective monitoring system for ground-level ozone in Wales.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: As my right hon. Friend told the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 24 May, the ozone monitoring network operated by Warren Spring laboratory includes a site in Wales.
  Mr. Griffiths: Given the dangers that high ozone levels at ground level can cause, should not the Welsh Office have a monitoring system right across Wales? Elderly people, pregnant women, children under two years of age and people suffering from bronchitis, emphysema and asthma —I am an asthma sufferer—are all at risk. Will the Minister commit himself to ensuring Government and European Community legislation designed to keep down ozone levels, which are highly dangerous to people and to the planet generally?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The levels in May 1990 showed a peak of 120 parts per billion at a number of sites, including Aston Hill in Wales, but there is no cause for concern. I assure the hon. Gentleman that levels of 300 parts per billion are not uncommon in Austria and Switzerland. We have a monitoring network of 17 sites in the United Kingdom and we always keep it under review.
  Dr. Thomas: A gaf i ychwanegu fy llongyfarchion i'r gweinidog ar ei ddyrchafiad?
  Mr. Speaker:Order. Is that a parliamentary expression?
  Dr. Thomas: It is an extremely felicitous expression of congratulations to the new knight on the Government Front Bench.
  The issue of the ozone layer and ozone gases at ground level is important. It is a further example of a greenhouse gas. Will the Minister assure the House that there is an effective monitoring programme throughout Wales? Here we have an opportunity to make a contribution to the international environment.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I have already referred to the 17 monitoring sites in the United Kingdom which is considered an adequate number. They include a site at Aston Hill in Wales. The hon. Gentleman may know that the Welsh Office is currently funding the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology at Bangor in respect of research into the effects of ozone and other pollutants on the health of plant species in Wales.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the additional number of local government employees employed to process the community charge in Wales.
  Mr. David Hunt: I have made no such estimate, but I greatly welcome the announcement that the Audit
  676
  Commission is to undertake a study into the management of charging authorities. I will carefully review the results as they apply to Welsh authorities.
  Mr. Rowlands: Ministers are remarkably ignorant about many aspects of the impact of the poll tax. I hope that the review will, among other things, identify the need to relieve the burden on thousands of home owners in terraced houses in our communities, who receive no benefit and do not live in areas where the authorities are overcharging on poll tax, but who nevertheless face bills twice as big as the old rates.
  Mr. Hunt: We should look at the ways of improving the community charge, and we are doing that. As to the administration of the community charge, Welsh local authorities have done better than the original provision allowed. I believe that £25 million was allowed against collection costs, but only £19 million has been spent, which is a very good result. As to the future, of course we shall find ways of improving the community charge. Labour is still in utter confusion about its alternative.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit of a cheek for Labour Members to criticise the community charge when it has a different policy every day of the week? One moment they suggest a roof tax, which would be disastrous, and this week they suggest a return to the old unfair rating system. Should not the Opposition keep silent until they decide what they want?
  Mr. Hunt: I assure my hon. Friend that whatever may be my responsibilities, I would not begin to countenance a return to the unjust domestic rating system, which I understand Labour Members are considering reintroducing. It was an iniquitous system, but it has gone now—and good riddance to it.
  Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to meet representatives of local authorities in Wales; and whether he will discuss the community charge.
  Mr. David Hunt: I met representatives of the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts in the forum of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance last week, when the community charge was among the issues raised.
  Mr. Murphy: Does not the Secretary of State accept that whatever the Audit Commission does or does not do, the high cost of collecting the poll tax in Wales has now risen to £7 per head? That is a direct result of the lack of resources devoted by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor to local councils in Wales to help cope with the burden of the poll tax. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that in the current negotiations with local authorities, he will give them enough money to enable them to sort out their problems?
  Mr. Hunt: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is known as an expert on such issues. He may be a self-appointed expert, but let that not take anything away from him. The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening when I replied to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). A collection cost of £7 per head is considerably below that allowed for in the settlement. An allowance of £25·6 million was made for the cost of collection. As it happens——
  Mr. Murphy: Not enough.
  Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman says that it was not enough. As it happens, local authorities underspent that provision.
  Mr. Murphy: No.
  Mr. Hunt: Oh yes they have. [Hon Members: "Oh no they haven't."] If the hon. Gentleman will consult his colleagues, he will find that Welsh local authorities spent £19·8 million. He might not think that that is an underspend, but he must be the only right hon. or hon. Member who does not.

  Community Councils
  Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh community councils have decided to vote themselves out of existence; and if he will make a statement.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The electors of two communities, Vaynor in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhoose in the Vale of Glamorgan, have voted in favour of dissolving their community councils. Vaynor community council was formally dissolved on 31 May. The Vale of Glamorgan borough council is making arrangements for the formal dissolution of Rhoose community council.
  Mr. Carlile: May I add my congratulations to those already given to the hon. Gentleman for his well-deserved knighthood? Does the Minister agree that it is disgraceful that democratically elected councils should vote themselves out of existence? Will he remove the anomaly that enables them to do so, and take steps to ensure that community councils in Wales carry greater democratic responsibilities rather than less?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: There is nothing more democratic than the system which provides for community councils in Wales, because the very setting up of such councils is entirely a matter for the electors. Similarly, so is their dissolution. One cannot be more democratic than that. Giving them additional powers—because the powers that they now have run concurrently with those of district councils—was last discussed in 1985, and the local authorities, particularly at district level, were very much against it.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Hilda Murrell
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General if he will meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss the case of the late Hilda Murrell.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I have no immediate plans to do so. The Director of Public Prosecutions has received a report from the West Mercia police which he has considered with care. He has suggested further lines of inquiry. I do not doubt that he will consult me if he considers it necessary.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of the concerned letter that the Attorney-General has received from Commander Robert Green, Hilda Murrell's nephew, will the Attorney-General clarify the position in relation to David Mackenzie, and
    678
    what exactly is going to happen next? He says that he is going to talk to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but with what effect?
    The Attorney-General: It is not appropriate for me to comment on, and certainly not to name names in connection with, an investigation that is as yet incomplete. As I said, the Director has suggested further lines of inquiry to the police. The hon. Gentleman can be entirely confident that the Director will give the fullest weight to all concerns that properly arise out of the matter.
    Mr. Conway: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that the late Miss Murrell was my constituent and I welcome the news that the lines of inquiry are still being pursued. But I am sure that he will agree, and the House will wish to know, that so far not a shred of evidence other than ill-informed rumour has come to light to suggest that the security services were in any way involved in Miss Murrell's demise. Is not it very much to be regretted that her name should continue to be dragged along without any proof coming forward to the authorities from those who continue to use her name for party-political purposes?
    The Attorney-General: It is always tempting to get into detail when an investigation is incomplete. All that it is proper for me to say is that the Director is taking the matter seriously. I cannot properly comment on any particular detail of the report, or on whether names are involved. I am sorry not to be able to say more to my hon. Friend, but I must not.

    Departmental Select Committee
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General whether his Department has any plans to submit evidence to the Procedure Committee regarding the establishment of a departmental Select Committee to scrutinise the activities of the Law Officers.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): No, Sir. The Law Officers' Department is not one of those which the House thought it right to specify in Standing Order No. 130 and the Select Committee on Procedure has not invited comment on any proposal that it should be so specified.
    Mr. Allen: During the past few years the Law Officers have been involved in the fiasco over Peter Wright, the running down of the legal aid service, the mismanagement of the Crown prosecution service, the failure to establish a proper supreme court of appeal and many other issues. Surely the Law Officers, of all Departments, should be the last to place themselves above proper parliamentary scrutiny? Will the Solicitor-General now add his weight to the establishment of a proper departmental Select Committee to study his Department and that of the other Law Officers?
    The Solicitor-General: One cannot help but feel that the hon. Gentleman has allowed some bias rather than information to inform his question.
    The Law Officers control or superinted administrative functions. There is already an opportunity for scrutiny by Select Commitees as we saw with the examination of the Crown prosecution service by the Home Affairs Select Committee which, incidentally, gave the CPS many laudatory plaudits. The bulk of the Department's work is

    679
    either to give confidential legal advice or to take or superintend the taking of prosecution decisions. Those are plainly independent functions in which Select Committees would not find it appropriate to involve themselves.
    Mr. Lawrence: My right hon. and learned Friend is too polite to say it himself, but as the majority of the work of the Law Officers' Department is to advise on the law, would not the provision of such additional scrutiny only give an opportunity to barrack-room lawyers to demonstrate and exercise their ill-informed prejudices at additional public expense?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right that any such meddling would be inappropriate to what is an independent or a confidential function. There is an opportunity for scrutiny of other general aspects, and that has already taken place.

    Paul Elvin
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received concerning calls for a prosecution against British Rail arising from the death of Paul Elvin.
    The Attorney-General: I have received representations from the hon. Gentleman and from his constituent, Mrs. Elvin. I replied to the hon. Member last week.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his reply. In the light of the decision of Mr. Justice Turner in the P and O case that it has a case to answer on corporate manslaughter, will there be a review of the liability of public and corporate bodies such as British Rail? I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates the great concern felt at the many deaths and accidents on British Rail sites, all of which happen without criminal prosecution against British Rail. Should not that liability be reviewed so that the regular deaths which occur, which many believe to be the fault of British Rail, can be laid at the door of those who have responsibility for such sites?
    The Attorney-General: The judicial decision to which the hon. Gentleman refers did not come as a surprise to me. With many other people, I have long believed that a corporation is capable of committing the offence of manslaughter. With great respect, however, that is not the point here. The Health and Safety Executive looked closely into the tragic death of Mrs. Elvin's son and concluded, supported by the opinion of counsel, that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution for manslaughter.
    I have looked closely at the papers and, recognising the natural strength of feeling of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, I shall ask the DPP to examine the papers himself. That is, of course, without the slightest intimation that I disagree with the view of the Health and Safety Executive, which I personally believe to be correct. However, in the circumstances of this tragic case, that would be the proper course to follow and I shall do so.

    Maguire Case
    Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Maguire case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    The Attorney-General: I discussed the Maguire case with the Director of Public Prosecutions last week when he advised me of the views that he had formed about the safety of the convictions.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Does the Attorney-General agree that the Maguire case is but one of a number of cases concerning the Irish issue where the British legal system has proved less than adequate?
    The Attorney-General: It would be very unwise of me, having, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary invited Sir John May to conduct this inquiry, to make any comments now upon the matters which may form the subject of this report.
    On the current trend of running down the English legal system, and the judges in particular, let me say that our legal system is rightly admired. When the judges are heavily and personally criticised and undermined it does great harm to our liberties and the freedom in which we live. The hon. Gentleman has not done that today, but his hon. Friends—unfortunately there is no shortage of them —who have spoken are inclined to undermine the reputation of the judges in a way that I consider to be completely unfounded and damaging.
    I dare say that my remarks are slightly out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to get it off my chest.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is a tribute to the British system that occasionally we can admit that mistakes were made? We look forward to a similar confession from the Republic in respect of another Maguire case.
    The Attorney-General: I shall pass on the latter part of the question.
    In this country, we have a procedure through which the Home Secretary may refer a case to the Court of Appeal if he believes that there are grounds for thinking that the conviction is unsafe or unsatisfactory. The Court of Appeal will then examine the matter as though it were a fresh appeal. That seems to me to be an extremely wise and sensible procedure bearing in mind the fact that all institutions are mortal and occasionally fallible.
    In his statement through counsel a few days ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that if the Home Secretary thought it right to refer the Maguire case to the Court of Appeal, the Director would not consider it right to seek to uphold the safety of the conviction, the ground that he expressed through counsel on Thursday.
    Mr. Fraser: Are not there two lessons to be learnt from the recent cases? First, when the police or prosecution, in their enthusiasm to obtain a conviction, depart from the usual good practice, convictions that might otherwise have stood on appeal—I am not referring to a specific case—may be upset as being unsafe or unsatisfactory. Secondly —although I am not casting aspersions on the judges—no matter how good the adversarial system may be for trials, in recent difficult cases it has been found wanting in regard to appeals. Will the Law Officers' Department give evidence to the May inquiry about a different way to examine these matters, as recommended by some of my hon. Friends and by the Select Committee on Home Affairs?
    The Attorney-General: I should be quite wrong to comment on anything that may form the subject of Sir

    681
    John May's inquiry. I certainly shall not take up the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman in the first part of his question; all those matters are for Sir John May. As to the merits and demerits of the adversarial system, it falls within Sir John May's remit. If he seeks evidence on it, my Department and others will be happy to provide it.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    UN High Commissioner for Refugees
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was discussed when the Minister for Overseas Development last met the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I met the new High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr. Stoltenberg, in Geneva on 5 June. We had a most useful and wide-ranging discussion, focusing particularly on Mr. Stoltenberg's plans for reorganising UNHCR and improving its operational effectiveness. I also announced new British contributions totalling £5 million, which will help UNHCR over its current financial difficulties.
    Mr. Boswell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether she believes that Mr. Stoltenberg can take a firm administrative grip on the affairs of his new command, and ensure that adequate resources are made available for the ghastly and growing worldwide problem of refugees?
    Mr. Chalker: Yes, I do. Mr. Stoltenberg has been in post for only four months, but in that time he has already begun a serious reorganisation of the Geneva headquarters. His aim is not only to improve overall efficiency, but to cut unnecessary expenditure. We strongly support him in his efforts, and will continue to do so. He will have a high chance of success if other donors follow our lead.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister raised with Mr. Stoltenberg conditions in the Whitehead camp in Hong Kong where 22,000 people, 3,000 of whom are children under 10 years of age, are living on an 8-acre site in utterly deplorable conditions? Just what is happening? What assurances can the Minister give the people in those camps about their future? What initiatives are the British Government taking to ensure early screening of those people? Has the Minister visited the camps?
    Mr. Chalker: I have not visited the camps, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has done so. Not only is my Department supporting UNHCR in all its work, particularly because we remain committed to the UNHCR comprehensive plan of action, but the diplomatic wing of the Foreign Office is putting money into improving conditions for the people who are waiting to be screened and is seeking to speed up the screening process.
    Mr. Leigh: Although one has the greatest sympathy for the refugees in the camps in Hong Kong—I have visited them——
    Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has been on a freebie as well, has he?
    Mr. Leigh: Yes, I have been to Hong Kong.
    Mr. Skinner: I am beginning to think that I am the only person who has not been.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on. I have not been either.
    Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had a passport, he might know something about the world on which he continually comments.
    Although one has great sympathy for these people, is not it a tribute to Government policy that the number of boat people coming over on the monsoon has declined considerably? To what can one possibly attribute that decline except the forthright policy of the Government in returning those people?
    Mrs. Chalker: The number of Vietnamese boat people arriving in Hong Kong is markedly lower than it was this time last year, but there are still nearly 55,000 people in the camps in Hong Kong, which is the point that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was making. I believe that we have got through to many elements in the Vietnamese Government that it would be much wiser to look after the people in Vietnam—that is what we are doing through our aid programme through the non-governmental organisations—rather than many of them taking to the seas and perishing at sea as happened in the past.

    Aid Target
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of gross national product is currently spent on overseas aid; and if he has any plans to raise this to meet the United Nations target for such spending.
    Mrs. Chalker: As I informed my hon. Friend the member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 15 June, the United Kingdom's ODA/GNP ratio in 1989 is provisionally estimated at 0·31 per cent.
    The Government continue to accept in principle the UN target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP to be allocated to official development assistance. Our prime concern is to ensure that our aid programme is planned to continue to increase in real terms, and is used to maximum effect. Levels of aid spending will continue to depend on economic circumstances and on other claims on public resources.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister explain why we are giving such a miserly amount of overseas aid when the French, the Swedes and the Danes can all give more than the United Nations recommendation of 0·7 per cent? Is it that our economy is in such a mess that we cannot afford it, or do we just not care?
    Mrs. Chalker: We care very much. It is interesting to note that of the 18 western donors only five achieved the target in 1988, and of those only France had a larger aid programme than the United Kingdom. There are two other important UN targets: the 1 per cent. of GNP for total flows and the 0·15 per cent. of GNP for the least developed countries. We meet those targets. The most important point is that between 1985 and 1988 British direct investment in the developing countries was more than half the combined EC total and the United Kingdom exceeded the 1 per cent. target six times in the 1980s.
    Sir John Stanley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although official aid is only one element of our overseas aid programme, it is extremely important and meets life-supporting and life-saving needs that cannot be met by commercial sources? Will she continue to do her utmost to ensure that that percentage is increased?
    Mrs. Chalker: Indeed. I intend to ensure that our aid programme continues to grow. It was 0·31 per cent. in 1986, but since then the GNP has grown by 11 per cent. in real terms. It is better than it was, but I intend to make it better still.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister admit that if the Government had maintained Labour's 1979 level of overseas aid the third world would be better off by £8 billion? Does she recognise that just one fifth of that sum would prevent 7·5 million children from dying each year from diarrhoea and other preventable infectious diseases? The Minister, who once had a reputation as a Conservative wet, must be thoroughly ashamed to have presided over a cut in overseas aid of 24 per cent. since 1979.
    Mrs. Chalker: As I took on this job last July, I hardly think that the hon. Lady's latter comment is relevant. The funds being spent on children, particularly to prevent infectious and tropical diseases, are increasing and we intend them to increase further. It would do the developing world no good if we continued the economic policies that prevailed in 1979 because the third world would simply not benefit. If we have had to curtail our aid while we put our house in order it has been to spend better on sound economics, as we intend to do in the future.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would he better to get away from this extraordinary United Nations figure and to concentrate on doing what we do well—delivering a high quality of aid? That is what matters.
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right. The development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that the
    684
    quality of the United Kingdom's aid programme is better than others. We deliver, pound for pound, more help through our aid and we intend to continue doing so. The quality of aid is paramount and we intend to ensure that it continues to be targeted on the poorest. In 1988, 70 per cent. of our aid was given to the poorest 50 countries.

    Cambodia
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to send another British delegation to review the current situation in Cambodia.
    Mrs. Chalker: I have no immediate plans to send another delegation to Phnom Penh. However, we are implementing our commitment to provide support to British NGOs and multilateral agencies active in Cambodia, and a further visit may he desirable for monitoring and other purposes later this year.
    Mr. Barnes: Have not things changed since last year, and is not substantial aid required by the Hun Sen Government to tackle the Khmer Rouge and to deal with the serious economic consequences of war? Should not the Government change their policy, recognise the Cambodian Government and offer bilateral aid? Is this another issue of which, as a former wet, the Minister is ashamed?
    Mrs. Chalker: We are well aware that there have been changes since last year which is why I announced new aid in January. I shall make an announcement soon about the details of that new help to Cambodia. We have no relations with the Hun Sen regime, so there will be no Government-to-Government aid. The Government are working, with our friends and partners, for a comprehensive political settlement and for free elections. I strongly support the current diplomatic activity, including the work of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The recent meeting in Tokyo increased understanding and we shall continue to work for a political solution.

Welsh Questions
3.32 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Welsh questions, in answer to my welcome and gentle questioning, the Secretary of State responded arrogantly and unpleasantly. That clearly is his choice and is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, but, more serious, his calculated gesture was inaccurate and misleading. He threw across the Dispatch Box a letter from a National Union of Public Employees official and challenged me to show that, in my capacity as spokesman on health service matters in Wales, I am not a puppet of health service employees. The letter asked me to write to all members of Pembrokeshire health authority —not the subject of the question—warning of the dangers inherent in that health authority becoming a trust. I well understand the deep worry among health service employees in Pembrokeshire about this decision, which will remove power and decision making from their area. I did not follow that request, although I supplied the authority's general manager with copies of answers from——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has adequately made his point.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an important point of order, because the letter contains an instruction from a union official to a Member of this House:
"Individual letters to be sent by yourself, or Robin Cook, to each Member—before 6 June Area Health Authority meeting, if possible: setting up of trust.
There is a need to stress the importance of NHS and a commitment if possible under the next Labour Government to the retention of Pembrokeshire Health Authority."
686
That letter shows quite clearly that the Opposition, for all their talk, are puppets of the unions and that what is important to them is the interests of the producers and not of clients, customers or patients.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a bit of a slanging match that is continuing from Question Time. It is not a matter of order for me.
Mr. Michael rose——
Mr. Speaker: A very brief comment, please.
Mr. Michael: The salient point is that I did not respond to that understandable request by writing to the members of the health authority. Therefore, inadvertently, Conservative Members have proved that we put consumers and employees first. I call upon the Secretary of State to show that he has the courtesy to withdraw a completely unwarranted slur.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: May I make a comment?
Mr. Speaker: I think not today. The hon. Member is always very helpful, but we must get on with the defence debate.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two statutory instruments on the Order Paper.
Ordered,
That the draft Insurance Companies (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1197) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.?—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Defence Estimates

  FIRST DAY'S DEBATE
  [The Defence Committee has reported on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990 in its Eighth Report, House of Commons Paper 388 of Session 1989–90. The Fourth Report of the Committee on Reliability and Maintainability of Defence Equipment, House of Commons Paper 40, and its Seventh Report on Rapier Field Standard, C, House of Commons Paper 273, are also relevant.]
  3.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990 contained in Cm. 1022.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. King: Perhaps I can start with a measure of agreement across the House. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) complained last year about the late publication of the White Paper which resulted in the House not being able to hold this debate until exactly four months later, on 18 October. He said that it was high time that the defence estimates were published at the beginning of April. I hope our achievement of 2 April is agreeable to him. I am sure that the achievement of this debate within a reasonable time is for the convenience of the House. At a time of rather fast-moving events, it is desirable that there should not be too big a gap. I appreciate that this has resulted in some pretty energetic work by the Select Committee. I know that the House will be grateful to the Chairman and members of the Select Committee for ensuring that their report is available for this debate.
  We have two days for this important debate. I am opening the debate. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will wind up today's debate. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will open tomorrow's debate, and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will conclude it.
  As I have mentioned my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, perhaps I could say one word which will result in great despair for those who live on conspiracy theories, and may ruin half the speech to be made by my hon. Friend. I hope that I shall be excused for putting one or two facts on the record. It is quite clear to both of us that somebody is engaged in trying to drive wedges between us. I can say with the full authority of my hon. Friend that we feel singularly unwedged about it. Let me mention a few facts. No matter how many times people are corrected, the media reports still long to cling to the conspiracy theory—which one does not mind about if it helps to sell newspapers—but if there is a secret back room plan it is important to deal with it and put it on record.
  To deal with an old story, before Christmas my hon. Friend put before me a paper concerning certain matters relating to defence procurement. I arranged for the Prime Minister to see a copy of it. Since then, my hon. Friend's interesting work and that of others has been carried forward in the work that we have been doing on Options for Change. Of course, that has involved my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, together with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence
  688
  Procurement and other Ministers, defence staff, under the leadership of the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the Office of Management and Budget.
  I should like to put on record our appreciation of the way in which that work has been carried through—very difficult and important work at this time. I make it clear also that the chiefs of staff have been involved and are aware of the detail of the work, as is right that they should be. I am sorry if I have spoilt circulation for one or two journalists in this matter, but it may be helpful to put the record straight.
  I now refer to the quite remarkable developments that have occurred since we last met for this debate.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend before he begins the main part of his speech. As he may have some announcements to make, and looking to the future of the changed situation, does he recognise that the Ministry's work, to which he has referred, should not be dealt with just in an administrative manner? In due course, if there are to be major changes, my right hon. Friend may wish to present a special White Paper for debate by the House.
  Mr. King: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. I shall raise further matters later.
  Mr. Max Madden: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. King: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not give way because I have quite a lot to say. It is a two-day debate and I hope that hon. Members will excuse me if I do not give way too often, in the interests of giving other hon. Members a chance to contribute to the debate.
  We last debated defence estimates eight months ago. It is interesting that, on the very day on which we debated the defence estimates—18 October—Mr. Honecker resigned. President Ceausescu was still in power and still had a further two months in office. The Berlin wall was unbreached. Of course, there were imminent signs of change in Europe. There have been substantial advances towards German unification, and free elections in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. We are less clear of the situation in Romania, but undoubtedly there are substantial changes indeed. The Soviet Union has agreed that its forces will be out of Hungary and Czechoslovakia by the middle of next year.
  As well as the developments in eastern Europe, there have been profound developments in the Soviet Union itself. At this time last year, we were aware of the strains of nationalism in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Perhaps the full implications of events in Lithuania and developments in the other Baltic states were not so apparent, nor were they in the Ukraine and certainly not, as has perhaps been the most dramatic event of the lot, in the republic of Russia itself and the emergence of Mr. Yeltsin as the new President of Russia. Dramatic developments have taken place, and the west has been seeking to respond to the need to carry forward much of the work that is already under way.
  The House knows that we readily embarked on negotiations on conventional arms reductions in Europe and the talks in Vienna. We had high hopes that we would perhaps have had an agreement by now. When I was in Moscow in May I began to wonder whether there would

  689
  be agreement at all this year. After the summit between President Bush and President Gorbachev, there is a real prospect that that matter is now back on the rails. Obviously, we are all anxious to see an early agreement. Strategic arms reductions talks are continuing towards, we hope, a successful conclusion, although with difficulties, as are negotiations on the reduction of chemical weapons. All that is intended to lead to a summit in the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.
  When preparing for the debate, I had the opportunity of reading Marshal Yazov's response to what is clearly the Soviet Parliament's Select Committee on Defence, which contained various proposals about the changes that might take place in the Soviet Union. Perhaps that is the ultimate confirmation of the recent changes in the world.
  As I have said, this is a time of remarkable changes which obviously present major problems, challenges and concerns for our armed forces. All hon. Members realise the uncertainties that they face. In my discussions with other Defence Ministers, especially with Marshal Yazov, but also with the French, German and Italian Ministers and with all our colleagues in NATO, I am always conscious of the difference between a conscript army, the members of which challenge why they should have been enlisted, and our position, with our volunteer armed forces, the members of which have made their careers a commitment to this country's armed forces. They are concerned to know what the future may hold for them. I should like to make absolutely clear my full understanding and concern for them, which is shared by my colleagues.
  In the past year, our armed forces have not only been concerned about their future in a changing world but have been facing problems and challenges because of the security threat, especially in Germany. Given the latest news on the tape, this is an appropriate time for us to express again our appreciation not only of the resolution of our own armed service men, and of the efforts of our police and security services, but also our appreciation of the efforts of the police of our colleagues in NATO, Europe and the United States. Since we last met, arrests have been made in all those countries, all of which make their contributions with ever-closer co-operation. As can be shown clearly by the events of last weekend, when terrorists dodge backwards and forwards across borders, there is obviously an important need for close co-operation, and I express my appreciation for receiving it.
  Since our last debate, the armed services have continued their dedicated work in Northern Ireland. In my comments, I am including not only the work of our own armed forces, the resident battalion, the roulement battalion, but also the brave men of the Ulster Defence Regiment who have tough and dangerous work and who live and work in an exposed situation.
  I thank also our forces in the Falklands, Cyprus, Hong Kong and Belize and refer to the continuing watch of the Armilla in the Gulf. I thank all those in so many places in which my colleagues and I have had the chance to meet our armed forces during the past year. The resolution and good humour of our armed forces was at no time clearer than when they answered 133,000 calls during the ambulance dispute. They were not carrying out their normal role, but at a time when people were trying to find
  690
  opportunities for criticism, when asked to help in an emergency and in an unexpected and unsought task, the Army responded willingly and readily and discharged its responsibilities most capably.
  The tribute that we pay so readily to our armed forces is mirrored by the admiration and respect in which they are held throughout the world. No small part of Britain's image in the world or of the relations that we are able to hold with so many countries can be traced to the number of countries which ask us to help them to train their Army and armed services. At present, we have training missions in no fewer than 33 countries. I shall visit the latest addition in the near future. President Nujoma has asked for assistance in training the Namibian armed services. That is a tribute to our armed services. We have 5,000 military students here from 110 countries. Students from two thirds of the countries of the world have been among the 50,000 military students who have been to this country in the past 10 years. I put that fact on record as evidence of the contribution made by our armed forces. The most sincere tribute that we could receive is international respect for their quality.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State comment on the report that a high-level military and diplomatic delegation is visiting NATO from Japan and explain what that is about? Are we establishing military relations with the Japanese?
  Mr. King: I cannot comment on that because I was not aware of it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, with his ability to identify such interesting items. I thank him for drawing the matter to my attention, and shall take note of it.
  Not the least of the problems that our armed forces have faced in recent months is a particular and immediate one, that of this year's Ministry of Defence budget. The Select Committee challenged me about this when I gave evidence on the defence estimates. I told the Committee about the problem that we faced due to the impact of inflation. I said in May that inflation was costing us a further £350 million in the current year. The forecast of our expenditure that I have now received suggests that the problem is likely to be worse than that. Therefore, we have introduced a temporary bar on most new commitments while we examine what savings should be made in this year's expenditure. I know that the House is aware of that.
  I have set in train some short-term changes at the margin of the defence programme to reduce expenditure. They have largely been decided and announcements will be made as appropriate, including some procurement changes that will be announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement this evening. Those measures should allow the general restraint on new commitments to be eased by the end of the month. But each new commitment will be closely scrutinised to ensure that we stay within our cash allocation for the current year. That modification in the arrangements will help to protect the essential and proper day-to-day activities of the services. In considering which short-term measures to adopt to reduce expenditure, we have, where appropriate, sought to have regard for the emerging picture from the "Options for Change" work, about which I shall soon speak.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The Secretary of State mentioned that short-term changes had already been

  691
  decided. Will he tell us about them today, or will the Minister of State for Defence Procurement let us know about them tomorrow, if that is when he is to speak?
  Mr. King: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to what I said. I said that they will be announced as appropriate. If they are appropriate for announcement in Parliament, that will be done. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will speak this evening and comment on some procurement items. We shall be anxious to explain each of the measures in the appropriate way. I hope that that takes account of the comment in the Select Committee's report that it was essential that any changes in defence expenditure should reflect a planned and orderly process of matching commitments and resources. I hope that it will be seen that that is precisely what we have tried to do.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that none of the short-term changes will involve delaying payments to suppliers? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State does not know.
  Mr. King: That was a nice intervention, as always made in a constructive way, from not the most alert hon. Member. I am merely checking the facts because I am concerned about that and we have a problem with the computer—[Interruption.] All suppliers have been notified about that and Sir Peter Levene has been discussing the matter with them for a long time. There are special arrangements for small firms. The Ministry of Defence Procurement Executive is changing its computer —that is why I am answering very precisely the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). There will be a period when no payments are made. That period is being kept as short as possible and all the companies involved have been notified about it. In my desperate attempt at accuracy, I thought that I should put that on the record. Subject only to that unfortunate but unavoidable point, the answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes.
  I turn now to the background against which this debate is taking place. I have already referred to the tremendous changes occurring in central and eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union. It is generally understood that the Warsaw pact has, for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist. In military terms, that means that after the withdrawal of Soviet forces and the implementation of the reductions in conventional arms envisaged at Vienna, it will be difficult to imagine any conventional attack of any strategic size by the Soviet Union across NATO territory.
  Nevertheless, those who, like me, have access to intelligence reports continue to be highly conscious of the large and continuing investment in arms and equipment in the Soviet Union. It is a staggering thought that even now, in the fifth year of Mr. Gorbachev's time in office, the figures show that one new nuclear submarine is being launched every six weeks. Two aircraft, six tanks and one missile are produced every day. Marshal Yazov has said that the emphasis is now on quality rather than quantity; that is certainly borne out by this year's parade in Red square, which revealed one new main battle tank and one new heavily armoured infantry combat vehicle of very high quality. The Soviet navy received a record tonnage of new surface ships in 1989. These ships are larger and more
  692
  powerful than their predecessors and have longer range, more accurate missiles. The aircraft carrier Tbilisi is on trials in the Black sea at the moment; the Riga is being fitted out; and the Ulanosk is under construction. The Flanker and Fulcrum high performance fighters which are now being developed for aircraft carrier use will considerably enhance the air defence capabilities of the fleet.
  It is against this background that certain changes are taking place: for instance, the removal from Hungary of a squadron of about 40 Flogger aircraft, which have now turned up in the Kola peninsula and been reclassified from the Soviet air force to the Soviet naval air force. I mention these aspects because Marshal Yazov responded to what I shall call a select committee:
  "The fulfilment of the package of measures to improve the quality parameters of armed forces' effectiveness, mobility and economy will continue. The reorganisation of branches of the armed forces and the technical re-equipment of troops and fleet force will be completed."
  All that means a continuing enhancement of the real military capability of the Soviet Union.
  The numbers themselves seem to show a reduction. This year about 46 ships and submarines have been scrapped, but all but one of them was more than 30 years old, so in terms of capability and up-to-date weaponry the Soviet Union maintains a significant range of armaments.
  We trust and believe that the intention to use such weaponry is, under the present leadership, as slight as could be hoped. However, we should never forget, when considering our defence arrangements, that the situation can change as long as armaments remain.
  Mr. Tony Benn: In the estimates that the right hon. Gentleman presented this year, after the important changes to which he has alluded, he has come up with a bigger defence budget than the one that we discussed last year. Does he think that the Russians would be entitled to interpret that as a continuation of the threat to them? For how much longer are the military on both sides to be allowed to control budgets on such a scale when the money is needed in the Soviet Union and here for more pressing social needs?
  Mr. King: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not done his homework and has not listened to what I said earlier. This year the armed services are facing the biggest cut in real terms that they have faced for a long time. I have explained that we had to have a moratorium and are now having to move into a period of tight constraint. That is because there is great pressure on defence expenditure, and there will be a significant reduction of more than 3 per cent. in real terms this year. The right hon. Gentleman will find that that compares favourably with other NATO countries with which on previous occasions he sought to compare us.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the world remains an unsafe place, especially when some countries in the middle east have access to chemical and biological weapons and in some cases nuclear weapons and also have the delivery systems for them?
  Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. When one looks at the wider world, one sees that the biggest problem at present, which no doubt worries the Soviet Union as well as the western powers, is

  693
  the degree of proliferation and the variety of missile and warhead capabilities. There is no doubt that we need to consider those aspects when looking at out defence plans.
  Before I speak about the approach that we should take under the "Options for Change" exercise, it is worth reflecting on the mixed advice that is received by the House. I understand that the Opposition may attack Conservative Members of the Ministry of Defence for being divided. As the Opposition have two contrary amendments on the Order Paper, it takes a certain conceit to seek to raise the issue of division on this side of the House. It will be interesting to see whether the hon. Member for Clackmannan draws attention to the divide in the Opposition.
  In each of the last two defence debates alternative amendments were tabled by the Opposition. One was from the Opposition's Front- Bench spokesmen and the other was from the Labour majority. That majority is ignored in the House. I intervened in last year's debate during the speech by the hon. Member for Clackmannan to ask whether 4 million votes at the party conference would be totally ignored. Judging by the way that he avoided the question, it is clear that they were.
  Because they are divided, the Opposition do not make any worthwhile contribution. That seems to confuse the newspapers. I made an unkind criticism recently of one or two media reports. A wonderful letter appeared in the press from a lady called Meg Beresford, the general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I do not know who was responsible for the version that appeared, whether it was "The Grauniad" in full flood or whether the lady got herself into a bit of a muddle. The letter was about TASM—tactical air-to-surface missile—the sub-strategic nuclear weapon, and it stated:
  "CND is concerned that a Labour Government can reach the Soviet Union from Britain and would throw an almighty spanner in the works of current arms negotiations.
  I do not think that we have discussed the range of a Labour Government, but that is an extremely revealing misprint.
  The armed services deserve a consistent approach, clear leadership and honesty. In their recent policy document the Opposition said that they would look for reductions in Britain's defence spending far beyond anything envisaged at last year's Labour party conference in Brighton. The hon. Member for Clackmannan seems to have forgotten the way in which Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and the Leader of the Opposition tried to mobilise the conference to vote against that motion. They were defeated by a majority of 2:1. Our having been told in last year's debate that that would not be Labour party policy, it now appears in the Labour party's policy document. We know what it means. If the hon. Gentleman does not know, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will tell him. It means coming down to the average. It means taking £5 billion—some would say £9 billion—from our defence expenditure. Is that Labour party policy? It has appeared in the policy document. Are we to take it that that is Labour party policy? It will not do for the hon. Gentleman to say, as he stated in a speech to the SPD —the West German Social Democratic party—on 11 June, that"
  694
  "the opportunities for disarmament have never been greater and Britain must take as much advantage of them as possible."
  It should be remembered that that does not apply to any individual pledge where trade unions and jobs may be involved. That disarmament pledge does not apply to the European fighter aircraft; nor does it aply to ECR90. If it does, I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will intervene to tell us whether the pledge, which is based on the greatest opportunity for disarmament, will mean unemployment in Edinburgh for the Ferranti employees who are working on ECR90. What is the position to be? We are seeing a dishonest approach. The Labour party is trying to ride every horse at the same time if there are votes to be gained by so doing.
  There is a more responsible approach to these matters. We are facing enormous changes, and these must be recognised in our defence policy. I have been struck by what happened at the end of the first world war. The then War Cabinet adopted the 10-year rule. It decided that in framing revised estimates it should be assumed that the British Empire would not be engaged in any great war during the next 10 years and that no expeditionary force would be required for that purpose. The House knows the history of the 10-year-rule. It was extended and it lasted from 1919 to 1932. The House knows also of some of the legacies and implications that flowed from it. Wise men make mistakes and fools repeat them. That is a wise understanding. Wise men can make mistakes, and it is the fools who repeat those mistakes.
  In 1934, Winston Churchill said:
  "Wars come very suddenly. I have lived through a period when one looked forward, as we do now, with anxiety and uncertainty to what would happen in the future. Suddenly something did happen—tremendous, swift, overpowering, irresistible."
  I trust that we shall never see such a comparison again. I say that on the very day of the 50th anniversary of "L'appel", the call by General de Gaulle, when France —surprised, caught unawares and defeated—started her fight back. I think that the wisdom of not making long assumptions for the future could not be more clearly underwritten.
  Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: No. I have given way once to the right hon. Gentleman.
  It was a leading member of the right hon. Gentleman's party—I think that he will recognise these words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—who said:
  "Once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders."
  Sir Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend is right in drawing attention to the need to look ahead for a decade. Does he accept that in understanding the problems better we must recognise the long time scale involved in obtaining the so-called peace dividend? Things that are coming to fruition now represent decades of research and development and industrial development. With the best will in the world, we cannot switch off the tap as quickly as some would urge.
  Mr. King: It is with pleasure that I congratulate my hon. Friend on his knighthood, and I agree very much with his first wise remark in his new status; I know that

  695
  there will be many more. I would not wish to follow my hon. Friend, but Marshal Yazov himself said that the positive changes have not yet become irreversible and that the military danger persists. That remark came in a speech that he made in Red square, and we hear it much echoed. Defence is not something that can be turned on and off like a tap. We know how grateful we have been on occasions in our history for having trained and properly armed forces available at times when we have suddenly needed them. It is part of our current consideration to ensure that, if situations and circumstances change, we can make an appropriate response.
  By the end of this year we could, if all goes well, have in place some of the most far-reaching changes in Europe's defence and security that we have witnessed since NATO itself was established. We could have a united Germany in NATO, an agreement to reduce conventional forces in Europe and the prospect of negotiations on further reductions, substantial Soviet withdrawal from eastern Europe in train, and a CSCE summit. Those are our hopes, if they are not yet realities.
  That situation requires us to rethink what should be NATO's strategy in those circumstances—preserving what is vital for secure defence while adapting to the changed threat and the new situation. That is precisely what we have been doing in the nuclear planning group in Canada, the defence planning committee in Brussels and the North Atlantic Council, and what we shall be doing at the next NATO summit in London in two weeks.
  Against that background, we shall also need to consider the forces that we in the United Kingdom will need over the next decade. It is a time to think ahead and to prepare for the future—though we cannot of course take our decisions in isolation. They will depend in good part on the wider arms control negotiations in which NATO will be involved.
  Even if all our present hopes are fulfilled, the essential core of our defence needs will remain. We will still need to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent, because we know so well that conventional weapons alone cannot deter war. On the strategic level, that means not only Polaris and then Trident, but the associated frigates, submarines and minesweepers that ensure their safe deployment. As part of NATO's policy of keeping an appropriate mix of conventional and nuclear weapons, we shall maintain also sub-strategic nuclear capability.
  We shall also need to maintain the forces and equipment necessary for the direct defence of the United Kingdom. That means air defence aircraft; surface-to-air missiles and the necessary warning and control systems; naval forces, especially to combat the threat of hostile mine laying, and maritime patrol aircraft; and sufficient forces for military home defence. Separate from that, we keep in mind the force levels required to sustain our contribution in Northern Ireland.
  We shall need adequate forces to meet our commitments in the wider world outside Europe. I have in mind not only our existing commitments in the Falklands, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Belize, Hong Kong and Brunei, but the need to respond appropriately where circumstances demand. That may be with some or all our NATO allies and alone, if necessary, in defence of direct British interests. In some places that requires a specific garrison, and in others it can be met by a strategic reserve capable of rapid deployment, whether inside or outside NATO. We do not, necessarily need separate forces under those
  696
  separate headings. For example, some of the sea and air mobile elements of the forces in the United Kingdom designated for the reinforcement of British Forces in Germany can have roles outside Europe as well. That is obviously true of other capabilities, such as frigates and aircraft.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about flexibility, equipment and frigates. I know that he recognises the importance of the helicopter in the levels of defence forces which might be arrived at after negotiations. I am well aware that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is to make a statement, but the right hon. Gentleman will know of the anxieties in my constituency and within the armed forces that that flexibility and manoeuvre should be supplied by EH101 aircraft. Therefore, will he reaffirm the words that he used on 7 June on BBC television when he said of the EH101:
  "I have made it clear that I see that as an important component in our defence arrangements; I want it to go forward."?
  Will he reaffirm that in advance of a more specific statement which is perhaps to be made later by the Minister?
  Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman's constituency is not the only one in which that matter is of some interest, although of course, as Secretary of State, I have no constituency and I hope that that is clear and that no one will accuse me of an improper remark. I confirm what I said as recently as 7 June. My hon. Friend the Minister is likely to say something on that matter.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Is it the Government's intention to maintain the surface fleet at the same number of vessels as last year?
  Mr. King: I do not have any comments to make on specific items. I am seeking to put before the House the approach that we are adopting, and we shall take the House as much into our confidence as we can. I appreciate that right hon. and hon. Members, especially those interested in defence matters, have listened carefully to what I have said, and will have understood the significance of some of my remarks.
  Mr. Keith Speed rose——
  Mr. King: Will my hon. Friend excuse me if I do not give way as I do not want to take up too much time?
  The obvious area where we hope there will be scope for some changes and redeployment is in Europe. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we may seek to reduce our forces stationed in Germany, in the context of successful arms control negotiations and agreed changes in NATO's strategy. Obviously that is one of the main areas that we are considering, covering not only our four divisions in British Army of the Rhine, but also RAF Germany. That is not just a question of scale. If our stationed forces are smaller, then they will need mobility and flexibility and a balanced capability. But they would not need so much fixed infrastructure—bases and depots—on the present scale. As part of that, we are also studying the implications of the changes in eastern Europe for our reinforcement capability for NATO's northern region, where we have extensive commitments, from Denmark up to northern Norway. We are looking at what response may be appropriate to the reductions in the size but also to the

  697
  modernisation of the Soviet navy to which I have already referred, bearing in mind the crucial importance of transatlantic reinforcement and the importance of our seaborne supply routes.
  However, while NATO may rely relatively more on reinforcement by sea as well as air, the volume of reinforcements may be reduced, with smaller forces on both sides in Europe and there may be greater opportunity to exploit longer warning time. All those factors have to be considered when considering options for future Royal Navy and RAF maritime forces.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: rose——
  Mr. King: I should feel guilty if I did not first give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who tried to intervene earlier.
  Mr. Speed: A few minutes ago, my right hon. Friend was talking about out-of-area commitments and working with our NATO partners. Does he consider that NATO will have a role out of area or does he consider that the Western European Union, which worked so well in the Gulf two and a half years ago, has an important role out of area?
  Mr. King: No. My hon. Friend correctly referred to the Western European Union and its role in the background to the Armilla patrol. Western and world interests were affected by the war between Iran and Iraq, and it was necessary to protect the free world's supply of oil and its shipping lanes. That does not presage an out-of-area concerted role by NATO.
  In all this we must not forget that, even after recent unilateral reductions, the Soviet Union continues to deploy very substantial and very powerful forces which are continually being modernised and kept up to date.
  In looking at the options for change we are seeking a proper balance between the front line and support, not forgetting the basic infrastructure for our armed services such as housing and base facilities.
  Mr. Marlow: By implication, my right hon. Friend has said that we shall be faster and more flexible and that our forces could be used in different parts of the world. That implies that the balance of aircraft and helicopters will be far greater and the balance of armour lower. In those circumstances, and as heavy-lift and troop-lift helicopters will be a more integral part of the Army, has he considered the possibility of moving them from the Air Force to the Army?
  Mr. King: I read the Army debate and I noticed that my hon. Friend made exactly that point to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I have no further comment to make. At the moment we are not considering that proposal.
  We must achieve a proper balance between the front line and support and we must also get the right balance, so far not achieved, between manpower and equipment expenditure so that we have well-motivated people with the kit to match the task. We must recognise that, with the demographic pressure that we face, it will be increasingly difficult to recruit and retain the present numbers of regular personnel. It is far better, if necessary, to have reduced numbers of properly manned front-line units,
  698
  which reflect the changed commitments and risks of war, than to try to do too much. The transition to those new structures and maintaining them properly will inevitably involve costs, which will be a charge on the savings that we can make initially.
  Much work is going on now to ensure that any changes will not disrupt the essential future of our defences. In carrying that forward we are guided by two other critical considerations. The first is our duty to ensure that as soon as possible we inform those most affected in the armed services, throughout the Ministry of Defence and the defence industries about any proposals. Secondly, it is critical to remember that at all times our duty to our allies in NATO is to ensure that we keep in close concert with them.
  We shall want to ensure that Britain has the forces it needs for the defence of Europe and for its interests elsewhere in the world, including the training facilities that we are able to offer so widely. We shall want to ensure, too, that those forces have the equipment and the spares and supplies necessary to train effectively. We must be able to provide secure defence against any threat in the future while taking account of the extremely important and significant security changes in Europe we have seen in the past year.
  Neither I nor my colleagues in the Government are insensitive to the challenges and difficulties we face in making this transition. At the beginning I referred to the incredible changes that have taken place and the challenge that they pose to us. Some things change, some things endure. The proper and adequate defence of our country, whatever the circumstances may be, is one that must endure.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'condemns the Government for its failure to take proper account of, and make constructive responses to, the new conditions created by the welcome emergence of the new democracies in Eastern and Central Europe and the prospective unification of Germany; calls upon the Government to play a positive role in the reassessment of the future of NATO strategies including flexible response, and to participate effectively and constructively in the processes of negotiated reduction of nuclear and conventional weapons; deplores the failure of the Government to undertake effective assessment of and preparation for the impact of the potential change in defence needs on defence-related industries and on Her Majesty's Forces, and the possible savings and alternative uses of money currently allocated to the defence budget; and calls upon the Government to participate actively in the development of a new and durable system of security from the Atlantic to the Urals.'
  In some respects the Secretary of State has stolen my opening remarks in so far as, in the past, we have complained about the lateness of this debate. It is true that no time in the past eight months would have been the right time to hold this debate. The date on which last year's debate was held marked the end of an era, but little did any of us appreciate the significance of the brief report on the news agency tapes that Honecker was to retire.
  Certainly, only the most neanderthal Marxist can mourn the passing of state capitalism in eastern and central Europe. We can only marvel in joy and anticipation at the flair and imagination with which so many of the eastern and central European Governments are addressing the new challenges. For people with little

  699
  experience of government, apart from the years they spent as unwilling guests of their predecessors' prisons, they have brought forth an almost endless stream of new ideas and proposals—for the demobilisation of foreign troops in their countries, the demilitarisation of their territories and the establishment of a new security order in Europe. Their motives are clear. The political oppression of the past 40 years has been supported and buttressed by the intrusive presence of armies of occupation, and by the crushing of any widespread form of popular opposition by troops in Poland, East Germany and Hungary in the 1950s, and a decade later in Czechoslovakia. For the past 40 or so years, those armies have been the mainstay of the repressive regimes.
  It is to the credit of the incoming Governments that the transition has been carried through with a patience and understanding of Soviet concerns that we cannot but admire, whereas the response from NATO has been at times slow, confused and mixed. From the Federal Republic has come a series of measures and often radical initiatives. Foreign Minister Genscher has continued the dialogue of ostpolitik, finding ways in which to help his neighbours; with Government encouragement, German businesses have blazed a trail through eastern Europe. The Dutch and Belgian Governments have not only supported that policy, but drawn rapid conclusions from the new military situation in central and eastern Europe. The British silence has been almost deafening.
  The Foreign Secretary tried to make a bid for freedom when he addressed the Conservative Political Centre in Wroxton on 20 January. He spoke of
  "turning talks into tractors … The enormous prize of a CEF agreement would be a 50 per cent. cut in tanks and artillery and the withdrawal of 300,000 Soviet troops stationed in eastern Europe … it was remarkable that under the CEF agreement all armed forces covered would be demobilised."
  Unfortunately, there was to be no bright new dawn. By the next morning the rubbishing process had started, and an article in The Independent said:
  "the PM will resist pressure for cuts."
  But, of course, there was no rift between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. The position was further confused by a denial in the same newspaper by the Secretary of State for Defence, who said that not only was there no defence review, but
  "Ministers were adamant that the perception of a reduced threat from the East would not be sufficient to support cuts in spending".
  However, in this rapidly changing Europe, within two weeks the same Secretary of State said, when answering defence questions:
  "we shall continue to examine options for change" —[Official Report, 6 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 748.]
  Mr. Edward Leigh: What cuts in which defence programmes would a Labour Government make?
  Mr. O'Neill: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will have an answer to his question. If he does not like what I am saying, he should try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. We know that he takes a brief interest in these matters, asks a question and then leaves the Chamber. I shall give him an answer in my own time, and in my own way.
  There have been further references to the options for change. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, indeed, went so far as to refer to the "Options for Change" review. By degrees, we are hearing an admission that a
  700
  defence review is in hand. However, we have react of the slightly less cautious approach of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. Whether he is supposed to favour massive cuts will emerge during the debate. Certainly, the figure 32 will doubtless feature—whether it refers to infantry battalions or frigates. It is no magic figure—I see that the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), nods in agreement. Only two years ago to the day, one of those alleged to be participating in the "Options for Change" exercise—Mr. Mottram, of the Ministry of Defence—admitted that the number of frigates available was 32. That figure may have been plucked out of the air, but it has some substance.
  If the country could be defended by 32 ships two years ago, one can imagine that the Ministry of Defence and the Admiralty would be sufficiently relaxed about the matter. By way of compensation, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement attempted to reassure the Royal Aeronautical Society last week when he advocated the conversion not of swords into ploughshares but of an airbus into a bomber. In a world where conversion normally has a different meaning, only a British Tory Government and the present Minister of State for Defence Procurement could be so out of step.
  The argument about confusion reigning in the MOD would be laughable were in not for the impact that it appears to have had on morale at different levels. According to yesterday's Observer, defence chiefs are being called ostriches by their junior officers, and the Prime Minister, in spite of her enthusiasm for a strong defence, now quite clearly refuses to believe that the defence budget need cost us about £21 billion a year.
  While the Secretary of State is paralysed by indecision, caught like a rabbit in the headlights of an oncoming car, there appears to be total confusion in the Ministry. Yesterday's Observer said that the defence chiefs wanted a meeting with the Prime Minister. Such peaceful picketing usually occurs under Labour Governments; it certainly shows that the present Government are in no position to lecture anyone in the House about the nature of the housekeeping of the defence budget. We have already heard this afternoon from the Secretary of State the admission that finances are in such a shambles or, alternatively, the Government's handling of the economy is in such a shambles that they are incapable of entering into new defence requirements and capabilities over the next six weeks or so.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman just two questions. First, does he believe everything he reads in the Observer, and, secondly, at some point will he explain Labour's defence policy?
  Mr. O'Neill: At present we are debating the defence estimates and the Government's White Paper. I believe a fair amount of what I read in the Observer, though have some doubts about Mr. Watkins' judgment at times, and those who read that paper will know what I mean.
  The way in which the Government are trying to cover up for their financial incompetence and maladministration of the defence budget requires far greater explanation than has been given today. We are not concerned only with the handling of the money available to the Ministry of Defence. We recognise that the Secretary of State is still relatively new to his office—he has held it only for some 10

  701
  months, so not all the financial problems are of his making. The Government's approach to the broader strategic considerations and the fact that the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, had such difficulty in responding to the prospect of German reunification are far more worrying. We know that she moved from her gut anti-German position to putting her faith in the four-plus-two talks—her emphasis not mine. In the early days of discussions about what would happen about the reunification of Germany, the Prime Minister immediately sought to take the initiative away from the German peoples and to return it to what she regarded as the victorious allies. Certainly, she did not realise that the GDR and the FRG were not going to wait for the approval of the Grantham Germanophile before they set about uniting their two states. That meant that the full strategic implications of the changes in eastern Europe were lost to her for quite some time. Certainly no one was allowed to consider any prospect of change in the doctrines of flexible response and forward defence.
  It took the Prime Minister until 7 June this year to concede publicly in a speech to the North Atlantic Council that circumstances had changed, but even then it was a grudging admission. She quoted the defence planning committee, which said:
  "The implementation of a CFE Treaty will virtually eliminate the possibility of a surprise attack."
  She noted that it referred only to a surprise attack. She could even envisage disarmament becoming rearmament:
  "that plough shares could become swords."
  When a Government such as the Federal Republic's are so preoccupied with the problems of reunification, cannot we expect the other major European contributor to NATO to come up with something original? We have yet to see the Prime Minister giving any form of leadership to the debate or any new thinking being offered.
  The Prime Minister admits that there may be troop cuts, but says that we shall continue to keep nuclear weapons up to date and based forward. Those weapons will be neither nuclear artillery nor a follow-on to Lance, on both of which she has been vetoed by the American president. Does that mean that we are talking of new, modern and up-to-date nuclear weapons, successors to the WE177? Will they be on British planes? Have the Germans agreed to their forward deployment? Has any other country been sounded out or agreed to accept them? Will we buy American? Or will we co-operate with the French, in which case how shall we be able to guarantee that there will be no strings attached, as France is not a member of the nuclear planning group or the military committee of NATO? If we do not co-operate with the French, will we pay for the project ourselves and, if so, where will the £3 billion come from?
  No other European member of NATO is prepared to accept those weapons. The Federal Republic has expressed its opposition, the low countries are against them and the Italians have shown their reluctance about having more bases in their country. How can we have flexible response without flexibility?
  Flexible response grew from NATO's concern about the alleged Soviet conventional superiority, western reluctance, both political and economic, to match its superiority in men and materials and the availability of
  702
  relatively inexpensive, smaller yield and shorter-range nuclear weapons, which it claimed, if used sparingly, could deter the Warsaw pact from invading western Europe.
  I have never been convinced of the practicability of the concept of limited nuclear war. I certainly have doubts about the role of tactical nuclear weapons in deterring war. Despite the Government's assertion, there is no clear consensus among historians about whether tactical nuclear weapons played any role in persuading the Soviets not to invade.
  The only sub-strategic weapons that will be open to the alliance will be airborne ones. With in-flight refuelling, they will be capable of penetrating so far into the Soviet Union, and with such impact, that the strategy involved in their threatened use is fraught with difficulty.
  Some of the Secretary of State's difficulties about letters written to The Guardian may be attributable to the fact that the writer has no connection with the Labour party but is one of the defence thinkers of the Liberal Democrats. As far as I can see, they are welcome to her.
  The simple argument that the Americans advanced in the past for the presence of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe is that if there are no nukes there will be no troops. The United States must be reminded that if its ambitions are to be fulfilled, and if the cuts that the Senate and the House of Representatives want are to be made, the argument of "no nukes, no troops" has less resonance when we are dealing with such smaller numbers.
  The changes are not only of significance for nuclear war fighting; the forward defence will have to be changed, which, as the Secretary of State said, will have consequences for the role of the tank and infantry.
  Mr. Speed: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Soviet Navy has several nuclear-powered submarines in service and being built, which cannot effectively be destroyed by conventional high explosive. Would he, therefore, maintain our nuclear depth bombs, which are carried by Royal Navy aircraft and maritime patrol aircraft, or would he get rid of them?
  Mr. O'Neill: I was here when that question was last asked, and my predecessor was somewhat set adrift by it. We were then able to establish that increasingly the use of nuclear depth charges by the Navy was going out of fashion. They were no longer regarded as a justifiable weapon.
  They also destroy vast tracts of the sea, which makes it very difficult, in any kind of maritime engagement, to continue communications and business. They are as much a problem for those who use them as for those who are attacked by them. There is little strategic use for them, and I cannot say that any of the navies of the alliance would use them in times of conflict.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: To return to the hon. Gentleman's point of "no nukes, no troops", if there were to be a Labour Government, and an American president said that America would maintain the nuclear umbrella over Europe only if there were bases for American nuclear weapons in Europe, would Britain provide bases for such weapons?
  Mr. O'Neill: The response to that question would have to depend on the circumstances. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked a legitimate question and I have no objection to answering it. As and when NATO has the

  703
  opportunity to consider such a request it will do so. A Labour Government would not believe that such weapons would he helpful, and would argue against them within the alliance. Apart from this Government, no country in Europe is prepared to consider a location for them on the continent of Europe. It is not a question which is likely to arise.
  The Secretary of State outlined his thinking on the question of tanks and helicopters. No intimation has been given of the consequences for tanks and, consequently, of the enhanced importance of helicopters. If the number of tanks were to be reduced by agreement, with the possibility of the British forces having as many as every other country, that would have serious consequences for Challenger 2, though not necessarily in terms of the project. If, however, fewer units are produced, the cost is likely to rise.
  There is still some time before the Challenger 2 development programme has to be assessed. I hope that before then the Secretary of State will give serious thought to the consequences of purchasing reduced numbers. I hope that he will also reconsider the position that he has adopted on providing assistance to single product companies that find themselves without the market that they had anticipated. The employment consequences for Vickers, in Leeds, Newcastle and other places in the north, will be very serious. The Government may disagree with the Opposition about diversification, but this is likely to be the first real taste of the implications of the defence cuts. I urge the Minister to consider this argument. It is not the same as the one deployed in the recent past.
  Mr. Sayeed: Does that mean that the Challenger 2 tank replacement would not be part of the 25 to 40 per cent. defence reduction in a Labour Government's spending?
  Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman puts figures on cuts that have yet to take place. As far as I know, he, CND and some of the more exotic fringes of the Labour movement have been the only ones to try to impose figures of that nature.
  I am certainly at one with the Secretary of State. I am not going to put price tags on cuts that may or may not be available to the—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will my hon. Friend comment at this point not only on "exotic" figures but on the study by Cambridge Econometrics which shows that over the next decade a 50 per cent. cut in defence spending would lead to a reduction in unemployment of 520,000 and to an increase in our gross domestic product of £10 billion?
  Mr. O'Neill: I have read that report. It contains a fairly major qualification: that if there are appropriate programmes of diversification and regional assistance, then the suggested consequence and results could happen. The report is very heavily qualified on that point. Another significant aspect of it is that, by and large, the assumptions on which the Government see opportunities for defence cuts tend to come from opportunists who are driven by negotiation and arms control rather than by the individual actions of a United Kingdom Government ignoring the other requirements that could be imposed by the decisions of our allies and ourselves.
  704
  The paper is of some substance and contains useful information, but a lot more work needs to be done on it than my hon. Friend hinted at in his question.
  Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: I have answered the question and I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman can check with Hansard that I have given way considerably more to Members on both sides of the House than did the Secretary of State.
  The Minister will be anxious to tell us what his intentions are regarding tanks. He seems to be prepared to tell everyone else. We look forward to hearing them.
  As for the number of battalions, we will have to wait and see whether there is a precedent for 32 battalions, as there is a precedent for 32 frigates. It is clear that the new mobile force structures will have to be established as international units. The helicopter will be an integral part of that process. If there are to be reductions and reorganisation—perhaps the Minister of State for the Armed Forces would like to comment on this tomorrow —I cannot see the regimental structure being relevant in its present form to the strategic needs of the Army. I recognise that that will be significant to recruitment, but if it is not done we might have more chiefs than Indians—more officers than men.
  Previous Secretaries of State have said that we can have any kind of internal reorganisation, as long as it does not affect cap badges, but the nature of the cuts that will be introduced before the general election will have an impact on cap badges and the regimental structure. That will require Opposition Members to think very hard.
  I read in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday about this and the Argylls campaign. It was one of the most popular petitions ever organised in Scotland. It was so popular that people signed it two, three, four or five times. It was a cause celebre at the time. The size of the armed forces that we may well be arriving at by negotiation and arms control will lead to considerably fewer opportunities for the kind of regimental structure that we had in the past. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that possibility because it is important. If he chooses to rule it out, we shall be interested to see what structure he will introduce when the opportunity arises. The House should be made aware of this matter at this early stage, as it will have quite dramatic effects on recruitment.
  Mr. Michael Mates: So that hon. Members can be sure that we have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly—we shall certainly have to look at changes if there are to be reductions in the medium or long term—did I hear him say that he believes that, as a result of the changes, we must do away with the regimental system?
  Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking me that question. I shall clarify the point. I was saying that there may be a substantial reduction in the number of regiments. There may be a further combination, and that will not be an easy process for any Government. Frankly, I am surprised that the Secretary of State did not allude to that matter. Anxieties about cap badges are major considerations and should be raised in a debate of this nature. Although we are looking at this year's figures, we must look towards the future in our tacit discussion—if that is not a contradiction in terms—of the options for change.
  Mr. Sayeed: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. What is the answer?
  Mr. O'Neill: I am not responsible for the lack of intelligence among Conservative Members.
  It has been made clear that RAF Germany will have a diminishing role in the new set-up and that there will be reductions in the RAF. As the provision of air cover is reduced, there will be a case for bringing a number of aircraft home to the United Kingdom and putting them into storage. We shall have to examine pilot recruitment. I should imagine that new and lower targets will be set. Certainly, if there are such developments, it will be incumbent on us to consider expanding the RAF Reserve. United States experience in that matter has been useful. It was able to recruit several airline pilots, many of whom had been in the armed services. Airline pilots could be encouraged to join the Reserve. With the use of simulators and so on, they should be able to maintain their service skills.
  The significance of rapid mobility to bring troops from the United Kingdom should be met in some respects at least by the use of civilian aircraft. Savings would be involved. The use of civilian aircraft is analogous to ships being taken out from trade to be employed within the maritime strategy. For the Navy that is a more difficult matter. Although it offers possibilities, naval arms control is a considerable way down the road. The United States believes that the maritime contribution is central to its concepts of power projection. That means that we are a long way from serious cuts.
  We should be examining the future programme for type 23 frigate orders and stating more clearly than we have already what the successor to that craft will be. The Government, along with others, have already withdrawn from the Euro-frigate programme. There is wide agreement that it does not really matter how hulls are shaped—I understand that that is the rationale behind the withdrawal from the Euro-frigate—and that it is the hardware placed in the hulls that is important. We are probably now able to look at less complicated systems for a less demanding range of duties than we have had in the past. Perhaps we could have several less complicated and therefore, I hope, less expensive craft built in the latter part of this century.
  All such cuts should flow from the CFE negotiations and related talks. The Vienna talks on conventional forces are nearing conclusion, but there are complications involving aircraft definitions. Surely it would be preferable to get an agreement on matters excluding aircraft and thus enable Gorbachev to return to the Soviet Union with a positive achievement from the talks as soon as possible.
  I was one of those in the previous debate who welcomed the inclusion of aircraft by President Bush. He insisted that they be included in last year's summit. That has proved to be a difficult matter to get round, and it would be preferable, therefore, for us to recognise the difficulties that are involved in getting agreement, and set the matter aside and accept that the best need not necessarily be the enemy of the good in every case. That would enable us to start work on further reductions in conventional arms and to expand the range of the talks not only to 50 per cent. cuts but to the elimination of all ground-based short-range nuclear weapons in Europe. We recognise that those weapons are now regarded as surplus to requirements, but it is important that they are removed by negotiation and
  706
  by the appropriate systems of inspection and verification that are implicit in arms control negotiations. As Gorbachev said, agreements without inspection and verification are largely worthless or at least dangerous. It is crucial that we recognise that, if we wish to get rid of such weapons, there is scope for negotiation and for appropriate schemes of inspection and verification.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful speech. I hope that people will go out and buy "Looking to the Future", the Labour party's new proposals. The Labour party has specifically said that its defence policies have been entirely vindicated, yet the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that unilateral nuclear disarmament is now out and that there should be negotiations. If his party's policies have been vindicated, will he say something about the deep cuts in defence spending that have been presaged by the Labour conference, if not by the Labour Front Bench?
  Mr. O'Neill: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has started reading the new Labour party document. I should like to hear from him when he has finished it.
  There are prospects for sizeable advances on short-range nuclear forces in a relatively short period when the CFE talks reach their second stage. Certainly, the progress that has already been made in Geneva is to be welcomed. Perhaps the Government would be willing to meet the Soviet request and participate in the next stage. Perhaps the Government will not be in power at that time because it will probably take some months at least for the United States Senate to ratify the treaty. It would be a tremendous shame if the Government's refusal to consider participating in the next phase of the strategic arms reductions talks process were a major obstacle to the completion of the present talks.
  The possibilities that I have raised so far have two attractions. First, they provide a reduction in tension and contribute to further stability and, secondly, they afford us the opportunity to reduce defence spending. As the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said on the BBC "Today" programme on 31 May:
  "The most successful economies are those that spend the least proportion of their GNP on defence".
  The reason for such low levels are historic and geographic, but the attractions that defence cuts offer for other forms of consumption are self-evident.
  In the past, we in the Labour party may have exaggerated the attractiveness of such cuts, but it is clear that, as the perceived threat diminishes in the public mind, willingness to fund what becomes considered to be excessive defence expenditure also diminishes. There are two problems in getting involved in the numbers game, and one is the fact that the negotiations are not yet complete—though we can anticipate their general direction in financial and strategic terms—and the other is the MOD's excessive secrecy regarding defence costs.
  A major drawback of the competitive tendering process has been the increase of commercial confidentiality, so that the unsuccessful companies do not get essential information. Indeed, in the "Today" programme to which I have referred, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that the "Options for Change" review
  "could not be conducted in public, the materials are highly classified … very, very secret".

  707
  That is certainly the case in the United Kingdom, but it appears that in the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States and the low countries, defence committees are given tremendous access to information. I believe that the Chairman of our Select Committee on Defence includes France in that list. I realise that this is something that he feels strongly about because, although he may have access to the information, it rarely appears in his report in any form other than a collection of asterisks. The Government's undue secrecy in such matters prevents us from producing the clear and detailed statements that the public would require not only from an Opposition, but, more importantly, from a Government.
  Therefore, I hope that once the summit in London is concluded, we shall begin to get the information that we require so that we can establish the options for change and how much they will cost. The Secretary of State spoke at some length about "Options for Change", but did not tell us when the process would be completed; when the document would be published; whether it will be in the form of a Green Paper or a White Paper; whether it will be published before or during the recess; whether the result will be announced at the Tory party conference or whether we shall have a debate this Session. Those are all legitimate points and I hope that at least one of the Ministers —perhaps the architect or author of "Options for Change", who is to reply to the debate—will be able to tell us at least when the rest of the story will get out of the bag, if he cannot tell us the contents.
  We do not believe that cuts are the sole source of stability. Indeed, the deployment of the forces and their composition are just as important. The doctrines that have been adopted by NATO and the relationship between the alliance and the Warsaw pact are of crucial significance. This is why the conference in Paris of all the 35 nations in the CSCE process is so important. We must recognise, however, that CSCE is, at present, a very limited concept. It has no administrative structure. I understand that it does not even have a telephone number.
  We must get agreement from NATO, the Warsaw pact and the neutral nations on the establishment of a task force to explore the requirements for overseeing the inspection and verification of the CFE cuts; for exploring the confidence and security building measures between neutral, alliance and pact and former pact states covering the Baltic and Black seas, as well as exploring the possibilities of resolving disputes such as the Hungarian-Romanian border dispute.
  That task force should be supported by top-level staff and given tight headlines to work to. It should have some responsibility for co-ordinating the diversification of the defence industries and the destruction of a number of the materials that are now the subject of disarmament discussions.
  I note that in the Army debate the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that Britain had already made a contribution in terms of the peaceful uses of plastic explosives, such as the blowing up of tanks. Indeed, perhaps the single and most pressing need is to help the Soviet Union to get on with the business of dismantling its tank corps. The Soviet Union also needs assistance in providing housing for the armed service personnel who are being demobilised at the moment.
  There are a number of areas in which all the European countries, both the neutral countries and those of the western alliance, could help the countries of the east.
  708
  Following the talks in Paris, the CSCE in its new form could be of tremendous assistance. Although it is probably premature to talk of a "new defence architecture"—and we are certainly not going to talk of an architecture that is built in reinforced concrete—for the moment at least, we should talk in terms of some form of scaffolding that can traverse the two sides of Europe. We need to be able to adjust such a structure and to assist in that process.
  It is likely that NATO, with a diminished military role, will have an advantage. As an organisation, it continues to enjoy the support of its member states and to have a coherence. But it needs to recognise that, while the threat has diminished in terms of intent, the capability remains. The threat has all but disappeared since the Soviet Union is no longer prepared to wage a war it cannot afford and will not win.
  But we have to guard against triumphalism. The Soviets and the neutral states, along with the new democracies, are all entitled to their say in the establishment of the new European order. The eagerness of some to seek out new threats outside Europe and to pursue them at any cost must not be allowed to develop.
  Of course, as a trading nation, we have interests, but we must guard against the post-imperial fantasists, who would have us donning our pith helmets and charging out east again.
  The tasks of the new European order are there for all to see—the establishment of common security; the building up of trust between the peoples of Europe; and the protection of civil and economic liberties. In the period after the second world war, Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin helped lay the foundation of those aims in 'western Europe. I fear that it will take a change of Government before Britain will make a similar contribution to the next phase which will embrace our whole continent.
  The defence White Paper is ample evidence of this Government's failure to appreciate the scale of the new challenge and, in particular, the prospects for a Germany united and free. For the Government's adherence to the old strategic thinking; for their grudging participation in the great armaments negotiations, and their secretive and half-hearted talk of defence cuts; and, most of all, for their inability to contribute in the way that we could to the creation of a new European order, I call on my hon. Friends to support our amendment.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Michael Mates: It was a great pity that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) spoilt his interesting remarks with some rather stupid rhetoric at the end of his speech. I do not know who caused him to do that; I hope that it was not him, because we feel that he is much more sensible than that. If, as he said, it takes a change of Government to get a decent defence policy, I must advise him that that certainly could not be achieved by a change to a Labour Government.
  I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he is not proposing the abolition of the regimental system. Although we may need to make some adjustments to it in the future, it is wrong to suggest that we would ever want to organise our military forces in any way other than the system which has not only served us well, but which is the envy of every army in the world. All armies wish that they

  709
  had a regimental system like ours. For all that that system may have one or two faults and inflexibilities, it is the finest thing that we have and we had better stick to it.
  I add my thanks to those that have already been given to the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House for arranging this debate at such a timely moment and for the fact that the White Paper has been published. We have not returned to what happened not only last year but the previous year—before my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) became Secretary of State for Defence—when the defence debate was held in the autumn when all the steam had gone out of it and when the White Paper was stale news. It would be to everybody's benefit if we could make constant efforts to hold the debate at this time every year. I say that with a certain amount of masochism because the timing presents my Committee with a hell of a problem in agreeing the report, taking evidence and printing it in time for the debate. As always, I am extremely grateful to my colleagues who serve on the Select Committee on Defence for all their hard work.
  Since the last defence White Paper debate in October, the Committee has visited Northern Ireland, in November, and the Falkland Islands, in December. Our report on the White Paper contains a number of references to the results of the visits. I should like to thank all those who welconed us on those visits and to pay our tribute to the service personnel—and especially to the families in Northern Ireland—who live and work in less than ideal conditions. Some infantry accommodation in the Falkland Islands is appalling. They are living in what are, in effect, little more than containers. I hope that progress on the new accommodation, particularly at Onion range, is progressing.
  Paradoxically—it is always the same—the further we got from headquarters and from everybody else, the more uncomfortable the site and the more isolated it was, the happier the troops were. I have come to understand that phenomenon over the years, but it is remarkable and bears repeating. Those in the new, comfortable and sophisticated accommodation want to get home, while the others are perfectly happy because they feel that they are doing a proper job.
  Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said which was correct was that the services are worried? Does he agree, as I found, that they are worried about the possibility of a Labour Government who would, according to the party's policy document, impose cuts of at least 25 per cent., and probably substantially more? The services require reassurance from the Government that they will not be sent to fight without adequate weapons and the ability to defend us all.
  Mr. Mates: I am sure that my hon. Friend can expand on those remarks when he makes his own speech. I entirely agree that we should not allow our troops to get into that position.
  Mr. Rogers: While he is talking about service accommodation, will the Chairman of the Select Committee comment on the fact that, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) in April, the Secretary of State said that
  710
  unavoidable and essential repairs to service accommodation amounted to £323 million, and in an answer to me last week the figure had gone up to £360 million? The hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) said that troops seemed to be happier in the worst conditions, but does he think that the state of affairs implied by those answers is good?
  Mr. Mates: My remarks related to troops on active duty in the Falkland Islands, and the argument holds ground. The hon. Gentleman should go to see them because he would then understand the context of my remarks. I am talking not about baths and showers leaking, but about the most primitive conditions where people think they are doing any essential job and are thoroughly happy doing it. That is a remarkable characteristic of the British soldier in service.
  In Northern Ireland we were much impressed with what we heard and saw, particularly with the vigour with which the third brigade pursues its task of border security. I pay a sincere tribute to the men and women of the Ulster Defence Regiment, whom we visited when we were there, and whose job is possibly the most thankless of all in the services. That they can continue—most of them part-timers and civilian members of the community of Northern Ireland—to do that job knowing that their lives are at risk both on and off duty, at home, on holiday or wherever they may be, is nothing short of remarkable. I am glad to pay tribute to them for the way in which they carry out their work.
  The Committee decided last winter to embark on an inquiry into the defence implications of recent events. We have finished that inquiry and will be reporting to the House soon, following our visit next week to Moscow and Berlin. Our report on the White Paper concentrates on, as it states,
  "those aspects of defence policy which continue to deserve the attention of the House in the midst of dramatic changes."
  To put it in less grand terms, we have concentrated on the daily and weekly grind of Ministry of Defence life. I hope that it is helpful that we have done so.
  Contrary to some reports, defence expenditure is not increasing. We tried to set out the complex picture in paragraph 2.2 of the White Paper, which I commend to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) if he wants to look at a complicated sum and talk about facts rather than dogma. This year is already a tough one. In 1989–90, the Ministry spent much of its accumulated savings carried forward from recent years. Inflation has been higher than expected, which has meant a real terms fall in defence spending this year compared with last of about £700 million. Some of that was anticipated, but most of it was not. Sir Michael Quinlan, the Permanent Under-Secretary, talks of
  "a very tight programme management problem."
  We have seen the six-week procurement freeze, which is a desperate measure, although not a new one.
  For the next years in the planning cycle—1991–92 and 1992–93—plans suggest a small annual real rise, partly because £260 million extra was found for 1991–92 in the public expenditure White Paper. But the Committee is not confident that the sums for those years will represent an increase. As we state:
  "Past experience does not inspire confidence in recent Treasury inflation forecasts … the planned small recovery in defence spending in 1991–92 and 1992–93 looks extremely susceptible to the cumulative effects of inflation."

  711
  Inflation can eat away at the defence budget, although we are happy to congratulate the MOD on having managed for three successive years to keep rises in the price of defence equipment below the rate of general inflation. That is a tribute to successive procurement Ministers, and not least Sir Peter Levene, who has had an electrifying effect on the way that contracts are let within the Ministry of Defence and on competition policy in general.
  Mr.Harry Cohen: Did not the Select Committee report that unreliable equipment in the armed forces costs the taxpayer £1 billion per annum? Why has the Committee made such a feeble attempt to get the Government to do something about it?
  Mr. Mates: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should think that it is us who are being feeble. There is a report tagged to this debate on the reliability and maintainability of defence equipment which I commend to the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to make a speech on the subject and catches Mr. Speaker's eye, no doubt he will do so. That is a worrying factor to which I shall turn later.
  Mr. Cohen: About £1 billion per annum could be saved if we dealt with the unreliable equipment.
  Mr. Mates: It is a bit rich for a Member who has done nothing but call for reductions in defence expenditure to say that we are not doing well enough in spending the MOD's money.
  Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend's point is that there is massive waste in defence spending. The Conservative party always criticises people for what, allegedly, they waste—for example, local government. But when my hon. Friend points out the savings to be made—Rapier overspent by about £300 million—why do we not have a clearer indication of the Government's acceptance that there is major waste in the defence budget?
  Mr. Mates: I do not know why the right hon. Member for Chesterfield puts those questions to me. Has he read the reports which my Committee unanimously agreed, and which have been critical of such matters? The MOD is due to answer those questions and I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman should criticise me for bringing the issues to the attention of the House. It is hard to take such criticism from people who do nothing but criticise any expenditure defence.
  There is no doubt that there is pressure from the Treasury in the public spending round to lop off the odd £1 billion from the defence budget—it was ever thus—and leave it to the MOD to decide which pet schemes to abandon. A few years of that, some say, and the defence budget will be well down. That is crazy, and those who write and talk about it do no service to themselves or to the defence of this country. It is essential that any changes in defence expenditure reflect a planned and orderly process of matching commitment and resources, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. Arbitrary cash cuts and deliberate attrition by inflation make prudent management of the defence budget next to impossible.
  In some senses, there will be little need to reduce service manpower because it is steadily reducing itself. The Committee has noted a shortfall from requirement of 12,342 in the services. The British Army of the Rhine is now below 55,000—the figure that used to be regarded as the floor. We looked at some of the measures taken to
  712
  improve retention. Everybody has his favourite scheme. I am concerned about the fall in planned expenditure on recruitment advertising, to which the Committee referred, and about the huge falls in advertising for the reserves.
  The advertising budget for the Territorial Army is down 30 per cent. this year and that is difficult to understand when the reported difficulties in recruiting people to the services are so great. That does not seem to be a prudent saving. As we say in the report, the increases in the regular reserve, which simply reflects the number of people leaving the forces early and retaining a commitment. Few of those regular reserves seem to attend training, and Ministers should look carefully into that.
  Women constitute about 5·5 per cent. of service strength. Wrens now serve at sea, and no doubt some of my colleagues will want to express their views on that. In any event, it is essential that the MOD keeps an eye on the effects of the decision. I also hope that Ministers will be able to announce that all the remaining differences between men's and women's pay and conditions of service will shortly be removed. There is no justification for any remaining differentials.
  Because of MOD policy, we still do not know what proportion of service strength comes from the ethnic minorities, but we know from recruitment records that the proportion is very low. Only about 250 ethnic minority service personnel join each year—barely 1 per cent. of entrants. The Peat Marwick report was welcome, but the Committee calls on Ministers again to reconsider cap badge monitoring. There is nothing to lose from that and there could be much to gain.
  As for procurement, we refer to the need for another auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel soon. I note that when the Duchess of York named the "Fort Victoria" in Belfast on 12 June, describing it as a "floating supermarket", the Secretary of State was reported as having responded to questions about further orders by saying,
  "I am not sure I can afford this one at the moment."
  We hope that he can, and that a third one will be ordered soon.
  The Committee also drew attention to what is not in the White Paper—in particular, the older Royal Air Force aircraft which will soon need expensive replacements: Buccaneer, Nimrod, Andover, and Canberra. We also mention the long pause in deciding whether to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear-powered fleet submarines and further diesel-electric Upholder class submarines.
  The Committee also looked at merchant shipping. As the House knows, we have been studying the defence implications of the availability of merchant shipping for some years. The White Paper has a depressing and worrying situation to report. It accepts that this remains an area of concern for the United Kingdom and the alliance. In paragraphs 5.12 to 5.21 we examine the figures in some detail, and we are worried about the continuing decline in United Kingdom merchant fleet manpower and in shipping in certain categories. For instance, we depend on roll-on roll-off ferries being made available by our NATO allies. That is reflected in the fact that most of the ships chartered for United Kingdom national exercises were Danish roll-on roll-off ferries—none of the 29 ships chartered was British, although on NATO exercises most ships chartered seem to have been British.
  Recent events may increase rather than diminish the importance of shipping for reinforcing our forces in Germany. The channel tunnel has obvious weaknesses as

  713
  a means of reinforcement, so we look to Ministers for a further sign that steps are being taken to reverse the decline in the merchant fleet and in merchant navy personnel.
  The Ministry is now untied from the PSA for works services, so for the first time we had a duty to examine the MOD works programme—a formidable task. Nine per cent.£1·9 billion—of the defence budget goes on works and maintenance. The Ministry is a huge landowner, with more than 250,000 hectares of land and with comparable property interests abroad. Among the many construction and modernisation projects are a substantial number for BAOR and Royal Air Force Germany. Some of them may prove to be unintended presents for Germany, although there are clearly commitments which will have to continue, however long and in whatever strength we remain.
  In paragraph 4 we recommend that the possibility of replacing the old barracks at Aldergrove in Northern Ireland be kept open; that would enable the previous balance of four roulement and six resident battalions in Northern Ireland to be restored which would reduce turbulence for service personnel in the Province.
  The Ministry is looking for more land for training; so much is openly declared in the White Paper. We discovered that since 1987 freehold holdings for Army training areas and ranges had risen by 3,000 hectares. Sooner or later the Ministry will have to deal with the question of additional training land for forces withdrawn from Germany. Knowing as I do how desperately short the services are of training land, I add that this is a policy which, although it sounds strange, makes every sort of sense, and I hope that it will be pursued.
  We have again examined MOD's new management strategy, which is reported to be proceeding well and on target for full introduction in 1991. With recent events in mind, it could hardly be introduced at a more vital or difficult moment. Tight budgetary control, the introduction of genuine performance indicators—on which we are obliged to report somewhat skeptically—and the setting of targets will all be needed if MOD and the services are to carry out what could be the most radical shake-up since the second world war.
  Finally, the Committee looked at defence research and development which, like works and maintenance, is a major and mostly unregarded part of the defence budget. This year R and D will cost £2·7 billion, or 12·6 per cent. of the budget. As a Committee regularly examining defence equipment procurement projects, we are only too well aware of how the money goes. Government policy is to reduce defence R and D's share of the nation's scarce technological resources—at present it accounts for almost half all Government-funded R and D. But the figures suggest that civil R and D is planned to fall faster than defence R and D. We cannot entirely share MOD's confidence that industry is increasing its share of financing defence R and D. All this is taking place at a time when the four principal MOD research establishments are to be set up in 1991 as the defence research agency. We are worried lest innovative strategic research be squeezed out by an approach dominated by the agency's commercial remit, based on a customer relationship with MOD and others.
  I have mentioned research and development at £2·7 billion; construction and works at £1·9 billion; 250,000 hectares of land; and 172,000 civilian employees. The list
  714
  gives some idea of the scale of MOD's budget and of the scale of reductions in public expenditure that could theoretically be achieved. It is also a measure of the sheer scale of the management problem that making these radical changes presents. We shall be looking in the months and years to come at the way in which the Ministry handles these matters.
  I had intended to make some detailed comments on our two reports on reliability and maintainability of defence equipment and on Rapier, but as it is clear that hon. Members taking part in the debate have read them I shall leave the making of those remarks to them.
  Speaking on my behalf—although colleagues may agree with some of what I say—I should like to mention the atmosphere in which these changes are taking place. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right: we could never have believed the speed with which recent changes have happened. Some are now saying that the pace will slow down and steady, so we shall have time to take stock. I venture a different opinion—I think that the process is likely to speed up.
  Some of the positions that some countries are adopting in the negotiations are no more than that; I do not believe that they will bear examination in the light of those countries' experience. The Soviet Union is naturally uncomfortable about a united Germany being part of NATO. While trying to negotiate—not very realistically—that the military forces of the new Germany should somehow be associated with both NATO and the Warsaw pact, which does not make sense, the Soviets are also trying to negotiate guarantees of the presence of a large number of Soviet troops in the new Germany for five to seven years.
  We may have to allow the Soviets a transitional period. I should be all in favour of our negotiating one, but I believe that when the time comes matters will seem very different to the Soviet Union. When there is a united Germany that is part of NATO and the European Community, and when that new Germany speedily brings the living standards of those living in what is now the German Democratic Republic up to western standards, as we know it will, it will become even more uncomfortable for the Soviet Union to leave such an enormous part of its armed forces sitting in Germany in those new surroundings. One hears of strains already; East Germany under the old order was much better off than Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania, exciting comment among the Soviet forces about the differences between the quality of life there and in the Soviet Union——
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, would say to the proposition that a united Germany might be governed by the SPD, which might have won an election on a platform calling for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from German soil, with the result that a united Germany was in neither the Warsaw pact nor NATO. What does the hon. Gentleman say about such a proposal, which seems to be gaining a great deal of popularity with people in East and West Germany?
  Mr. Mates: Not for the first time I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that what he suggests will happen and it is therefore not fruitful to speculate on it. At

  715
  the moment both sides want the new Germany to be a member of NATO and the EEC. The European Community is the key to this matter. When the new Germany is formed—some people say that it will happen in a year while others say that it will take two years; I do not wish to make a forecast—it will start to become a western nation. There is no denying that and it is what people in East Germany want. That will not be compatible with being part of a military alliance of the old order of the Warsaw pact. I cannot see any free German wanting that.
  I was speaking about the speed of change and how it will affect Britain and the other NATO nations as much as it will affect Germany. Contrary to what some people say, although there will be difficulty over a CFE-I agreement, it will happen because the Americans and the Soviets want it. Far from there being a pause, the pressure to move to another round of conventional troop cuts will be enormous. It may be partly because of the politics of the new Germany and certainly because of what I have said about the desire of the Soviet Union to withdraw its forces from the new East Germany because of the discomfort that the Soviet Union will face if it leaves them there for any length of time. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues will turn their attention to that. Although we may have debates about the size of the Navy, the Army or the Air Force, over the next two or three years we shall see a relentless downward pressure on manpower on both sides. Provided that reductions take place logically and in sequence and are balanced, I am all in favour of them.
  It is wrong for people to talk now about specific reductions. That is putting the cart before the horse. Unlike some Opposition Members, I do not believe everything that is said in the press. I am totally content with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said about the debates that are taking place in the Ministry of Defence. If those debates were not vigorous I should be disappointed. People should argue their corners and at the end of the day it is up to Ministers to draw the arguments together. To talk of chiefs as ostriches because they are putting forward the points of view of their services is crazy and can only be said by those who do not understand the system in the Ministry of Defence. It may have many faults, but vigorous discussion and debate is certainly not one of them.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Gentleman has sought to outline accelerating changes in continental Europe. Does the hon. Gentleman or his Committee think that the training grounds that are available in the United Kingdom may not be adequate in the near future?
  Mr. Mates: I think that I alluded to that. We are desperately short of training grounds and always have been. We have never had enough and that is why we send troops to train in Canada, Kenya and Cyprus. That is partly to give them overseas experience, but it is largely because there is no way in which they can carry out in Britain the scale of training that can be undertaken in Canada. If we were able to offer such training in Britain, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents would complain loudest.
  My last point does not deal with peripheral matters: it is at the heart of the debate. I said in the debate on the Army, and I make no apology for repeating, that when we
  716
  have gone through all these changes there is only one asset that counts and it is the people who serve in our defence forces. They are the people who matter and they must be able to find a career and a career structure for the next 10 or 20 years. We do not do them a service by giving potted examples of how to cut this, save that and change the other.
  I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that a rational look is being taken at the changes. I hope that that will be an urgent look because, as I have tried to depict, the changes will be fast. That brings us to what will inevitably be a political rather than a military conclusion about what we need to defend our interests. By "us" I mean the European Community and western Europe in general. We must decide how to defend our interests through the next decade and into the next century. We must decide how to structure our forces so as to provide a career for people, and we must equip them in a way that will help them to carry out their task. Those who are trying to do that backwards in the interests of cheap headlines do us no service at all.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: I hope that the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) will forgive me if I do not discuss in detail his remarks about the Select Committee on Defence. I do not mean any disrespect to him or to his Committee, but I wish to return to the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence who defended the Government's policy.
  The Government's attitude and response to worldwide international events is grotesquely inadequate. The whole country must look at the Government's proposals to see whether we can get some better remedies and better prescriptions. That applies especially to nuclear weapons and the possibilities for nuclear disarmament, because those are the most important questions. To anyone who says that that is a peculiar way to think, I would say that President Gorbachev, who is rather popular in some quarters, takes the same view. He has said for years that we have to reach a time when we will be able to have full-scale nuclear disarmament.
  The Secretary of State has presented a White Paper that does not deal with that matter at all. It does not mention the non-proliferation treaty. In a few months the Government will have to give their view on that. The Secretary of State looks puzzled, as if he has never heard of it. Perhaps he has not, because many members of the Government talk as if they have never heard of it and as if they are not proposing to do anything about it. Under the preamble to the treaty that we signed—and if we had not signed such a preamble there would he no treaty—we have an obligation to do our best to get rid of nuclear weapons. That is one of the reasons why other countries were prepared to sign the treaty. The Government have produced a White Paper in which that is not even discussed and they do not think that it is a matter of any significance. That is an absurd way to deal with what remains one of the major questions confronting the world. We have a much better chance of dealing with that question now than we will have in five or 10 years.
  Anybody who doubts the significance of the squalid inadequacy of the Government's response should read what the Prime Minister said when she returned from Moscow after her meeting with the Soviet President. She

  717
  did not seem to have learnt anything from her conversations there. Perhaps I should withdraw that in one sense, because she made one reference which showed that she had learnt something which perhaps she should have taught her Ministers. I remember our discussions on the previous two or three defence White Papers. There was one two or three years ago which reviewed Soviet policy but did not mention that the Soviet Union had been on our side during the second world war and had suffered considerable casualties. It seems that the Prime Minister has at least learnt that. The right hon. Lady referred to the fact when she returned from her visit to the Soviet Union and made a statement on 12 June.
  The Soviet Union and its President attach some importance to the fact that it lost 27 million people during the last world war. That, of course, has influenced its judgment on some of the issues that are now before us. I grant that the Prime Minister mentioned that, but the rest of her remarks suggested that she has learnt nothing from the events that have taken place and are taking place.
  If we were to believe what the Prime Minister said, and if we and others were to act on what she said, we would be taking steps to intensify the risk of conflict, not to reduce it. In about six replies to questions the Prime Minister said:
  "Wars are caused by the weakness of nations, not by their strength".—[Official Report, 12 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 143.]
  Does the right hon. Lady think that that is an adequate description of what has happened over the past 20 or 30 years? If she thinks that other countries should take notice of what she says, she is, in effect, issuing an invitation to every country to embark on a huge programme of rearmament. There are some countries and some peoples who believe the right hon. Lady. I do not say that they do so because of the statement that I have quoted, but if they read what she says and take the same view, they will act accordingly. We know that the right hon. Lady has some strange pupils in her school for rearmament.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Lady has a strange view of history too.
  Mr. Foot: Indeed.
  I doubt whether the first world war was caused because some nations were weak. It is much more likely that it was caused because some nations which had the greatest power thought, "If we do not strike now, other countries will become strengthened and will rise against us. We must strike first before that happens." In those fanciful days our fanciful methods of describing such matters had not been invented. We might have described what they had before the first world war as a strategy of calculated response. It was partly that which landed us in the arms race. It was in part the arms race, not the weakness of other countries, which led to the outbreak of the first world war.
  Mr. Mates: I am trying to follow what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. What would have happened if we had had a deterrent strategy and capability in war? That might have saved us in 1939.
  Mr. Foot: We thought that we had that with the Dreadnoughts. We had some of the most powerful weapons in the world but that did not stop the war. It did not stop the calculation of what was going to cause the war.
  718
  The Prime Minister says—I suppose that some people must take some notice of her—
  "Wars are caused by the weakness of nations, not by their strength."
  That is an invitation to every country to strengthen its weapons and to make itself stronger and stronger. It is an invitation also to take precautionary steps, if necessary, to prevent other countries from strengthening their weapons. That was the circumstance of the pre-1914 arms race which led to the first world war.
  The war in 1939 might bear a closer relationship to what the Prime Minister said. Although the Secretary of State talked about these matters earlier this afternoon, it is a piece of cheek when representatives of this Conservative Government tell us how the second world war was started. More important than any comparative strength or weakness was the fact that Conservative leaders at that time—they had almighty power in this place with majorities as large as the present one—favoured the aggressors. They favoured Hitler. They favoured Mussolini in Abyssinia and the fascists in Spain. They gave them enormous power and encouragement. If anyone disagrees with me, they have only to read the authentic accounts of what happened. If they wish, they can read a book entitled "Guilty Men", which was published about 50 years ago. It wears remarkably well and is still extremely good. If anyone wishes not to accept the account which is set out in that book—it was published almost this week 50 years ago—let him read "The Gathering Storm", which was written by Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill's book says that it was the perfidy of a Government who were prepared to align themselves with fascist powers that led to the second world war, not the weakness or strength of nations. If Conservative Members do not like to learn these historical truths, let them read "The Gathering Storm", the first book which Churchill wrote on how the war happened.
  Mr. Keith Mans: If what the right hon. Gentleman says is true, will he explain why the Labour party before the second world war voted consistently against an increase in defence expenditure to counter what was going on in Nazi Germany, and why his party voted against conscription before the war so that we would be unable to meet that threat?
  Mr. Foot: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the unchallengeable works of reference to which I have drawn attention. He will find the story and the arguments set out much more fully and much better in those works. If he reads them, he will learn exactly what happened and why it was more the alliance of Conservative Ministers with Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and the rest than any single factor that led to the outbreak of war.
  Let us bring matters up to date. Let us consider some of the countries throughout the world that are accepting the doctrine that was espoused by the Prime Minister when she returned from Moscow. It seems that it is a doctrine which is now accepted by the Government. The right hon. Lady said:
  "Wars are caused by the weakness of nations, not by their strength."
  Was she saying that we must all go and look for nuclear weapons? The dictator of Iraq is one of the Prime Minister's leading pupils. I am not sure whether the gun that was sent to Iraq was meant for full-scale nuclear weapons. No one has yet been able to discover whether

  719
  that was its purpose. I hope that someone will be able to do so in due course. If the Prime Minister thinks that her doctrine is correct, there is no reason why a British Government such as the present one should not be fool enough to encourage the dictator of Iraq to follow it. If that happens, what about the others? Gaddafi made a statement today on the same subject. In effect, he said that he was determined to have nuclear weapons. Under the Prime Minister's doctrine, that is a valid course to take. Why not? It is sensible of countries with interests to protect to say, "If the British Prime Minister says that this is the only way to protect ourselves, we might as well follow her doctrine." It is not an academic matter. It is an extremely topical one. If the horror of a third world war ever comes to us, it will be the result of failure to do anything about the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  I suppose that much the most dangerous place is the middle east. We have read about the trial of the Israeli citizen who did his best to try to tell the world about the Israeli weapon. Other countries are building up nuclear weapons as well. Gaddafi says, "If the others have these weapons, I must be allowed to have them, too." I have no doubt that the leaders of Iran think that they should have a nuclear capability, too, especially as the leaders of Iraq are arming their country with nuclear weapons. As I have said, it is not an academic matter.
  The non-proliferation treaty, about which the Minister was sneering a short while ago, was signed for the reasons which I have advanced. About 10 or 15 years ago some wise statesmen said—this is one of the few wise things that has ever been done in the nuclear age—"We must stop the spread of these weapons." Indeed, that is the only way in which the race can be stopped. The Government are so little interested in these matters that they make no mention of them, even though three or four weeks hence they are supposed to go to a conference to present their views.
  I agree that the future of Germany is likely to shape the future of Europe and much else, as it has done twice before in the lifetime of some of us. Let us suppose that a newly elected Government of a united Germany say—this has not been said yet, but if the Prime Minister's doctrine were accepted it could well be—"We want nuclear weapons on the same basis that the British Government demand that they should keep their nuclear weapons." Why should not a Government of a united Germany say that? What would be the British Government's response? Would they say, "Yes, that is fine"? The Prime Minister's reply would surely be, "The more the merrier." Her view is that the more countries which have nuclear weapons, the safer we all are. However, that would not be President Gorbachev's answer, or that of whoever may be the Russian leader over the next five or 10 years. One of the reasons why that wise statesman President Gorbachev has been raising that issue ever since he had the chance to do so is because he saw the perils. I am sure he recognises also the perils in respect of Germany.
  What is the answer? The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is quite capable of giving answers for the Government even when he is not speaking for them, so I would be happy if he will tell us his own mind now. What if a new democratically elected German Government representing a powerful consensus of the country says, "All we ask is that we are allowed nuclear weapons on the same basis as the British Government"? The Germans have not done that yet, but if they do it would be wrong, in my opinion, for us to agree to such a proposition.
  720
  Long before that danger arises there should be a treaty, agreement and understanding about the abolition of nuclear weapons. I repeat that President Gorbachev has insisted on making the same point right along. He will put the arguments to the Government, even if they do nothing about answering them now.
  The Government's response to the great, exciting and liberating events in Europe is quite inadequate. I have listened to a number of such debates in the House concerning the response that the west ought to give to the new, convulsive events in the Soviet Union. I recall again one of the most significant debates that ever I heard in the House, which occurred a year or so after the fall of Stalin, when the Prime Minister of the day, Winston Churchill, made his last speech as Prime Minister of that Government. In those days, I used to sit below the Gangway, where my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) usually takes his place. He is not there now, but his place has been taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). It is an interesting vantage point. One can see best of all from there what the Government are up to, though one has to be a little careful about what the members of one's own Front Bench are up to as well. From that place, I witnessed the 1954 debate, when Winston Churchill made a very different speech from that which the right hon. Lady made when she returned from Moscow last week.
  Winston Churchill's speech was made at a time when the assurances were far fewer and when the prospects looked much grimmer. He told the House, the country and the world that the horror, perils and intensified dangers of a nuclear arms race and of nuclear war were such that a huge effort ought to be made by the west to make the proper response to the Soviet leaders of those times—who were a good deal less liberal than their counterparts today.
  He pleaded for the United Kingdom and the United States to respond in such a way that a real disarmament agreement could be achieved. He was stopped partly by the Foreign Office and partly by American intervention. If he had not been, think how the world could have been saved the epoch of most of the cold war. Of course, Winston Churchill brought vision and imaginative statesmenship to bear on those issues, but we have seen nothing of that kind from the present Government.
  Are we, as a result of the west's failure, to see a great opportunity again trickle through our fingers, as it did in 1954 and on some other occasions? My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has written that that was one of the great lost opportunities of the post-war world. It is all the more remarkable that my right hon. Friend should have said that in his book, because he did not say it at the time, and admitted as much. But some people did. Aneurin Bevan said it in this House—as did Churchill, speaking for the Government. If Bevan and Churchill had had their way, and had raised the debate above the lower ranges to its proper level, and if a proper response had been made to the Soviets, what horrors, perils and costs in human life we might have avoided.
  We have another wonderful chance, yet all we hear from the Prime Minister is that wars are caused by the weakness of nations, not their strength. The sooner that the Government are swept away, the better it will be for the people of the world.
  Several Hon. Members rose— —
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is much interest in the debate, and it will be helpful to all concerned if right hon. and hon. Members limit their speeches from now on.
  5.56 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: That was a fascinating piece of rhetoric but it was basically devoid of fact. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) raised the spectre of a unified Germany asking for nuclear parity with, for example, Great Britain. Has he never heard of the 1954 Brussels treaty, which makes such a thing impossible? The right hon. Gentleman is fond of telling right hon. and hon. Members what he thinks they do not know, but he conceals the facts that he chooses to ignore. His whole speech was built on that basis, and showed that he has for years lived in a time warp. He still lives in the days of Aldermaston and the CND, but the world has moved on considerably since then. Only the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent could resurrect the discredited Gollancz yellow books.
  What really matter are the contributions made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). At the heart of the debate is the future of NATO and of the Western European Union. Both hold the key to what may happen in the world. Clearly, the hon. Member for Clackmannan has not read the recent report adopted by the WEU which sets out Europe's place in the alliance and makes it plain that the retention in Europe of North American troops is vital. That report was unanimously accepted by communists, socialists, conservatives, liberals and Christian democrats.
  The Hague platform also made it clear that the nations of western Europe believe that there is a need for the nuclear deterrent for a considerable time ahead. That platform was endorsed by socialist France and Spain, coalition Holland, and by other western European countries. In arguing that we should not have the nuclear deterrent, Labour Members are out of touch with the rest of the world. It is not the House and the Government who are out of touch but the Labour party. That is why it failed to win office on three consecutive occasions, and why it will fail on the fourth.
  Mr. George Walden: I do not suggest that my hon. Friend makes his point with insufficient clarity, but it is worth mentioning that at various stages in Labour's recent defence thinking it has been in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament in the face of a communist regime. As that regime is now highly unstable, and it is conceivable that there could in the future be a militaristic, introverted, nationalistic regime in the Soviet Union, it is interesting to pose the question whether Labour would still be in favour of nuclear disarmament.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: That would depend on what the Labour party thought would win the most votes at the time that it had to answer the question. Given the present defence policies advocated by the Opposition, there is no possibility that they will win another election.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, there are no real signs of any reduction in conventional weapons by the USSR. There have been many promises and statements of intent—and I do not
  722
  doubt Mr. Gorbachev's intentions—but we do not have sufficient evidence of reductions, and until we have, we must not let our guard down.
  Last year the Western European Union featured in the defence statement, as a result of the action in the Gulf and the aftermath of The Hague platform. I am sorry to see no mention of the WEU this year because the out-of-area danger still exists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) said, we cannot afford to overlook that danger.
  The future of Europe's security depends upon America and Canada continuing to commit forces to Europe. Had America not become isolationist after the first world war, it is pretty certain that there would not have been a second world war. We have to make every effort to keep American troops in Europe.
  When Mr. Gorbachev addressed the Council of Europe it was interesting that he made it plain that he believed there was a need, as far as the west was concerned, for America to remain in Europe. He did not call for the removal of American troops. Therefore, we have to make America feel that it is wanted and needed to protect this continent.
  Surely NATO must include a unified Germany, which is going to come, at whatever pace. The USSR is rightly anxious because of the 27 million people killed in the war —I shall leave aside the 20 million murdered by Stalin —and she has a right to be reassured that there is a way to protect her security. The USSR needs those assurances.
  I have a specific question for my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who is to reply to the debate tonight. On the day that the East German Lander join the Federal Republic of Germany, under article 23 of the federal constitution the whole of Germany becomes part of the Western European Union, and all her allies in the WEU are obliged to defend her at the border. Do the Government accept that that is not a matter for discussion by the four-plus-two, but will automatically happen and that no documents need to be signed, as they were signed in 1954? I should like confirmation of that fact.
  I have mentioned the Western European Union a few times because the Soviet Union has great respect for and a good relationship with it. The Supreme Soviet and the Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU have established annual visits for discussions and we found them to be most valuable when we were there about six weeks ago. At that stage we, too, were worried about the apparent stalling of the conventional forces in Europe negotiations. It was clear from talking to members of the Supreme Soviet that they had not yet satisfied the military as to what would happen to the military establishment. When one has granted virtually everything that the military establishment wanted for decades, one has to convince it of the need to make the sort of reductions required by CFE, or because of Mr. Gorbachev's promises. Let us consider just the withdrawal of Soviet troops from East Germany, Poland and Hungary. The Soviets have to face the problem of rehousing those soldiers when they return and that is why they must have the support of the military establishment.
  Civilian members of the Supreme Soviet want to reach an accommodation with the west as rapidly as possible. NATO and the Warsaw pact have kept the peace in Europe for well over four decades. Now we need to build a new organisation to secure peace for both east and west.

  723
  The European Community has no place in that because it has no defence powers or obligations whatsoever. The only organisation which has a treaty obligation to deal with defence is the Western European Union.
  We now face the prospect of success for the CSCE, but it lacks one vital factor—democratic parliamentary oversight. Proposals have been made at the Western European Union and the Council of Europe that parliamentary input should be built into the CSCE process. Whether it is for baskets 2 and 3 for the Council of Europe or basket 1 for the Western European Union is immaterial. What is not immaterial is the fact that something has to be done to make Governments accountable to the representatives of their national Parliaments. When one studies CSCE it is interesting to find that about 30 members are already either full or associate members of the Council of Europe, which leaves only half a dozen or so outside the council, and they could be brought in in a way that would be satisfactory to them. The Soviet Union is already a guest member of the Council of Europe, and it also already has an excellent relationship with the Western European Union. The confidence that we have established in those two organisations gives hope for the future.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Earlier the hon. Gentleman referred to President Gorbachev's address to the Council of Europe, which was an excellent speech. However, President Gorbachev also talked about the common European home at that time, and I should be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman believes that that objective is attainable. If we start talking about a Europe which stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals, what will be the position of the United States with regard to the defence of Europe?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Briefly, the answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that, as Mr. Gorbachev made clear in that speech, he recognises that there will still be a need for the United States to be associated with the defence of Europe. That was very clear from his speech and the hon. Gentleman was there to hear it, as I was. The common European house is not a new idea. It was originated more than 20 years ago by a distinguished Austrian statesman, and has been recreated recently by Mr. Gorbachev. I believe that it is attainable, but no one can prophesy the time scale. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman and I had debated what would happen in Europe 18 months ago, and had predicted what has happened, little men in white coats would have taken us away, and that would probably have been the only time that the two of us would have occupied a common home.
  Another aspect of out-of-area threats is that we cannot ignore dangers that come from outside Europe. I do not believe that the Soviet Union takes a different view on that issue from this country or from NATO. If the Soviet Union and NATO were to abandon all their nuclear weapons, the sole result would be that the Soviet Union, eastern and central Europe and the emerging democracies there and the west would be at the mercy of nuclear blackmail from Libya, South Africa, Israel or China—it does not matter where. Therefore, one has to retain the residue of a deterrent and that is recognised by both east and west. I hope that official spokesmen for the Labour
  724
  party in the House do not deny that, because it would be a tragedy if they were so out of touch as to say that such threats were not a real danger. We need to be alert.
  Europe today is a very different place from the Europe of 12 months ago, when we considered the previous defence estimates and debated them. The hon. Member for Clackmannan, who opened the debate for the Opposition, was highly critical of the part that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken in unfolding events. He is entitled to say that sitting in the fastness of this country. Those of us who have been lucky enough to visit Poland and Moscow and to talk to the Hungarians and the East Germans who have experienced free elections know that they are united in their belief that it was the efforts of the Prime Minister and Mr. Gorbachev that broke the log-jam in eastern and central Europe. Anyone who denies that is, frankly, a fool and one hopes that the Labour party does not want to be considered as such.
  The Opposition's hatred and dislike of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister must not allow them to deceive the public into believing that she has not played a major role in opening eastern and central Europe to democracy. Next year will see even more change.
  In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), I pay tribute to him and the Select Committee on Defence for the enormous amount of valuable work that it undertakes when analysing defence issues which it then puts before the House. It is sad that we do not have sufficient debates on those subjects because defence issues are still at the heart of what makes this country survive. If we fail to match our intentions with our deeds we shall be in a sad way, but I do not believe that the Government propose to let the country down in that manner.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is legitimate to argue that, at this time, all the assumptions and doctrines that have sustained our domestic defence policy and that of NATO in the past 40 years demand review. I do not use the word review as a term of art because I must confess that I find the distinction between a "defence review" and the consideration of "Options for Change" somewhat metaphysical.
  However the exercise is described, to be realistic it requires first an analysis of the threat, if any, an assessment of the means necessary to meet that threat and an estimate of the resources required to provide those means. Imposing a financial cut of £1 billion at the instigation of the Treasury or £5 billion at the behest of a party conference seems to be an inherently flawed approach, not least because we run the risk of raising the threshold of expectation among the public. We also run the risk of damaging the morale of the service men and women who are likely to be affected.
  It is perfectly understandable that there should be a desire for the release of funds previously earmarked for defence to provide additional financial resources for health, education and social security. It has already been said, however, that that is not capable of being achieved by turning off one tap and turning on another. More profoundly, if we are to have a financial dividend out of the changed political circumstances, we want a permanent dividend. A unilateral reduction in expenditure can just as easily be reversed by a unilateral increase in expenditure.

  725
  The most lasting financial dividend arises best out of negotiated arms reductions, reciprocated by reductions in the arms of others. A peace dividend secured by agreement is much more likely to be a long-term one.
  There are many uncertainties that are yet to be resolved. No one yet knows properly the cost of restructuring our forces to meet the changed threat. Who can say what will be the cost of the verification of the treaties that are currently in the course of negotiation? What will be the cost of making men and women redundant and equipment inoperable?
  Sometimes the unreasonable expectations of the public are due to ignorance. We now know from what the Secretary of State has told us that we are holding this debate against the background of intense internal Government activity. The options for change, however, have been considered in cloistered secrecy and if the Secretary of State is pained by misrepresentation I fear that he has himself to blame. It should not be necessary at this time, in a democratic country of this description, to have the kind of off-the-record briefings which formed part of so many articles in this morning's newspapers in advance of this debate.
  I believe that the document which some, with no regard for ministerial dignity or longevity, have come to describe as the "Clark Memorial" document deserves a much wider circulation. During the Army debate I invited Ministers to put a copy in the Library in advance of this debate so that we could all see its contents and consider the extent to which its logic is susceptible to challenge.
  The internal debate in which the Government are engaged should be a public one because many of the questions that fall to be answered require an answer from the public. If £800 million is to be released by declining to build a fourth nuclear missile submarine so that more can be spent, for example—I offer it as no more than an example—on mitigating the effects of the poll tax on certain poll tax payers, does the public understand the implications for Vickers and for employment? If we save money on the surface fleet by reducing our programme of type 23 frigates, is the public willing to accept the consequences for Yarrow and Swan Hunter? Some may say that the answer to those and similar questions is diversification, but we know from the Soviet Union that such diversification takes time and can be extremely painful. If one diverts money to mitigate the effects of the poll tax, for example, that money will not be available for retraining or retooling.
  The most regrettable thing is that the type of debate that we should be having in public is now taking place in the United States where the opportunity for freedom of and access to information is much more enhanced than any opportunity we enjoy. We deserve that opportunity, and it is a matter of profound regret that we do not have it.
  Against the background of a lack of detailed information, it is dangerous to attempt to construct a blueprint either for our domestic defence policy or for that of NATO. It is fundamental that we preserve a common purpose in the alliance. The communiqué issued by Ministers after the Turnberry meeting reflected an entirely
  726
  different tone from that used by the Prime Minister when she addressed those Ministers and a number of other fortunate invitees, including myself, at lunch-time.
  The distinguished United States architect of the alliance, George Kennan, argued in 1947 that the fundamental purpose of the alliance was to contain the belligerent forces of the Soviet Union until such time as internal developments and generational change led to a society and leadership which no longer sought confrontation with the west. If that was the fundamental principle upon which NATO was founded, that purpose has now been virtually achieved.
  We now know that there is no longer a threat from a united Warsaw treaty organisation. It is rather curious, however, that in the past 10 days it seems that members of that organisation want it to continue, at least in some limited political role. We also know that the Soviet Union remains the major military power on mainland Europe. It is, however, subject to economic and ethnic instability and it would be unwise—I put it no higher than that—for us to assume for ever that no military threat of any kind to our security could come from the Soviet Union.
  NATO needs a new purpose, and that thinking has begun, but thus far it has reached no more than vague conclusions. It is argued that NATO should become more political, but those who advocate that are surprisingly short of instances of how that new political profile should be etched.
  NATO could give an effective signal to the Soviet Union, in particular, by embarking on a review of—and, preferably, a change in—several of the doctrines that have sustained it for so long. In July, at the instigation of President Bush, NATO is to discuss embracing the doctrine of no first use of nuclear weapons, which would constitute an extraordinary step. It will also discuss the question of flexible response.
  As soon as the issue of short-range nuclear weapons became one on which political considerations had a profound effect, and as soon as it became clear that the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons would not be politically accepted by a unified Germany, a substantial hole was drilled in the doctrine of flexible response. If the first nuclear step is taken away, not a flexible response but an inflexible response is created: countries are driven much faster towards taking the next nuclear step.
  I understand that NATO is to consider abandoning the doctrine of forward defence, at least in mainland Europe. That is politically necessary, as the doctrine would apply to countries which have broken free from the yoke of the Soviet Union, and which, in many cases, are expressing an enthusiastic desire to embrace the principles of parliamentary democracy that exist in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in western Europe.
  In these changing circumstances, there is a risk that some NATO countries will feel less committed to the alliance. That requires sensitivity. Instructing a unified Germany that it must accept forward deployment of a tactical air-to-surface missile may produce not only rejection of the proposal, but a longer-lasting distaste for the alliance. If the price of keeping a unified Germany in NATO—and having that Germany accepted in that organisation by the Soviet Union—is to agree to a nuclear-free Germany, it is a price worth paying. Such a price would be consistent with what is now the only logical nuclear doctrine for NATO to espouse: that of minimum nuclear deterrence.

  727
  We know that NATO can play a vital part in the creation of a new security structure in Europe. There is debate about whether NATO should continue. I believe that, in the foreseeable future, there will be a requirement for NATO—for an alliance of 16 nations. However, we also require a structure that binds in the United States and the Soviet Union and enlists their weight in an organisation that will need to be able to resolve the disputes of which we have already had a foretaste in the emerging democracies of eastern Europe.
  A paradox of the Gorbachev years is that as the uncertainty of a divided Germany has been removed the traditional ethnic uncertainties elsewhere in eastern Europe have been unlocked. We have seen a resurgence of nationalism—although not in its 19th century mode. There is uncertainty within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of which Mr. Boris Yeltsin is an eloquent example. Whatever structure emerges for the security architecture of the new Europe, there will still be a place for NATO. Its place will be complementary to that structure, and not a substitution for it.
  The Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), rightly pointed out that these—mainly procurement—issues must be seen against the background of the possibility of a CFE treaty: of phase 1 being signed by the end of the year, and of ensuring further pressure for a phase 2. They must also be seen against previous undertakings by Ministers that, if strategic arms reduction talks reached agreement on 50 per cent. levels of reduction, the Government would give consideration to the introduction of the British strategic forces in the succeeding strategic arms reduction talks.
  It will he necessary to maintain the nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future, and that will have to be done through the medium of four submarines. There are proposals to deploy only three. Although some would say that they are arguing in their own interest, senior naval officers say that, if there were only three, there would eventually come a time when it would not be possible to deploy the deterrent. The notion that a submarine should be left sitting in the harbour and that only in a moment of crisis should it be put to sea is surely flawed: the mere act might well represent the kind of escalation that the existence of the deterrent on station is designed to avoid.
  There must be reductions in the British Army of the Rhine. Arising from that, there must be a greater emphasis on mobility, which will require helicopters. Even if there had been no planned or suggested reduction in expenditure on defence, the funding of such an extension of the provision of helicopters would have to be at the expense of some other component of existing expenditure. The inevitable conclusion is that that expansion must be at the expense of tanks, either in principle or in numbers. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will give us some information that will end the damaging and demoralising uncertainty about the Government's attitude towards the EH101.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there would have to be reductions in the British Army of the Rhine. What would be the function of the BAOR in a united Germany? Who would it be there to defend us from—Poland, Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union? Where will the front line be?
  Mr. Campbell: The front line will be where it presents itself. Of course we all hope that there will be no necessity for conventional or nuclear war on mainland Europe. I fancy that if the hon. Gentleman were to address his question to the other members of NATO, he would find little enthusiasm for the notion that BAOR should depart completely from mainland Europe.
  Mr. Banks: I was asking the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Campbell: I think that I gave the hon. Gentleman the answer that he deserved.
  At present, there cannot be any justification for embarking on a replacement of the WE177 free-fall bomb by the United Kingdom by means of the SRAM-T or the French equivalent. I cannot understand the logic that suggests that that replacement is necessary now or in the future. If we move towards a doctrine of minimum nuclear deterrence, the existence of such weapons in the hands of the United Kingdom is surely unnecessary, and, at this moment, liable to give a wrong signal to those whose confidence—in theory, at least—we are trying to build on the other side of what used to be called the iron curtain.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain an apparent paradox in his remarks? He emphasises the need for the United Kingdom to continue to have a strategic nuclear deterrent with no fewer than four Trident submarines, but no level of nuclear deterrence under that retains any meaningful capacity. Without stand-off weapons, the sub-strategic capability of the RAF would be taken away.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not followed the logic of my argument. I argued for minimum deterrence. I cannot conceive of the circumstances in which the United Kingdom, acting unilaterally, would consider it right or appropriate to use a sub-strategic nuclear weapon on the mainland of Europe.
  While accepting the need for four boats to ensure that the system is effective, there is no justification for the planned increase in nuclear capacity which would inevitably be brought about by deploying the proposed number of warheads on Trident. if the level of warheads on Polaris is effective, to increase that number simply because of a change in the system or a change in the submarines is wholly unnecessary and destabilising.
  The Defence Committee has made some effective criticisms of the Government's policy on the ordering of the type 23 frigate. I need do no more than associate myself with those comments. However, "Options for Change" must surely include consideration of the important contribution which the surface fleet makes in western Europe by representing 80 per cent. of the contribution of the mainland European countries. There is a high degree of United Kingdom specialisation in naval matters, and it would be extremely unfortunate, and in my view unhelpful, to say the least, if that specialisation were in some way to be diluted or reduced.
  Procurement must always be subsidiary to defence policy, which must be subordinate to the system of security which evolves for Europe. The bolder and the more lasting are the decisions made in Europe, the greater scope there will be for long-term reductions in domestic expenditure, and all the signs are that the prize is well worth winning.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): The debate has been remarkably low key. It has appeared perplexed and uncertain. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) meandered somewhat trying to adduce historic parallels that did not exist. Even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was hypercautious and gave very little away. However, he said that the military capability of the Soviet Union remained formidable. He cited in particular the naval construction programme and the potential threat that it posed. I understand that my right hon. Friend will not wish to disclose in advance the contents of the review, "Options for Change". Yet it would have been helpful for the House had he been somewhat more precise about the general principles which he is trying to follow.
  I shall divide my speech into three parts, like Caesar's Gaul. First, we must establish the aim and long-term purpose of any review. Secondly, we should set that review in the context of creating a stable and enduring security structure for out continent—and we can briefly examine what the structure might entail. Thirdly, we should try to define at least in outline the dispositions of a British defence policy and the related manpower and procurement policies to match.
  We have heard next to nothing about the aims and objectives of any review. Clearly, the aim must be to eliminate, by means of a grand strategy involving every political, diplomatic, economic and appropriate military means at our disposal, the residual Soviet presence in central Europe. Within the shortest possible time scale. Soviet divisions should return home. I am sure that it is the wish of the Soviet soliders stationed abroad. General Secretary and President Gorbachev has enough troubles at home. There are plenty of roles for those armed forces in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Uzbekistan and Georgia, but there is no meaningful purpose in retaining a military presence in central Europe. We are really out to facilitate the process of Soviet withdrawal. That is the first cardinal and central point.
  The establishment of those alien Soviet forces in central Europe and the perpetuation thereby of an inherently unnatural ideological order upon the people and nations of central Europe have prolonged the cold war for too long. How thrilling it has been to see the wall come down and, by the process of self-determination and democracy, the peoples and countries of so many central European nations restored to their true independent status.
  What about the European security structures? First, there has to be an all-embracing structure, a reconciling edifice to bring together in a single concert of Europe the east, as represented by those residual communist regimes, the west and the neutrals and to provide an input for our north American allies, Canada and the United States. We have that structure in embryo—the CSCE process. There are understandable calls for making something more concrete out of that process and establishing a secretariat. But we should be careful and not try to adduce to the CSCE as an organisation, when it becomes one, powers greater than it will ever possess. There will be such great divergences of interest, outlook, allegiance and social systems between the 35 component nations of the CSCE that we can never expect too much from it, except for the key factors of reconciliation, better understanding,
  730
  building bridges and increasing confidence. As a forum for achieving those ends, it would be incomparable and we must work as part of the grand strategy to bring it about.
  The second element must be the building of a truly strong and reliable European pillar of our western alliance. Again, we have it in embryo; we do not need to create anything new as we have the Western European Union which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), the leader of the British delegation to the WEU, reminded us, is the sole organisation in Europe empowered by treaty to assume defence responsibilities.
  The great merit of the WEU is of course that it imposes clear obligations on its signatories. The obligation to come to the aid of another signatory if attacked is much clearer and more explicit than in the North Atlantic treaty. There is no possibility of evasion of its meaning and, furthermore, again as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate made clear, the Brussels treaty provides an option for signatories to come to the aid of another signatory where that signatory's interests are beyond the strict geographic limits of NATO. The classic example was the action taken in the Gulf by five WEU members of NATO working together in a WEU context. I was saddened that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dismissed the possibility of using such a WEU framework for out-of-area operations in the future, because there could be occasions when our European interests are not identical with those of the United States. NATO is not the appropriate body to conduct out-of-area operations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said that the WEU is already a focus for central European countries who recognise that the Warsaw pact is useful only as a temporary negotiating framework for CFE 1, but beyond that is moribund or dead. They will still need a collective security framework because they will not feel secure on their own. They know that CSCE will not come to their assistance. Like the Pope, it has no divisions and, like the United Nations, it has no peace-keeping forces. They will still need the ultimate sanction of allies coming to their assistance if they are attacked.
  That is why, to take one example, the Hungarians are interested in joining the WEU. It does not involve their becoming members of an integrated military structure, as NATO does, but it provides certain safeguards. As their political and instinctive interests and loyalties lie with the community of democratic, free nations of Europe, they rightfully aspire to playing their full part in the political development of Europe.
  It was interesting that the Hungarian Foreign Minister, speaking earlier this month at the WEU Assembly in Paris, suggested that Hungary should apply for guest-status membership of WEU. He has asked for a delegation from the WEU to visit Hungary to examine that suggestion further. I would expect that where the Hungarians lead other central European democracies will follow, and they should be encouraged to do so. If we are seeking to establish a glacis in central Europe without foreign troops, the WEU is the ideal basis on which to work. I am confident that in time perhaps the Czechs and other central European countries will follow suit as they become truly democratic.
  The third aspect of the European security framework is NATO. We are still, and will remain as far as we can

  731
  foresee, an Atlantic community of free nations. We will still need, as the Soviet Union remains the preponderant military power in our continent, to call in aid the new world to address an inherent imbalance in the old. That imbalance is redressed by two guarantees—first, nuclear, which we all understand; and, secondly, to some extent conventional, a residual American presence in Europe. I envisage in the longer term, as I am sure do analysts on the other side of the Atlantic, that the American presence will tend to be to the rear and to the flanks and not so much in the central front. Ultimately, the logic of events is for the withdrawal of foreign troops, both east and west, from Germany. When that happens, we will have taken a great step forward and there will then be no need for Soviet troops to remain in Poland. We will need NATO, which will continue to be basic to the underpinning of security in Europe.
  Where does that leave the United Kingdom? First, as has been said many times, the nuclear deterrent is the ultimate expression of our determination to remain sovereign independent people. We cannot sacrifice it and remain true to our historic inheritance. I differ from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-West (Mr. Campbell), because I think that there must be gradations of deterrence if the nuclear deterrent is to be credible, just as there must be gradations of conventional deterrence.
  Secondly, we shall need to defend the home base with, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, an air defence system and appropriate coastal forces.
  Thirdly, we shall need an out-of-area capability. It goes without saying that we shall need more air mobile forces, more intervention forces and more amphibious forces, with the mobility, firepower and ability to concentrate force on a decisive spot early. Those are inherent characteristics of air and sea power, and must remain part of our out-of-area capability.
  I was somewhat surprised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not unambiguously declare that the United Kingdom will have a major role in the eastern Atlantic. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East made plain, because there will be fewer in-place forces the need for reinforcements and reserves will be greater. I see it as a vital interest of the United Kingdom, and a vital contribution to the defence of NATO and our continent, that we play an active and full part in the eastern Atlantic. For that purpose, as the Soviet submarine threat remains, we will need the highest anti-submarine warfare capability. Before too long, we will need a new generation of maritime patrol aeroplanes, but in the immediate future and now, we must equip the type 23 frigates with the helicopter they need—the EH101. A production order should be placed forthwith without delay. Our helicopter procurement policy has been dilatory and plagued by procrastination and delay, which has not helped our industry and has not facilitated the necessary modernisation of our armed forces.
  The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, and perhaps the Secretary of State, went back to the period immediately after world war one and the 10-year rule. I refer them to Lord Trenchard and the manpower pattern that he established for the Royal Air Force, which stood the test of time and provided a basis for the expansion of the service in the middle and late 1930s, leading up to the battle of Britain. For our manpower, we will need a cadre of the highest quality—well-educated, long-serving
  732
  professional regulars, with every attribute of professionalism accorded to them and every emphasis placed on making the profession of arms worthwhile. I should wish to see not cuts in training at service academies but more training and more professional courses.
  We shall need much larger reserves, and herein lies the key. I hope that we will have more warning time and the ability to build up reserves, which must be of all three services. We have a unique chance to put in place exciting Reserve opportunities for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, involving a worthwhile flying role for the Royal Air Force. The Air National Guard of the United States is a classic example. It flies the latest aircraft to exactly the same standards as the regulars.
  Procurement in the United Kingdom has been a catalogue of errors and a long tale of many expensive catastrophies. Perhaps part of the cause of that is that Parliament has never exercised effective scrutiny—in his interesting speech, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East referred to this—because we have no appropriation function and we shy away from taking on the Executive in this key area. Our reports are advisory and we often bewail the fact that the stable door of expenditure was left wide open and that the horse has bolted out of sight.
  That is by the by. Perhaps Parliament is beyond redemption and beyond reform. Nevertheless, I would hope that we will grasp two lessons. We must press much more vigorously for a genuine concerted European programme of procurement with a common research fund, properly administered, with the whole common procurement process, through the Independent European Programme Group, answerable to Europe's directly-elected representatives on defence, the Assembly of the Western European Union. In this way a corpus of opinion will be created in Europe that supports collaboration, concerted operational requirement and common re-equipment time scales. I hope that that will be done and that it will be done soon. I know that Her Majesty's Government are active in their chairmanship of the Independent European Programme Group and that there has been much progress. The progress needs to be taken boldly forward.
  The task that we face would be much easier had some of the difficult decisions been taken long ago. They were evident throughout the 1980s. In two books that were published in the 1980s, one in 1982 and the other in 1987, I referred to the fact that BAOR needed to be reduced. I spelt out the idea of reducing BAOR to one division, covering the clutch of Royal Air Force airfields west of the Rhine. It is possible for this to be done now as a first step towards a genuine withdrawal of foreign troops from Germany. As so often in European politics and security matters, the German question lies at the heart of so many of our problems.
  If the Soviet Union can be encouraged to withdraw its forces from what is now the German Democratic Republic and from Poland, NATO can make commensurate withdrawals. That will make our continent a much safer place and, in the process, save us a great deal of money.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House of the earlier appeal for brevity.
  6.52 pm
  Dr. John Gilbert: There is on the Order Paper a most extraordinary motion that the House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990. It was moved by the Secretary of State. I have never seen a man show less enthusiasm for a Statement on the Defence Estimates; he hardly referred to them, from start to finish. I suspect that next year's defence White Paper will look very different from that of 1990.
  The timing of this debate, not for the first time, is wrong. I sincerely hope that the decisions of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement—I am glad to see that he is maintaining the tradition of a Minister of State making the decisions in the Department, particularly with respect to defence procurement—will not dribble out one by one, but that we will have them in a coherent form and that there will be another defence debate in the autumn.
  It is no secret that I consider it essential that we keep NATO and that the United Kingdom keeps its strategic nuclear capability. I am delighted that my party seems to be coming to the view that three, if not four, of the Trident submarines should be retained.
  What is the Government's intention in this respect? One idea that has been floated—I was startled to see it—is the possibility that this Government will reduce the number of submarines from four to three. I see that the Minister of State is nodding his head. I hope that that is a reflection of the Government's policy. I cannot imagine what the quick reaction alert time might be in certain circumstances. I do not believe that the British people would agree to a nuclear deterrent that could be activated at only a fortnight's notice.
  We need to maintain a strategic capability for as long as every other country has one, and that will be for a very long time. The number of missiles per submarine, the number of warheads per missile and the amount of throw weight per warhead can come down. It is absolutely essential that we keep a minimum of four submarines.
  The Warsaw pact is disintegrating; it appears that the Soviet Union may also be disintegrating. The possibility cannot be ruled out of civil conflict, or even of civil war, within the Soviet Union. Anyone who tries to foretell who will come out top in that tortured country is either a fool or a charlatan. Who will have control of the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal in the years ahead is not known. It is not impossible that more than one nuclear-capable sovereign state will emerge out of what is now the USSR. This is a further reason why the United Kingdom should not consider giving up its own capability.
  Nor do I think—this is an even more unfashionable view on this side of the House—that we should abandon all our short-range nuclear capability in Europe. Some of the arguments that have been raised in this respect show a lack of logic. People often ask how on earth we could conceivably consider using these weapons against the newly democratic countries and populations of Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. The only circumstances in which they could be used against those territories would be if somebody else in those territories had done some very unpleasant things to us beforehand. Those are the only circumstances in which we could consider using them. The logic of the argument is that, because those countries are now democratic, we could not possibly use our weapons against targets in their territories. Had we deployed those arguments between
  734
  1939 and 1945, the Royal Air Force could never have attacked legitimate targets in France, Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands, or any other country that was under occupation by a hostile power. Unfortunate though it is, we have to maintain the capability to strike targets in those areas.
  On the conventional scene, this is where the greatest danger to peace lies, not only in Europe, but in the middle east, Africa and the far east. I do not ignore the very worrying spread of missile inventories and nuclear capabilities in some of the most volatile areas of the world. I remain convined that the main hope for future peace lies in conventional force reductions. These have to be savage and accompanied by inspection regimes that are capable of ensuring that there are no breaches of treaty agreements relating to stocks, training and defence manufacturing plants. We must press ahead with more confidence-building measures—a point on which I disagree with our American allies—because it is essential that they should cover naval as well as land forces.
  The Soviet Union has just sent 2,000 of its most modern tanks east of the Urals. Who can blame it? That is a perfectly natural thing for it to do. It is sending not its old tanks, but its modern tanks. I do not know exactly how long it will take to bring them back, should it want to do so, but, if it chooses to do so, it would take much less time than it would to bring back tanks from Georgia or Texas.
  I echo what has now become the commonplace of this debate and what I am sure will be the commonplace for many years to come. We must place every emphasis on mobility inside and outside Europe. We must develop a capability to deploy in a hurry, not just in British national interests but in NATO interests, the sort of interests that we were hoping to safeguard when we sent our minesweepers to the Armilla patrol.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the possibility of an SPD Government in Germany requesting all foreign troops to leave the territory. He may be right. I certainly think that he is right that there is the possibility of an SPD Government, but my hon. Friend would have been startled, as I was recently at a colloquium in London, to hear the comments of two senior members of the SPD, a former Minister and a spokesman. To my amazement, I heard them say that they thought that, in future, when foreign troops have left German soil, a united Germany should think of an intervention capability. One of them said—because of the circumstances, I am not allowed to identify him—"Of course you and the French already have this capability and have experience of it." When I asked whether the idea of deploying German forces, whether or not in support of other NATO countries outside the territory of the Federal Republic, would require an amendment to the German constitution, I was told that it would and that it would probably come to just that. I do not know whether that will be the case, but I certainly think that the House needs to bear it in mind that two members of the SPD, who would certainly consider themselves far to the left of me, are prepared to talk in such terms in a semi-public forum when abroad.
  I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). It surprises me, as it may surprise him, where the cuts will have to fall. I shall not refer to them item by item because I would merely repeat what other hon. Members have said.

  735
  I must confess that I am revising my views on the value of the surface fleet. I particularly welcome the arrival of the new logistical supply ship Fort Victoria and I regret to say that we shall have to think again about convoys and about how to protect them. I can remember a former distinguished Conservative Secretary of State for Defence, Sir John Nott as he now is, standing at the Dispatch Box and telling the House, "We can forget about convoys—the days of convoys are over." That was a perfectly accurate reflection of the world only a few months ago.
  We must emphasise our amphibious capability and the role of the Marines. I hope that there will be no thought of cutting the capability of the Royal Marines.
  What has been happening in the past few months gives us an opportunity for drastic and collective rethinking throughout NATO. I emphasise the words "collective rethinking". The shock to public opinion of what has happened cannot be overestimated, and it will become increasingly difficult, and rightly so, to persuade public opinion of the need to maintain defence budgets throughout the western world at anything like their current levels. Therefore, we have an opportunity, if we could only take it, to get some rationality into the deployments of our land and naval forces and the relationships of those forces to their supply depots.
  For example, extravagant amounts of naval assets—NATO naval assets—are floating round the Mediterranean. The relationship between BAOR's supply depots and the deployment of troops is idiotic, and the same could be said of most deployments of NATO troops in West Germany. If there are to be fewer troops and if more emphasis is to be placed on predeployment and the building up of munitions depots, I hope that the opportunity will be taken to get them all on a far more rational basis than there are at the moment.
  The case for the European fighter aircraft becomes weaker every day. Here, as elsewhere, the pressure to buy American will become stronger unless we can get firm American agreement on staff targets and procurement decisions over the range of military equipment.
  It is obvious that the threat from the Soviet Union is disappearing to the verge of invisibility. Although, as the Secretary of State may fear, the Soviet procurement programme, which has helped to bankrupt it, is continuing apace, morale in the Soviet forces is in a very serious state. The Soviet officer corps has no sense of purpose and no sense of mission. Desertions are on the increase and are likely to become more frequent, particularly as troops are used to suppress civil unrest, whether caused by troop shortages or ethnic tensions. In fact, if there is a threat —I rather doubt it—to peace in central Europe, it will probably come from elsewhere, for example, ethnic tensions in Romania and the possible disintegration of Yugoslavia. Many other tensions and dark forces are at work in the lands that have just liberated themselves or partly liberated themselves from tyranny. We need to remember that both European wars of this century started in central or eastern Europe. Alas, we cannot be certain that such things will not come to pass again, and that is why we must postpone giving ourselves the full peace dividend until the world in which we live is a much safer place than it is now.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: Hon. Members have just heard an honest, almost breathtaking speech by the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert). Many hon. Members would have been delighted if they could have made so eloquent a speech. If the debate is being held at a rather odd time, it is worth it to enable us to hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Hon. Members knew that the Government would not be able to say anything startling or new in this year's defence estimates debate. If they had done so, it would have been premature and wrong, for caution underlies the expressions by the Government of today, and rightly so. The introduction to the White Paper states:
  "our approach to defence must be based on being able to respond to a range of possible outcomes, not just the one we hope to see."
  Those words show a degree of wisdom that has been bred out of the bloodiest century of all time, and it is a degree of wisdom to which we would be wise to stick.
  In all the euphoric talk about the end of the cold war and the so-called peace dividend that must follow, in the welcomes that we rightly give to the return of freedom and the great reforms that are appearing in country after country in eastern Europe, and not least the changes and possible instabilities appearing within the Soviet colossus itself, we must not be lulled into doing foolish things. We must cling tightly to the hard facts about the defence capabilities that still exist in Europe, in the eastern part of the world, and elsewhere. We must concentrate specifically on the weak spots where war could still result if the injustices that cause it are allowed to fester.
  The only peace dividend that we can gain is the continued successful deterrence of war—not the few hundreds of millions of pounds that we might squeeze from the defence review for spending on more comfortable and sociable things. In the first half of the century the democracies fatally preferred the latter until it was too late, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier when referring to the fatal 10-year rule from 1919. If some people did want to buy off Hitler in the 1930s, it was because they were terrified of having another war. The last thing that the people of this country wanted to do was to go to war again so soon after the war to end all wars of 1914. I disagreed profoundly with the book of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) when it was first published, and have done so ever since, because he got the message wrong.
  In the second half of the century, we paid our insurance premiums more regularly, and, with the tremendous support of the United States, we took advantage of the nuclear weaponry to do so. For more than a generation, we gained a peace divided—albeit uneasily, but emphatically. Whatever we do now, above all it must play a substantial part in the well-tried pillar of NATO that has been built up over the last half century. We must make our full share of contribution's to NATO's forces at whatever level the negotiations on conventional forces manage to agree. That message was put succinctly and effectively in the chapter on defence and security in a changing world in the White Paper.
  I believe that the presence of British forces, as well as those of the United States, inside a united Germany—and more than just a few cadres for rapid reinforcement—is important for some time ahead. I am sorry to note that I

  737
  did not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on that point. Whether we like it or not, there are still lingering fears about a united—albeit a democratic—Germany, even if it is inside NATO, which has one of the largest armies in Europe, not having any allied troops inside its boundaries for some years to come.
  We may not have the same feelings about that in Britain because, mercifully, we were never occupied. That point was brought home to me in a small way only a month ago when I was privileged to address sixth forms of secondary schools in the part of northern Holland that suffered most grievously from occupation half a century ago. Sadly, those lingering fears among young people as well as old were only too apparent to me and surprised me. Among the searching questions that I was asked was, "What part will Britain play in Europe's future?" along with questions about my attitude to a united Germany and whether British forces should remain there.
  I believe that British forces in Europe could have an ambassadorial influence as well as a military role for the time being, both in NATO and central Europe. They should remain there in some measure for some time to come. Just as I believe that it is too soon to be sure about all the possible outcomes in central Europe, I believe that the maintenance of an independent deterrent in the hands of a country that is not one of the remaining super-powers is vital because it gives the world another point of decision so that, should anything happen, another country with a reputation such as ours would have the power to make a decision and those who may be causing the trouble could not be certain of how we would react. It is important to maintain that threat of uncertainty given the conditions that might recur in future.
  Those of us who have large defence establishments in our constituencies, which we are proud to represent, and those who have large work forces who work on defence contracts must be concerned—just as our constituents are concerned—about the outcome of any options that are selected. We await the decisions. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench—and, I hope, the Opposition Front-Bench team—will take carefully into consideration the feelings of those who have spent their long-term careers in the services or in working on defence contracts or for the industries that make some of these terrible weapons before making cuts too far, too fast.
  I am glad that the White Paper acknowledges that progress has been made recently on the EH 101 helicopter. Many of my constituents are engaged in its development. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will soon announce a prime contractor because he knows that, in terms of future helicopter manufacturing in Britain, it is vital that the Ministry of Defence places a firm production order very soon. Until we have a full commitment from the Ministry of Defence for that remarkable project, a civil production order seems remote in today's world.
  In the past, whenever peace appeared to break out, huge irreversible cuts were invariably made by the democracies of western Europe so that hard-pressed politicians could pay out a peace dividend to the hungry and the deprived. I ask the present political leaders of our country to note that this is the time to heed the lessons and
  738
  to be wary of making irreversible cuts in our defence forces in the short term. If they take heed of that, future generations will be grateful to them.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: A debate on the defence estimates inevitably falls into three parts: first, the technical debate among those with the greatest knowledge of the armed forces; secondly, the political debate about the background against which we are discussing the subject; and, thirdly, the financial aspect. If the House agrees tomorrow night—I hope that it does not—to this defence budget, every man, woman and child in Britain will be taxed £400 next year for weapons.
  According to the Blue Book, when the Government of which I was a member left office in 1979–80, the budget was £17·4 billion and, in real terms, allowing for inflation, it is now £18·7 billion. Next year, it will be £18·8 billion, and in 1992–93, it will be £19·1 billion. Nothing has been said by anybody, including Ministers or serious commentators, to show that there is a greater military threat to this country and the west than there was 11 years ago. I cannot and will not vote—I hope that others will join me in the Lobby —for a defence budget that is unnecessary, wasteful and unacceptable.
  If we vote, we vote for money. The real question is the assessment of what has happened in Europe during the past few years and since the beginning of the century, and what is likely to happen. There have been at least five quite different Europes this century. At the beginning of the century there was the Europe when Queen Victoria's grandsons sat on every major throne—George V of England, Kaiser Wilhelm II in Germany and Tsar Nicholas II in Russia. We did not hear much about human rights and civil liberties in Russia when Queen Victoria's grandson was on the throne. That was the pre-first world war imperial Europe, which I shall come back to, because some things are now being said that suggest that European leaders, east and west, would like to return to such a balance of European supremacy vis-a-vis the rest of the world.
  During the first world war, two of the grandsons fell out, then there was the Russian revolution and a British intervention when we sent troops into Russia. That is not mentioned in the history curriculum that is being imposed on schools. But the 1920s and 1930s were characterised by a period when most western leaders hoped to overturn the Russian revolution of 1917. There has been some discussion in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) joined and anyone who reads the captured German Foreign Office documents will know that Neville Chamberlain supported Hitler. When Lord Halifax visited Hitler in 1937, he was instructed by Neville Chamberlain to congratulate Hitler on destroying communism in Germany and acting as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. It was not weakness to Hitler, but support for Hitler, that gave him his advantages.
  Pre-war Europe was not a Europe of great democracy. Field Marshall von Mannerheim in Finland, Pilsudski in Poland, King Carol, King Zog, King Michael, Hitler, Mussolini, Salazar and Franco: none of them contributed to a democratic Europe in 1939. The theory that we are now going back to a pre-war Europe is, I hope, not right.
  Then came the war-time alliance when Churchill and Stalin paid elaborate tributes to each other. As I have said

  739
  at many meetings—I believe it—the liberties that we have in Britain were partly won by the sacrifices made by the Russians in holding the Germans at bay. My generation will never be able to thank the Russian people sufficiently. In the period since the cold war I never believed for a moment that the Russians were just about to invade us, and that only nuclear weapons held them back. We can all look back at the cold war with the benefit of hindsight, and I do not believe in any of the other arguments put forward in favour of nuclear weapons. One such argument was that atomic weapons kept the peace to which I have referred. Another popular argument was "better dead than red." How many people in eastern Europe would have thanked us for applying that principle to them when they were in the process of developing democratic movements that allowed them to be alive and democratic at the end of that period?
  To speak candidly, many of the Conservative party and others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), have not come to terms with the terrible problem confronting them, for they do not have a military enemy, which has been extremely convenient to the regimes in both the east and west. Anyone who has made the criticisms that I am making, as I have done for many years—I made my debut as a Front-Bench defence spokesman in 1957—could have been dismissed a few years ago as agents of the KGB. That was why the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) had the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament bugged by MI5. If one supported CND, one was considered subversive. That argument no longer applies, even in the Soviet Union, because the Soviets have no enemies threatening them. It will be difficult to come to terms with a Europe in which no military threat is perceived or accepted.
  When the Berlin wall came down last year, the structures of the west, as well as those in the east, were outdated by that change. When I was a new Member in 1950, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was to be our great defence against the possibility of a Soviet threat, but that argument no longer applies. We need new security arrangements in Europe. One or two hon. Members have spoken about the CSCE process playing a part in that.
  I was re-elected to the House in 1983, along with other Labour Members, on the policy that we put before the electorate of the mutual dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw pact. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent led our party into that election on the pledge that we would seek to dissolve NATO and the Warsaw pact. Like everything else, that policy was dismissed then, but we put it to the electorate then, and it is relevant now.
  The point has been made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) that there is anxiety about a reunited Germany, not least in the Soviet Union, but also elsewhere. Reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East to the possibility of Germany having intervention forces. That country certainly has a capacity for nuclear weapons. I know that from visits I paid to Germany as Energy Minister. How is that Germany to be contained, like any other potential power including the Soviet Union, in a peaceful Europe? That can be achieved only by a European security treaty replacing NATO and the Warsaw pact. That possibility is
  740
  emerging in some statements from the Soviet Union. That suggestion was made in the amendment my hon. Friends and I tabled, but which was not called.
  If it is true that there have been changes—as the Secretary of State said in a speech that fell short of showing the enormity of those changes—is it sensible that we should retain, modernise and contemplate the use of British nuclear weapons? The Americans will take away our nuclear weapons, and that will be the end of that. Already, in discussions with President Bush, Gorbachev has begun to say that in any arrangement, the Americans must stop supplying nuclear technology to Britain. We no longer have a capacity to produce nuclear weapons alone. Before we start telling people—as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has just said—that nuclear weapons are the symbol of our sovereignty, we had better remind them that we have them on hire purchase from a superpower that will be ready to bargain them away in return for an agreement with Moscow.
  I and many others would like to see a Europe in which troops and nuclear weapons were withdrawn from east and west—as Mr. Gorbachev suggested in one of his first speeches on disarmament. I do not want NATO to be a permanent force; nor do I think that the Russians could ever be content with the thought that NATO was part of a nuclear alliance that was potentially hostile to them.
  If the Hungarians, Czechs and others would like Russian forces to leave their territories, we should also look to the day when American bases and nuclear forces leave our territory. I dislike the annual farce of renewing the Army Act when we say that if we do not pass the measure the standing army in Britain will not be maintained. We have a large standing army, but it is American, commanded by a President whom we do not elect and cannot remove. The only time that army has ever been used out of area was when President Reagan used it, not for NATO purposes but to bomb Libya. That is the danger.
  I detect in some of the military and political speeches that are being made a desire to use the new Europe to re-create European hegemony over the Third world. We hear a lot about Islam and Islamic fundamentalists. I do not want to go back to the Crusades, but I can imagine circumstances in which a Christian Europe might arm itself against Islam and the Third world—the Europe that we had at the beginning of the century. Any attempt to use the recent changes for that purpose would be very dangerous. I know that I am looking a little far ahead, but anyone who wonders about fundamentalism had better listen to some of the born-again Christians in America, who have much in common with fundamentalist Muslims. Both have in mind a jihad—a holy war—to clear the world of their philosophical or religious enemies. These dangers must be taken into account.
  At the end of the war there was a massive defence conversion. I do not know how many people were moved, as I was, from uniform to civilian life or from military to civilian production, but the operation was on a huge scale. It must be tackled this time with due regard to the interests of those who have committed themselves to the armed forces or who have developed skills in military technology. Conversion must be done in conjunction with them; our amendment describes urgent consultations with the trades unions and industries concerned about a practicable programme of defence conversion.

  741
  Hon. Members should not believe for a moment that this cannot be done. For a third of a century I sat as a Member for Bristol where the Beaufighter bombers stopped coming out of the factories in 1945 and three months later pre-fabricated houses started coming out of those factories. Defence conversion requires planning: the people who leave the forces must be housed and there must be research and development contracts for those who have been making weapons before they can move into medical technology and other areas.
  Market forces cannot help with defence conversion because the defence budget is artificial. There is no demand for this equipment from individuals—granny does not have a sten gun, dad does not have a tank. It is the Government who demand weapons. Britain needs more industrial development now than at any time in its history because our industrial base has been neglected. The oil is running out. German money covers our balance of payments deficit, but it will soon be pouring into eastern Europe, where wages are lower. This country's economic crisis is acute. Whether this Government or the next Government do it, there must be a major reduction of expenditure and a redeployment of money and skilled people from defence to civil production to meet civil needs here and abroad.
  Should hon. Members want to know what happens to a nation that does not waste money on defence, they should look at the success of Japan, whose televisions, telephones, motor cars, motor bikes and videos are in every shop in the world. We, by contrast, are the second largest supplier of arms equipment to other countries—including to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war.
  Last year I moved a modest amendment calling for a reduction in our defence budget to the same level as that of our European allies in NATO. It, too, was overtaken by events. Even the policy review published by the Labour party speaks of cuts that exceed the aspirations of 1989. What I said last year was right and events have confirmed that, but now we must make cuts on a bigger scale.
  This is the time to rethink the real challenges facing humanity. Our oldest enemies—poverty, disease and ignorance—and the new realisation of the environmental threat to the planet pose far greater threats than does the likelihood of the Red army arriving by helicopter and forcing us to listen to lectures on perestroika in Wandsworth, Streatham or Westminster. We need a major redirection of our efforts and resources; we need to mobilise public understanding behind the scale of the effort, of the money and of the research and development that will be needed.
  Against this background the defence estimates are unacceptable. I beg the House to reject them and the Government to come back, as we demand in our amendment, with a better proposal that we can debate more seriously before the end of the year.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I shall pursue a different tack, but I shall have no doubt about casting my vote against the Opposition's amendment tomorrow night. I do not go along with the idea of decommissioning nuclear weapons, or of dissolving NATO, or of closing United States bases in the foreseeable future.
  742
  The speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) and by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) could hardly have contrasted more markedly—and I know in whose guidance I would place my trust. If the right hon. Member for Chesterfield honestly believes that the Japanese do not have a defence budget, he is sadly misinformed. They have the third highest defence budget in the world because they have such a high gross national product. So it is sheer illusion to suppose that Japan is a fine example of what the right hon. Gentleman was preaching. As ever, he is the master of the one-sided conspiracy.
  Mr. Benn: I do not think it a conspiracy point to say that the Japanese spend a far lower percentage of GDP on defence than we do. I was not talking about absolutes; the Japanese have a bigger national income. Although this is not a debate about statistics, I believe that they spend far less—about a third as much as we do—on defence.
  Mr. Key: They spend far less as a proportion of GDP, but that still leaves them with the third highest defence budget in the world.
  I start from the point of view of a Member of Parliament who represents 12 military bases and all three services. I also have the honour to represent thousands of scientific and industrial civil servants. In the 70 or so villages around Salisbury that I represent there are people who have lived with the military for almost 90 years and who have profited much from the relationship with it. It is my overriding wish that any defence policy should have a close and constructive relationship with the villages, communities and people who work in the industry, and that that relationship should continue and prosper.
  Times have changed rapidly, in terms not only of the great international issues but of the way in which Governments operate. They have become much more open. Civilians' expectations have also increased enormously. They expect much more consultation on and knowledge about military affairs, and that is entirely good.
  In my community we have had a sad chapter in the shape of the development over the years of the training village in Salisbury plain—the so-called FIBUA, or fighting in built-up areas. That marked what I hope was a watershed—it is now water under the bridge—in respect of the lack of consultation and the creation of mistrust between the military and civilian communities in the area. FIBUA is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir D. Walters), and I am grateful to him for allowing me to drop in on FIBUA a week ago to see it in operation. It is undoubtedly NATO's foremost and best training facility for that purpose and I observed a Territorial Army regiment in training. In view of all the changes that are taking place in Europe, it will become a more important facility in future. The people in those areas must expect a level of co-operation and consultation with the Ministry of Defence that they have not always enjoyed in the past.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have some knowledge of the areas about which the hon. Gentleman speaks because my parents lived in that area before they died. Is he aware that many people throughout Wiltshire are concerned about cruise missiles being taken around that county? Those people join many of the protests and demonstrations against the missiles. They were worried

  743
  about the number of telephone lines that were cut while cruise missiles were being transported and about the loss of civil liberties and rights during cruise missile exercises.
  Mr. Key: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact that the people there elected me to this House gives the lie to his argument. The local branch of the CND now depends almost entirely on activists bussed in from Southampton and other cities. That is because most members of the CND in Salisbury have defected to the Green party.
  I disagree with the Ramblers Association, which recently published its land grab theory about the Ministry of Defence. I have good relations with the local Ramblers Association. We have heard that the Ramblers Association nationally is concerned about public access in areas such as Salisbury plain and Dartmoor. Any Rambler who wants to walk across the live firing areas of Salisbury plain must be barmy. It was entirely for the protection of people that the Ministry of Defence went to substantial lengths to open an alternative series of footpaths, expecially along the northern end of the plain, to enhance access to the plain. Access by large numbers of people to areas such as that would not enhance the environmental quality of the land—quite the reverse.
  There is a great deal of misunderstanding about training areas. The Salisbury plain training area covers 93,000 acres, which is about the size of the Isle of Wight. About 60,000 acres of it are let for farmland, either under schedule I by which the land is farmed out and if the military damages crops the farmers are compensated, or under schedule 3, which means that about 50 grazing or grass cutting licences are issued for the plain. That is a significant contribution and gives the lie to the idea that the Ministry of Defence area is a no-go area for everybody at all times.
  The Ministry of Defence, through the management of the defence land agent, has 6,300 acres of woodland on Salisbury plain, most of which is broadleaf. In the last 30 years the Ministry has planted 3.5 million trees on the plain. Co-existing with the military training area are 1,700 ancient monuments which are cared for by the Ministry of Defence in co-operation with the Wessex Trust for Archaeology and other bodies. I congratulate the Ministry on constructing that relationship which gives enhanced access to much of the plain for many people who are genuinely interested in it.
  All our local squabbles must be placed in a national and international context. The Government must take account of events in eastern Europe. I welcomed the speech on 5 June by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in which he outlined some of the options for change. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right to stress the need for stability from the Urals to the Atlantic and to stand firm about the need for the continuation of NATO. I hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is at one with the Prime Minister on that and that the Government will take a firm stance on Britain's defence.
  A peace dividend sounds beguiling to us all, but it should be modest, gradual and well-planned in international interests and in the interests of my constituents. Any service man who is surplus to military requirements deserves far better than a place in the dole
  744
  queue alongside a former civilian employee of the Ministry of Defence who has been made redundant in return for the so-called peace dividend.
  In recent years the civilian work force in the Ministry of Defence has had to be extremely adaptable. It has faced contractorisation and many defence reviews, especially in the context of the aeroplane and armament experimental establishment at Boscombe Down. That work force has had about 14 reviews of its future in the past 11 years or so; we urgently await the outcome of the latest review. Many hundreds of families are in suspense over their future careers and jobs.
  The military machine could not operate without its civilian work force. Loyalty is at a premium, especially when war is declared. We need to think back only a few years to the civilian effort that went into the Falklands war. That old-fashioned loyalty could be taken for granted, but we would do so at our peril in terms of morale, efficiency, recruitment, training and skill. Many of my constituents who work for the Ministry of Defence receive low pay for the jobs that they do. Many of them are highly skilled and could rush off to Heathrow airport and service jumbo jets, but they stick with the Ministry of Defence and service fighter planes.
  One of the problems for such people is the high cost of housing in that part of Wiltshire. There is great pressure on Salisbury district council and on many councils throughout the country which are the enabling authorities for housing. The council stock is diminishing, not least because of the success of the right-to-buy policy, and in many districts associated with military areas some 90 per cent. of new council tenancies are being allocated to people under legislation on homelessness. That means that only 10 per cent. of houses go to people on the waiting list and ordinary, decent, married folk in my constituency are for ever going to the end of the queue.
  The number of Army families requiring accommodation as a result of homelessness in my area has increased from about 30 in 1985 to about 80 in 1989, and the problem is accelerating. Currently, about 20 service families are threatened with homelessness for various reasons and are awaiting the allocation of council houses. Of those, a quarter are two-parent families and three quarters are separated wives and children. My noble Friend Lord Arran has agreed the figures, but has said that each case must be considered individually. That will not do. The Government must have another look at the housing of our military personnel and at what happens to people when they leave the services.
  First, we need an urgent review of the impact of homeless military families on the civilian community. Secondly, we must urgently consider the need for some sort of forces house purchase scheme. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is present because he has done a great deal in this respect. I will gladly do my best to persuade the Treasury to support the Ministry of Defence on this issue. The problem is exacerbated by ex-service families who are accepted into council housing as homeless. Of course, they have the right to buy on full discount after just two years, and that diminishes the rented housing sector even more. Thirdly, we should have an assessment of the impact on local communities of all local government services, including housing, social services and education. We must look carefully at the redeployment at home of troops and their

  745
  families from abroad. They will be welcome in the Salisbury area, as they would be in any military area, but we must ensure that there is proper planning for them.
  Let me now deal with security. There is a double threat in southern England, first from IRA terrorists and more recently from animal rights terrorists. A balance must always be struck between the integration of defence and civilian families and the behind-the-wire security which may be an alternative. There is a balance for the families of service men between a relatively normal life on open camps and Fort Knox measures. The effects on recruitment and retention can be serious. Already soldiers are on guard duty at least one day a week. Of course there is no substitute for an armed and trained soldier on guard duty, but there are alternative measures. A massive sum has been spent on fencing, which is important, and I think that that expenditure should be increased. I hope that fencing will not become a victim of the temporary ban on new commitments that we heard about in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  There is controversy about private contract guards. I read the report of the Select Committee on Defence on the issue and I asked about the impact made by security guards. It is clear to me that the effectiveness of private contract guards depends on their training and supervision. Such guards can be extremely effective, but so much depends on better training and supervision.
  I am worried that we have too many different police forces involved in security and the military. In my constituency there is the Wiltshire constabulary, the Ministry of Defence police, the military police in all three services, the British Transport police liaising with British Rail and travel arrangements, the Atomic Energy Authority police, who are sometimes involved, and the Ministry of Defence patrolmen, who have no constabulary power and are answerable to the commanding officers of their units. If we are not careful, we may find ourselves faced with order, counter order and disorder. That we would all wish to avoid. I hope that due consideration will be given to the proper co-ordination of police services to the military.
  Much is said about wrongdoing in the name of animal rights. In my constituency is the Chemical Defence Establishment, where only 10 days ago one of my constituents was the subject of attempted murder. She is a veterinary scientist. Animal rights activists are not so much lovers of animals but haters of their fellow men, women and children. It is a great irony that veterinary surgeons are at the forefront of those working towards the limitation of animal experiments or their complete replacement. Apparently, that is irrelevant to some evil individuals to whom murder of men, women and children is acceptable in pursuit of their ill-defined cause. That makes them terrorists. They should be given no sympathy, aid or succour by anyone inside or outside the House.
  The CDE is a remarkable and much misunderstood organisation. About 600 of my constituents work there. They all have families in the community which I represent. They protect British and allied service men and women from chemical and biological agents. Britain has led the world in abandoning all offensive chemical and biological weapons. Without the work of the Porton Down establishment, we could not give technical support to the
  746
  United Kingdom negotiators at the conference on disarmament at Geneva. We must achieve comprehensive and verifiable global bans on chemical weapons.
  At Porton Down we have developed portable detectors and alarms, including a system for ships. The establishment has developed the most advanced respirator and mask in the world. It has developed the NBC suit, with anti-gas fabric and activated charcoal, which is now in service throughout the world. It has developed decontamination systems, methods of treating nerve agent casualties and a range of vaccines and antibiotics.
  The civilian arm of Porton Down, in working within the CDE, not to mention the other arm, the centre for applied microbiology and research of the public health laboratory service, plays a major role in the detection of atmospheric pollution, in guarding against industrial and agricultural hazards and in developing methods of countering those problems. The CDE scientists lecture worldwide and publish in the open scientific literature of the world.
  I must declare an interest as a member of the Medical Research Council. I feel strongly that the medical research community must be in no doubt that we in this place, like most right-thinking people, support the work that it is doing. There are many moral arguments in favour of what it is doing. Animal experimentation requires justification in terms of significant human gains. In the 19th century much legislation passed through the House that was designed to prevent cruelty to animals. It was enacted only because it was supposed that there was as a result a brutalising effect on human beings. That legislation was not placed on the statute book out of consideration for animals.
  Why do animals need protecting today? First, there is the pain argument. Animals are conscious and feel pain. Pain is bad whether it is in animals or humans. That is the utilitarian argument. Pain can be justified when balancing individual harm against social good, but even such a utilitarian argument acknowledges that if there is benefit to humans of the sort that is produced in cosmetic experiments, which is regarded as trivial by most people, it is hard to justify the use of animals.
  There is also the international dimension. It would be a cop-out to wash our hands of animal experiments only to see testing shipped across the world to other less scrupulous countries. There must be international action.
  Secondly, there is the animal rights argument. If we allow animals to be experimented on in a way which we would not extend to humans, we could be accused of speciesism. That leads to deep philosophical waters in considering animal rights, the nature of them and whether animals properly possess rights. Most people would say that rights can be enjoyed only by autonomous individuals and that animals are thereby excluded. However, most humans have an intuitive feeling that not just anything can be done to animals and that they merit protection. That is the code that has been developed by hunters down the ages and throughout the world in many different cultures. Neither the argument of pain nor that of rights precludes experimentation, but neither argument licenses just any experiment for any purpose. That is why we must consider method and purpose.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman has only briefly touched on the morality side of the argument. One of the features that I found especially upsetting and obscene

  747
  about experimentation on animals at Porton Down was the use of live animals to assess the impact of high-velocity bullets. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that sort of experimentation is thoroughly unacceptable?
  Mr. Key: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. In representing my constituency, I have to give these matters careful thought. I must balance in my mind the arguments in favour and those against. In the example that the hon. Gentleman has presented, I came to the conclusion that the evidence of the benefits to mankind was enormous. Scores of lives have been saved in Northern Ireland as a result of the experiments which have been carried out at Porton Down. Scores of lives on the Falklands were saved because of that work.
  I return to my point that we cannot do any experiment in any way. That is why the House enacted the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which laid down specific requirements. In determining methods we have to decide what constitutes paining and harm to animals, whether there are options and whether the experimenters are sufficiently skilled to reduce suffering to a minimum. We must then consider the purpose.
  We can dismiss the allegation that no animal experiment ever has or ever will benefit mankind, but some benefits are too trivial to justify animal suffering. I think that we all agree about that. The possibilities of saving human life, eradicating disease and developing new surgical techniques are strong considerations in favour of undertaking research on animals. At Porton Down, to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has referred, I believe that those criteria are met.
  We must remember above all that defence is a partnership. It is a partnership with the NATO community. It is a partnership with service men and women and their families. It is a partnership with the civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence. Above all, it is a partnership with the constituents of each and every one of us. Let us never forget that it is they and our way of life that we are defending.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: The euphoria that has emanated from the events in eastern Europe has touched each one of us, and the apparent lessening of the threat of nuclear war in Europe is welcome. However, that euphoria must be tempered by common sense. Few dispute that the role of NATO has been paramount in maintaining peace in Europe during the past 45 years and that its deterrent effect has enabled us to arrive where we are today, in this period of hope and opportunity. That is not to question or detract from the significant part that Mr. Gorbachev played in making things happen now—but one would not have happened without the other. For that reason, we must continue to exercise caution. In other words, now is the time not for revolution but for the constructive evolution of our military strategy over the next 45 years and beyond.
  It is irresponsible to speak of wasteful, unnecessary or unacceptable burdens when addressing the question of military spending. In an ideal world, one might be able to do so, but the lessening of conflict between the two major power blocs does not necessarily herald peace and stability worldwide. The implication that the USSR and its Warsaw pact allies were the only threat to stability is foolish and irresponsible.
  748
  As the events of the past week have shown, eastern Europe has a long and hard road to travel on the way to full social and political reform. In both the USSR and its former satellites, there remain significant elements who seek to reverse the process of democratisation. Any sign of wavering on the part of the United Kingdom or of NATO could give those factions the impetus to oust Gorbachev and other reformers. In their terms, such a reaction can be justified. They fear, perhaps as we should, that the ingredients exist that could yet lead to chaos in eastern Europe. They exist in the growth of narrow nationalism, which is the inevitable consequence of years of oppressive, centralised government, and from the opportunities presented by the changes that have taken place. We know the evils of narrow nationalism.
  The European Community and NATO may have to confront at least one decade of new stresses from eastern Europe. The presence of a powerful and stable alliance of democracies, such as is enshrined in NATO, is more likely to encourage and sustain the movement to democracy in eastern Europe than to hinder it.
  The potential for short-term turmoil in eastern Europe, together with the prospect of upheaval in southern Russia —and the growth there of Muslim fundamentalism—could destabilise further the already volatile situation in the middle east. The idea that Britain can somehow abrogate its responsibilities to world peace simply because the Warsaw pact has disintegrated is narrow-minded and confused. The notion that we can disregard the need for nuclear deterrence is also ludicrous, particularly when one realises that a number of countries having particularly unstable leaders possess the know-how to construct a nuclear bomb. The potential to employ and use nuclear weaponry must be deterred, as it has been for the past 45 years, by making it plain that aggression can expect to be met by comparable retribution.
  However, in urging caution in terms of changes, I do not mean to imply that they cannot or should not occur. Rather, I urge that all changes be strictly in line with the needs of our military forces, with the role that we expect them to fulfil in a conventional NATO sense, and with the increasingly significant role that they must play in the fight against international terrorism—apart from the out-of-theatre peacekeeping duties that they will no doubt be expected to undertake from time to time.
  The ever-widening gap in our defences is the size, strength and age of our surface fleet. I might have been encouraged by the Secretary of State's remarks about the Navy were it not for the fact that, year after year, our surface fighting ships grow more outdated. We are not building replacements for them quickly enough. Add to that the virtual disappearance of our merchant fleet and it must be acknowledged that, in an emergency, Britain would not have the capacity to move her troops and heavy equipment. How can the Secretary of State talk about flexibility and versatility in such a situation?
  Is not now the time to examine the rate at which we replace obsolete ships and how we can provide an incentive for the merchant fleet? There is no easy answer when vast financial resources are involved, but decisions must be based on the most urgent and likely needs of our forces over the next decade.
  I always feel proud when I hear a compliment being paid to our forces for the work that they do in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to those indigenous forces which, year after year after year, have borne the brunt of

  749
  terrorist attacks. Here at home, one asks why, after 45 years of anti-terrorist experience—20 in Northern Ireland, but this country had experience of anti-terrorism long before Northern Ireland—are our forces still constrained by inadequate and outmoded resources? For example, we literally kill our own troops by forcing them to travel around their tactical areas of operational responsibility in armoured Land-Rovers—veritable deathtraps against the sophisticated and well-equipped terrorists whom they are fighting.
  Adequate helicopter support is imperative in Northern Ireland. I have tried to put over that message in the House for the past seven years, but without success. Helicopters, with their greater flexibility and dramatically faster response times, are a necessity in anti-terrorist operations. That issue must be addressed now.
  The potential of slow-flying, low-flying, low-cost, fixed-wing aircraft in photography and surveillance is not realised to anything like its true potential. I wonder why few are being used in Northern Ireland today. Why has there been no utilisation of low-cost remotely piloted vehicles in reconnaissance work? Used in conjunction with conventional patrolling, the potential for RPVs is exciting and can be life-saving. The more imaginative use of computers, to allow information to be collected, interpreted and disseminated to standard formats, would give our forces an advantage that they are currently denied. They have literally been left behind. They should be equipped with new generation computers capable of more than just churning out vehicle registration numbers.
  Those are some of the points that I would have liked the Secretary of State to address. They are practical points that affect the day-to-day lives of those in our security forces. Ours is a peacekeeping Army of men and women doing a real job. They stand between us and the aggressors —between those who believe in democracy and the right of nations to self-determination, and those who would exploit and enslave.
  Fortunately, we live in a more peaceful world than did our fathers and their fathers. If we are to improve on that for our children, we have to defend peace where it presently rules and work to create peace where strife presently exists.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), and on this occasion it is a pleasure to echo the eloquent tribute that he paid to the security forces in Northern Ireland.
  I am amazed that there is such a sparse attendance for such an extremely important debate. There have been some vintage speeches from both sides of the political divide and some most impressive comments. At this moment in our history and in the parliamentary cycle it is amazing that defence does not attract more comment and debate.
  I found a number of the speeches tonight moving and interesting. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) made a most moving speech—and who can ignore the historical perspective which he brought to the debate? The right hon.
  750
  Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) made a speech which most Conservative Members agreed with, although that agreement was not echoed across the political divide.
  The debate comes at a time of tremendous opportunity for my generation and for the older generation of right hon. and hon. Members. An extraordinary change has taken place since we last debated defence estimates, and it is now hard, if not impossible, to see the Soviet threat in the same light that past generations saw it or to imagine a Soviet attack across the central plain of Europe. Perhaps we cannot yet see swords turned into ploughshares, but we can see a new and different European order. The debate tonight is part of that opportunity for my generation.
  The Government's strategy in exploring options for change is absolutely right. I understand the anxiety of people in the armed services who wish to know where they stand. Many highly-skilled soldiers, sailors and airmen, who have decided to devote the best years of their lives to defending their country, want to know what will result from current uncertainties for them, for their families and for their careers. I understand their anxieties, and all hon. Members accept that we owe a tremendous duty to them and to their families. However, we must now have a period of vigorous debate on the options for action in defence of our country in the light of the changed circumstances that we now face.
  Those hon. Members who are familiar with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) on this issue and have followed them, rather opaquely, in the press during recent months will be listening with great interest to his comments when he replies to the debate tonight. If what has been said in the press is true—though it would be most unwise to believe what one reads in the papers—many people will support the points that he makes.
  I hope that this period of vigorous debate will continue until we know what range of options is available, and can make sensible decisions based on our country's needs.
  Another matter, which is not inevitably party political but is nevertheless important, is the fact that the British people trust this Government—who have never shirked difficult decisions on defence—to find the right response to our changed circumstances. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that defence costs us £400 a year per person. Many people would regard that as a good premium on this insurance policy. However, if he meant that there is now an opportunity to translate some of that funding into social services, education or health, no hon. Member would disagree.
  The Government can be trusted to consider the issues seriously and to decide what is the best way to proceed. Two irrefutable aspects must be considered when the Government survey the matter. The first is the basic need for NATO and for Germany to remain within it. We derive great advantage from the American commitment to NATO and any move to decouple that would be extremely dangerous and unwise. We also benefit enormously from the integrated command structure that NATO provides. That may allow us to play a wider role through NATO than the role we have enjoyed so far.
  The second aspect is the importance of our nuclear deterrent, and the Government and some Opposition Members have made a clear commitment to that tonight. In a dangerous world that insurance policy cannot be changed. I fully support the Secretary of State, who said that we intend to continue and put in place not only the

  751
  Trident programme but sub-strategic nuclear weapons, which are critically important to the seamless web of defence.
  Since I completed my brief but enjoyable military service in the United Nations forces in Cyprus in 1975, it has always seemed to me that there is a greater role for the United Nations, and that the work done by UN forces has been consistently underestimated. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to see that a tribute is paid in the Statement on the Defence Estimates to the efforts of the United Nations in Namibia and Cyprus, and to its valuable work in Pakistan recently. In the light of changing circumstances, there will be opportunities for UN forces to play a wider role.
  I welcome the emphasis in the estimates on the implementation of the CFE talks in Vienna, and on the control of chemical weapons, especially the common approach to the proliferation of such weapons and to proceeding with the complex and difficult work of verification. I hope that when the next White Paper is published substantial progress will have been made in both those areas.
  A number of other strands are important when considering options for change. The first, and most important, is that we have to accept that the British Army of the Rhine is no longer the central engine of national defence. It is difficult to change procurement policies overnight, and it would be unwise to do so, but we must be conscious of what one might call the haemorrhage of ordinance: we continue to pump out the same hardware and military kit which has been the perceived requirement for NATO in Europe for a generation. It may not be needed in the future. When we look back in a year or two that money may be seen as a wasted investment. We should welcome the temporary bar outlined by the Secretary of State in his speech, but we should also be conscious of the significant changes taking place.
  The second strand that we must consider is the importance of effective mobile forces, whether they are airborne or amphibious, which has been a common theme in the debate. The right hon. Member for Dudley, East mentioned the importance of the Marines and the Parachute regiment to mobility. We must recognise the tremendous change that has taken place, and the importance of the mobility and effectiveness of our forces, and consider a training and career structure which is relevant to that.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I have paid great attention to my hon. Friend's interesting and constructive speech. Does he include the brigade of Gurkhas within the mobile forces? Does he consider that it is important to retain a role for the Gurkhas beyond 1997?
  Mr. Mitchell: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about the role of the Gurkhas, although it would be imprudent of me to speculate on their future role in isolation from other changes that may be made.
  We must recognise that much greater costs may be associated with developing our mobile forces than hitherto. Such costs are part of the restructuring that will result.
  It has not been clear from the statements to the press from service chiefs that the dangers of salami slicing the armed forces have always been readily conceded. If such cuts were made at any level in our defences to reduce
  752
  expenditure, that would be an absolute disaster and a great danger to morale in the armed forces. The smaller national armed forces of NATO must be a spur to specialisation. We must have a closer integration of weaponry and command structure within NATO. I hope that any future changes act as a spur to that.
  It is also important to consider the role of the Territorial Army and that of the Navy and Air Force Reserves. One of the critical aspects to consider is that the lead time for reinforcing Europe is perceived by strategists to be very different from what it was a year ago. It is important that the role of the Territorial Army is greatly enhanced, as it has an important part to play as a reserve force and as part of a rapid reinforcement within Europe.
  There is no reason why we should not now encourage our young people more actively than in the past to spend some time with the Territorial Army—the Swiss example should comfort us.
  As part of the new scheme of things there is a great deal to be said for paying people in the TA far more than they have received in the past. We should make it an attractive force in which young people seek to serve. The benefits of such service would not be felt by those young people themselves, but would be a real benefit. As part of the new system under which our armed forces are managed the reservists must be given more training and a greater commitment. In the future, Regular Army units and TA units should be integrated so that the TA can give much greater support to the Army. We have already heard about the pain and anxiety that are likely to be caused by any cap-badge amalgamation. I believe that the TA could be extremely helpful in dealing with that problem.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has already demonstrated that we live in a dangerous world. Although the threat within Europe has diminished in recent months, the threat from the middle east to our interests there has grown even greater. As we look with growing concern at what is happening in the middle east we appreciate the threat that that poses to our strategic interests in Europe and Britain.
  The changing international situation means that meeting our obligations and security needs will allow for lower costs for our armed forces. When assessing our security needs, however, we should look not for the peace dividend, but for ways in which to restructure our armed forces most effectively to meet the challenges of the future. It would be fortunate if, as a result of that, the peace dividend could emerge.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: I shall try not to repeat the points already made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He has already dealt with the historic, moral and political reasons why the defence estimates should be rejected.
  I want to approach this subject on a more mundane level. I believe that the House should reject the estimates because they are bloated and beyond the nation's capacity to sustain them without damaging our economic prospects. The same could be said about any of the defence estimates of the past 40 years because the underlying pattern that differentiates Great Britain from any other western European member of NATO is that we spend on

  753
  average 2 per cent. more of our national wealth on defence than we used to spend. That pattern has continued year by year, and decade by decade.
  In a time of peace our defence spending has, historically, been of the order of 2 per cent. of our national wealth, but in recent times it has fluctuated between 4·5 and 5·5 per cent. We spend a crucial 1 or 2 per cent. more of our national wealth on defence than do West Germany and France. Such spending decade after decade has had a weakening effect on our economy. That is clear when one compares our economic strength with that of West Germany, France or Japan. It is obvious that a nation cannot spend more than it earns on defence any more than, as we are continually told, we can spend more than we earn on pensions, health, welfare, or investment.
  In the past 40 years the psychology of both main political parties has rested on the idea that, somehow, defence spending should be preserved and should continue to receive a disproportionate amount of the nation's wealth. Fortunately, the events in eastern Europe and President Gorbachev's initiatives now give us the chance to break out of that spending. Because our spending on defence is more bloated than that of any other western European nation, we have a greater opportunity of real economic gain and thus to modernise and rebuild the British economy.
  The case that I have outlined is backed by solid academic research. In an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) I mentioned the Cambridge Econometrics study, which detailed the impact on the British economy if we reduced our defence spending to the same levels as that of the rest of western Europe—effectively to halve our spending. If we made such a saving it would release, this year, a little more than £9 billion to invest in rebuilding our welfare state, modernising the infrastructure of our economy and perhaps investing directly in industry, but that would necessitate a more enlightened Government. That vast sum of wealth would be released year by year and would represent a major shift in the resources of the British economy.
  The Cambridge Econometrics study revealed the wonderful opportunities that would be open to our nation if we reduced our defence spending. It is true that such a cut would cause some dislocation as spending moved away from the defence industries, but one would still have to retain and retool those defence industries. The Cambridge Econometrics study, however, revealed that after a decade in which defence spending was cut by 50 per cent. overall unemployment in Britain would have been reduced by 520,000. When one took into account the jobs lost as a result of contracting the defence spending, there would still be a net gain of 500,000 new jobs. Despite the job losses, a far greater number of new jobs would be created simply because defence spending represents the least labour intensive form of public spending. That money would create more wealth for the nation if spent in other ways.
  The Cambridge Econometrics group also studied the impact of such cuts in spending on our gross domestic product. It estimates that Britain's GDP would increase by £10 billion a year. That money could be used to enrich the lives of people in the public and private sectors. That
  754
  increase would also lead to a 5 per cent. increase in investment in which we have notably lacked in comparison with our major competitors.
  Christopher Huhne, the economics editor of The Guardian, for some reason writing in The Independent on Sunday, pointed out that apart from the Soviet Union and America no other country has more to gain from the peace dividend than Britain. There is an obvious historical parallel with the France of the early 1960s. Then President de Gaulle decided to break with France's imperial tradition and to reduce dramatically defence spending to fund a major modernisation of the French economy. French defence spending, which until then had been as bloated as Britain's in relation to national wealth, was cut savagely throughout the decade. As a result, resources were released to modernise the French economy, which performed a major leap, overtaking the economy of Britain and relegating us to a position far behind France. We have never caught up.
  Now, however, we have the same option. We could make major cuts in defence spending, and—by redirecting funds towards the modernisation of the British economy —find ourselves at the forefront rather than slipping further and further behind other modern European nations. I do not see why anyone should object to the economic case for defence cuts.
  Who are our enemies? No one has seriously suggested today that President Gorbachev is about to invade western Europe, or Britain. According to the current opinion polls, he is three times as popular here as the Prime Minister. He would not have to invade; if he wanted to take over the country, he could come here and win the next election.
  Given that no one expects a war with the Soviet Union, what other threats are seen by the Ministry of Defence? Some of the answers are hilarious. Spain, for instance, appears to be seen as a threat. Even we accept that a war with Spain over Gibraltar is unlikely; we are reducing the garrison and cutting military expenditure in the area. In any event, how could we have a war with Spain? The place is full of British holidaymakers, and pensioners who have discovered that they can get more for their money in Spain than in Britain.
  The MOD also considers that another war with the Argentines over the Falkland Islands is a possibility. I doubt it; the outcome of the last war is hardly likely to encourage anyone else to invade. Indeed, the Argentinians seem willing to negotiate some kind of permanent settlement of the conflict, which would allow us to invest some of the wealth that we now spend on defence in the development of the region.
  We are enjoined not to forget that we may have a war with Guatemala over Belize. If the British people were told that the current bloated defence expenditure should continue because of the possibility of a war with Spain, Argentina or Guatemala, I believe that they would question whether that was the wisest use of national resources.
  We should not, however, talk merely of the scale on which we wish cuts to be made. Even Conservative Members, I think, will demand a reduction in defence spending. We need to ask, "From whom are we defending ourselves? What military machine do we require in the 1990s, and in the next decade?" What worries me is the suspicion that the real reason for the Government's resistance to major defence cuts is that they hanker after the idea of creating a Euro-force that can, for instance,

  755
  intervene at will if some third-world regime nationalises our assets, or makes a decision of which we do not approve. There is a danger that, with no real political debate in Britain or in western Europe, we shall slide into mimicking the United States—that we shall intervene anywhere on the face of the planet to impose political solutions on people who have the right to determine their own destinies, and to decide for themselves how their economic resources are to be used.
  My criticism is not limited to the present Government; we see the same basic pattern in the defence spending of previous Labour Governments. In 1950, a Labour Government destroyed the country's chance of emerging from the recession that had been created by a major devaluation. The potential for growth, leading to a major reconstruction of the economy, was wrecked by the level of defence spending that was forced on Britain by the American Government because of the Korean war. Anyone who doubts that should refer to the details spelt out in an excellent biography of Aneurin Bevan, who led the fight against the wrecking of Britain's domestic reconstruction by the demands of the military machine.
  In the end, the money that had been raised could not be spent fast enough, and remained unspent. Our prospects of domestic recovery had been wrecked by the military—and, sadly. by a Labour Government who gave in to pressures that they should have resisted.
  In 1970, we discovered the key to the wreckage of all Labour's plans for the economic regeneration of Britain. After six years of Labour Government, Britain was still spending 4·9 per cent. of its wealth on defence. France was spending 4·2 per cent., West Germany 3·3 per cent. and Italy 2·5 per cent. Six years had been wasted, with one economic disaster following another, because of the Government's failure to make the break with the imperial past and get out of Suez—and east of Suez—quickly and decisively.
  We saw the same pattern in 1979. After five years in office, Labour was still spending 4·6 per cent. of our national wealth on defence. France's expenditure had fallen to 3·9 per cent., Germany's was still 3·3 per cent. and Italy's was 2·4 per cent.
  On what do we base the claim that we should spend more of our national wealth on defence than the people of West Germany, who stood face to face with the iron curtain? That is nonsense, as is the fact that we are still spending £4·4 billion on keeping our Army on the Rhine. Although, under an arrangement with the West German Government, the whole burden does not fall on the balance of payments, the effect last year was a deficit of £1·4 billion. The British Army of the Rhine is costing every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom £80. It must be phased out: its members should be brought back and retrained to do productive work and rebuild the British economy.
  That is part of the attraction of defence cuts—personnel who are much in demand in British industry would be released. We hear many forecasts of a shortage of labour in the 1990s. Moreover, the private economy contains a large number of industries that are part of the defence sector: their employees include some of the most highly skilled workers in British industry, with the most modern equipment. No group of workers could be more important to us, if our aim is to retrain and retool, and to rebuild our manufacturing base. Those workers are needed to make the high-quality manufactured goods that
  756
  we are currently forced to import from West Germany, France, Japan and the United States. Every economic argument suggests that the time has come for a major break with the past—that we must divert the resources that
  are at present consumed by a defence budget which we know will never be used, and devote them to the modernisation of the British economy.
  Earlier, I mentioned the difficulties of not living beyond our means. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a very good speech at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party last week. Many of us argued for more spending on a range of matters, but we were told, "A Labour Government will not spend more than it earns. It will not repeat the mistakes of the past, but will bring about real growth in the economy." I agree: I see no point in spending money that we do not have, and stoking up inflation.
  If a Labour Chancellor is to exercise such fiscal rectitude, however, it is more important than ever for us to cut into our bloated defence budget to provide the funds that we need to recompense those whose pensions have been eroded so dramatically over the past decade, or to put money into the national health service. I do not believe that we shall be able to come to power and, simply through massive tax increases, restore the neglected welfare state. We must stop spending on other matters to release the necessary funds. Every argument points in that direction.
  I make no apology for constantly returning to precise figures. I want to hear from the Opposition Front Bench firm commitments for a Labour Government to reduce the defence budget by about 50 per cent. over their five years in office. It should not be done in a manic rush to slash everything in sight, but through planning and consulting unions and employers and discussing how to retrain and reskill. If we do that, we can go to the British people at the next election with our plans to change the nature of the economy and to modernise Britain's welfare state and our neglected industrial base—without crippling increases in taxation for ordinary families and rising inflation, but simply by redirecting resources from defence.
  Finally, there can be no question of our ducking the issue. It will not go away. We have to have precise and clear figures. If we thought that we could fudge the issue or hope that the Conservative party would not notice or that Fleet street, wherever it has dispersed to these days —The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express—will not remind us of that at the next election, we should be putting our heads in the sand. We need to go into that election knowing what we intend to do, that it is achievable in a five-year period and how we will use those resources.
  There has been some confusion about the figure of £9 billion. The Secretary of State for Defence said that some people talk about £5 billion and other people talk about £9 billion and that there are two ways of calculating our defence budget. If anyone believes what is written in the defence estimates, I advise them never to go into business as they will not survive for long. They are largely a cosmetic exercise with a heavy dose of propaganda, as are every other nation's defence estimates. People put things in and take things out. We have heard all the Soviet defence expenditure being calculated in a different way from ours. We have heard that Soviet defence estimates include the cost of pensions for service personnel which are excluded from our estimates and we have heard about the cost of maintaining military estate roads.

  757
  When I mentioned £9 billion, I used figures from an authoritative right-wing source—the Institute of Strategic Studies, an organisation created by Conservatives throughout the world to analyse defence expenditure and make it generally comparative. Those figures lead to the conclusion that when we talk about cutting our defence spending to western European levels—at the moment it would mean a 40 per cent. cut, but given that almost every other western European nation is making bigger and more rapid cuts than we are the gap is opening up—it is clear that the figure is £9 billion and not £5 billion. The only way that one can reach the figure of £5 billion is to believe the Government's statistics. I do not believe that the Government's statistics on defence are any more honest than they are on unemployment and no doubt soon will be on inflation.
  It is interesting that Conservative Members have made not one objection to the facts that I have laid before the House. I quoted facts which are not a matter of opinion. I did not get them from Tribune or any Labour party journal. They are economic statistics on which people in the chancellories of the world base their defence planning and expenditure. We should do well to consider the Institute of Strategic Studies' statistics. They demonstrate that if we talk about scaling down our defence to the same level as that of other western European nations, it would immediately give us in the lifetime of the next Labour Government a peace dividend of £9 billion. That would be the beginning that we need. A Labour Chancellor will need those resources to rebuild the British economy without taxing the British people to pay for it.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: It is now 15 months since I raised the issue of search and rescue helicopters in the RAF debate. The Wessex search and rescue helicopters are now more than 30 years old and, as was demonstrated recently, they suffer from the logistic problems created by their lack of range. Increasingly, search and rescue helicopters are required to go further out into the Atlantic, and the Westland Sea Kings have that extended capability. A search and rescue order for Westland would enable the company to capture other overseas search and rescue orders for the Sea Kings. The interim results published by Westland a few weeks ago show that the company has just five helicopters left for delivery this year. My concern is that the lack of orders for the helicopter division will overbalance Westland Technologies and Westland Aerospace in my constituency.
  As I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister knows, aerospace structure contracts are long-tail business requiring massive investment up front with profits flowing only in the later stages of a contract. That makes the position of the helicopter division all the more parlous and I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind when making the announcement that he promised.
  I apologise for introducing a parochial note at a time of such great international changes. I recently visited SHAPE and NATO, and I am certain that it is more important than ever that we do not accept the cellophane-wrapped sugar-candy proposals of the Labour party for a peace dividend that will leave the nation naked and bereft of modern nuclear weapons and efficient services.
  758
  I recommend my hon. Friend seriously to consider the suggestions I recently made to him about increasing the use of Reserve forces. I believe that we should return to county regiments, resurrected as volunteer forces. We should not sell HMS Intrepid and HMS Fearless when they are replaced; we should use them to raise a stand-alone volunteer capability for Territorial Army marines with amphibious capability; they should be crewed by Royal Navy Reserves.
  So often the Regular forces have acted as a safety net for our reservists. We must convince chiefs of staff in the 1990s that Reserve forces must be encouraged to exercise in a more stand-alone capability with their own allocation of equipment.
  I was particularly interested and pleased to learn about the investment made in our armed forces by Jersey, which, as part of its contribution to the defence budget, paid for a new Reserve camp on the Isle of Wight which will be used to train Reserve forces as well as regular forces for the south of England land force. I am sure that it is unique in the history of our armed forces for such a contribution to be made by overseas taxpayers.
  The cost of adventure training in the new leaner, meaner services of the next decade could be contracted out to organisations such as the Ocean youth club, rather than maintaining sailing vessels in all three services. By such means we shall surmount the recruiting problems by the use of Reserve forces and we shall be able to deliver the so-called peace dividend politically while maintaining efficient fighting forces. It may be necessary to introduce a period of compulsory service in the Reserve forces. Above all, by maintaining our nuclear forces in a modern state of readiness, Britain will continue to enjoy the longest period of peace it has ever experienced. That is my hon. Friend's duty and our children's inheritance. It must neither be negotiated away nor starved of money. That is the challenge in the 1990s and I have no doubt whatsoever that only a Conservative Government can manage those conflicting interests and maintain a sound defence policy.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee is not present to hear me disagree with his views on the withdrawal of Russian troops from East Germany. If I may say so, as a mere donkey walloper, that is typical of the cavalry—if in doubt, charge. How can we expect Russia to withdraw 350,000 troops and to accommodate them in Russia when more than 17,000 Russian officers and men spent last winter under canvas inside the Soviet Union because of the lack of barracks?
  How can we expect Russian generals and field commanders, who, as a result of President Gorbachev's sacking of 300 Russian generals, now have an average age below that of their NATO counterparts to accept an accelerated withdrawal when the best logistic estimates are three years using existing rail capacity to move out the ammunition, stores, fuel and vehicles in East Germany alone? How can we expect that to be completed sooner rather than later? When the bear's back is against the wall, the bear lashes out. The faster the pace, the greater the risk. Mr. Gorbachev is like a rodeo rider—he shows remarkable ability to stay in the saddle of a bucking bronco, but he has no control over the horse, he does not know where it is going and he cannot get off with any dignity. Now is not the time to cash in on our military muscle.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The debate takes place in the most peculiar of times. I have been waiting for Conservative Members to say—perhaps the Minister will say something in his reply—that we should think back five or 10 years and remember the efforts made by President Gorbachev and previous Soviet leaderships to pursue policies of peace and disarmament, and all the arguments advanced by peace campaigners throughout western Europe in the past 20 years calling for nuclear disarmament and a rapid cut in arms expenditure and opposing the siting of cruise and Trident missiles in Europe. Those arguments have finally come to fruition.
  It is sad that the Minister and many Conservative Members seem to be pretending that the Soviet Union is our enemy. I do not believe that it has ever intended to invade western Europe. That theory was put forward by NATO and the Marshall plan. Today, they are once again seeking to raise the spectre of some Russian menace. A country that lost 20 million people in the second world war fighting fascism is not about to embark on a war against anyone.
  The great search for enemies continues. I understand that SHAPE headquarters is running computer models on whether Libya or another country in the middle east could match up to the size of the threat. There is a perpetual search for enemies to attempt to justify arms expenditure of £21 billion. Even by the rather glossy productions of the Ministry of Defence, the comparisons are awesome. Britain spends £21 billion on armaments, almost the highest in western Europe and the highest per capita of any comparable industrial country. Is it any wonder that social services are grinding to a halt and poverty is increasing continually? There is a direct correlation.
  The Ministry of Defence has put much effort into promoting such expenditure on armaments and into exports to poor countries to prop up elitist regimes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) mentioned the wringing of hands throughout western Europe about how appalling the Iran-Iraq war was, yet it was being fuelled by every industrial country in Europe, by selling the precursor chemicals, which were made into the most devastating chemical weapons by Iraq, by providing credit, by buying oil on the spot market that propped up the economies of those countries and, over the years, by selling arms to those two countries. The sale and export of arms create conflicts such as the Iran-Iraq war.
  It is no strategy to continue promoting the sales of arms to countries that can ill afford them and should not have them because the needs of their people are far greater than the needs—[Interruption.] If the Minister wishes to intervene, I shall happily give way. I am saying, and I am sure that he will agree, that it is far better to consider the needs of the poorest countries rather than to force them to accept arms. The people of those countries certainly do not need them. The arms industries fuel conflicts rather than reduce them. That surely is a problem that we should be considering.
  I spent a pleasant afternoon yesterday outside the Royal Naval college at Greenwich, which is a beautiful building, taking part in a CND demonstration protesting about the presence of, I believe, a nuclear-armed ship anchored in the Thames, only a few miles from this building. That ship is a threat, because if those warheads are set off it will spark off a nuclear war and because it is
  760
  a magnet to someone who may want to attack. It is a threat to every Londoner, because if fire broke out on that ship millions of Londoners' lives would be at risk. Despite repeated questions, the Ministry of Defence has refused to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on that vessel.
  The reaction of the people to whom we were talking was interesting. They agreed that Britain's expenditure of £21 billion could be better spent. Nothing could be more ironic than having this huge ship, with all its danger, might and cost, anchored in Greenwich, which this week has been told to cut its social services budget, its housing budget and its recreation programme. Councillors in Greenwich must this week decide which day centre for the elderly must be cut because of poll tax capping. It is absolutely obscene that so much is being spent on defence when there is such need so close.
  I support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and other hon. Friends. It is the only amendment that offers a real possibility of achieving rapid reduction in arms expenditure and a strategy that looks beyond just creating a political role for NATO that will inevitably maintain, if not increase, a nuclear capability throughout Europe. It opposes what the Government and many Conservative Members continually talk about—the rather ominous term, out-of-area activities by NATO forces.
  Mr. Tony Banks: More jargon.
  Mr. Corbyn: As my hon. Friend says, it is more jargon, but it is serious and dangerous jargon.
  The last out-of-area activity by the United States was to use bases in this country—we are still awaiting the details of its arrangements for occupying those bases, which it did in 1948 without proper treaty arrangements—to fly planes to bomb people in Libya and kill children in Tripoli. Similarly, the French have used the Foreign Legion in North Africa to remove radical Governments and to prop up elitist regimes that are under threat. I foresee a dangerous trend developing, with a new era of European imperialism that maintains wealth for itself in Europe and uses the world debt crisis to impoverish the poorest countries. When there are rebellions in those countries against the low commodity prices and the investment of multinational capital, the iron force of that imperialism will fall on them, as the Government of Burkina Faso found to their cost when they opposed the economic strategies being imposed by foreign forces.
  I find much of what the Government say in the defence estimates extremely depressing. Surely to God, at this time of all times, we need a different approach in the world in view of its problems, such as the growing pollution and impoverishment of two thirds of the world population, the growing destruction of the air and sea environment, of the forests and of the savannah grass lands and the damage to the environment throughout the industrial countries. Do we need a strategy that exports that pollution and poverty to other countries, or do we need a world strategy that reduces the resources spent on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and conventional arms and instead uses them to solve the world's environmental and social problems?
  Unless we change our approach and strategy, the scenario of the last few months of French activities in Africa, or, in the last few years, the American

  761
  bombardment of Libya, will grow, because the United States now has forces in a number of central and south American countries. What are they there for? They are there to extend the influence of the United States and its interests in those countries.
  Unless we change direction in the next 10 years—if we are still debating the subject then—we shall be debating the question of millions of environmental and economic refugees attempting to get away from the poverty and impoverishment of their countries that has been created by an economic system which continues that impoverishment.
  There is now a chance to cut massively arms expenditure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has pointed out, if we reduced our arms expenditure—I look forward to a Labour Government reducing it by 50 per cent. over the first Parliament of that Labour Government—many of the United Kingdom's social problems would be solved; we could rebuild our economic base and play a role in the world that was of real benefit to the world and that would make us face up to the environmental disasters that we are approaching. Instead, we are going in for the myopic maintenance of a high level of arms expenditure, pretending that there are enemies who are about to invade when it is known that they are not. We are putting our heads in the sand and ignoring the realities of life around us.
  At this turning point, with all the changes in Europe, now is the time for a real change rather than the nonsense of the imperial images of grandeur that are offered by the Government, with poverty for the people of Britain and of so many other countries.
  9 pm
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: It is the hope of most hon. Members that their speeches will stand up to examination in future years. To take part in this debate appears to make one peculiarly vulnerable in this respect: seldom, if ever, has a defence debate taken place in peacetime with the world in such a state of flux. I speak as someone who, when serving in BAOR, regularly took civilian visitors to see the Berlin wall. It never failed to move me or them, and never in my wildest dreams did I conceive that it would be removed within my lifetime. We live in exciting times. Nevertheless, there is a risk attached.
  There are two themes on which I will concentrate—first, the battle that was won against unilateralism, and its aftermath; and, secondly, the battle that has yet to be won against terrorism and steps to combat this.
  On the first issue, I doubt whether a single fair-minded hon. Member would deny the credit due to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and successive Secretaries of State for Defence over the past 11 years in their determination to negotiate from a position of strength within NATO. The events speak for themselves. The Soviet Union has been brought to its knees not by a battle on a conventional battlefield but by an economic battle, in an unsuccessful attempt to match the installation of sophisticated defence systems. However, now that the Warsaw pact is defunct, a reassessment of the position of
  762
  NATO and of Britain's role within it is clearly inevitable. It is doubtful whether this reappraisal will take place in a Europe which is significantly more stable than hitherto.
  One hears from some quarters of nostalgia for the cold war, because at least everyone knew where they were. As every day passes, the fragmentation of the Soviet Union, under pressure from nationalist and ethnic feelings—so long suppressed—becomes more likely. Civil wars in the newly emerging democracies in central Europe and the Balkans cannot be discounted—there is precious little history of democracy on which to build—and border disputes between them may erupt.
  Against this background, we have been prepared for further delay in reaching agreement on the conventional armed forces in Europe—CFE—negotiations.
  If I were President Gorbachev I would have certain reservations about the presence of thousands of demobbed lieutenant colonels, let alone their troops, with time on their hands and without jobs, roaming around the Soviet Union. Some former Warsaw pact nations have even developed a sudden enthusiasm for inspection, not of a former enemy's force levels, but of force levels in the Soviet Union itself.
  Overshadowing all that is the forthcoming unification of Germany and the formidable political, economic and military implications of that process. In the circumstances, I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues—indeed, if they need any urging—to adopt the utmost caution. Nothing is nore dangerous than instability. In the face of instability, we must retain, to coin a phrase, flexibility in response. If President Gorbachev falls victim to his own revolution, who can tell to what use the superiority of Soviet armour will be put?
  Quite apart from our role to reinforce Europe, we have our out-of-area capability. Hon. Members have heard the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) describe that as jargon. Jargon it may be, but at least we know what we are talking about. We must maintain and protect British interests in a world that is still an inherently dangerous place, not least because of the spread of nuclear weapons to unstable countries.
  For example, I hope that we will have reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the vital and little-discussed importance of our supply lines across the world will not be neglected. After all, we rely significantly on imports. According to the best figures that I can find, we are only 75 per cent. self-sufficient in food and raw materials.
  Recently it has become fashionable for sources close to the President of the United States to describe NATO as predominantly an expression of shared political ideals rather than a framework for a defence strategy. That seems to have been picked up on this side of the Atlantic. It must be a new theory. I doubt whether the United States felt comfortable with Portugal, Greece and Turkey when they were dictatorships within NATO. Indeed, the main influence for fostering democracy in western Europe was not NATO but the European Community.
  It is my fervent hope that those statements from Washington are not a prelude to United States military withdrawal from Europe. The conference on security and co-operation in Europe—CSCE—which was well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), is all very well as a vehicle to give a sense of reassurance within the so-called common European home, but a continued American defence

  763
  presence is vital, with the British providing the historical link between the United States of America and the continent of Europe. I hope that that role will be developed, given our proven talents in the leadership of multinational military formations.
  To meet the changed circumstances, we have the current "Options for Change" review. There are many who are better qualified than Ito assess the arguments that are filtering through from the inner circle, but I trust that consideration of such matters will be based on one principle. and one principle alone—the need to address a continuing, if diminished, threat. We need a balanced though smaller Army with a job defined first and funds made available. It would then be for the Army to come up with suitable detailed structures to achieve that aim. One sometimes feels that financial reductions may be recommended, but conclusions about the fate of specified infantry battalions and armoured regiments are made before the military implications are thought through. I trust that that is an illusion. In any case, I welcome signs from my hon. Friend the Minister of State of an enhanced role for the Territorial Army and Reserve forces and possible joint training exercises for contingencies which, after all, range from a major war to international disaster relief.
  There are two relevant questions. First, do we have adequate strength? Secondly, do we have the right balance? If the answer to either question is no, we have gone about the task in the wrong way.
  The second issue I wish to touch on is terrorism. The recent atrocities that were carried out by the Irish Republican Army in this country and on mainland Europe have highlighted the dilemma over security for our troops. I am conscious that I am making these remarks in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire. East (Mr. Mates), the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee.
  The introduction of new security measures at military installations throughout the country was an obvious step, but I question certain aspects of that policy. Of course, its purpose is entirely defensive, but perhaps those measures cut off the Army from the community that it serves. Not only does service life imply risk, but there is the added danger that the terrorists will either upgrade the weapons used against military targets or shift their attack to soft targets. Unfortunately, it seems that the latter is already happening, with tragic results.
  I understand that £30 million was allocated in 1989–90 to physical security measures, but I wonder whether such a sum would be better spent on intelligence. I recognise that this is a peculiarly difficult balance to strike and I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to answer on the Floor of the House questions that relate primarily to the Home Office budget. However, I am confident that as a distinguished former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, whom I am pleased to see taking his place on the Treasury Bench, will give that matter due consideration.
  As it is likely that more troops will be stationed in this country in due course, I am certain that there will and should be more contact between the Army and civilians. Given the unique good will that exists, perhaps a type of military neighbourhood watch scheme should be
  764
  considered as it could, at least, be an effective adjunct to barbed wire and chain fences. It is in the interests of all of us in the country that terrorism is defeated.
  In conclusion, may I make the plea for early reassurances to be given to the armed services, which exist as much to prevent wars as to fight them—contrary to some of the things that we have heard from Opposition Members this evening? The armed services need to be told of the value that we place on their activities, and especially on their ability to adapt to the unexpected.
  The level of recruitment may be satisfactory at present, but the retention of trained and experienced personnel is proving increasingly difficult in these changing times. Morale has been knocked in so many ways. The general mood of uncertainty has been aggravated by the postponement for nine months of the retention bonus scheme, by the moratorium on new contracts as a result of the unfortunate defence budget overspend, and by the ban on civilian recruitment for the more mundane tasks. It may seem a trivial point, but in an all-volunteer Army, a trained soldier should be doing what he has been trained to do and should not, for example, be cleaning the cookhouse.
  The armed forces have no wish to be immune from the concept of financial accountability, which has been promoted so vigorously by this Government. In due course, there will be a peace dividend, allowing more resources for health and education and all the other issues that we recognise need the Government's attention. However, there is nothing more radical, in the true sense of that word, than the sense of security that comes from well-trained, well-equipped, well-housed armed forces, with reduced disruption of family life, and more contact with the community. That is the service dividend and I am confident that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not neglect it in the days ahead.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one who did his national service in a tank crew, with the 31st land infantry brigade, I should like to pay tribute to the brigade's commander at that time, General Victor Campbell, who died earlier this month. Victor Campbell was unfairly portrayed in the brilliant film, "Tunes of Glory", and was played brilliantly, as Colonel Barlow by Sir John Mills. However, it was an unkind caricature of a considerable man to whom many people have cause to be grateful.
  I now make a complaint to the Secretary of State for Defence. As his parliamentary colleague for many years, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it was quite wrong that he did not ensure that the official Opposition and the Liberal party were represented when he went to Gallipoli. That broke all precedent. Two of my right hon. Friends, who are Members for Leeds constituencies, would have represented the Labour party with great distinction, as would my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). But there should have been a representative. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) should also have been asked. I hope that the representation at the Gallipoli commemoration is in no sense a precedent for such occasions.
  While we are on the subject of anniversaries, I pay tribute on its 50th anniversary to something that is forgotten——
  Mr. Tom King: The only request that we received was from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). We offered to arrange for him to attend, but he did not take us up on it. I cannot understand why he chooses to raise the matter at this time. In no sense—I deplore the idea—is the commemoration of Gallipoli a party political matter, and I certainly sought to respond to any request.
  Mr. Dalyell: The offer to me was not to go with the official party or to have anything to do with it.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Wrong again.
  Mr. Dalyell: No, I am not wrong. No offer was made, as it certainly was when Jim Callaghan was Prime Minister or in Harold Wilson's time—my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will correct me if I am wrong. But no offer was made to the Opposition spokesman.
  My personal view is that I no longer see any need for this country to have a new battle tank. A long time ago I was a member of a tank crew. In the present context, I feel for tank crews and think that nowadays they would easily be "brewed up"—I think that is the right term. Is it not a fact that the Americans have under development a SADARM, a search and destroy armoured missile? There are heat-seeking missiles—doubtless the Soviet forces have them, too—against which a tank, however well armoured, would stand little chance.
  The American weapon, which will certainly soon be developed by other countries, is designed to take out the most modern tanks. What is the Ministry of Defence's assessment of heat-seeking and other related weapons taking out tanks? If my argument is right, is it sensible to go ahead with the expense of a new main battle tank? The tank is heading for obsolescence in the modern European battle field. It is conceptually obsolete because we want defences that do not make the other side worried and create instability. The tank is basically an offensive weapon.
  In his opening speech, the Secretary of State for Defence gave various figures on how we should take into account the fact that eastern Europe was not disarming to the extent that it was supposed in some countries. Are my statistics accurate or not? Is it not a fact that the Czechs have already cut their forces by 30 per cent., the Hungarians have cut theirs by 35 per cent. and the Soviet armed forces will be out of Czechoslovakia and Hungary by the end of 1991? Is it not a fact that 10,000 Soviet troops have already been withdrawn from Poland; that East Germany has reduced its forces from 165,000 to 100,000 in two years; that Soviet tank production has been halved; and that last year the Soviet Union cut its forces by 5 per cent.? My figures come from the CIA—[Interruption]— so perhaps I am all right.
  Not only our so-called enemies but our friends have been making cuts. The West Germans have cut troop levels from 495,000 to 400,000. I want to associate myself with the arguments of my hon Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on this.
  What discussions have taken place about these matters with the chiefs of staff? I do not believe everything that I read about their not being consulted, but enough has appeared in the press to legitimise my question. I remember that when I was first a parliamentary candidate —the Minister of State, who is a military historian, will remember this well—Duncan Sandys carried out the 1957
  766
  defence review behind closed doors. It will be in the collective memory of the Ministry of Defence that that created great difficulty at the time of the 1957 White Paper.
  What do we want? My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East suggested an end to BAOR. I say that BAOR could realistically be cut by a third within18 months and by two thirds in three years, bearing in mind the accommodation problem. I believe that the RAF in Germany should be cut forthwith from seven squadrons of Tornadoes to three—I refer to the GRI which is the strike arm, not to the interceptor arm which, as far as I know, is based in the United Kingdom. That would send a signal to the Soviets that we were serious about cuts. For the moment, we should keep in place the Phantoms, the interceptors, and the Harriers, the close air support.
  I now approach a delicate issue that affects my constituency. The Secretary of State asked earlier what would happen in Edinburgh if there were any cuts in the European fighter aircraft programme. Is it not highly likely that the West Germans will cancel their participation in the EFA? If so, someone had better make contingency plans for the many skilled people in Edinburgh——
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): The hon. Member must know that, thanks to the continuous and dedicated efforts of my right hon. Friend, the Germans have signed up for the relevant stage of the EFA contract. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman searches his memory he will recollect that.
  Mr. Dalyell: In that case, many people in Edinburgh will be reassured; but were the Germans to cancel, we should have to make plans for arms conversion. Many people who are worried about their jobs will be relieved in the short-term by that assurance, if I have interpreted the Minister aright.
  We must take advantage of the peace dividend, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East that we have to use it for the industrial base of the 21st century. Britain's security is economic and depends on reinvesting in industry.
  The worst danger that we face would be the discontent of the peoples of eastern Europe if we were unable to help them economically. Some of us think that, without exaggerating and being too dramatic, the best thing that we could do for our own security would be to have some kind of Marshall-type plan for eastern Europe. Anyone who says that that is fanciful should contrast the treatment of Germany in 1918 with its treatment in 1945. Which is preferable? The treatment from 1945 to 1955 led to a far more stable West Germany than the Germany that began to go wrong before 1929.
  In that context I refer to the Dublin conference which has just taken place. At that important conference, for the first time western and eastern Environment Ministers met to see what we could do to help eastern Europe overcome its monumentally appalling environment problems. Unless we have the wealth to solve that problem, we can do very little to help those eastern European countries. Some of us heard Carlo Ripa di Meana, the European Commissioner, say how important it was for the countries of western Europe to do something to help the east.
  There are many other problems in which we should become involved in furtherance of the peace dividend. They are the conservation of energy and metals, projects for anti-corrosion, recycling technology, the problems of

  767
  winning metals from lower grade ores and the problems of creating efficient public transport. All those matters have far more to do with our security than the making of tanks or other military expenditure to which we seem to be committed. We need to return to the Op Macc—operation military aid to the civil community—schemes of General Sir Derek Lang and do what the United States corps of engineers did in the 1920s and the 1930s. They made a great contribution. We must think in terms of personnel and encourage many in the forces, and not only officers, to take university degrees so that those who remain in the forces can make a high quality contribution and be fairly certain of a welcome into civilian life when they leave. Otherwise there will be no career.
  Speaking about his union members, Bill Morris, of the Transport and General Workers Union, said:
  "Defence workers are proud people; they're not ashamed of what they do, they're highly skilled and very patriotic. But they haven't made a conscious decision to produce weaponry. Circumstances have taken them into it. They now see their future and security threatened as a result of world events. They are looking to the unions, and to opinion-formers and decision-makers to help them reshape the events which affect their lives and to give them a more secure future.
  My union believes that we have to make real demands of political parties."
  That is the demand that we must face. We must do something constructive for our armed forces.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I appeciate that there is only a very short time before the Front-Bench speeches are due to begin. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for enabling me to make a brief contribution to the debate.
  I commend to the House the report of the conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union at Bonn on disarmament. I shall not go into detail about it because there is not time to do so. It was a co-operative conference which was attended by delegates from throughout the world.
  I appreciate the figures on our balance of payments to which the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) referred. I think that West Germany may lose about £10 billion. I look forward to seeing additional tank troops based in south Dorset. My constituency could do with the foreign exchange.
  I have something sweet to put around the bitter pill, which involves the sea systems controllerate. About two and a half years ago I became aware that the controllerate in my constituency, at which there are about 650 jobs, was to be centralised somewhere near Bath. That sounded qute a good idea until it was investigated. I discovered that the employees at Bath were rather fed up with their tatty offices, at which there are 2,500 employees, and that they had a lovely plan to persuade the Ministry of Defence to build brand new offices for 4,000 employees. They persuaded a predecessor of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that if the staff were cut by about 10 per cent. that would pay for the £40 million that the move would cost over 10 years.
  That was a ridiculous proposal, yet £40 million has been set aside to increase the defence establishment by building yet more offices at Keynsham. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench to reconsider that arrangement. For about two and a half years reorganisation has been blighted within the organisation. I am sure that the controllerate could work
  768
  more efficiently. Indeed, a 10 per cent. staff reduction has already been made without moving staff through natural wastage. I do not believe that another three years of blight should be allowed to take place. Reorganisation is overdue and there should be a careful examination of what is happening. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to review the decision.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Roland Boyes: This could be the most important defence estimates debate for many years because of what is missing from the estimates and not because of what is in them.
  We are on the verge of a major transformation of relationships between the states of Europe and between the super-powers, and that is not confined to diplomats. We must recognise that changes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union—I hope that the debate will reflect this fact mean major changes within the United Kingdom and western Europe generally. The days when military force, or the threat of it, was seen as a credible means of solving international disputes are numbered. The ever-increasing opinion is that western Europe is no longer seriously threatened militarily. It will be increasingly difficult to convince the tax-paying public of Europe of the necessity to vote for defence budgets which are based on the assumption of an imminent attack by the Soviet. Union.
  In an interview during "The World at One" on 14 April, Lord Carrington said:
  "the truth of the matter is that if there isn't a threat or a very serious threat, from the East, there is no way in which public opinion is going to continue to support defence spending— and nor should it—on the basis that we have at the moment."
  Moreover, with an ever-decreasing threat, fewer and fewer young people will be attracted to the military as a career, because the values that it projects and represents are no longer considered appropriate.
  Having twice been to the base on the Falkland Islands, I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) said about the conditions there. They are awful and must be improved. I do not agree—this is only a point of view that is exchanged between us—that the soldiers are happy down there. Many of them dislike living in such conditions and being so far away from Port Stanley. I agree generally with what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the soldiers in the Falklands.
  I do not wish to denigrate the Government's review of defence commitments before it is completed. It would be silly to do so. I hope only that the Secretary of State's "Options for Change" will be bold enough to tackle the major issue of civil-military relations. If it is not, the Government will create severe problems for the future, which the Opposition will not be afraid to address when we form the next Government.
  As I said in the Army debate earlier this month, we do not like the secrecy surrounding the Government's current defence review. I hope that, when we eventually hear what they have decided, we shall find that their plans include not only consideration of the nitty gritty of forces structure and of procurement decisions but an open, objective assessment of the current and future military threats to Britain.
  The Secretary of State acknowledged that the Warsaw pact is moribund as a military organisation, and that was

  769
  publicly accepted by the NATO defence planning committee at its meeting last month in Brussels, which the Secretary of State attended.
  What of an attack by the Soviet Union? Last November, the Washington Post and New York Times published substantial parts of a leaked paper to the Defence Secretary that spelt out a new assessment by the United States intelligence community of the scale and nature of the Soviet threat. It concluded that there is no longer any justification for NATO maintaining its forces on readiness for a short-warning attack. The standard period quoted for a considerable time was 10 days, but the report said that the size and posture of the Warsaw pact forces meant that NATO would now have at least 33 to 44 days' warning of an attack, and possibly much longer.
  When I attended Sealink in Anapolis last year—and I know that some Conservative Members were there, too —it was made clear that the major difficulty was getting men, munitions and other goods across the Atlantic, whereas the Soviets could trundle through eastern Europe using the railway system. When I put that to a senior retired admiral, he said that under present conditions he would much prefer to cross the Atlantic than try taking trains through the countries concerned to reach the German border. When I was in Moscow just before the Secretary of State, I put that point to one of the senior Soviet foreign affairs staff, and he said that if he had a choice, he would agree with the retired admiral.
  It has been said for a long time that a threat would be posed by tanks coming through central Europe, but that does not take into account the fact that between Moscow and Germany there are some 50 nuclear power stations. The consequences of a tank battle in central Europe with that many nuclear stations around would be incredible.
  The leaked report to the United States Defence Secretary addressed the nature of the Soviet threat before any of the cuts announced in Gorbachev's speech to the United Nations in December 1988 took effect, and before any of the massive upheavals in eastern Europe that occurred in 1989. Without the political and logistic support of neighbouring countries, a Soviet attack would be impossible. Many of the countries that Russian troops would have to trundle through have thrown out their old Governments and rejected Soviet domination. None of us regrets that.
  According to the latest CIA threat assessment released on 20 April, at least three of the six tank divisions that Gorbachev promised in 1988 to disband have gone, as have three quarters of the 8,500 artillery pieces and 800 aircraft that he promised to cut. Soviet defence spending is in decline and morale is so low among Soviet forces that the USSR would have great difficulty in launching any attack, let alone a short-warning attack.
  That leaves the threat of a Soviet nuclear attack. In what possible circumstances would the Soviet Union, which clearly has no intention and, more importantly, little or no capability now to attack western Europe with conventional forces, want to start a nuclear war?
  We can now make the transition to a more mature form of international relations where the de facto situation of constant and deepening interaction between east and west
  770
  in trade, technology, culture and environment may be matched by the abandonment of the xenophobic nuclear chest-beating which has characterised the past 40 years.
  The nuclear supporters would say, "But what about instability in the USSR?" The Secretary of State and I were in the Soviet Union at similar times, and we are well aware of what is happening in some of the states. People ask what the Soviet military would do if Gorbachev continued to squeeze them, or, what is worse still, if Yeltsin takes power and attempts greater cuts in the Red Army's resources, power and status. Would not there be a risk of a military coup? Again, we must be realistic. Even if the army took over, what could it do? It could not hope to turn the clock back, and since it could not hope to deliver economic reforms, it is a spent political force.
  When I was in Moscow earlier this year I saw the immense economic and social problems which face the Soviets—by gum, they are immense. It is now obvious that the military could not solve those problems. The most that it can do is to delay the process of reductions in Soviet military strength—which it seems that it is doing—by slowing down progress in arms control talks and reducing the pace of some withdrawals from eastern Europe.
  Even the CIA has publicly acknowledged that there is no danger of the Soviet Union reverting to the Brezhnev era, when the military's political power was at its height. When the director of the CIA expressed such a view to Congress earlier this year, it was much to the chagrin of United States Defence Secretary Dick Cheney, who was trying to persuade Congress to tone down its defence cuts, as a hedge against the hawks regaining control in the Kremlin. Some notable United States Sovietologists, such as Stephen Meyer at MIT, have recently been predicting that Gorbachev will appoint a civilian as Defence Minister later this year, for the first time in Soviet history. That will be another sign that the chances of the hawks regaining control in the Kremlin are nil.
  Therefore, a Soviet attack on western Europe is inconceivable, even as a result of Gorbachev being deposed. What about the risk of nationalist unrest in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? What if the problems of Lithuania or any of the other states become so great that they lead to widespread civil unrest and military intervention? Could not that lead to war engulfing the whole of Europe?
  Even if Gorbachev decided to send troops to quell nationalist unrest, the chances of internal problems spilling over into a wider international conflict are minimal —there would be enough to deal with at home without risking a wider war. In such circumstances, what on earth could NATO do, other than to take diplomatic measures? The only possible contribution it could make would be to act as a symbol of political cohesion between states. Perhaps it could play a part in developing and promoting within Europe the type of political relationships and structures which minimise the risk of nationalist uprisings occurring in the first place, and which maximise the chances of solving problems when they occur.
  Mr. Ian Bruce rose— —
  Mr. Boyes: No, I have nearly finished my speech.
  That would be a political function for NATO, but the Warsaw pact and NATO are military institutions, within which military solutions to political problems have always predominated. We need to make a transition to forms of

  771
  international politics in Europe that are not predicated on the ever-present threat of unleashing mass destruction. As long as we feel that we cannot trust each other, our attempts to solve serious political problems will always be based on threats of violence. If the institutions that we use to seek solutions are founded on the concept of political coercion by threatening violence, we shall have narrowed the options from the start. We are now approaching a time when there is no longer any role for military force in Europe, at least in the countries west of the Soviet border. Therefore, a symbolic display is fast becoming an empty gesture.
  The Secretary of State said some kind words about the forces, which I endorse. We want the best trained forces with the most up-to-date equipment to meet the reality of any threat in the new and ever-developing situation. Fortunately, for those such as myself who are grandfathers, I now believe that our grandchildren will grow up in a Europe of peace and not conflict.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): What has made this debate particularly interesting has been the broad scope of contributions. However, I was relieved and disappointed that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was unable to make one of his lively and original contributions. The critical damage that he did to my career with the praise that he heaped on me during the Air Force debate was something that I hoped would not be repeated.
  This debate has been utterly different from its predecessors in its content and setting. I quote:
  "We are entering a new period in relations between east and west."—[Official Report, 12 June 1990, Vol. 174, c. 137.]
  "In terms of military effectiveness and cohesion … the Warsaw Pact is effectively defunct now.
  We no longer think of them"—
  the countries of eastern Europe—
  "as potential enemies or as part of a wider threat to our way of life".
  If anyone thinks that that is another example of the political recklessness of which I am so often, but so unjustly accused, let me say that I was quoting from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and again from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  The changing situation has had three consequences. There is a public expectation that expenditure appropriate to—and tolerated during—a higher level of tension is no longer required; that force deployment, structure and weapons procurement conceived in a virtually unaltered context for the past 45 years should now be changed; and that close consultation with our allies in NATO is required to ensure that such changes are effected in an harmonious manner that safeguards alliance cohesion. It is in reconciling those three elements that close attention, patient and constructive thought and a wide degree of consultation are necessary.
  Of course I understand that the press is impatient as it must subsist on a day-to-day feed of information which it tends to draw mainly from its colleagues' clippings. For instance, I read at the weekend that the service chiefs—whatever that means—are calling not for my resignation but for my dismissal on the grounds that they disagree with what I was allegedly proposing and that they have not seen a report that I have allegedly written. I assume that the service chiefs are honourable men; at no time has any
  772
  of them expressed any dissent with what I proposed or asked to see the report that I wrote. Against that background, I can only assume that it would have been highly dishonourable of them to have briefed the press, so I am reinforced in my view that that piece in the press was pure invention.
  Mr. Cohen rose——
  Mr. Clark: I shall cope with interventions in a little while, but for the moment I should proceed.
  This critically important subject has not only been widely debated in this place. We have had contributions from such distinguished academics as Sir Michael Howard, Professor Laurie Freedman and former serving officers such as Sir Julian Thompson. Today we have had a number of varied and constructive contributions from both sides of the House.
  My right hon. Friend said that I would tell the House about two procurement decisions immediately that relate to Tornado aircraft and the EH101. As regards the EH101, it is more than ever important that the contractual arrangements are put on a sounder basis. Work that has been in hand to prepare a new overall performance specification for the helicopter has now been completed. We plan to invite tenders next month for the award of a prime contract for the completion of development and initial production of a Royal Navy variant.
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) looks alert and poised, but I shall not give way to him, as he has not been in the Chamber for long.
  The specification against which we shall invite tenders calls for the production aircraft to be fitted with the Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM 322 engine to provide the extra power needed for the aircraft to fulfil its mission effectively. Work on integrating that engine in a development aircraft will now proceed.
  Mr. Richard Page: I welcome my hon. Friend's important announcement, which is in the national interest as well as that of my constituents, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is in his place to hear it.
  Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that this engine, which was funded by his Department's support for a high-lift and heavy-lift capability, was on test with the American air force about three years ago? It has taken all this time to give it evaluation and certification. Without doubt the Australians did not wish to buy a unique engine, and therefore we possibly lost their order of 170 engines. We also lost the follow-on order to the Saudis of 200 engines. My hon. Friend's announcement, however, means that we will stand a good chance of winning the Canadian order for some 180 engines. Equally, we can hope to win the Italian order for 170 engines. It is a good announcement, but I wish that it had come a lot earlier, as that would have benefited British industry.
  Mr. Clark: I appreciate my hon. Friend's views, and I am grateful for his welcome for my announcement. I am certain that the engine is right for this aircraft.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that, in constructing the short-term measures and in the continuing scrutiny of new commitments, we have used the emerging picture from the options exercise as a yardstick against which to assess individual issues. An example is the

  773
  eighth batch of Tornado orders. At present, I cannot foresee a place for additional Tornado aircraft in the programme. I have therefore decided not to authorise further work on that order.
  Mr. Michael Jack: What consultations has my hon. Friend had, or will he have, with British Aerospace about the way in which his announcement will be handled? Can he give some reassurance to the thousands of British Aerospace workers in Lancashire who will be concerned about the implications of his announcement for future projects such as the European fighter aircraft?
  Mr. Clark: I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are in almost continuous consultation with British Aerospace. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), largely thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a series of discussions with our German counterparts, the future of that aircraft is assured throughout its development phase.
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) made a number of points. The one that is most immediately relevant related to the main battle tank order. In spite of the highly personal view of the hon. Member for Linlithgow that there was no future for the main battle tank, which he based on his experience of serving in armoured vehicles 40 years ago, the combined view of both east and west staff is that there is a continuing demand for a main battle tank. The hon. Member for Clackmannan drew the attention of the House to the question of unit costs, which are likely to rise as numbers in the order fall. We are certainly aware of that and it is a factor in our discussions with Vickers. However, it is not yet certain that Vickers will win the competition, although it is proceeding through its various evaluation stages most successfully. We are well aware of where the thresholds exist and they will certainly be borne in mind should any procurement order result.
  I recognise the wider issue of putting in place some imprecise Government machinery to cover manufacturers which are disappointed at not winning competitions and getting orders as a somewhat outdated socialist nostrum which the countries of eastern Europe are busily discarding. It certainly is not my role to second-guess the commercial judgment of those companies which, as has been widely recognised in speeches by hon. Members from both sides of the House, deploy very highly skilled work forces for whose labour and skills there is a high demand in civilian companies. How they decide to deploy those skills, if they have to shift from one form of production to another, is a matter which I am perfectly prepared to leave to their commercial judgment.
  The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) always makes entertaining speeches. He tripped down memory lane quite extensively and reminded us several times of his book, "Our Guilty Men". When he spoke about nuclear proliferation, he displayed that special engaging Fabian naivety that is almost extinct except in elderly socialists of his generation. He believes that nuclear proliferation could be restrained by treaty, by a piece of paper indistinguishable other than at the closest range from the one that Mr. Chamberlain waved when he got off the aircraft in 1938 and for which the right hon. Gentleman in his book glibly and tendentiously blamed
  774
  the Conservative party. If a piece of paper could not prevent Germany from invading Poland and Czechoslovakia, why would a piece of paper prevent other powers from acquiring nuclear technology if they so wished? When my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) quite properly responded to a question about what would happen if a united Germany ever resumed certain activities by saying that it would be restrained by the 1954 treaty, all the Opposition Members burst out laughing, saying that treaties do not count for anything. Treaties do not count for anything when Opposition Members do not want them to, but they pin their beliefs on the non-proliferation treaty as a measure which will lead to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  Opposition Members choose to ignore the fact that there are two categories of signatories to the nonproliferation treaty. Britain is among those signatories that already hold nuclear weapons and scrupulously and at all time abides by the provisions which prevent us from disseminating and imparting knowledge of how to construct nuclear weapons to parties other than those which already have the technology.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made a radical and constructive speech emphasising the importance of the Western European Union. That organisation may grow in stature and importance. Many of the issues that he raised are more properly a matter for a wider debate on foreign affairs rather than one on the defence estimates. However, he made an important point when he touched upon the gradation of nuclear response, which is absolutely fundamental to rejecting the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who, if he is not the leader of the Liberal party, certainly should be—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Yeovil bolted from the Chamber to catch the last train to Yeovil. I should have held him at bay and made him miss his train.
  I get the feeling that the Labour party is still deeply uncomfortable about defence. It wants to avoid, at all costs, defence being effective. Its ideal is a lightly armed gendarmerie, staffed by graduates in social studies, that is answerable to an international agency, or, more sinister, a militia of miner vigilantes.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PETITIONS

  M11 Link Road
  10 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I wish to present a petition, which says:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of The Stop the M11 Link Road Action Campaign sheweth:
  That the A12 Hackney Wick to M11 Link Road will be injurious to the health and well being of the Petitioners insofar as it will cause homelessness through their homes being demolished with in many instances no replacement being offered, it will cause ill health through noise and pollution and will be unfavourable to the community at large.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will seek an assurance from The Right Hon. Member

  775
  The Secretary of State for Transport that he will show as much leadership in cancelling the A12 Hackney Wick to M11 Link Road as was shown in cancelling the East London Assessment Studies Options.
  It is signed by 70 affected residents. I share the concerns that they express and consider that my constituents have been badly treated by the Department of Transport.
  To lie upon the Table.

  European Central Time
  Mr. Bill Walker: This is a humble petition of the people of Scotland, and has been signed by about 800 people. It sheweth
  That the proposals to introduce European Central Time to the United Kingdom will impose upon the people of Scotland a system of time keeping which will take no account of the hazards facing school children going to school in the dark winter mornings or the difficulties faced by farmers, the road haulage industry and commuters when low temperatures create black ice and fog on Scotland's roads.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House reject the European Community Proposals to harmonise all of The Community into one time zone.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will forever pray.
  To lie upon the table.

  British Rail Operations (Noise)
  Mr. Roy Hughes: I have the honour to present a humble petition of residents of Newport, Gwent, with which I entirely agree. It sheweth
  the noise and environmental difficulties experienced by local residents over the past three years as a result of British Rail operations at East Usk Sidings, Newport, Gwent.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Transport to prevail upon British Rail to take remedial action.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Natural Beauty Products, Bridgend
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I do not know how many unacceptable faces there are to VAT enforcement but I know that in the case of Natural Beauty Products in my constituency I have come across an ugly and costly one for the company's banker, its directors, work force, creditors and—a savage irony—for the VAT collectors themselves.
  The whole matter came to a head on 30 January of this year when a VAT official from the Swansea office walked into the Natural Beauty Products factory on the Bridgend trading estate and demanded the immediate payment of some £43,000, following a final demand sent to the company three days before. He was told that the company had virtually completed a refinancng package and he even spoke to a representative of the Australian company with ultimate responsibility for it. It was made clear to him that the whole deal would be settled the following week and that a further check on the accuracy of the claim could be made by telephoning Barclays bank in Cardiff, which was the company's debenture holder and by the far the largest creditor.
  The VAT official did not speak to Barclays bank but he spoke to someone from the Inland Revenue who confirmed that it had a £9,000 levy on the company's fixed assets and was not proceeding against Natural Beauty Products for a much larger debt of £93,000. An arrangement had been reached with the company to repay this sum over a 10-month period.
  This official, acting in what I can only describe as a blinkered, inflexible and even dictatorial manner, with no apparent thought for the consequences of his action, then ordered a Transit van and requested a VAT supervisor to attend and oversee the removal of equipment, goods and stock from the factory—which, incidentally, had a value of over £800,000. He did this in spite of an immediate offer of £10,000 across the table and the repayment of the remainder of the debt within a maximum of 10 working days—the longest time that the directors considered would be needed to complete the refinancing and pay their VAT debt.
  The VAT official continued with his plan for the removal of materials. A van arrived and the goods were loaded and removed. The directors were informed that the VAT official would return the following day to complete the seizure of the goods considered necessary to enable the VAT debt to be paid in full.
  At this stage, to try to salvage something from the havoc wreaked by this inflexible and blinkered VAT official, the directors contacted Barclays bank and requested that an administrative receiver should be appointed to enable the company to be sold as a going concern. The company ship had already endured just over a year in very rough, stormy waters; franchise deals in the United Kingdom which had turned sour had forced the company to become directly involved in retailing, just at the time when interest rates began to soar. This meant that the company was soon financially overstretched. However, by January 1990, according to the administrative receiver, the company had
  "disposed of its loss-making activities in an orderly fashion"

  777
  —that is, the company was about to launch itself into calmer waters. Unfortunately, the action of the VAT official from Swansea led to the company ship hitting severe VAT rocks, and it was damaged beyond repair.
  Twenty-seven people lost their jobs at that stage in the company's life, leaving only 20 employees on the books. Thirty-three employees had already been forced to leave the company the previous November as part of the exercise to make the company shipshape. The company was just about to retrieve its fortunes, but all its hopes were dashed by an inflexible VAT official.
  I made inquiries of other accountants to find out whether such action was unusual. My inquiries provoked some rather surprisingly savage responses. One accountant—not the one who was involved in the administrative receivership of the company—said that VAT officials sometimes acted as the fascists of the financial world. One case was cited in which VAT officials were not even prepared to reschedule a debt of less than £1,000 when the company involved was prepared to pay 60 per cent. immediately and the balance when the next VAT bill was due.
  The VAT official in question acted inflexibly and was perhaps too rigorous in following the guidelines set down by Customs and Excise in its document "Aims of Enforcement Action", which state:
  "Whatever action is contemplated, however, there is a simple guiding principle which is always to be borne in mind —DELAY COSTS MONEY."
  Unfortunately, in this case delay cost the taxpayer, the workers, the creditors, the bank and the Government a great deal of money. What were the consequences of that? In the end, the VAT officials got their money—£36,000, because the company had a rebate due of more than £7,000. Twenty-seven people lost their jobs. Also, £37,000 in wages was lost as a result of that action. Some of that money will be recouped through the workings of the Employment Protection Act 1975, but not all of it. Trade creditors lost £500,000, excluding the VAT write-off. Poor old Barclays bank has probably lost about £250,000, but, perhaps most ironic of all as a result of that intemperate action, the VAT officials have lost more than the amount they got by acting so speedily against Natural Beauty Products. In gaining their £36,000 they lost about £75,000, which is the VAT write-off of the creditors of Natural Beauty Products who lost their money because of the action that was taken by the VAT official.
  Virtually all the creditors had already agreed with Natural Beauty Products to reschedule their debts over a year or to take a single payment less than what they were actually owed. That was the situation on the day on which the VAT man arrived and the tragic events unfolded.
  I was concerned about that, so I tabled some questions to the Treasury to try to elicit some information and to discover whether what had happened in my constituency happens all over the country. I wanted to know whether the insistence of VAT officers when collecting debts was forcing other companies into receivership. I specifically wanted to know what had happened during the past three years. My question on 16 February was:
  "how many companies were forced into receivership because of Custom and Excise action to recover outstanding value added tax payments in each of the last three years, and the current financial year"?
  I was told:
  778
  "None."—[Official Report, 16 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 423.]
  However, as the House now knows, because of the insistence of a VAT official, who wanted his money there and then, a company in my constituency was forced to call in the administrative receiver simply to keep the company going.
  If the VAT official decided that the company was lost beyond all hope, I must advise him that he was badly mistaken. Within 10 days of the administrative receiver advertising in the Financial Times for companies interested in buying Natural Beauty Products, he had received 160 replies. Within six weeks, he had determined that there was one company that had an extremely good chance of putting Natural Beauty Products back into a healthy trading position. Within a fortnight, that deal had been completed and by the beginning of May, a company called Brown and Johnson, which is better known in the high street for the Poundstretcher shops that it runs, had taken over the company and within a week the 20 employees had been augmented by another eight, such was the health of Natural Beauty Products and the loyalty of those who had previously bought from it, such as the Betterware company.
  I am pleased to report that the company will now survive. However, because of the inflexibility and intemperate behaviour of one VAT official, Natural Beauty Products' previous trade creditors have lost £500,000, the bank has lost £250,000 and the Treasury has lost £75,000—which is much more than the £36,000 that it eventually received.
  Perhaps the VAT official was working to strict instructions. My purpose in asking for this debate which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I have now been seeking for more weeks than I care to remember—of course, I am pleased to have it at last—is to try to persuade the Treasury to set aside its poor imitation of Pontius Pilate when trying to deceive the public by saying that it has never caused a company to go into liquidation by insisting on the immediate repayment of a VAT debt, and to urge it to take some action to prevent that happening in the future.
  To some extent, I believe that what I am seeking is already happening. Earlier today I telephoned a number of accountants to check what was happening on the VAT scene. I was told that over the past few months VAT officials in Swansea have adopted a much more flexible approach to the rescheduling of debts. I do not know whether that is a coincidence or the result of the questions that I have asked about the fate of Natural Beauty Products, but I am glad that it is happening.
  I should like the Treasury first to amend its guidelines in its document entitled "Aim of Enforcement Action", so that the phrase "Delay costs money" is not emblazoned across it, because the Treasury is, indeed, losing money now. Indeed, in this case it lost a lot of money by insisting on the action that its official took. Secondly, I should also like the Treasury to amend the Insolvency Act 1985, which I believe may have been consolidated in another Act in 1986. The crucial amendment to the previous legislation occurred in 1985. Until then, both the Inland Revenue and VAT had a preferential claim on a company's debt for one year. For some obscure reason, in 1985, an amendment in the House of Lords changed the limit for VAT from one year to six months.

  779
  If there was something wrong in principle with VAT having any preferential claim, the claim period should have been got rid of altogether. To bring it down to six months quite arbitrarily and make it more difficult for the Inland Revenue to reclaim its debts seems grossly unfortunate. It was perhaps one element that led to the rigid and overbearing approach of the VAT official who visited my constituency and the company, Natural Beauty Products.
  I hope that the Minister's response will contain some words of encouragement about a more flexible approach from VAT officials, a commitment to change the guidelines in "Aim of Enforcement Action", and a consideration of returning to the position in which the Inland Revenue and VAT both had one year in which to make a preferential claim for debts owed them by companies. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the assembled hosts for listening so carefully.
  10.22 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing this debate and on the assiduous interest that he has shown in the issue.
  We all recognise the vital role that small businesses play in the economy. Obviously, no one likes to see a business in financial difficulty. Customs make every effort to avoid taking enforcement action against traders who do not pay their VAT debts and use enforcement action only as a last resort. However, Customs has a responsibility to protect the Revenue and to ensure that traders who pay their taxes promptly are not disadvantaged.
  With value added tax, enforcement action is designed to ensure that traders who fail to pay tax on time do so as soon as possible. There are two steps to be taken in the enforcement routine. These are the establishment of the debt due from the trader and the start of appropriate recovery action. Both those steps were taken in the case of Natural Beauty Products of Bridgend.
  All VAT-registered traders have a legal obligation to render returns and pay any tax due on or before a given date. That is known as the due date and is normally, as the hon. Gentleman knows, one month after the end of the tax period. If, however, a trader fails to render a return by the due date, an assessment is issued, in the majority of cases by the computer at Southend-on-Sea.
  Natural Beauty Products, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, was registered for value added tax from 16 October 1984. The company manufactures toilet preparations, a high proportion of which were exported and, therefore, liable to tax at the zero rate. As it was expected that the company would normally receive repayments of tax, VAT returns were made monthly.
  VAT returns were received on 8 and 19 January 1989 showing a payment of tax due from the company of £29,294·61 and a further return on 6 February 1989 showed a repayment of £8,346·72. As no money had been sent, a demand notice for immediate payment of the balance of £20,947·89 was sent to the company on 7 March 1989. Cheques were received for £10,473·95 and £10,473·04, but one was subsequently returned by the bank as unpaid. Further VAT returns were made by the company, but again no money was sent. The balance of tax
  780
  owed by the company for the period ended 30 April 1989 was £11,428·44 and a further demand notice for immediate payment was sent to the company on 24 July 1989.
  When a trader fails to pay tax, schedule 7 paragraph 6(4) of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 makes provision in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for distress to be levied on the goods and chattels of the debtors. Distress is a means of recovering debts by taking possession of traders' goods, with certain restrictions, as security for the debt and enables their sale if the debt remains unpaid. Customs does not own the goods even though they may be in its possession and custody; they continue to be owned by the trader until they are sold.
  Distress is levied by an authorised officer and distress for recovery of VAT takes precedence over any other distress except one levied by the Inland Revenue. It has been found to be a most cost-effective method of recovering tax as few traders are prepared to allow the distraint on their goods and subsequent removal and sale. The price obtained in a forced sale is usually significantly lower than that received when the goods are sold in the normal course of business. Distress can be levied for debts that arise from an assessment issued because of an under-declaration of tax or a failure by the trader to render returns. There must be a 30-day delay before distraint can be levied in respect of the former.
  The decision to distrain takes into consideration the size of the debt, and larger debts are given priority. Before distress is begun a demand notice of immediate payment is sent to the trader, either direct from the computer at Southend or from the local VAT office. Delivery can be made by hand when the tax may be at risk and an urgent levy is required. Normally, payment by cheque is acceptable but, dependent upon the debtor's history of payment, cash or banker's draft may be stipulated.
  If, after allowing time for the trader to respond to the demand notice, the trader pays none or only part of the debt, an officer of a rank not below that of senior executive officer signs a warrant and authorises a named officer to levy distress. The former must be satisfied that there are sufficient assets available to justify the distress and the utmost care is taken to avoid impairing the business of other traders.
  In most cases a bailiff is employed to assist the officer named in the warrant, particularly in estimating the realistic value of the goods. The bailiff, however, is not authorised to levy distress on behalf of Customs. Distress may be levied by the authorised officer accompanied by a colleague. Whenever possible, the proprietor, partner, director or company secretary is seen.
  In this case, there was no response from the company; since it had already received a demand notice of immediate payment, a distress warrant was signed and the company"s premises were visited by an officer of Customs and Excise accompanied by a bailiff on 24 August 1989. At that visit Mr. K. G. Ueber, the managing director of the company, completed a post-dated cheque for the tax debt to 30 June and stated that a repayment of tax would be due for July.
  The July return, however, was received by Customs not in July but on 13 September, and it showed not a repayment, as Mr. Ueber had claimed, but a payment of tax due from the company of £8,166·21. The post-dated cheque was also returned by the bank as unpaid for the second time on 27 July. A demand notice for immediate payment was sent on 30 January 1990 for a total VAT debt to 31 October of £43,053·46. Again, there was no response.

  781
  The company premises were visited for the second time on Thursday 1 February by an officer of the Customs and Excise and a bailiff. A meeting took place at 10 am and lasted several hours.
  Mr. Ueber, the managing director, and Mr. Besant, the company accountant, were interviewed and full payment was promised for Monday 5 February. This was accepted on condition that the debt would be secured by the levy of distress on various company assets. Further questioning of Mr. Ueber at the same meeting, however, revealed that the Inland Revenue and a number of trade creditors already held distraint orders in respect of various company assets. Still at the meeting, Customs spoke to the High Court sheriff's officer in Cardiff who informed it that warrants in excess of £100,000 had been issued to trade creditors.
  Still at the meeting, the Inland Revenue confirmed on the telephone that it had instructed its bailiff to remove the assets under its distraint. Still at the meeting, with Mr. Ueber's permission, Customs spoke to a prospective financial backer in Australia who said that he would be unable to forward sufficient funds to pay the VAT debt by 5 February.
  The company's bankers—still at the meeting—advised the company on the telephone that they would not advance more than £10,000 of the £43,053·46 Customs debt by 5 February. It was clear beyond doubt to Customs officials at the meeting that Mr. Ueber had no means of paying the debt by 5 February as he had claimed.
  In view of the company's previous poor payment record, the officers considered that the Revenue was at risk and finished products, including goods bought in for resale, were removed. To ensure that manufacture could continue, raw materials, machinery and office equipment were not removed. When Customs returned to the premises on 2 February to supervise the continued removal of the goods, it was found to be locked and no employees were present. It was later established that Barclays bank had appointed an administrative receiver, under the terms of the debenture, on that date.
  If an administrative receiver, liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy takes control of the business before the sale of the assets, Customs is prepared to accept an undertaking from the insolvency practitioner. Provided that he agrees to pay the VAT debt and levy costs from the sale of the goods, they are released into his charge to be sold with other distress assets. The debtor is entitled to request a professional valuation of distrained goods before sale. If
  782
  the appraisal shows that the realistic value far exceeds the debt plus costs, some of the goods are restored to him. When the auctioned goods are liable to VAT, the auctioneer accounts for the tax on the sale direct to Customs.
  After discussions between Customs and the receiver, it was agreed that no further goods would be removed. To ensure that the most advantageous price would be realised, those in Customs' possession were to be returned for sale together with the business. This was provisional upon the receiver paying the current VAT debt from the proceeds of the sale. On 17 May the receiver advised Customs that the company had been sold as a going concern and he took possession of the distrained goods on 7 June for supply to the new owner. This ensured a higher sale price than would have been obtained by a forced sale auction by Customs.
  In view of the poor payment record of the company, Customs was justified in securing its debt by distraint procedure. It was obvious from discussion with the Australian backer and the reluctance of the bank to advance more than £10,000 that the full debt could not be paid by 5 February. The demise of the company was mainly due to its inability to meet the repayment requirements of the bank debenture and the subsequent appointment of the administrative receiver. The removal of finished goods by Customs would not have adversely affected the continued manufacturing potential of the company. The action of the bank, however, is an indication of the company's poor financial state and further supports the view that the actions of Customs officials were legitimate.
  I have sought to outline the background from the Customs angle and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to do that. He asked about the possible amendment of the 1985 Act. A reduction in the preferential pay rate for VAT from one year to six months did not influence the actions of Customs in this case.
  The hon. Gentleman was concerned that Swansea had not been flexible, but from what I have seen I do not think that that is so. The guidelines followed by the people at Swansea were correct. The hon. Gentleman said that the company was getting back on its feet. However, at the time of the crucial visit on 1 February, Customs officials did not think that that was the case. In any event, the staff were on, I think, a three-day week and no production was evident during that visit.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases involving lenient sentences he has referred to the Court of Appeal for review; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Since 1 February 1989, when this power took effect, I have applied for leave to refer the sentencing in 15 cases to the Court of Appeal. Four cases have not yet been heard, and I have withdrawn two cases in the light of further information. Leave has been granted in eight of the remaining nine cases, and sentences have been increased in seven of the cases. I have referred one case to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland; the sentence in that case was also increased.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the smallest amount paid in legal aid in the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  There is no minimum sum below which a claim for legal aid will not be met. Details of legal aid fund expenditure are contained in the legal aid annual report, a copy of which is placed in the Library each year.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions the arrangements for promoting prosecutions on breaches of company law, in the light of the publication of the House of Fraser report.

  The Attorney-General
  Primary responsibility for the enforcement of company law rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Crown prosecution service prosecutes Companies Act offences where they are relevant to other proceedings which they have brought. The relevant principles are clearly established, and I have no present plans to discuss them with the DPP.

  Judges (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any proposals to lower the retirement age for judges.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Maguire Case
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Maguire case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply today to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore).

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the studies conducted inside his Department by management consultants over the last 10 years, naming the consultancy, the cost, the subject and the outcome in each instance.

  The Attorney-General
  No such studies have been conducted within the legal secretariat to the Law Officers or the Serious Fraud Office. In the case of the Treasury Solicitor's Department the firm of Peat Marwick McLintock advised on the installation of a computerised time recording and billing system. The cost of this consultation was £86,337·63 and the system has now been installed.

  Since the service was created in 1986, the following studies by management consultants have been carried out in the Crown prosecution service.

  Strategic planning and budgeting study by Hay Management Consultants, completed April 1987, cost £37,000, results—strategy set and planning system implemented;

  Telecommunications strategy study by Logica, completed January 1987, cost £20,000, result—strategy set;

  Internal communications study by Charles Barker Communications, completed December 1987, cost £29,000, result—internal communication manager appointed and work on improving internal communications put in hand;

  Information study, assistance from The Mindworks Partnership, cost £37,000, completed December 1988, result—programme of work to develop internal information systems put in hand;

  Staffing model feasibility study by PA Management Consultants, cost £37,000, completed December 1988, result—feasibility established leading to full study;

  Staffing model development by PA Management Consultants, completed January 1990, cost £135,000, result—model produced, currently being tested and refined;

  Evaluation of the use of information technology to present evidence in court by The Human Science and Advanced Technology Research Centre, Loughborough University, completed February 1990, cost £15,000, result —evaluation report produced and supplied to other relevant organisations;

  Review of CPS contract car-hire scheme by Transtech Consultancy Services, completed April 1990, cost £14,000, the report is now being considered.

  Licensed Conveyancers
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Attorney-General how many licensed conveyancers are presently registered to practise in England and Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  There are presently 766 licensed conveyancers holding licenses, of whom 270 are practicing on their own account. The remaining 496 are employed as conveyancers.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Attorney-General what educational requirements and what technical educational qualifications are required before an applicant can be accepted as a licensed conveyancer.

  The Attorney-General
  To be- accepted as a licensed conveyancer a person must have successfully completed or obtained exemption from the Council for Licensed Conveyancers' examinations and the prescribed practical training. Information about the educational requirements and training for licensed conveyancers is available from the Council for Licensed Conveyancers at Golden Cross house, Duncannon street, London WC2N 4JF.

  Leaseholders
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects legislation concerning leaseholders to be presented to Parliament.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor announced in June 1988 that the Government had arranged for draft legislation to be prepared at the Law Commission to give effect to the proposals contained in the report of the working group on commonhold (Cm. 179) under the chairmanship of Mr. T. M. Aldridge. That work is taking longer to complete than was originally expected and a number of important issues remain to be resolved. No final decision has yet been taken about the implementation of the report, nor can I give any indication of when legislation on commonhold may be introduced.

  Mr. Kevin Taylor
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 13 June to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has yet received a reply to his letter of 19 January to the chief constable of Greater Manchester.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. The terms of the reply are confidential between the chief constable and the DPP. The right hon. Member will, however, be aware of the announcement by the chief constable of Greater Manchester that he has decided to ask a senior officer from another police force to investigate the issues raised by the DPP.

  Social Security Commissioners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps have been taken to reduce delays in deciding appeals to the social security commissioners and in notifying claimants of commissioners' decisions and what effect those steps have had or are expected to have on the average length of such delays.

  The Attorney-General
  The following steps have been taken within the last month by the Lord Chancellor's Department and local management of the office of social security commissioners (OSSC):

  (a) The Department is recruiting an additional legally qualified Nominated Officer to assist the Commissioners;

  (b) A 'fast-stream' system has been introduced to expedite appeals where both parties agree the lower tribunal erred in law. At present up to 20 cases a week of this sort are being dealt with out of the usual chronological order;

  (c) Agency typists and word processor operators are now used to cover for sick and annual leave by full-time staff;

  (d) Two new word processors have been installed. A new photocopier will be installed shortly which will significantly reduce the time taken to photocopy case papers and Commissioners' decisions;

  (e) Tighter targets have been set for the typing of work, including Commissioners' decisions, to reduce delays; and

  (f) Office systems at OSSC's London headquarters have been reviewed and simplified to increase effectiveness and management control. Some sections have been amalgamated.

  390
  The Department believes that these measures will start to reduce the average length of delays over the next three months, but it is too early to predict the scale of that reduction.

  Divorce
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Attorney-General how much legal aid for divorce cases cost in the latest year for which figures are available; and how much this cost in 1985.

  The Attorney-General
  The latest year for which figures are available is 1988–89. The cost of full civil legal aid in all matrimonial cases was £116·91 million in 1988–89 and £74·88 million in 1984–85.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Recipients (Growth Rate)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies have been made of the impact of British aid on the growth rate of recipient countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The ODA's own evaluation studies examine the specific impact of our aid projects and programmes. There have been many other studies of the impact of global aid flows on the economies of aid-recipient countries, but I am not aware of any which focused on the relationship between British aid and the growth rate of recipients.

  EC Ministers
  Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the last meeting of European Community Development Ministers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  European Community Development Ministers last met on 29 May. We discussed the direction of the Community's aid to Asia and Latin America. I emphasised the importance of focusing on poor countries and poorest sectors of the population. We agreed on a resolution stressing the importance of environmental aspects of development. I gained the support of all partners to my call for reform of the tropical forestry action plan and for further discussion on completion of the review. We also discussed food aid policy; the role of women in development; and evaluation of projects.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Community Council of Development Ministers meeting of 29 May.

  Mrs. Chalker
  At the European Community Development Ministers meeting on 29 May we discussed the direction of the Community's aid to Asia and Latin America. I emphasised the importance of focusing on poor countries and poorest sectors of the population. We agreed on a resolution stressing the importance of environmental aspects of development, and I repeated my call for reform of the tropical forestry action plan. We also discussed food aid policy; the role of women in development; and evaluation.

  Bergen Declaration
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take as a result of the Bergen ministerial declaration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Bergen ministerial declaration will be helpful in informing the Government's views on the global aspects of implementing sustainable development. Where appropriate we shall be following up in the relevant fora, especially in the preparations for the UN conference on environment and development in Brazil in 1992.

  Vietnam
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has recently had with representatives of the Vietnamese Government on the subject of aid relief to Vietnam.

  Mrs. Chalker
  During the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to Hanoi from 18 to 21 February the possibility of British aid was discussed in the context of a satisfactory overall settlement to the problem of returning all non-refugees from Hong Kong to their country of origin.

  Mr.Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Vietnam to discuss with the Government of Vietnam future aid programmes to that country.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have no current plans to visit Vietnam.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to establish a government-to-government bilateral aid programme with Vietnam.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he is giving to establishing a government-to-government bilateral aid programme in Vietnam.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 17 May. The Government have made it clear that the provision of direct bilateral aid would depend on the co-operation of the Vietnamese Government in reaching a satisfactory solution to the Hong Kong boat people and on a continuing commitment to economic reform.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with non-governmental organisations about aid for people in southern Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have regular meetings with representatives of non-governmental organisations, and aid to southern Africa is often discussed.

  AIDS
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have now been committed by the Overseas Development Administration to help developing countries to combat the spread of AIDS.
  392
  Mrs. Chalker
  To date we have provided £16·83 million as our contribution to the global programme on AIDS being run by WHO. We have also committed £6·58 million to help finance a number of individual country AIDS control programmes in Africa and the Caribbean; these have been formulated under the umbrella of the WHO global programme.

  In addition, we have contributed £2·98 million over six years to the International Planned Parenthood Federation's AIDS programme; and £3 million for AIDS-related research studies in developing countries in a number of key fields by a range of British institutions and experts.

  Namibia
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to help relieve the debts incurred by Namibia before independence.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on 14 May.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the application of African, Caribbean and Pacific trade preferences to Namibia was discussed at the meeting of the European Community Development Council on 29 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Namibia's application for accession to the Lomé convention was not discussed at the Development Council. The Commission is in con tact with the Namibian Government and will be making proposals for accession arrangements which will cover trade preferences. The United Kingdom Government have told the Namibian Government that we will view their application sympathetically, and we hope their accession will be formalised as soon as possible.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on how his Department is monitoring the impact of Britain's bilateral aid programme on global warming.

  Mrs. Chalker
  It is not possible to monitor specifically the overall impact of the bilateral aid programme on global warming. The ODA's manual of environmental appraisal guides managers in assessing environmental issues in all bilateral projects and programmes.

  Our programmes in forestry and energy efficiency are designed to help developing countries pursue their development objectives while limiting their contribution to global warming.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the current Overseas Development Administration budget is directed towards chlorofluorocarbon and carbon dioxide reductions in developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have so far committed over £340,000 to assist developing countries to phase out substances that
  393
  deplete the ozone layer. This support covered a study of the options open to India for phasing out these substances; funding for an international conference on tropical ozone and atmospheric change which was held in Penang, Malaysia in February; and help to enable developing countries take an active part in international meetings of the Montreal protocol.

  It is not possible to monitor specifically how much of the current aid budget is directed towards carbon dioxide reductions in developing countries. However, key programme activities like our tropical forestry initiative and our energy efficiency initiative are designed to help developing countries pursue their development objectives, while limiting their contribution to global warming through reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. During my visit to India last month I announced a new aid package under the energy efficiency initiative which will provide £50 million to improve energy efficiency in India.

  Caribbean Bananas
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to protect the livelihoods of Caribbean banana workers when the European single market comes into effect.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what effect he expects the European single market to have on the economies of the main banana-producing Caribbean states.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The European Commission has not yet come forward with a proposal for the arrangements to apply for bananas post-1992. It is not possible at present to say what impact the creation of the single European market will have on Caribbean banana-producing countries. However, we are encouraging the Commission and other member states to ensure that any new arrangements fulfil our commitments to our Commonwealth Caribbean suppliers, and that they take account of consumer interests and the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market initiative.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the British Government are contributing to the fund to help developing countries participate in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Overseas Development Administration and the Department of the Environment have each contributed £25,000, and the Overseas Development Administration has offered a further £25,000.

  Refugees
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to discuss the position of refugees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I met the new High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr. Stoltenberg, in Geneva on 5 June. We had 394
  a most useful and wide-ranging discussion, focusing particularly on Mr. Stoltenberg's plans for reorganising UNHCR and improving its operational effectiveness. I also announced new British contributions totalling £5 million which will help UNHCR over its current financial difficulties.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to establish a bilateral aid programme with Cambodia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Britain has no relations with the Hun Sen regime. This rules out the provision of normal bilateral aid. We are, however, committed to providing humanitarian assistance inside Cambodia through British non-governmental organisations and UN agencies.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effect of developments in eastern Europe on the global availability of funds from multilateral institutions.

  Mrs. Chalker
  OECD member Governments are agreed that assistance to eastern Europe must not detract from the high priority placed on international co-operation with the developing countries; and this was reaffirmed in the declaration by the UN special session on international economic co-operation held from 23 April to 1 May.

  European Community aid to eastern Europe has not been at the expense of any other development assistance. Any increase in World Bank lending would be funded from borrowings in the financial markets. Additional funds will be made available for eastern Europe through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest information he has on the famine situation in Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Although the situation remains critical, it has so far been possible to avert mass starvation and mass migration of people in search of food. There are some grounds for hope that the threat can be contained, provided that relief operations are not further disrupted by the civil conflict and that there is good rainfall over the coming months.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that food supplies reach northern Tigray and Eritrea.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are providing both food and logistical support for the southern line operation which, by the end of May, had delivered more than 15,000 tonnes of food to the famine-affected areas of northern Wollo and Tigray. We are also providing support for deliveries of relief supplies from Sudan into Eritrea and Tigray, and for the United Nations-organised airlift of supplies for vulnerable groups in Asmara, the besieged capital city of Eritrea. We have also been pressing for the reopening of
  395
  the port of Massawa and welcome recent reports of the Ethiopian Government's willingness in principle to agree to this.

  Romania (HIV-infected Babies)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans he has to make funds available to help HIV-infected babies in Romania.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government have already given 1 million disposable syringes and a quantity of HIV testing equipment to Romania; and we have paid for the transport to Romania of disposable gloves, syringes and other supplies generously donated by British companies. We have also asked the World Health Organisation to use for AIDS work a substantial part of the £500,000 we recently gave to the World Health Organisation's programme of aid to the Romanian health services. We have no plans for further aid at present.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by how much he estimates developing countries have benefited from the Brady plan for third world debt.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 14 May at column 340.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he estimates the benefit to have been to developing countries of the Toronto plan for the poorest indebted countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) on 14 May at column 340.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what proposals the Government have made to the World Bank about the cancellation of debt owed by the poorest developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Britain has taken the lead in international efforts to assist the poorest debtors. We have cancelled over £1 billion-worth of old aid loans. On other official debt, we proposed concessions which were agreed at the 1988 Toronto economic summit. We regularly review the debt strategy with the management and other members of the IMF and World Bank.

  Southern Africa Universities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money was given in aid by the United Kingdom to universities during(a) 1988–89 and (b) 1989–90 in (i) South Africa, (ii) Malawi and (iii) Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The figures in the table represent the cost of the following activities—

  (i) in South Africa scholarships for black students, and advice on strengthening academic support programmes for them;

  396

  (ii) in Malawi and Zimbabwe the supplementation from the bilateral aid programme of the salaries of British lecturers and the provision of equipment; and expenditure in these countries from the ODA grant to the committee for international co-operation in higher education.

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  South Africa

  350,000

  800,000

  Malawi

  613,000

  760,000

  Zimbabwe

  264,000

  756,000

  Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British support for SADCC.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 24 May at column 368.

  Zambia
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what priorities Her Majesty's Government use in their aid programme for Zambia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our main priority is support for Zambia's structural adjustment programme, which is being monitored by the International Monetary Fund, and to which we have pledged £30 million in balance of payments support. In addition we are spending over £14 million per annum, largely on manpower support projects involving some 200 aid personnel in Zambia and training for over 300 Zambians in the United Kingdom; and on the strengthening of institutional capacity at district level in the northern and central provinces.

  Amazon Forests
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new measures he proposes to take to ensure an integrated and comprehensive approach to aid designed to protect Amazonian forests.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom is supporting the development of effective tropical forestry action plans in the Amazon countries as an important means of encouraging an integrated and comprehensive approach towards protection of the Amazonian rain forests. We are doing this both by seeking reforms of the tropical forestry action plans mechanism in general and by helping in specific countries.

  South Africa
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British aid to black South Africans.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) at column 431.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help has been given during the last 12 months to extend the services of the British Council in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The British Council has not contemplated an extension of its services in Sri Lanka over the last 12 months in view of the security situation in the country. Help for this purpose has neither been sought from, nor offered by the Government. When the security situation permits, further assistance for English language teaching is one of a number of possibilities that we are prepared to consider under our bilateral aid programme to Sri Lanka.

  Forestry Projects
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans further to assist forestry projects overseas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Overseas Development Administration is currently implementing a forestry initiative with the aim to commit a further £100 million bilaterally to assist forestry activities over the next three years.

  Animal Conservation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much will be made available by his Department for animal conservation schemes in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We expect to spend over £2 million. This includes projects jointly funded by the ODA and non-governmental organisations which concentrate on environmental issues and their impact on local communities, but which are expected to have an indirect but distinctly beneficial effect on animal conservation.

  Tropical Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to fund research designed to increase the productivity of tropical forests, particularly non-timber products.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are funding 40 projects at a total cost of £6·2 million under the forestry research programme managed for the ODA by the Oxford Forestry Institute. These include projects on, for example, agro-forestry and buffer zones. The Natureal Resources Institute is considering research on the economic potential of rain forest products.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the new projects in preparation which will be financed from the new £100 million for rain forest-related projects.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As the Prime Minister told the hon. Member on 11 December 1989, at column 459, details of particular projects will be made known when formal agreement has been reached with the country concerned. I summarised recent developments in my speech to the rain forest harvest conference on 17 May.
  398
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to strengthen forestry departments of tropical countries, where they are charged with conservation and management.

  Mrs. Chalker
  An ODA report on forestry projects of November 1989, a copy of which is in the Library, lists ongoing bilateral forestry projects aiming to strengthen forest departments in tropical countries. Many of the projects in preparation also have this as a major aim. I gave examples in my speech to the rain forest harvest conference on 17 May, a copy of which is also in the Library.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the contract with Professor Malcolm Wilkins, regius professor of botany at the university of Glasgow, on the development of space-based monitoring of rain forest.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Professor Wilkins has recommended that the ODA should contact the European Space Agency and the British National Space Centre. Officials will do this.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the airline used and the destination of each of the overseas visits undertaken by the Select Committee on Employment for the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Since April 1989 the Committee has undertaken two visits overseas. The first, in July 1989, was to Copenhagen and Amsterdam, using British Airways flights except for the flight between Copenhagen and Amsterdam (KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) and one Member's return flight to Manchester (NLM Dutch Airlines). The second, in October/November 1989, was to Rome and Bordeaux; the flight to Rome was by British Airways; from Rome to Bordeaux by Air France and Air Inter; from Bordeaux to London by Air France.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received from the Royal National Institute for the Deaf concerning sign language inserts on broadcasts of Parliament.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have received no recent representations from the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on the subject of sign language inserts. However, the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House, which I chair, has been examining the issue as part of its monitoring of the experiment, during the course of which evidence has been received from the RNID and other organisations representing the deaf. A closed-circuit trial with the signing of Prime Minister's questions was arranged by the Select Committee during the first two weeks after the Whitsun Adjournment and the relevant tapes were shown in the Division Lobby. The Select Committee's report, which will cover this aspect of the experiment, is expected to be published by about early July.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Romania
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to extend the eastern European know-how fund to Romania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no plans to do so at present.

  Lockerbie
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any offers of help from the Government of Syria with regard to the Lockerbie air disaster.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Prisoners (Turkey)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received calling for his Department to put pressure on the Turkish Government to release Demetrios Leuka and Christalis Savvides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Nineteen. We have made it clear to the parties concerned that neither incursions into territory controlled by the Turkish Cypriots, nor the continued detention of the two youths, contributes to the creation of the right atmosphere for progress towards a settlement of the Cyprus problem.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the reasons for his approval of the BBC's decision to end World Service broadcasts in Japanese and Malay.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The BBC and the FCO have jointly reviewed new broadcasting opportunities against the effectiveness of world service output. It was agreed, subject to the outcome of the 1990 public expenditure survey, to increase broadcasts in Russian, Mandarin Chinese and Vietnamese, as well as programmes in English for south-east Asia, the Indian sub-continent and west Europe.

  The review identified offsetting savings, including the ending of broadcasts in Japanese and Malay. In both countries, audiences for these services are small and there are many other sources of news and information from Britain, including the world service in English.

  COCOM
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department is party to the discussions between the United States Government and central European Governments on relaxations in the COCOM rules.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Following an agreement reached at the COCOM high-level meeting on 6 and 7 June, we and other COCOM member Governments will be discussing with certain eastern and central European countries a more favourable application of the COCOM rules. These discussions will build upon earlier soundings carried out by the United States and other COCOM partners.

  Israel
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Israel following the gas grenade attack on the United Nations health centre in Gaza city on 12 June; what information he has as to the number and ages of the casualties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We condemn any use of excessive force by the Israeli Defence Force.

HEALTH

  Dental Hygienists
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on regrading for dental hygienists in the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The pay and grading of dental hygienists are matters for negotiation in the professional and technical staffs B Whitley council. The management side of the council recently carried out a review of all dental auxiliary grades in order to inform this year's negotiations on pay. I understand that negotiations on the staff side's claim are expected to begin shortly.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of hospital beds available in each of the past five years within the constituency of Norfolk, North-West.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information about hospital beds is collected centrally by district health authority, and is not available for individual parliamentary constituencies. The figures for West Norfolk and Wisbech health authority are given in the table.

  Average daily available beds, and in-patient cases treated, West Norfolk and Wisbech district health authority, 1984 to 1988–89

  Year

  Available beds

  In-patient cases treated

  In-patient cases treated per available bed

  1984

  841

  19,703

  23·4

  1985

  847

  20,445

  24·1

  1986

  838

  20,382

  24·3

  1987–88

  871

  21,949

  25·2

  1988–89

  876

  22,462

  25·6

  Social Workers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of cases prescribed by statute as requiring the attention of social workers which are not currently receiving appropriate attention.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 will be implemented.
  401
  Mr. Dorrell
  No decisions on the implementation of these sections can be taken until we have established their resource and service implications. We are consulting the local authority associations on these issues and are currently awaiting their preliminary assessments as a basis for discussion.

  Medical and Dental Education
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the second report of the steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The report is published today, and is available in the Library. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I are sending copies of the second report to all interested parties under cover of a message which reads as follows:The report from the Steering Group on Undergraduate Medical and Dental Education has been prepared in response to the remit which our predecessors gave the Group to consider how the current arrangements for undergraduate medical (and subsequently dental) education can be improved to ensure that the policies and programmes of the bodies concerned are properly co-ordinated and directed. The Group was later invited to assess the implications for these matters of the proposed NHS reforms, and to make recommendations. The present report subsumes the Interim Report which was published in June 1989.
  We welcome, and endorse, this new report. We are grateful to the members of the Steering Group, and to the organisations which have been associated with it, for working effectively together to support the common purpose of the NHS and the universities in maintaining and improving standards of undergraduate medical and dental education.
  The organisational and financial arrangements must encourage those responsible in both the universities and the NHS to work together to teach students, advance knowledge through research and provide and develop services for patients. These three functions are integral, something as true in the reformed NHS as it is today. That is why the Steering Group has emphasised the essential common purpose of the universities and the NHS in the fostering of medical knowledge and skills, an emphasis which we support. The ten key principles proposed by the Steering Group to underpin jointly agreed working arrangements have already been promulgated with our endorsement. The sense of common purpose will be strengthened by the new provision in the NHS and Community Care Bill regarding university membership of those health authorities and NHS Trusts having significant involvement in medical and dental education.
  The Steering Group has given close attention to certain details of finance and management. It has proposed revised procedures for the distribution of the Service Increment For Teaching (SIFT) which again have been promulgated, and are being implemented, with our support. It has made proposals for handling the relationship known as "knock for knock", emphasising the importance of changing only by agreement the balance of expenditure between co-operating institutions. It has also suggested that the flexibility essential to the management of the job plans of clinical academics who are honorary consultants in the NHS might be achieved through a tightly defined package of clinical service commitments, to be delivered by university staff under the management of heads of clinical academic departments in consultation with NHS managers. We endorse these proposals, which encourage an agreed approach to the management of those areas in which the universities and the NHS must engage together in responsibilities which neither can discharge alone.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people on family credit or income support received free eye tests in England(a) in each quarter in 1988–89 and (b) in each quarter in 1989–90.
  402
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statistics prior to 1 April 1989 were not broken down by patient group. Since then, family practitioner committees have collected data on sight tests paid for under the general ophthalmic services on a six-montly basis. A tota of 530,660 national health service sight tests for adults receiving income support for family credit were paid for in England during the period 1 April to 30 September 1989. This figure is based on a 2 per cent. sample of NHS sight test application forms processed by family practitioner committees. It does not take into account sight tests paid for after 1 April but conducted before that period.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what method statistics relating to the collection of information on the number of (i) national health service eye tests and (ii) non-national health service eye tests have been collected.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on NHS sight tests is collected from family practitioner committees. The data are obtained from a count of the forms signed by patients at the time of their sight test and forwarded by the optician to the family practitioner committee for payment. Routine statistics on non-NHS sight tests are not collected. The NOP survey, the results of which were made available to the House on 6 June, was commissioned by the Department to provide an independent measure of total volume during the first quarter of 1990.

  Allergies
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will consider appointing to the Committee on Safety of Medicines a consultant specialising in allergic diseases, such as hay fever and asthma.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Appointments and reappointments to the Committee on Safety of Medicines and its sub-committees were made as from 1 January 1990: members include specialists in allergic diseases. Additional experts in this or other fields may be consulted or appointed as temporary members as necessary.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from local authorities on the provision of nursing home care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Ministers and officials have frequent meetings with representatives of local authorities at which this and other aspects of community care are discussed.

  Community Care
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation has taken place with local authority organisations on the additional staff required to carry out the necessary assessment for the provision of community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are not aware of any specific consultations with local authority organisations on this matter although there have been frequent discussions with local authority associations on the
  403
  implementation of the proposals in the White Paper "Caring for People". It is for individual local authorities to determine their own staffing needs.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to how many extra social workers and support staff are being appointed; what training provisions have been made to implement the proposed community care programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the number of appointments of social workers and support staff is not collected centrally. The White Paper "Caring for People" recognises that its proposals have implications for the training of staff involved in community care. The social services inspectorate has established a community care training strategy group to identify and address these needs. We have increased this year's training support programme to £19·4 million in grant to local authorities, £2 million of which is targeted towards the training of management staff in social services departments.

  GPs, Manchester
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the general practitioner practices in Manchester which have indicated that they wish to become fund-holders.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were operational at Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport on(a) 1 June 1979 and (b) June 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of available beds at Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport on 21 June 1979 and 1 June 1989 was 589 and 791 respectively.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) trained and (b) untrained nursing staff were employed at Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport on 1 June 1979 and 1 June 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of trained and untrained nursing staff at Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport on 1 June 1989 was 432 and 116 respectively. Comparable figures for 1 June 1979 are not available centrally.

  Water Pollution, Camelford
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to establish whether children in the Camelford area have suffered any intellectual impairment as a result of the water pollution incident there on 6 July 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The report of the Lowermoor incident health advisory group, which was published in July 1989, a copy of which is available in the Library, concluded that no long-term effects on the health of people in the Camelford area were expected. It is for the district health authority to take any further measures it thinks necessary for the health of the population.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulance services have expressed an interest in becoming self-governing trusts; and if he will list them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Five ambulance services have expressed interest in NHS trust status including two which are incorporated in other units. The units are:

  Northumbrian Ambulance Service

  Lincolnshire Ambulance Service

  Norfolk Ambulances

  Cornwall Community Services

  Swindon Health Authority—All District Services

  Income Generation
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the income generated from a contract under the National Health Service and Community Care Bill by a district health authority-managed hospital will be credited specifically to that hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The Government's policy is to secure significant improvements in value for money within the NHS through the reforms contained in the NHS and Community Care Bill. The NHS management executive has also established a value for money unit to stimulate—in collaboration with local NHS management—opportunities for improving value for money within the NHS.

  The Department has various mechanisms for improving value for money within its own operations. The departmental accounting system, the public expenditure survey and the Department's management plan all place heavy emphasis on value for money and are supplemented by other mechanisms such as internal audit, staff inspection and consultancy.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements, and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: I refer to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 12 June 1990 at column 166.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of total cost of storm damage to health authority property in England and Wales since 1987; and what consideration he is giving to enabling health authorities to insure against future risks of this sort.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: No central estimate has been made. NHS property is not covered by

  405
  commercial insurance and authorities are expected to make provision within their allocations to meet such contingencies. While there are no plans to alter the current policy on commercial insurance, we are seeking powers in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which would enable us to establish a scheme for meeting the losses and liabilities to health authorities and NHS trusts. However, no decision has yet been taken on when such a scheme would be implemented.

PRIME MINISTER

  Economic Policy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she has taken since 26 October 1989 to improve co-ordination at ministerial level in the formulation and implementation of economic policy.

  The Prime Minister
  Economic policy is co-ordinated in the usual way at ministerial level with meetings between Ministers, including discussion at Cabinet.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she has taken since 27 October 1989 to ensure the confidentiality of official information relating to the conduct of the Government's economic policies.

  The Prime Minister
  The normal rules of confidentiality for official information apply to information relating to the conduct of the Government's economic policies.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she has taken since 26 October 1989 to remove obstacles to the efficiency of communication within Government in respect of developments in economic policy.

  The Prime Minister
  I am entirely satisfied with the degree of consultation and communication between Ministers on matters of economic policy.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the cost of hospitality given at No. 10 Downing street since 31 March to visitors other than representatives of overseas governments and representatives of official bodies from within the United Kingdom; and if she will list each such visitor and the identifiable costs of associated hospitality.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  USSR
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister when she hopes to complete her consideration of what role Britain might best play in the ecological research centre the Soviet Union is proposing to establish at Lake Baikal.

  The Prime Minister
  We are in close consultation on this with interested scientific bodies. We will also be pursuing contacts with the appropriate Soviet authorities in the near future.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister in what capacity, in what role and at whose expense the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accompanied her on her visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and what duties he performed.
  406
  The Prime Minister
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accompanied me for part of my visit to the Soviet Union, and did so as a member of Her Majesty's Government. The principal reason for my right hon. Friend's visit was to attend the opening of the Lord Byron school in Armenia, a gift from the British people following the Armenian earthquake tragedy of December 1988. My right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Education and Science when the offer to build the school was made. The idea was his.

  There was no cost to the taxpayer for my right hon. Friend's visit.

  Economic Advisers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her(a) paid and (b) unpaid economic advisers.

  The Prime Minister
  The provision of economic advice is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other ministerial colleagues and their staff. In addition, members of my policy unit also provide economic advice. There is no shortage of unpaid economic advice which comes from a wide variety of sources.

  Soviet Studies
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her statement of 12 June,Official Report, column 138, concerning the establishment of new lectureships in Soviet studies at British universities, whether any of the lectureships will be established in Bradford university; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The British Council will be given funds for the financial years 1991–92 to 1993–94 inclusive to enable it to contribute to the cost of additional lectureships in Soviet and east European studies in this three-year period. The aim is to establish 10 posts, the costs to be shared with the universities, polytechnics and other sources including the private sector. A committee of leading academics will be set up by the British Council to help decide how the funds should be used.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Contributions
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to ensure that information is provided by his Department when someone returns to employment as to their entitlement to make up full contributions for any missing time.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department writes automatically to relevant groups of contributors following the end of any year in which their contribution record is insufficient to count towards basic retirement pension. Full information is always provided to contributors on request. No change to these arrangements is proposed.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to rename income support refugee support in cases where it is awarded to non-British nationals claiming political asylum in the United Kingdom.
  407
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to make such a change.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will raise the level of funding for the independent living fund to £20 million per year.

  Mr. Scott
  Provision for the fund in the current year was already set at £24 million. Following my announcement to the House on 3 April, a further £8 million is to be made available bringing the provision for the fund to £32 million in 1990–91.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement as to the reasons for the subtraction of the state earnings-related pension scheme from the entitlement of persons in receipt of invalidity benefit when they reach 65 years of age.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Where an invalidity pensioner who reaches pension age—65 for men, 60 for women—chooses not to retire, the amount of invalidity benefit payable is determined by the amount of retirement pension that would have been payable had he retired.

  The earnings-related additional pension—AP—element of retirement pension can be paid either by the state or through an occupational pension scheme, which is contracted-out of the state scheme. Persons in contracted-out schemes and their employers pay a lower national insurance contribution and in return the employer is required to provide a guaranteed minimum pension— GMP—to the employee from age 65—or 60. Up to pension age, AP is paid with invalidity benefit, but thereafter the amount of any AP payable is reduced by the amount of the GMP received from the employer. This ensures that people contracted out of the state scheme are not treated more favourably than those who are not.

  Income Support
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many refugees from overseas are currently in receipt of income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  People from other countries who have been granted a right of abode in the United Kingdom are not separately identifiable for income support purposes. People arrived in the United Kingdom whose applications for refugee status are under consideration are eligible for income support at a reduced rate. We estimate that there are approximately some 8,000 such claimants at present.

  Wath upon Dearne Local Office
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what moneys were provided as grant allowances, pensions or loans through the Wath upon Dearne office of his Department in 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  Information regarding the numbers of and amounts paid as community care grants and budgeting loans for each local office is placed in the Library. I regret that neither information about the numbers of, nor the amount paid to, pensioners residing in a particular locality is recorded.

  Private Residential Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances his Department contributes towards the costs of the care of a person in an unregistered private home.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Some independent residential care homes are not required to be registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984. Adjudication officers may decide to treat claimants for income support purposes in such homes in the same way as those in registered homes if the accommodation has fewer than four residents and provides board and personal care and satisfies certain conditions defined by regulation, or is run by the Abbeyfield Society, or is managed or provided by a body set up by Act of Parliament or incorporated by royal charter, or in Scotland is run by a housing association registered with the Housing Corporation.

  Attendance and Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many doctors are employed by his Department for the purpose of assessing attendance allowance and mobility allowance claims in each region; on what basis they are employed; what salaries or fees they receive; and whether such payments are affected by the number of claimants they see.

  Mr. Scott
  On average there are between 600 and 700 doctors in each region who carry out examinations in connection with attendance allowance and mobility allowance claims. The work is of a casual nature, the available cases being allocated among the doctors who are available and have been trained in the work. Payment is from a scale of fees agreed between the Treasury and the medical profession's representatives. A fee is paid for each case completed, individual case fees depending on the time taken to deal with that case.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the fraudulent use of national insurance numbers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department makes every effort to ensure that members of the public have correctly issued national insurance numbers and that others cannot use them to make fraudulent claims to benefit.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for the last available year the number of(a) national insurance numbers used by more than one person and (b) credits made by employers to false or non-existent national insurance numbers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information regarding the misuse of NI numbers is not available. Employers cannot credit NI accounts. Contributions paid by employers on behalf of themselves and their employees are subject to strict accounting controls.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Lambeth are entitled to community charge rebate based on claims for refund of
  409
  rebate received from Lambeth council; what percentage of charge payers this represents; and what was the percentage of ratepayers who received housing benefit for rates in 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information in the detail requested for community charge benefit is not yet available from the local authority. However, approximately a quarter of domestic ratepayers received rate rebates in 1989–90.

  Leaflet Shortage
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to rectify the shortage of leaflets and benefit application forms in offices; and how widespread and severe this problem is.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are aware that difficulties have been experienced this year in obtaining bulk supplies of some benefit application forms. The Department has been in discussion with HMSO to remedy this. However, we are satisfied on information available that local offices in all areas have sufficient supplies of benefit application forms and leaflets to meet the needs of our customers.

  Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to reply to the questions of the hon. Member for Oldham, West of 23 April and 17 May relating to further information pursuant to an answer of 4 April, and to the question of the hon. Member for Oldham, West of 17 May concerning the estimated income rises of the poorest tenth of the population.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to him today and on Thursday 14 June.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if, further to his reply of 4 April,Official Report, columns 689–90, he will (a) provide a breakdown of tables 1 and 2 differentiating SERPS as a separate source of income, (b) indicate what is covered in table 2 by related benefits and other benefits, (c) state the average annual percentage increase implied in the last two columns of tables 1, 2 and 3 and (d) provide whatever similar information is available for 1988–89;

  (2) if he will set out the actual incomes in pounds sterling and pence which underlie his answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 4 April, Official Report, columns 689–90, table 2, which lists the percentage increase in components of pensioners' income from 1974 to 1979 and 1979 to 1987; what is the source of

  Table 3

  Components of pensioners' income by decile 1974 at 1987 prices

  Decile

  RP. Supplementary Benefit and Housing Benefit

  Other SS benefits

  Occupational pensions

  Investment income

  Earnings

  Tax and National Insurance

  Total net

  Lowest

  27·81

  1·56

  0·31

  0·94

  0·64

  0·12

  31·14

  2

  34·52

  1·19

  0·63

  1·66

  0·60

  0·16

  38·44

  3

  38·56

  1·61

  0·95

  2·07

  0·67

  0·24

  43·61

  410
  each of these items of data; and if he will list exactly which benefits are covered by RP and related benefits and other benefits;

  (3) what are the actual income levels on which table 2 is based in his answer on 4 April, Official Report, columns 689–90, regarding the percentage increase in the components of pensioners' incomes in 1974, 1979 and 1987.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answers 23 April and 6 June 1990]: The source for the figures used in this and the previous reply is the family expenditure survey. The information on SERPS is not available; it is not separately identified from state retirement pension in the source data. Information is not available beyond the latest available family expenditure survey data of 1987.

  The term "RP and related benefits" in table 2 refers to the state retirement pension, supplementary benefit and housing benefit. The term "Other benefits" refers to all other social security benefits than those listed above.

  The annual average percentages implied in the last two columns of table 1 of the reply given to the hon. Member on 4 April, Official Report, columns 689–90, are set out in table 1; the same figures in respect of tables 2 and 3 are set out in table 2.

  The figures requested, which underlie the percentage movements at table 2, are set out in tables 3, 4 and 5.

  Table 1

  Pensioners' Incomes: 1974, 1979 and 1987—Percentage Increase and Average Annual Increase

  Pensioners' Income

  Real increase 1974–79 per cent.

  Annual rate per cent.

  Real increase 1979–87 per cent.

  Annual rate per cent.

  Total Social Security Benefits

  12

  1·5

  17

  2·0

  Occupational Pensions

  12

  1·5

  77

  7·3

  Savings Income

  -16

  -2·2

  130

  11·0

  Earnings

  -27

  -3·8

  -20

  -2·9

  Total Gross Income

  2

  0·3

  34

  3·8

  Total Net Income

  3

  0·4

  31

  3·5

  Table 2

  Pensioners total net incomes: Percentage increases 1974–79 and 1979–87

  Decile

  Increase 1974–79 per cent.

  Annual rate of increase per cent.

  Increase 1979–87 per cent.

  Annual rate of increase per cent.

  Lowest

  14

  2·7

  18

  2·1

  2

  12

  2·3

  20

  2·3

  3

  10

  2·0

  23

  2·6

  4

  7

  1·4

  24

  2·8

  5

  5

  0·9

  24

  2·7

  6

  5

  0·9

  24

  2·8

  7

  4

  0·8

  25

  2·9

  8

  4

  0·7

  27

  3·1

  9

  5

  1·0

  29

  3·3

  Highest

  -6

  -1·3

  53

  5·4

  Overall

  3

  0·6

  31

  3·5

  411

  Decile

  RP, Supplementary Benefit and Housing Benefit

  Other SS benefits

  Occupational pensions

  Investment income

  Earnings

  Tax and National Insurance

  Total net

  4

  41·45

  1·02

  2·66

  3·35

  1·25

  0·56

  49·18

  5

  45·93

  0·89

  4·32

  3·84

  2·68

  1·64

  56·03

  6

  48·58

  1·20

  6·45

  5·03

  4·28

  1·75

  63·79

  7

  50·37

  1·09

  10·83

  7·15

  6·97

  3·47

  72·94

  8

  54·95

  3·23

  13·50

  7·54

  9·76

  4·61

  84·38

  9

  50·05

  3·35

  22·59

  14·53

  26·00

  12·60

  103·93

  Highest

  39·08

  3·34

  55·55

  61·65

  83·11

  48·41

  194·33

  Overall

  43·13

  1·83

  11·77

  10·77

  13·59

  7·35

  73·76

  Table 4

  Components of pensioners' income by decile 1979 at 1987 prices

  Decile

  Retirement pension, supplementary benefit and housing benefit

  Other statutory state benefits

  Occupational pensions

  Investment income

  Earnings

  Tax and National Insurance

  Total net

  Lowest

  33·02

  1·02

  0·27

  0·91

  0·80

  0·51

  35·50

  2

  40·07

  0·85

  0·56

  1·67

  0·11

  0·25

  43·01

  3

  43·66

  0·37

  2·19

  2·01

  0·37

  0·44

  48·17

  4

  45·07

  2·63

  2·80

  2·56

  0·18

  0·50

  52·74

  5

  47·17

  2·14

  4·87

  3·43

  2·36

  1·39

  58·60

  6

  51·23

  2·85

  6·65

  5·56

  2·62

  2·19

  66·72

  7

  58·85

  2·17

  7·69

  5·92

  3·49

  2·33

  75·79

  8

  55·34

  5·85

  15·71

  5·12

  10·45

  4·96

  87·51

  9

  55·23

  3·59

  30·43

  11·70

  19·54

  11·39

  109·10

  Highest

  50·08

  4·25

  61·30

  51·60

  59·41

  44·47

  182·17

  Overall

  47·97

  2·57

  13·24

  9·04

  9·93

  6·84

  75·92

  Table 5

  Components of pensioners' income by decile 1987 at 1987 prices

  Decile

  Retirement pension, supplementary benefit and housing benefit

  Other statutory state benefits

  Occupational pensions

  Investment income

  Earnings

  Tax and National Insurance

  Total net

  Lowest

  39·20

  0·59

  0·45

  1·98

  0·24

  0·64

  41·82

  2

  44·54

  1·29

  2·87

  3·49

  0·25

  0·93

  51·51

  3

  52·79

  0·38

  3·36

  3·45

  0·37

  1·28

  59·07

  4

  55·24

  1·76

  5·31

  4·20

  0·59

  1·54

  65·55

  5

  56·85

  3·49

  8·58

  4·67

  1·17

  2·36

  72·40

  6

  60·37

  4·39

  12·28

  7·59

  1·69

  3·35

  82·96

  7

  64·08

  7·61

  16·59

  8·98

  2·03

  4·29

  95·01

  8

  62·17

  8·34

  26·80

  17·11

  5·81

  8·78

  111·45

  9

  58·67

  7·75

  47·50

  27·05

  17·53

  17·22

  141·28

  Highest

  56·99

  5·52

  109·14

  130·16

  49·07

  72·99

  277·88

  Overall

  55·09

  4·11

  23·28

  20·86

  7·87

  11·33

  99·88

  Note:

  All tables source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security. pursuant to his answer of 4 April,Official Report, columns 687–92, what information is available on the contribution of state earnings-related pension to the real rise in pensioner incomes since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: Information is not available in the family expenditure survey on the state earnings-related pension scheme.
  412
  However, data from the Department's biannual statistical inquiry of retirement pension and widows benefit1 shows that between 1979 and 1987 the average amount2 of net additional component in payment rose from £0·65 to £2·713.

  Figures from the family expenditure survey show that pensioners' average net incomes rose from £75·90 in 1979 to £99·903 in 1987.

  1Copy available in the Library.
  413
  2Average is for those pensioners receiving an additional pension.

  3All amounts are £s per week at 1987 prices.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent quota increase for the International Monetary Fund.

  Mr. Ryder
  The interim committee of the board of governors of the International Monetary Fund met in Washington DC on 7 to 8 May and agreed that the present total of fund quotas should be increased by 50 per cent. to SDR135 billion. This decision has to be ratified by the board of governors.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is(a) the monthly market value of North sea oil for the purposes of petroleum revenue tax from 1984 onwards and (b) the number of relevant transactions that were used as the base for each month.

  Mr. Lilley
  There is no single, overall monthly market value of North sea oil for petroleum revenue tax purposes and I cannot disclose the tax position of individual taxpayers. The other information requested could not be provided without disproportionate effort.

  Taxation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions the Inland Revenue has used section 772 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  The power at present contained in section 772 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 has only once been formally invoked. Companies almost invariably supply the information in response to informal requests.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the level of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom in 1979 and 1989 on a constant value basis, by regions;

  (2) if he will publish a table, using 1979 at a value of 100, of investment in real terms in manufacturing in the north-west for each of the last 11 years.

  Mr. Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 16 May,Official Report, column 442. Constant price estimates are not made because there are no regional price indices.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1979 to date manufacturing investment, including leased assets, at 1985 and current prices(a) including and (b) excluding company cars as defined for the purposes of taxation by the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates of manufacturing investment from 1979 to 1989 are given in the following table:414

  Manufacturing investment, including leased assets

  (£ million)

  Year

  Current prices

  1985 prices

  1979

  7,154

  11,150

  1980

  7,309

  9,911

  1981

  6,235

  7,735

  1982

  6,521

  7,603

  1983

  6,822

  7,516

  1984

  8,427

  8,934

  1985

  10,265

  10,264

  1986

  9,982

  9,654

  1987

  11,014

  10,142

  1988

  12,652

  11,334

  1989

  13,920

  12,043

  Estimates excluding company cars are not available.

  VAT
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remove value added tax on repairs and maintenance and impose zero rating; and impose 15 per cent. value added tax on extensions to listed buildings.

  Mr. Ryder
  No. Our obligations under the EC sixth VAT directive prevent such extensions of zero rating.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost, in each case, of extending business relief for capital gains tax so that(a) there was no age limit, (b) there was a share qualification of 5 per cent. and (c) there was no limit on the amount of the gain.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that appropriate information on which to base reliable estimates is not available.

ENVIRONMENT

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to control or regulate contractors involved in the disposal of chlorofluorocarbons; and if he will introduce a licensing system for such contractors.

  Mr. Trippier
  Waste chlorofluorocarbons from industry, commerce or households are controlled waste, the disposal of which already requires a licence from a waste disposal authority. Under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, persons carrying any controlled waste will be obliged to register. The Environmental Protection Bill will also impose a duty of care on any person who produces, carries or disposes of controlled waste.

  Waste into Energy
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of industrial and municipal refuse is currently converted into useful energy by combustion in the United Kingdom, each of the EEC and Scandinavian countries.

  Mr. Trippier
  The World Health Organisation has made the following estimates of percentages by weight:
  415

  Country

  United Kingdom

  3

  Belgium

  7

  Denmark

  30

  France

  25

  Italy

  4

  Netherlands

  30

  Spain

  4

  W. Germany

  30

  Norway

  15

  Sweden

  40

  The United Kingdom's low proportion is partly explained by the ready availability of landfill.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the reduction in greenhouse gas release he expects from combustion of waste into energy projects, as a contribution to the Government's declared target by 2005.

  Mr. Trippier
  Power generation by waste incineration or the combustion of methane from landfill sites results in no net addition of CO2 to the environment. Indeed, in replacing power generated by fossil fuel burning, it may actually help to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.

  Estimates of the contribution of such technologies to reduction in greenhouse gas release are under development. Overall Government strategy to stabilise CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by 2005 will be presented in the environment White Paper to be published in the autumn.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the incineration plants currently operational in the United Kingdom, identifying those that convert waste into useful heat or electricity; how much such energy is produced: and which incinerators currently meet the agreed proposed EEC pollution standards.

  Mr. Trippier
  There are 35 incinerators, as follows:

  Location

  Energy produced (megawatts)

  Alloa

  —

  Altrincham

  —

  Basingstoke

  —

  Belfast

  —

  Bolton

  —

  Bristol

  —

  Coventry

  40

  Derby

  —

  Dudley

  —

  Dundee

  —

  Edmonton, north London

  40

  Exeter

  —

  Havant

  —

  Huddersfield

  —

  Jersey

  3

  Lichfield

  —

  Mansfield

  —

  Marchwood, Fawley, Hants

  —

  Nottingham

  28

  Portsmouth

  —

  Renfrew

  —

  Rochdale

  —

  Scillies

  —

  Sheffield

  24

  South Shields

  —

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  Sunderland

  —

  Swindon

  —

  Teesside

  —

  416

  Location

  Energy produced (megawatts)

  Tynemouth

  —

  Tysley, Birmingham

  —

  Winchester

  —

  Wolverhampton

  —

  Upton-upon-Severn, Worcestershire

  —

  York

  —

  None yet meets the standards which will be required in 1996.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the increased proportion of waste he expects will be combusted into useful energy, as a result of the Environmental Protection Bill; and if he will seek to amend the Bill in order to provide stronger incentives or regulation, to achieve the potential.

  Mr. Trippier
  The waste disposal provisions in the Bill, aimed at improving standards, will undoubtedly have the effect of increasing landfill costs, thus improving the competitiveness of incineration as a disposal option. In tandem with this, the Bill also requires the waste disposal authority, when framing the terms of disposal contracts, to have regard to the desirability of including conditions designed to maximise the recycling of waste under the contract. These measures should have the effect of encouraging energy-from-waste schemes. The Government have no intention of further amending the Bill in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

  Questions
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many written and oral questions on pollution and the protection of the environment by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) he has answered in the current year.

  Mr. Trippier
  In this Session the Department has replied to five questions from my hon. Friend on environmental matters.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to introduce any United Kingdom legislation in addition to Community regulation 3322/88 relating to chlorofluorocarbons and halons in order to achieve the agreed target for reductions in chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Trippier
  Community regulation 3322/88 on chlorofluorocarbons and halons is due to be replaced by the end of the year, to reflect the changes which we expect to be made to the Montreal protocol at the end of the month. Any more stringent action which member states consider can be implemented within the Community.

  Common Land
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet made a decision regarding the Government's intention to legislate to protect common land.
  417
  Mr. Trippier
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 12 June,Official Report, column 157.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest have been established since 1981 and are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am advised by the NCC that by 30 April 1990 it had notified 5,283 sites under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This included 3,329 sites which had previously been notified under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and have now been renotified.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he received(a) from ballots, (b) from opinion surveys made available to him and (c) otherwise, in respect of tenant attitudes towards the proposed designation of housing action trusts in (i) Tower Hamlets, (ii) Lambeth, (iii) Southwark, (iv) Sandwell, (v) Leeds and (vi) Sunderland.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In Sunderland, the Electoral Reform Society conducted a ballot on the proposal to designate a housing action trust. In Leeds, Leeds polytechnic ran a ballot for the tenants on the issue of continuing the discussions about the HAT proposal. I am also aware of a MORI poll in Lambeth. In addition, the Department has used consultants, chairmen designate and meetings between Ministers and tenants' representatives to inform themselves of tenants' views.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a statement on his intentions in respect of the housing action trust proposed in Southwark; and what measures he proposes to take in respect of housing within the areas previously considered for housing action trusts in(a) Tower Hamlets, (b) Lambeth, (c) Leeds, (d) Sunderland and (e) Sandwell.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Consultations are continuing with tenants and Southwark council with the intention of proceeding to a ballot later this year. Tenants can then decide whether they want the improvements that a HAT would bring. In the other areas local authorities will doubtless be preparing plans for dealing with their housing problems.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent by his Department(a) on consultants' fees and expenses and (b) otherwise, on the proposed housing action trusts in (i) Tower Hamlets, (ii) Lambeth, (iii) Southwark, (iv) Sandwell, (v) Leeds and (vi) Sunderland.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Expenditure on those six housing action trust proposals is shown in the following table:418

  (a) expenditure related to consultancies £000

  (b) expenditure related to the Department's information material and to ballots £000

  Tower Hamlets

  182

  3

  Lambeth

  182

  12

  Southwark

  933

  12

  Sandwell

  191

  17

  Leeds

  161

  13

  Sunderland

  613

  23

  Diesel Pollution, Firle
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) Regulations 1989 (No. 1159) following the recent diesel pollution incident in Firle.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Secretary of State may amend the regulations only on application from the Director General of Water Services. I understand that the director is considering whether to propose any amendments in the light of the circumstances of the Firle case.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the public inquiry resulting from the site investigations undertaken by Nirex include full consideration of national policy on radioactive waste management.

  Mr. Trippier
  Decisions have yet to be taken as to the matters to be considered at the public inquiry into Nirex's planned respository for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste. Before the inquiry begins, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set out the matters which appear to him to be relevant to his consideration of the application based on the information available to him at the time. The inspector appointed to preside over the inquiry will also have discretion to consider any other factors which he feels to be relevant.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require Nirex to implement the recommendations made by the panel on the evaluation of the UK Nirex Ltd. programmes on deep repository post-closure safety research and development and site assessment that met in June 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy gave the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 21 May 1990,Official Report, column 11.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to consider(a) alternative methods of radioactive waste management, and (b) alternative sites, as part of the environmental impact assessment of the proposed Nirex repository.

  Mr. Trippier
  This is a matter for UK Nirex Ltd. The requirements for an environmental assessment with which Nirex will need to comply are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988.

  Architects
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when proposals were adopted in the EEC to enable qualified architects to operate in professional practice in other member states, if he has any record of the number of Community nationals who have been accepted to practise in the United Kingdom under these arrangements; and if he has figures on the numbers of United Kingdom architects who have been provided with the opportunity to practise in each of the other member states.

  Mr. Tripier
  The architects directive was adopted on 10 June 1985. Since that date 230 Community nationals have been registered by the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom as qualified to practise under the title architect in the United Kingdom. No figure is currently available for the number of United Kingdom architects registered to practise elsewhere in the European Community.

  Energy Use (Government Buildings)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if, pursuant to the answer of 6 June,Official Report, columns 648–49, he will list the information collected by the Property Services Agency for its own energy management purposes concerning the use of energy in Government buildings;

  (2) if he will list the information which was collected by the Property Services Agency about the use of energy in Government buildings in the period up to 30 March.

  Mr. Chope
  The information collected by the PSA for its own energy management is the monthly consumption and cost of all fuels and water used in buildings in the United Kingdom where PSA is the major occupier.

  Similar information was maintained for the great majority of buildings on the Government civil estate, for which the PSA used to pay the bills. The MOD has always paid its own bills. With the untying of Departments from the PSA, Departments pay their own bills and the PSA no longer has access to this information.

  Norman Shaw North (Heating)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) of 17 May,Official Report, column 513, if he will improve the sensitivity and responsiveness of the central heating system to external temperatures.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 6 June 1990]: Work to modernise the system in the Palace of Westminster will continue during the summer recess.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the ratio of payment from central funds to the personal community charge in each local authority in England.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: The available information for 1990–91 is given in the table. The ratio of central funds to community charge income has
  420
  been calculated for individual local authority areas since some payments from central funds are made to charging authorities on behalf of both charging and precepting authorities in the area. Complete information for all authority areas will not be available until all authorities' budget returns for 1990–91 have been made to my Department.

  Ratio of Payments from central funds to community charge income

  Area

  Central funds1

  Community charge income2

  Central funds plus community charge income

  Buckinghamshire

  63

  37

  100

  Cleveland

  76

  24

  100

  Derbyshire

  67

  33

  100

  Devon

  70

  30

  100

  Durham

  75

  25

  100

  Gloucestershire

  64

  36

  100

  Isle of Wight

  67

  33

  100

  Kent

  70

  30

  100

  Lincolnshire

  72

  28

  100

  Northamptonshire

  70

  30

  100

  Suffolk

  65

  35

  100

  West Sussex

  64

  36

  100

  Wiltshire

  69

  31

  100

  Notes:

  1 Payment from central funds comprise Revenue Support Grant including safety net adjustments, special grants, amounts distributed from the NNDR pool and specific and supplementary grants both inside and outside AEF. Community charge benefit and transitional relief payments are included.

  2 Community charge income net of community charge benefit and transitional relief grant.

  Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of loft insulation jobs completed so far this year and completed in the equivalent periods of 1987, 1988 and 1989; and what were the full-year figures for 1987, 1988 and 1989 for each region and England as a whole.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: The information is not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of loft insulation jobs completed so far in the current year and completed in the equivalent periods of 1987, 1988 and 1989 for(a) the London borough of Camden and (b) the London borough of Islington; and what were the full-year figures for 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]:The information is not available.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give an estimate of the current number of homeless in the United Kingdom, and of those how many suffer from(a) alcoholism or drug dependency, (b) AIDS and (c) mental illness.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: Latest estimates of households accepted as homeless in England appear in table 1(a) of "Local authorities" action under the homeless provisions of the 1985 Housing Act:England. Results for the fourth quarter 1989. Supplementary Tables", which is in the Library.
  421
  My Department has no estimates of how many of those accepted were suffering from alcoholism, drug dependency or AIDS. Estimates, in percentage terms, of those who were accepted because of mental illness appear in table 3 of the same publication.

  For information about Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the total number of properties being renovated or built by housing associations in the last five financial years.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: The figures for housebuilding starts and completions and dwellings renovated by housing associations in England are as follows:

  Thousands

  New dwellings

  Starts

  Completions

  Completed renovations1

  1985–86

  10·3

  10·8

  11·5

  1986–87

  10·4

  9·9

  13·6

  1987–88

  9·6

  10·4

  11·7

  1988–89

  10·7

  9·0

  10·9

  1989–902

  10·9

  9·0

  10·8

  1 Work funded by grants under specific housing association legislation and local authority loans. Includes improvement For sale but excludes hostels.

  2 Provisional.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cattle Crushes
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have taken place about the introduction of financial assistance in respect of the provision of cattle crushes at each agricultural holding in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  While a number of suggestions have been made to the Department of Agriculture about the introduction of assistance for various items including cattle crushes, no formal discussions have taken place.

  School

  Admissions number

  Additional places requested

  Additional places granted

  Admissions

  Grade

  Other

  Total

  One

  Two

  Three

  Four

  Laurel Hill high school

  180

  3

  3

  —

  17

  27

  77

  61

  182

  Lisnagarvey high school

  150

  —

  —

  —

  8

  12

  29

  40

  89

  St. Patrick's high school

  100

  —

  —

  —

  7

  17

  51

  11

  86

  Friends' School

  132

  1

  1

  117

  11

  3

  —

  2

  133

  Wallace high school

  168

  —

  —

  139

  27

  1

  —

  1

  168

  Forthill high school

  180

  —

  —

  —

  6

  26

  64

  40

  136

  Rathmore grammar

  175

  64

  41

  186

  30

  —

  —

  —

  216

  Hunterhouse college

  95

  2

  2

  29

  41

  20

  4

  1

  95

  Dunmurry high school

  150

  —

  —

  —

  3

  14

  41

  16

  74

  Suction Dredgers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the fishing operation of suction dredgers in Strangford lough.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Representations have been received from the National Trust and Queen's university, marine biology station, Portaferry about the presence of a suction dredger in Strangford lough. The Department of Agriculture was approached informally by a number of individuals and organisations including representatives of the fishing industry about this vessel.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action will be taken to prevent suction fishing dredgers from operating within inland waters.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I was appalled by reports that a suction dredger may have entered Strangford lough.

  I am determined that there will not be fishing in the lough that would be damaging to its ecology.

  The people most at risk from fishing which damages the lough are those in the fishing industry. I am glad that the vast majority of trawlermen agree that damaging the lough is wrong.

  The responsibilities of the Department of Environment and the Department of Agriculture will be carried out so that all the interests of the lough, both in the short term and in the long term, are protected.

  Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the intake enrolments for September, additional places requested and granted, if any, together with the number of pupils in each of grade one, two, three and four selected according to the respective admission criteria of(a) Laurel Hill school, (b) Lisnagarvey high school, (c) St. Patrick's high school, (d) Friends high school, (e) Wallace high school, (f) Forthill high school, (g) Rathmore grammar school, (h) Hunterhouse college and (i) Dunmurry high school.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Directors
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to seek to amend the law relating to company directors who open, close and reopen similar companies with great frequency.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The Insolvency Act 1986 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 contain provisions concerning the conduct of directors.

  Consumer Affairs Council
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what items were discussed at the European Community Consumer Affairs Council on 13 June.

  Mr. Forth
  The following items were discussed: the package travel directive, the proposed general product safety directive, the system for the rapid exchange of information on consumer products, the European home and leisure accident surveillance system, and the Commission's three-year plan for consumer policy in the EC.

  Research
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what procedures his Department uses for determining the priorities for investment in scientific and technological research in Europe;

  (2) if he will outline his Department's responsibilities, and the procedures used, for allocating funds from this country for national, European and international research projects in science and technology.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department of Trade and Industry's responsibilities include support of firms through longer-term national collaborative research programmes and EUREKA—and for small firms, through the small firms' merit award for research and technology (SMART). The Department of Trade and Industry also plays a key role in the definition of European Community research and development framework programmes, and other international research programmes of interest to United Kingdom industry.

  With regard to resource allocation for support of industrial innovation, the Department consults widely with industry, and with research councils and universities on areas of research and technologies which are likely to be most beneficial, both at the national and international level. Hence during the recent negotiations on the framework programme, careful attention was paid to advice from the Advisory Council on Science and Technology and the Confederation of British Industry, and from industry through our own advisory committees. In this way the Department plays an active role in defining the priorities and objectives of the framework programme and in identifying appropriate areas of national expenditure. However, with a maximum of 50 per cent. support from the Department or the European Community, the key decisions are those of the individual firms participating in the programmes.

  The Department's policy is to ensure that expenditure is directed towards well-justified programmes of all types which represent good value for money. Framework
  424
  programmes should have a clear European rationale and be complementary to national programmes and other international activities.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the number of companies which have announced inward investment projects in the United Kingdom over the past 12 months; and which regions have most benefited from the projects.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  According to the latest figures readily available to the Invest in Britain Bureau, in the 12 months ending March 1990, 304 inward investment decisions were made to locate in the United Kingdom. These included the establishment of a new business, expansion or acquisition of an existing business and involvement in joint venture. The figures are based on information provided by the companies themselves at the time of the investment and do not take into account subsequent developments. The table sets out the number of inward investment decisions broken down on a regional basis.

  Regional breakdown of inward investment decisions in the 12 months to March 1990

  Number

  Scotland

  35

  Wales

  31

  Northern Ireland

  23

  North East

  36

  North West

  43

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  14

  East Midlands

  12

  West Midlands

  86

  South East

  16

  South West

  6

  United Kingdom (undefined region)

  2

  TOTAL

  304

  Bar Codes
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce regulations to require that shops using bar code equipment to register the price of goods also ensure that the price is printed on the products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I expect to introduce an order later this year under the Prices Act 1974 as amended implementing an EC directive requiring prices to be shown for goods on sale to private consumers. Having considered views expressed during consultations on the proposed order, my present intention is to allow traders the freedom to indicate prices on the goods themselves, on the shelf edge, or on notices, as they choose, provided that the indication is clear and legible.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice his Department is giving retailers on the use of bar codes following the European Commission's directive.

  Mr. Forth
  I am not aware of any European Commission directive relating to bar coding.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has sought the views of the
  425
  National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association about the European Commission's directive on bar codes.

  Mr. Forth
  I am not aware of any such directive.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what steps he proposes to take to ensure that bar code equipment manufactured or supplied in the United Kingdom is accurate in recording the price charged;

  (2) what regulations he proposes to introduce to ensure that bar code equipment used in shops is free from errors in recording the price of items purchased.

  Mr. Forth
  A trader who gives a misleading price indication commits an offence under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. That and competition between suppliers should be sufficient to ensure that suitable equipment is used.

  Personal Computers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many personal computers his Department estimates are sold annually.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no agreed definition of personal computers, and official statistics are not compiled on a basis which would enable any departmental estimate of the United Kingdom market to be given. The Department is, however, aware of market research estimates for United Kingdom personal computer sales in 1989, ranging from approximately 500,000 to 1,500,000.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total of the reduction in his Department's expenditure on research and development achieved by taking advantage of the additionality principle when grants have been awarded to United Kingdom companies by the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not possible to identify the specific impact of European Community support of United Kingdom companies under the various Framework programmes, on the applications for support received by the DTI. However, we ensure as far as possible that European programmes reflect the views of United Kingdom industry, and that they are complementary to national programmes and other international activities and continue to provide good value for money. It is up to companies themselves to judge which activities suit their needs best. Manufacturing industry is now receiving support for collaborative research and development from the Community comparable to that from the DTI, and it is likely that this trend will become more pronounced in future.

  Rainham Marshes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requests he has received for financial assistance in respect of the development of Rainham marshes.
  426
  Mr.Douglas Hogg
  My Department has had discussions with the promoters of this major inward investment project, but I have not received any application for specific financial assistance.

  Radio
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he intends to take in response to the recommendations of the review committee which examined civil use of the radio spectrum from 470 to 3,400 MHz.

  Mr. Forth
  The report of the stage 1 civil spectrum review committee, which was published in April last year, has been widely welcomed as making a major contribution towards our commitment to make more efficient use of the radio spectrum and to provide more information regarding current use.

  Since receiving the report, I have had the opportunity to consider the findings in detail and assess the comments of industry and users. The report emphasises that frequency planning ought to maintain a long-term perspective and that in many areas, our freedom for action is limited by international treaty obligations. However, within these confines, the committee found that there remained considerable scope for improvements in the way in which the radio spectrum is managed in the frequency range concerned, and I am pleased to announce today that measures will be taken to follow up all the recommendations. A detailed schedule of the steps being taken to implement each of the recommendations has been published and is available from the DTI's radio communications agency.

  I should like to take this opportunity to announce that, in consultation with my right hon. and right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence, the Home Department and Scotland, I have accepted the Committee's recommendation that the next stage of the review process should be a combined assessment of defence and civil use of the radio spectrum from 3,400 MHz to 30 GHz. I am also delighted to announce that Sir Kenneth Corfield, who chaired the first stage review of defence spectrum usage, has accepted the invitation to become chairman of the combined stage 2 review committee.

  The stage 1 civil spectrum and defence spectrum review reports have stimulated widespread discussion of the future requirements and options for the key frequency range of 1–3 GHz and I am confident that this new review will likewise reveal fresh challenges for the United Kingdom to ensure that we continue to lead the field in making effective and efficient use of this scarce natural resource at these higher frequencies.

  Industrial Development
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions since the Industrial Development Act 1982 came into force expenditure has been incurred under section 3(2)(a) of the Industry Act 1980 on projects which otherwise fully satisfied the criteria of either section 7 or section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: The sum of £547 million was paid to Rover Group plc on 12 August 1988 under section 3(2)(a) of the Industry Act 1980

  427
  as the consideration for a special security ("The Instrument") which formed part of the agreement of 14 July 1988 between the Secretary of State, Rover Group plc and British Aerospace. The cash injection included £78 million in respect of projects in the assisted areas which met the standard conditions set out in section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Community Service
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his reply of 15 May,Official Report, column 375, to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) (a) which officers from his Department are involved in the joint examination with the Department of Employment into training and enterprise provision for offenders in the community, (b) whether a report will be produced by his Department presenting the findings of the examination and (c) whether he intends to consult relevant outside bodies during the course of the examination.

  Mr. John Patten
  There is regular contact and discussion between the Home Office, the Training Agency, the employment service and relevant voluntary organisations, in particular the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the APEX Trust, about training and enterprise provision for offenders in the community.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of administering community service orders in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available; how many orders were made per 100,000 of the population in that year; and what was the average cost per order.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the expenditure of the probation service is published in "Probation Statistics England and Wales 1988" (table 12·3). In 1987–88, the probation service cost of administering community service orders was approximately £18 million and the average cost per completed order in that year was estimated at approximately £500. Using a mid-year population estimate of 40·3 million people aged 16 years and over, 87 orders were made per 100,000 of the population in 1988.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on contact between members of police forces in Great Britain and the police in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus; and if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on visits by police force in London to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the past four weeks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Members of British police forces maintain operational contacts with the Turkish Cypriot police among many other forces. Officers from the City of London police visited northern Cyprus on 5 June in connection with the recent theft of securities worth £300 million in London.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation orders have been made by the courts in England and Wales in each of the last five years; how many orders were made per 100,000 of the population in the latest available year; and what was the cost of administering probation orders in that year.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of persons given probation per 100,000 of the population aged 17 or over was 106 in 1988. Information on the expenditure of the probation service is published annually in chapter 12 of "Probation Statistics England and Wales". The probation service cost of administering probation orders in 1987–88 is estimated at approximately £50 million.

  Persons placed on probation orders by the Courts

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  40,900

  42,400

  40,100

  42,200

  43,600

  Source: Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1988.

  Romanian Orphans
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Chelmsford of 30 April,Official Report, column 409, what information he has of the average delay for British couples wishing to adopt an orphan from Romania, from first notifying his Department of their intention and obtaining his Department's approval; what action his Department takes in respect of those couples and the child concerned if the procedure is not followed; and if he plans to review the procedure.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Where a child adopted in Romania is to be brought to live in the United Kingdom an application for entry clearance must be made at the British embassy in Bucharest before the child leaves Romania. The entry clearance officer will first obtain information about the child's background and the circumstances of the adoption. The application is then referred to the immigration department of the Home Office which will normally seek advice from the Department of Health on the welfare aspects of the case and the likelihood of a United Kingdom court granting an adoption order before deciding whether to grant the application. The time taken to complete the necessary inquiries depends on the individual circumstances, but in the four recent cases where applications for Romanian children have been referred to the Home Office approval has been given in three weeks or less. Children adopted in Romania who are brought to the United Kingdom without entry clearance are liable to be refused admission and removed to Romania. The immigration, officer, however, has discretion to admit them temporarily while further inquiries are made. We are reviewing the procedures for dealing with overseas adoptions to see whether they can be streamlined further while continuing to provide proper protection for the children involved.

  Prison Conditions
  Mr. Tony Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 June,Official Report, column 421, how many hours on average each week prisoners spend on regime activities.
  429
  Mr. Mellor
  In 1989–90 each prisoner spent on average 20·87 hours per week on structured regime activities such as work, education, training courses and physical education. The calculation excludes time spent on other out-of-cell activities, for example, exercise, visits and association, of an essentially personal or recreational kind.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the voluntary organisations to which he has given headquarter grants in each of the last three years; what percentage the grant is of each body's total expenditure; and what percentage the Government grant is in relation to the funds received from private sources.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not immediately available centrally for the 400 or so voluntary organisations which the Home Office funds. I will, therefore, write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Mr. Kevin Taylor
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Greater Manchester about the action he intends to take subsequent to the Director of Public Prosecutions' letter to him of 19 January about the outcome of the trial of Mr. Kevin Taylor.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. These are matters for the chief constable who has asked an independent senior officer from another police force to investigate the issues raised by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Sunday Trading
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of recent cases over Sunday trading when he proposes to bring forward a Bill to align United Kingdom legislation with the treaty of Rome.

  Mr. Mellor
  Although a European Court judgment last year has presented the courts with questions of interpretation, it did not find United Kingdom legislation to be in breach of the treaty of Rome. Nevertheless, the Government continue to hold the view that the Shops Act 1950 is in need of reform and are prepared to consider any practicable proposal from interested parties if they can reach agreement on a way forward which is likely to command parliamentary support.

  Tear Gas
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what regulations and guidelines he issues governing the use of tear gas in cases of civil disorder;

  (2) what information he has as to which constabularies hold supplies of tear gas and as to what standing orders govern its use.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  For guidance on the use of CS by the police in situations of serious public disorder I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary to a question from my hon. Friend for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 19 May 1986 at columns 15–16. This explained that revised guidelines on the use of CS and baton rounds to deal with serious public
  430
  disorder had been issued to all chief officers of police in England and Wales and that they covered the following points:
  CS or baton rounds are to be used only with the express authority of the chief officer of police (or in his absence his deputy) under the direction and control of a designated senior officer, and by police officers who have been trained in the use of the equipment and know its characteristics.
  CS or baton rounds are to be used only as a last resort where conventional methods of policing have been tried and failed, or must from the nature of the circumstances be unlikely to succeed if tried; and where there is risk of loss of life, or serious injury (or widespread destruction of property such that there is, or is judged to be, a sufficiently serious risk of loss of life or serious injury to justify the use of baton rounds or CS); and where the use of CS and baton rounds is judged as necessary because it is likely to reduce the risk. An oral warning is to be given to the crowd to disperse before CS or baton rounds are used. Once the use of baton rounds has begun the need to continue use is to be assessed continuously. Particular caution is to be taken over the use of baton rounds for offensive purposes.
  If a chief officer is not present at the scene, he must be satisfied from reports that the criteria for use set out above have been met. In such circumstances, before the chief officer's authority for use is put into effect, a designated senior officer should satisfy himself at the scene that the criteria are met.
  After each operational firing of baton rounds, a report on the circumstances of the incident in which they were fired is to be made to the Home Secretary.
  Only CS equipment and baton rounds and launchers of a type authorised by the Home Office are to be used for these purposes.
  Nothing in the guidelines affects the principle, to which section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 gives effect, that only such force as is reasonable in the circumstances must be used. The degree of force justified will vary according to the circumstances of each case.

  These guidelines remain in force.

  I understand that the following police forces in England and Wales hold CS for public order purposes:

  Avon and Somerset

  Leicestershire

  Bedfordshire

  Merseyside

  City of London

  Metropolitan

  Cleveland

  Norfolk

  Derbyshire

  North Wales

  Durham

  Nottinghamshire

  Dyfed-Powys

  South Yorkshire

  Essex

  Staffordshire

  Greater Manchester

  Sussex

  Gwent

  Warwickshire

  Hertfordshire

  West Midlands

  Humberside

  Wiltshire

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, columns 399–402, if he will give for each of the 21 buildings, for the 21 buildings all together, and for his Department as a whole, the spending on (a) electricity, (b) gas, (c) solid fuel and (d) oil in the latest available year.

  Mr. Waddington
  For expenditure in each of the 21 buildings I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his question on 10 May at columns 197–98. The total spent in these buildings in 1989–90 was as follows:

  431

  £

  Gas

  155,147

  Electricity

  1,169,570

  Oil

  231,490

  Solid fuel

  186,098

  As I said in my reply to the hon. Gentleman's question on 30 April at columns 399–402, the information requested for the Department as a whole is not readily available and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will abolish the use of the primary purpose rule in considering applications for entry clearance to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. We believe that the primary purpose rule continues to be necessary.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants over 18 years, supporting their applications with positive DNA results, have(a) been granted entry clearance to the United Kingdom and (b) been refused entry clearance since June 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since June 1989, when my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary announced the circumstances in which we would be prepared to waive the normal requirements of the Immigration Rules and admit reapplicants aged over 18 who could now establish their relationship by means of DNA evidence, entry clearance has been authorised in 34 such cases and refused in 76.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet a deputation from Bangladesh Porishad, at Bradford, accompanied by hon. Members from Bradford, to discuss the matters contained in a letter to him from Bangladesh Porishad, dated 11 June.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The president of Bangladesh Porishad accompanied the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) to discuss immigration issues with my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) in June 1989. Bangladesh Porishad has been offered a further meeting with officials.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for all individual cases of entry clearance refusal submitted by Bangladesh Porishad in its letter to him of 11 June to be urgently considered.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Those cases where an entry clearance application is outstanding will be considered and decided as soon as possible.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what charges will be made to Hong Kong residents seeking to take advantage of the provisions in section 1 of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill; and if he intends to give guidance to the Governor on what his powers to fix charges will be.
  432
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The level of fees would be a matter for the Governor. Detailed work on the administration costs has yet to be completed, but on the basis of a preliminary estimate, the Hong Kong Government expect that the fees would not differ substantially from those currently prescribed in regulations under the British Nationality Act 1981—that is, £10 for application and £50 for registration.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the entitlement to United Kingdom benefits of Portuguese nationals from Macau coming to the United Kingdom after 1 January 1993.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  Portuguese nationals from Macau coming to the United Kingdom after 1 January 1993 will have the same social security benefit rights, and be subject to the same eligibility conditions, as other EC nationals coming to the United Kingdom taking account, where appropriate, of regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71—co-ordination of EC member states' social security schemes for migrant workers and their families moving within the EC.

ENERGY

  Waste into Energy
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the waste combustion into energy proposals submitted to date for the initial renewable energy tranche and their proposed output.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The details of individual proposals submitted for inclusion within the non-fossil fuel obligation are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the increase in the proportion of waste likely to be converted into useful energy by combustion as a result of proposals being submitted for consideration under the renewable energy tranche.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  This information will not be available until the number of waste projects to be contracted within the non-fossil fuel obligation has been established.

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list his sources of independent expert advice on the design and removal of oil and gas rigs and their related undersea installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Secretary of State has appointed six certifying authorities to carry out independent assessments of both the design and method of construction of offshore installations before certificates of fitness are issued. No installation can be operated on the United Kingdom continental shelf without a certificate of fitness.

  An abandonment programme for the removal of an offshore installation on the United Kingdom continental shelf requires the approval of the Secretary of State under the Petroleum Act 1987. Those required to submit an abandonment programme will be asked to include independent advice from a certifying authority as to the safety and feasibility of the programme to assist the Secretary of State in his assessment of the programme.
  433
  The six certifying authorities are:

  Lloyd's Register of Shipping

  Det Norske Veritas

  Bureau Veritas

  American Bureau of Shipping

  Germanischer Lloyd

  Offshore Certification Bureau.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his funding plans for research into wave power for the financial years 1990–91 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Provision for wave energy research is currently £200,000 per year. Future funding will depend on the results of the review of wave energy being carried out by the Department and on the progress of the Department's wave energy project on the island of Islay in Scotland.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to increase the cap on the premium price for renewables entering the non-fossil fuel obligation from 6p per unit per kilowatt hour, to 8p per unit.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The terms on which projects are contracted within the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO), including the level and timing of payments, are a matter for the public electricity suppliers (PES). However, I am confident that the legislation provides the public electricity suppliers with a fair degree of flexibility which will allow a significant number of renewables projects to be included within the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he proposes to take to protect the development of renewable energy sources after the removal of the fossil fuel levy after 1998; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government do not expect to take a view on the future of the non-fossil fuel obligation beyond 1998 until the time of the nuclear review in 1994. The strategy for research and development into renewable energy was published as Department of Energy paper No. 55.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has made an assessment of the implication for the viability of renewable energy development of the European Community decision to limit the future of the fossil fuel levy to eight years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 18 April to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) at column 853.

  Bradwell Power Station
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of the incident that took place at Bradwell nuclear power station on 30 March or any of the other Magnox stations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the quantity of carbon dioxide released during the incident at Bradwell nuclear power station on 30 March; to what extent this gas was radioactively contaminated; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what was the source of the carbon dioxide that was released during the incident at Bradwell nuclear power station on 30 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The quantity of carbon dioxide which was released from the leak in the reactor's gas circuit was estimated to be no more than 250 kg and was well within operating limits. No radioactive contamination was detected as a result of the incident.

  The source of the leak was traced to an incorrectly set valve in the gas circuit blowdown room, which is a closed area containing equipment for reducing reactor pressure. The leak was isolated and the carbon dioxide was cleared from the area.

  Nuclear Electric has taken corrective action to prevent a recurrence by tightening control procedures. The investigation into the incident is almost complete and the results will be made known to the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Hinkley Point C
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive the inspector's report on the public inquiry into the Hinkley Point C proposed pressurised water reactor nuclear power station.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) on 14 June 1990 at column 287.

  Hawkshurst Moor (Coal Mine)
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any responsibility in relation to the planning inquiry on the proposal for a new coal mine at Hawkshurst moor in Berkswell near Coventry.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Magnox Reactors
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now set a maximum operational life for the Magnox reactors.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the operators, subject to the safety requirements of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

DEFENCE

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on any negotiations he has entered into with regard to the future control of cruise missiles on board United States warships and submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have entered into no such negotiations.

  Trident
  Mr., John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the study ordered by the United States Energy Secretary, Mr. James D. Walters, on the cost and feasibility of redesigning the Trident W88 warhead in order to enhance its safety; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The study which the United States Energy Secretary, James D. Watkins, has ordered is an internal matter for the United States.

  Polaris
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the British Polaris nuclear warheads use insensitive high explosives.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish on 14 June,Official Report, column 325.

  Nuclear Warheads (Transport)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the recently published report by Large and Associates on the safety and risks involved in the transport of nuclear warheads in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that the report was commissioned by the national steering committee of "nuclear free" local authorities; it contains no contribution by the Ministry of Defence. We have obtained a copy.

  Short-range Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to prohibit the deployment in, storage in or transit through or over the United Kingdom of W69, W79 and W88 warheads until such time as faults in them have been thoroughly investigated and eliminated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at particular places and times. We do, however, maintain regular contact with the US Government on safety matters and are satisfied with US assurances on the safety of their nuclear weapons.

  Military Ranges, Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on any proposals he has to privatise the organisation, maintenance or administration of the Penally, Manorbier and Castlemartin ranges in Pembrokeshire.
  436
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are presently no plans to contractorise the administration of any of these ranges. However the MOD is constantly exploring options to increase efficiency, and such a course could not be ruled out if it could be demonstrated to offer better value for money.

  Arms Sales, Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of the value of arms sales by the United Kingdom to Iraq for each of the years from 1980 to 1989 inclusive in the same form as that provided in his answer to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on 19 June 1989,Official Report, column 59.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the normal policy of successive Administrations not to provide details of arms sales to specific countries as this is a commercially confidential matter between the customer and the supplier. I see no reason to make a further exception in this case. However, since the beginning of the Iran-Iraq conflict in September 1980 the United Kingdom has refused to allow the supply of any lethal equipments to Iraq in accordance with the guidelines applying to the export of such equipments to both countries.

  WE177 Free-fall Bomb
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the WE177A B and C nuclear warheads use insensitive high explosives.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 14 June,Official Report, column 325.

  Royal Ordnance Factory, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department has with the royal ordnance factory at Nottingham.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Department currently has an order of 300 direct and indirect contracts with the royal ordnance factory at Nottingham, mainly for guns and small arms and their spares support.

  Military Training
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) of 26 February,Official Report, column 75, if he will list where this military training takes place; on which training sites live firing is permitted; and what is the range of the weapons involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Military training takes place at the following locations which are in Ministry of Defence ownership:

  Region and Location

  Central

  Cambusbarron

  Grampian

  Blackdog1

  Rosehearty

  437

  Highland

  Cape Wrath and Garvie

  Island1

  Fort George1

  Kinlochleven

  Tain

  Lothian

  Dreghorn1

  Kirknewton

  Strathclyde

  Dundonald

  Garelochhead1

  Tayside

  Arbroath

  Barry Buddon1

  Rannoch Forest

  Tighnablair1

  Western Isles

  South Uist1

  St. Kilda

  1Locations at which live firing takes place.

  Military training also takes place at the following locations over which the Ministry of Defence has training rights:

  Region and location

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Galloway

  Grampian

  Auchallater

  Blackdog

  Highland

  Tain

  Lothian

  Dreghorn

  Strathclyde

  Dundonald

  Tayside

  Barry Buddon

  Tighnablair

  Western Isles

  South Uist

  It would not be possible to give details of the ranges of all the weapons involved in training in Scotland, some of which are classified. In any event the practice of live firing of weapons can constitute a danger at distances greater than would normally be the range in combat use. The theoretical range of a particular weapon can, if considered alone, give a misleading impression of the practical implications of firing live rounds. All service weapons have an associated safety template which governs the minimum requirement for land where live rounds are to be fired. These templates also take account of the design of the range concerned and the topography of the surrounding land and therefore vary. Live firing is permitted only in locations where sufficient land is available to accommodate the safety templates in full.

WALES

  Health Service
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from health authorities in Wales.
  438
  Mr. David Hunt
  I receive many representations from health authorities in Wales on a wide variety of issues.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department refused to allocate capital resources for any projects submitted by Gwynedd health authority in 1988–89.

  Mr. Grist
  In common with other health authorities in Wales Gwynedd health authority submitted bids for the central funding of a number of capital developments in 1988–89. Of the seven bids submitted by the authority, three were successful and four were rejected.

  In addition a request from the chairman of Gwynedd health authority in July 1988 that consideration be given to the development of a new hospital for Ynys Môn under the Secretary of State's programme for the valleys initiative was turned down since the initiative was restricted to a defined geographical area in south Wales.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 10 May,Official Report, columns 193–94, what information he has on the reasons why Gwynedd health authority's level of capital expenditure in 1988–89 comprised 4 per cent. of the Welsh total for district health authority capital spending.

  Mr. Grist
  I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 10 May at columns 193–94, which identified the levels of virement between district health authorities' revenue and capital allocations in the period 1985–86 and 1988–89, which influence both the respective levels and proportions of their capital expenditure in each of these years.

  Private Water Supplies
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many private sources of water supply in Wales will be subject to licensing by the National Rivers Authority after September.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are at present more than 4,000 licensed abstractions in the National Rivers Authority's Welsh region. It is not possible to predict how many applications for new licences will be made in the next few months.

  Education (Mid Glamorgan)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the director of education in Mid Glamorgan to discuss education in Mid Glamorgan.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman of Mid Glamorgan education committee, accompanied by the assistant director for further education and the deputy county clerk, on 4 June.

  Community Councils
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce legislation to protect local democratic representation through elected community councils in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Present legislation already confers such protection, as each individual community is entitled to decide whether to have a council or not.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to enable the health service in Wales to meet the original 1990–91 deadline for implementing the Project 2000 nurse training initiative.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My policy is to ensure that Project 2000 is implemented in Wales as soon as resources and planning considerations allow.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in(a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On May 10 1990 the number of unemployment claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 4,446, 13,136 and 81,194 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis which enables a valid comparison to be made.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the reduction in employment training funding in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Individual budgets are still being discussed but the fall in unemployment means that Government funding at previous levels is no longer required.

  National Curriculum
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress on the implementation of the national curriculum within Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have made good progress in the implementation of the national curriculum in Wales commencing with mathematics, science and primary English in autumn 1989; to be followed this year by secondary English, technology and Welsh in schools where Welsh is taught already. In preparation for the introduction of history and geography in 1991 I have published recently my proposals for geography in the national curriculum and the report of the history committee for Wales.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he is making within the national curriculum for teaching Welsh history in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The report of the history committee for Wales was published on 12 June. The report sets out recommendations for the history course for pupils from age five to 16 in schools in Wales and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  We will publish proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study for history within the national curriculum in the schools of Wales in due course.

  Argoed High School
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received against the proposed closure of Argoed high school.
  440
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Some 140 letters have been received since March 1990 about the proposed closure of Argoed high school.

  Floods (Compensation)
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now make an assessment of the total contribution which the Government will have made to compensate individuals and local authorities for losses caused by the flooding in February; and what calculation he has made of the additional community charge which will be payable in Colwyn and in Rhuddlan in 1991 as a direct consequence of the floods.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I acknowledge the speed with which the authorities concerned are undertaking all the work arising from the emergency. The Government, too, responded swiftly. We immediately activated the Bellwin arrangements and contributed to the funds established by the mayors. Subsequently we set up a working party to co-ordinate the Government's efforts in support of the local authorities and the people affected. Throughout, my Department has been in close touch with the local authorities concerned. Priority has been given to restoring confidence especially through ensuring the provision of the best possible sea defences.

  An early estimate based in part on information provided by the local authorities is that the total Government contribution could exceed £4 million. The local contribution to the community charge to expenditure arising from the emergency should not be significant.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the effect of the poll tax on young people on low incomes in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received various representations about community charge, some of which have been about the position of young people.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the implications of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill for the future role of East Dyfed health authority and the other health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The implications of the Bill for all health authorities are explained in the Welsh Office National Health Service directorate's paper, "Developing Roles in NHS Wales", published in April 1990, copies of which were sent to all Welsh Members and placed in the Library of the House.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on present planning procedures as they affect Welsh opencast coal sites.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Procedures for handling mineral planning applications, including opencast coal sites, are set out in the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 1813). Advice on
  441
  handling specific development proposals is given in minerals planning guidance note No. 3, "Open Cast Coal Mining", issued in May 1988.

  Ophthalmic Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, further to his reply of 15 May,Official Report, column 371, regarding glaucoma cases, when he expects to provide the information.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my letter of 18 June 1990, a copy of which is also in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people on family credit or income support received free eye tests in Wales(a) in each quarter in 1988–89 and (b) in each quarter in 1989–90.

  Mr. Grist
  The data requested were not collected centrally prior to 1 April 1989, since when they have been collected on a six-monthly basis. The available information is given as follows:

  Estimated1 number of sight tests paid for by family practitioner committees in the six months ending

  30 September 1989

  31 March 1990

  Adults receiving family credit or income support

  33,420

  35,700

  1 Estimates based upon a 2 per cent, sample of all such sight tests.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how the amount of the financial allocation for the new system of home improvement grants for the financial year 1991–92 will be determined.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter to be determined in the current public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the new system for home improvement grants will come into operation.

  Mr. Grist
  The new area renovation arrangements and minor works assistance were introduced on 1 April this year. The remainder of the new renovation grant system will be brought into effect on 1 July 1990.

  Housing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he proposes to have on the housing needs of the elderly in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department is currently consulting statutory and voluntary bodies on the future of home improvement agencies in Wales. The housing needs of elderly people will also be considered by Welsh district councils and officials in the context of authorities' housing strategies for 1991–92.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will call for a report from the chairman of Tai Cymru on its supervision of the financial affairs of Corlan Housing Association;
  442
  (2) when he expects to receive the report of the inquiry instituted under the Housing Association Act 1973 into the financial difficulties of Corlan Housing Association;

  (3) if he will publish the report of the inquiry into the financial affairs of Corlan Housing Association; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) whether he has any plans to issue new guidelines to Tai Cymru on the supervision of the financial affairs of Welsh housing associations.

  Mr. Grist
  Under the Housing Associations Act 1985 Housing for Wales has various powers and responsibilities in respect of registered housing associations and under section 28 of the Act has instituted an inquiry into the affairs of Corlan Housing Association. A report is expected within about six weeks. Housing for Wales will then decide what further action needs to be taken in the light of the inquiry's findings. My right hon. Friend and I are, of course, in touch with the situation.

  The board of Housing for Wales is already considering the wider implications of the situation and will be discussing these with me.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consideration he has given to the independent technical report prepared for Newport borough council by Ove Arup, consulting engineers, on the structural soundness of houses at Ringwood hill, Newport, Gwent;

  (2) if he will vary or revoke the designation of properties at Ringwood hill, Newport, Gwent, as being defective within the terms of section 528 of the Housing Act 1985;

  (3) if he will now reply to a letter dated 9 May from the hon. Member for Newport, East concerning the designation of houses at Ringwood hill, Newport, Gwent, as being defective within the terms of section 528 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Mr. Grist
  I have not received any recent correspondence from the hon. Gentleman about houses at Ringwood hill, Newport. However, we have very recently written to Newport borough council to say that my right hon. Friend is not prepared to revoke or vary the designation of Hawksley SGS houses under section 528 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the policy outlined in his reply of 11 June,Official Report, column 25, applies to properties owned by Douglas Haig Memorial Homes.

  Mr. Grist
  As a landlord body, Douglas Haig Memorial Homes will be able to apply for financial assistance under the renovation grant being introduced from 1 July.

  Communicators for the Deaf
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on future funding for the Communicators for the Deaf course at Barry college.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Training Agency funded the course on a 12-month contract which ends in July. There are no plans to extend funding.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to provide training for communicators for the deaf in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department recognises the need for and value of training in this field. A three-year grant
  443
  was awarded to the Wales Council for the Deaf in 1989–90 to set up a pilot project with the aim of increasing the number of people with advanced qualifications in sign language.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 June, if he will make it his policy to provide the financial resources necessary to fully implement the display of information on water quality at all bathing beaches in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 13 June at column 226, to which there is nothing that I can add.

  Engineering
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call for a report on the supply and demand for engineering skills and training facilities in Wales arising from(a) new investment projects and (b) existing firms, including small enterprises.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A labour market assessment covering the whole of Wales is undertaken annually by the Training Agency for Wales. In addition, the Training Agency carries out specific research exercises such as the "Valley Skills" study. At a local level the developing training and enterprise councils are undertaking local labour market research for their corporate and business plans. The supply and demand for engineering skills and training feature as subjects in these studies. Known inward investment projects are taken into account and firms of all sizes are considered.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what public funds have been made available towards the cost of a regional freight terminal linking Welsh industry and commerce with the channel tunnel.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No specific amount has been set aside for freight terminals. British Rail is proposing to spend over £1 billion to enable freight and passenger services to be in place when the tunnel opens. This includes expenditure on freight terminals. British Rail is currently negotiating to obtain the best commercial deals on terminals in partnership with the private sector.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has undertaken on the demand for a regional freight terminal in south Wales to link with the channel tunnel.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. This is a matter for British Rail, which has identified south Wales as a possible location for a major terminal for channel tunnel freight services.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an assessment of the demand in Wales for regional freight terminals to link with the channel tunnel.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. British Rail has already assessed the demand in Wales for freight terminals in drawing up its published plan for channel tunnel services. It is now up to businesses in Wales to consider their requirements and make these known to British Rail.

TRANSPORT

  M6 (Road Works)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report (a) the number of occasions when major road works have taken place on the M6 motorway between junction 8 (M5 Ray Hall) and junction 9 (Bescot), (b) the type of work carried out and (c) the total cost of such work since that portion of the M6 motorway was completed.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since the M6 opened, there has been one major road maintenance scheme on this section, in 1979, when major reconstruction and resurfacing of the carriageways between junctions 8 and 10 was undertaken at a cost of £3 million. Further major maintenance works between junctions 8 and 9 will start this month. In addition there is an ongoing programme of structural maintenance to the viaducts themselves.

  Bedford Bypass
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to publish Her Majesty's Government's recommendations about the line of route for linking the projected southern relief road at Elstow in the county of Bedford with the A428.

  Mr. Atkins
  Such a link would form a western bypass of Bedford. The Department is discussing its preferred inner route with the local authorities, which favour alternative proposals further to the west. Technical analyses of traffic data will take a number of months to complete and I do not expect to make any announcements before the autumn.

  Dial-a-Ride
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements are made to fund dial-a-ride and similar services for disabled people outside London; if he will list the amounts paid in support of such services in shire county and metropolitan areas in the years 1988–89 and 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Shire councils and passenger transport authorities and executives in the metropolitan areas have a duty to have regard to the transport needs of members of the public who are elderly or disabled, and may fund dial-a-ride and other special needs services. We do not have comprehensive figures on local authority spending in this area, but a recent assessment by the local authority associations put provision by the PTAs in the metropolitan areas at £4·4 million in 1988–89 and £8·2 million in 1989–90.

  East London Rail Study
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received concerning the release of any economic evaluation of the east London rail study; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish any cost/benefit analysis of the east London rail study commissioned by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  A small number of representations have been received about the release of details of the economic
  445
  evaluation of the Jubilee line extension including some from hon. Members. This material was not released at the time the east London rail study report was published last July as it might have prejudiced negotiations with developers about their contributions to the cost of the line. However, now that agreement has been reached about the level of these contributions, I can now release this information. The cost benefit analysis which lay behind the ELRS report was as follows.
  Present value of costs and benefits for the Jubilee line extension from Green Park via (inter alia) Waterloo, Canary Wharf and Greenwich Point to Stratford

  1988–89 prices discounted to 1989

  £ million

  Capital costs

  (690)

  Operating cost

  (90)

  Additional revenue

  290

  Funding gap

  (490)

  Passenger benefits

  730

  Road user benefits

  200

  Net benefit

  440

  Benefit: cost ratio

  1·56:1

  London Underground
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received advocating the extension of the London underground to Thamesmead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has received a small number of representations in support of an extension of the Jubilee line to Thamesmead. The east London rail study showed that the capital costs (estimated at £420 million in 1989 prices) and operating costs would greatly exceed the revenues and benefits.

  Channel Ferries (Fire Drills)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply,Official Report, 7 June, column 696, what fire drill practice passengers on cross-channel ferries undergo on each voyage; and what fire drill information they are given in case of fire.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Fire drills are directed at the crew and passengers are not required to participate. A fire in a space used by passengers should be detected by automatic fire detection systems or by fire patrols required by the SOLAS convention. This will activate the measures provided on the vessel for fighting a fire—including the provision of trained crew. In the event of a fire passengers would be instructed on the public address system to muster at specified positions on the vessels in the same way as in any other emergency. These instructions are also required to be posted in cabins and in other spaces used by passengers.

SCOTLAND

  Lead Contamination
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has conducted into the effects of lead in water; and if he will make a statement.
  446
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Home and Health Department has provided funding for a number of long-running major projects over the past 18 years:

  Studies in Environmental and Industrial Lead Intoxification.

  Studies on the Biological Effects of Lead and Cadmium in the Environment.

  The Evaluation of Certain Aspects of Lead and Cadmium Exposure in Terms of Biochemical Effects and Consideration of Bio-Analytical Indices of Exposure.

  Developmental Behavioural and Neurochemical Aspects of Lead Exposure in Man and Experimental Animals.

  Neuropsychological Function in Children Exposed to Low Levels of Lead in the Environment (in conjunction with
  the Medical Research Council).

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of administering community service orders in Scotland in the last year for which figures are available; how many orders were made per 100,000 of the population in that year; and what was the average cost per order.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The gross expenditure incurred by local authorities in the financial year ended 31 March 1989 in respect of community service schemes was estimated to be £3·2 million. There were 3,492 orders made during the same period, representing 69 per 100,000 population. On the basis of these figures, the average cost per order was about £920.

  Security Firms
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the private security firms presently employed by his Department, the buildings at which they operate and the date of expiry of each contract.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information relating to the Scottish Office and associated departments is set out in the table:

  Company

  Location

  Expiry date of contract

  Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd.

  Middleton Hall, by Gorebridge

  13 July 1990

  Wackenhut (UK) Ltd.

  Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen

  1 December 1990

  Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd.

  Brandon Street, Edinburgh

  31 March 1992

  Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd.

  Saughton House, Edinburgh

  31 March 1992

  Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd.

  Jeffrey Street, Edinburgh

  31 March 1992

  Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd.

  Supreme Courts, Edinburgh

  31 December 1991

  Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd.

  Edinburgh Sheriff Court

  31 December 1991

  Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd.

  Glasgow Sheriff Court

  25 April 1992

  Group 4 Total Security Ltd.

  Ladywell House, Edinburgh

  1—

  Group 4 Total Security Ltd.

  GRO Building, Station Road, Edinburgh

  1—

  1 These buildings are covered by an ongoing contract which may be terminated following one month's notice.

  Probation Orders
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many probation orders have been made by the courts in Scotland in each of the last five years; how many orders were made per 100,000 of the population in the latest available year; and what was the cost of administering probation orders in that year.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The number of persons placed on probation in each of the past five years for which figures are available is published in the Scottish Home and Health Department statistical bulletin No. 1/1990, "Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts, 1988", which is available in the Library.

  In 1988, 68 persons per 100,000 of the population aged eight or over were placed on probation. (If a person is placed on probation more than once in the same year, each occasion is counted separately.)

  1. Contracts awarded for Management Consultancies

  Firm

  Subject of Assignment

  19861

  BP International Limited

  Scottish Office Procurement Manual

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates Limited

  Marketing Awareness, Historic Buildings and Monuments

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates Limited

  Investment Function, Scottish Development Agency

  Ernst and Whinney

  Management Organisation and Procedures, Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Hay—MSL Management Consultants Limited

  Grading Review—Nursing Services

  Inbucon Management Consultants Limited

  Financial Management Scottish Development Agency

  Inbucon Management Consultants Limited

  NHS Linen Services in Scotland

  SCICON Limited

  Patient Administration System

  19871

  Frank Griffiths Associates Limited

  Overview of Roads Procurement Procedures

  CIPFA Services

  Community Charge

  19881

  PIEDA

  Dounreay rundown

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells

  Scottish Homes

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates Limited

  Scottish Homes (several projects)

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates Limited

  New Towns industrial and commercial assets

  Gilpin Black Associates

  Scottish Homes

  Firn, Crichton Roberts Limited

  Strathclyde Integrated Development Operation

  Open College

  Open Learning

  University of Warwick

  Performance measurements in Further Education

  Dr. S. Clarke

  Evaluation and quality of learning and teaching in Further Education

  Dundee College of Technology

  Investigation of the administrative arrangements in Jordanhill School

  1989–902

  A. Fegent

  Procurement (2 Projects)

  Touche Ross

  Health Education Review

  Peat, Marwick McLintock

  Lothian Health Board

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates Limited

  HBM Executive Agency proposals

  Price Waterhouse

  Creche facilities

  British Institute of Management

  Network analysis on probation court services and parole

  Peat, Marwick McLintock

  Further Education development planning

  Edinburgh University

  Interpretation of a new statistical method

  CSL Group Limited

  Financial Regulations for School Boards

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Education Finance

  1 Calendar year.

  2 Financial year.

  (2) Expenditure on management consultancies1

  £

  1985–86

  491,864

  1986–87

  569,038

  1987–88

  198,338

  1988–89

  1,162,108

  21989–90

  300,000

  1 Expenditure in a particular year does not necessarily relate exclusively to contracts awarded in that year.

  2 Estimated figure.

  448
  Local authorities are unable to identify separately within the social work budget the cost of supervision of persons subject to probation orders.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the studies conducted inside his Department by management consultants over the last 10 years, naming the consultancy, the cost, the subject and the outcome in each instance.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Comprehensive records of all studies for the period requested are not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost. Details of contract costs cannot be disclosed because of commercial confidentiality. The following information is readily available:

  Urban Aid
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish figures showing total urban aid funding disbursed to new projects in the area of the Govan Initiative in 1988–89 and 1989–90; and how much of this went to projects submitted through the Govan Initiative.

  Mr. Lang
  There were 11 additional urban programme approvals in 1988–89 for the area of the Govan Initiative amounting to £1·340 million in total capital and annual
  449
  running costs of which £1–311 million was for nine new projects. Three of this number, representing £0·264 million of the total, were submitted through the Govan Initiative.

  There were 11 additional urban programme approvals in 1989–90 for the area of the Govan Initiative amounting to £0·682 million in total capital and annual running costs of which £0·537 million was for six new projects. Four of this number, representing £0·490 million of the total, were sponsored by the Govan Initiative.

  The additional approvals in 1989–90 brought total approved expenditure for the Govan Initiative area for the year to £1·708 million on 28 projects.

  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, when considering urban aid allocations to economic initiatives in Strathclyde, he treates this aid as supplementary to the urban aid disbursed to non-initiative projects, and therefore not prejudicial to the non-initiative applicants.

  Mr. Lang
  In arriving at the dedicated urban programme budgets which have been offered for Castlemilk, Drumchapel and Easterhouse in Glasgow and for Ferguslie Park in Paisley, account was taken of each area's share of the worst deprivation, and its track record of success in securing urban programme resources.

  The budgets offered for Castlemilk and Ferguslie Park also took into account the fact that urban programme resources had been increased in order to allow additional priority to be given to urban partnerships areas without reducing the Government's commitment to other eligible areas. There is therefore no reason to believe that the provision of dedicated budgets should cause other areas to lose out.

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many community service orders have been made by the courts in Scotland in each of the last five years; and if he will break down the figure in the last available year according to the number of hours of service specified in the order.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is set out in the tables.

  Community Service Orders made by Courts

  Year

  Number of Orders

  1985

  2,889

  1986

  3,453

  1987

  3,508

  1988

  3,590

  1989

  4,190

  Number of Hours of Service Specified in the Order 1989

  Number of Hours

  Number of Orders

  40–95

  802

  100–140

  1,429

  150–190

  991

  200–240

  968

  Total

  4,190

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Forestry Commission land was sold in each of England, Scotland and Wales in the 12 months to 1 April; and how much of this land was subject to agreement securing future public access.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows. The figures given are provisional at this stage.

  Area of Forestry Commission land sold in the year to 31 March 1990

  Hectares

  England

  1,699

  Scotland

  4,689

  Wales

  1,276

  None of the land was subject to specific agreements concerning future public access.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policies he has adopted to secure continuing public access to Forestry Commission land sold to the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government are concerned that the general public should continue to enjoy access to those forests to be disposed of by the Forestry Commission in a way which is compatible with their management for forestry and other purposes. We are giving careful consideration to ways of achieving this objective, but a number of complex issues is having to be addressed. In the meantime, the commission is deferring the sale of woodlands that are particularly sensitive from the point of view of public access, except in those cases where the sale is to an environmental body under the sponsorship arrangements.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is able to announce the membership of the committee which he has established to review courses and examinations in the fifth and sixth years of Scottish secondary education.

  Mr. Lang
  I am glad to be able to announce that the following have accepted my right hon. and learned Friend's invitation to serve on the committee to be chaired by Professor John Howie:

  Mr. David Alexander, Depute Director of Education, Strathclyde Regional Council.

  Mr. Richard Bisset, Headteacher, Kemnay Academy, Aberdeenshire.

  Mr. Thomas Burness, Principal, Glenrothes and Buckhaven Technical College, Fife.

  Mr. Ronald Crawford, Academic Registrar, University of Strathclyde and Executive Secretary, Universities of Scotland Standing Conference.

  Mrs. Dorothy Dalton, Chief Executive, Scottish Community Education Council.

  Dr. John Gow, Secretary General, The Royal Society of Chemistry.

  Mrs. Deirdre Hutton.

  Professor Ian Lockerbie, Department of Educational Policy and Development, University of Stirling.

  Mr. James McVittie, Headteacher, St. Ninian's High School, Eastwood, Renfrewshire.

  Professor Ian Marrian, Director of Education, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.

  451

  Mr. David Meek, Assistant Headteacher, Boclair Academy, Bearsden.

  Mr. Robert Nimmo, Rector, High School of Dundee.

  Mrs. Jennifer Rees, Head of Management Studies Department, Scottish College of Textiles, Galashiels.

  Mr. David Semple, Director of Education, Lothian Regional Council.

  Mr. James Thompson, Principal Teacher of Mathematics, High School of Stirling.

  Sir John Thomson, former member of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service.

  Dr. Gordon Wilson, Principal, Craigie College of Education.

  Professor John Woodward, Vice Principal, Paisley College of Technology.

  HIV
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report for each health authority in Scotland the number of persons infected with HIV; and if he will separately distinguish these numbers by age.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: The following table gives a breakdown by health board area of the total number of positive HIV antibody test results in Scotland which have been reported to the communicable diseases (Scotland) unit up to 31 March 1990. Where the total number of results in each board area is under 10, the figure, in accordance with established practice, is not published so as not to jeopardise medical confidentiality.

  Health board

  Number of positive results

  Argyll and Clyde

  14

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1

  Borders

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13

  Fife

  26

  Forth Valley

  60

  Grampian

  40

  Greater Glasgow

  278

  Highland

  12

  Lanarkshire

  27

  Lothian

  1,053

  Orkney

  Nil

  Shetland

  1

  Tayside

  233

  Western Isles

  Nil

  TOTAL (SCOTLAND)

  1,769

  1 Under 10.

  The age distribution of results by health board area is not readily available and could not, in any event, be given where the number involved is under 10. The age distribution, where known, of the total number of results is shown in the table.

  Age

  Number of positive results

  Under 14 years

  116

  15 to 24 years

  723

  25 to 34 years

  624

  35 to 44 years

  158

  Over 45 years

  44

  Not known

  104

  452
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the correlation coefficient between the incidence of HIV infection and the incidence of tuberculosis in Scotland over the period 1980 to 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: As the respective relevant data on HIV antibody positive results reported to the communicable diseases (Scotland) unit and on the notification of tuberculosis in Scotland are not compatible, any attempt at a correlation coefficient using the data would not be valid. No evidence exists of a correlation in Scotland between the incidence of HIV infection and the incidence of tuberculosis, although tuberculosis has occurred in a small proportion of persons with AIDS.

  The annual number of positive reports of HIV infection and notifications of tuberculosis in Scotland from 1980 to 1989 inclusive are given in the following table:

  HIV positive results

  Tuberculosis

  1980

  0

  1,138

  1981

  2

  972

  1982

  9

  902

  1983

  42

  829

  1984

  169

  738

  1985

  314

  707

  1986

  472

  756

  1987

  373

  560

  1988

  197

  534

  1989

  151

  1540

  1 provisional.

  Farm Pollution
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details about steps taken by his Department in order to quantify the damage to health and safety of people and environment caused by cases of farm pollution in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: The Scottish farm waste liaison group compiles records of pollution incidents and publishes information on the numbers and types of such incidents. The group, which was established in 1981, comprises representatives of river purification boards, the Scottish agricultural college and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.

  Reports on specific incidents are made in the annual reports of the river purification authority concerned. There are very few recorded cases of direct damage to health arising from specific farm pollution incidents.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the role of his Department in the care and protection of the health and safety of the Scottish people and environment from farm pollution.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 8 June, Official Report, Vol. 173, column 737. The Government aim by a policy of education, regulation and enforcement to reduce farm pollution at source in the interests of safeguarding public health and protecting the environment.

  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, together with other Departments, keeps the use

  453
  and effectiveness of pesticides under review. Where it is justified on scientific grounds action is taken to ban substances whose continued use is found to be unacceptable. The Department was associated with the preparation of a code of practice for the safe use of pesticides on farms and holdings published earlier this year. Guidance has also been issued on the operation of intensive livestock units and on the control of slurry spreading.

  The safeguarding of public health is one of the objectives of the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989, a measure introduced recently to protect the environment, and in particular the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture.

  The Scottish Development Department sponsors the seven Scottish river purification boards which, along with the three islands councils, are responsible under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 for controlling pollution of the water environment. Their powers were recently improved and strengthened in the Water Act 1989. Where pollution of water occurs, whether from farm or other sources, it falls on these authorities both to take action to safeguard health by notifying water authorities and the public likely to be affected and to assemble evidence against the possibility of offenders being prosecuted.

  All employers and the self-employed, including farmers, have a general duty under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of persons who may be affected by their work activities.

  The specific obligations relating to the protection of employees' health imposed on employers by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations also extend so far as reasonably practicable to non-employees both on and off the employer's premises.

  Disabled People
  Mr Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people with disability are on employment training placements with employers; and what percentage this is of placements for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: The information requested is not collected by the Training Agency. However, I can say that 2,822 (3·5 per cent. of the total) disabled people joined employment training in Scotland in the period end September 1988 to March 1990 and that overall within that period 22 per cent. of all employment training placements have been with employers.

  Hepatitis B
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of medical and nursing staff in Scotland who have contacted hepatitis B in each of the last 10 years; and how many medical nursing staff have died from contracting hepatitis B in these years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: This information is not held centrally. National statistics about the incidence of hepatitis B do not separately identify particular occupational groups.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total expenditure by the Scottish 454
  Home and Health Department over the past 10 years in advertising risks to medical staff of contracting hepatitis B as a result of their work.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: The Scottish Home and Health Department does not incur specific expenditure on advertising the occupational risks of hepatitis B to medical staff. The Department does, however, issue to health boards the memorandum "Immunisation against Infectious Disease", which is prepared and regularly revised for the health departments by the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation. The memorandum, the latest edition of which has just been sent to health boards, identifies the occupational groups, including medical staff, particularly at risk from hepatitis B and gives advice on those to whom vaccination should be offered. Further advice is contained in "Guidance for Clinical Health Care Workers: Protection against Infection with HIV and Hepatitis Viruses". This booklet, which was issued by the Department to health boards recently, contains guidance on measures for the protection of health care workers in hospital and the community against occupational infection with HIV and hepatitis viruses.

  The occupational health services within health boards will also give advice to medical staff about the risks of contracting hepatitis B and on the protective measures which can be taken.

  Salmon
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to publish the results of the inquiry into the east coast salmon fishery.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: The analysis of scientific data is almost complete. Once this is submitted, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will then have to consider the implications. A report to both Houses will be submitted as soon as possible thereafter.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the 1990–91 capital allocations to each local education authority, indicating in each case the bid submitted and the allocation as a percentage of the bid and indicate which local education authorities have made representations for additional resources.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested on annual capital guidelines for education is set out in the table. Local education authorities are free to augment their annual capital guidelines within the flexibilities of the capital finance system by the use of capital receipts and other sources of income. The following LEAs have made formal representations for additional resources:

  Berkshire

  Bolton

  Bradford

  Buckinghamshire

  Cornwall

  Coventry

  455

  Devon

  Dorset

  Dudley

  East Sussex

  Essex

  Gateshead

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Hampshire

  Humberside

  Leeds

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Manchester

  Newham

  Norfolk

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  Rotherham

  St. Helens

  Sheffield

  Stockport

  Sunderland

  Surrey

  Sutton

  Tower Hamlets

  Westminster

  Wiltshire

  Education plans and annual capital guidelines for 1990–91

  LEA

  1990–91 Plans (cash)

  1990–91 Annual capital guideline (ACG) (cash)

  1990–91 Initial ACG percentage of plans

  Barking

  1,415

  485

  34

  Barnet

  4,484

  888

  20

  Bexley

  4,892

  1,242

  25

  Brent

  6,332

  687

  11

  Bromley

  6,612

  1,684

  25

  Croydon

  19,319

  1,061

  5

  Ealing

  14,683

  889

  6

  Enfield

  30,222

  1,315

  4

  Haringey

  5,245

  1,132

  22

  Harrow

  3,345

  1,073

  32

  Havering

  8,589

  5,881

  68

  Hillingdon

  7,692

  1,140

  15

  Hounslow

  7,000

  539

  8

  Kingston

  4,475

  268

  6

  Merton

  11,257

  3,608

  32

  Newham

  16,733

  5,572

  33

  Redbridge

  5,787

  1,577

  27

  Richmond

  7,290

  1,390

  19

  Sutton

  14,161

  2,974

  21

  Waltham

  11,771

  6,661

  57

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  5,369

  1,421

  26

  Westminster

  5,613

  380

  7

  Greenwich

  10,823

  3,849

  36

  Hackney

  9,218

  2,605

  28

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,662

  1,047

  29

  Islington

  8,670

  1,079

  12

  Kensington

  9,172

  2,145

  23

  Lambeth

  4,858

  1,480

  30

  Lewisham

  8,762

  1,232

  14

  Southwark

  17,740

  5,429

  31

  Wandsworth

  17,305

  1,677

  10

  Tower Hamlets

  33,246

  7,778

  23

  Birmingham

  15,407

  10,494

  68

  Coventry

  12,758

  1,962

  15

  Dudley

  6,308

  3,608

  57

  Sandwell

  8,493

  1,647

  19

  Solihull

  6,365

  1,511

  24

  Walsall

  4,911

  1,369

  28

  456

  LEA

  1990–91 Plans (cash)

  1990–91 Annual capital guideline (ACG) (cash)

  1990–91 Initial ACG percentage of plans

  Wolverhampton

  3,353

  783

  23

  Knowsley

  6,594

  2,080

  32

  Liverpool

  16,861

  9,742

  58

  St. Helens

  6,610

  5,066

  77

  Sefton

  7,111

  4,176

  59

  Wirral

  7,099

  3,354

  47

  Bolton

  5,619

  802

  14

  Bury

  1,476

  815

  55

  Manchester

  29,168

  3,062

  10

  Oldham

  7,707

  3,429

  44

  Rochdale

  12,529

  4,078

  33

  Salford

  6,461

  3,899

  60

  Stockport

  3,385

  1,300

  38

  Tameside

  2,438

  1,410

  58

  Trafford

  11,268

  9,448

  84

  Wigan

  7,748

  4,378

  57

  Barnsley

  2,276

  1,883

  83

  Doncaster

  1,269

  860

  68

  Rotherham

  3,712

  1,589

  43

  Sheffield

  6,068

  2,428

  40

  Bradford

  28,814

  9,731

  34

  Calderdale

  2,845

  1,514

  53

  Kirklees

  6,876

  1,216

  18

  Leeds

  15,768

  2,562

  16

  Wakefield

  6,860

  5,394

  79

  Gateshead

  8,776

  1,082

  12

  Newcastle

  8,438

  1,564

  19

  North Tyneside

  5,138

  1,265

  25

  South Tyneside

  10,019

  1,894

  19

  Sunderland

  10,205

  1,883

  18

  Isles of Scilly

  300

  221

  74

  Avon

  20,049

  5,653

  28

  Bedfordshire

  12,767

  2,409

  19

  Berkshire

  15,932

  4,500

  28

  Buckinghamshire

  14,902

  4,544

  30

  Cambridgeshire

  34,854

  13,229

  38

  Cheshire

  15,935

  5,814

  36

  Cleveland

  7,761

  3,329

  43

  Cornwall

  18,786

  6,522

  35

  Cumbria

  13,051

  7,930

  61

  Derbyshire

  26,701

  14,653

  55

  Devon

  28,679

  12,984

  45

  Dorset

  11,414

  3,853

  34

  Durham

  19,564

  4,924

  25

  East Sussex

  23,967

  8,613

  36

  Essex

  42,364

  13,895

  33

  Gloucester

  18,734

  7,917

  42

  Hampshire

  37,095

  13,325

  36

  Hereford and Worcester

  12,740

  6,248

  49

  Hertford

  16,526

  6,526

  39

  Humberside

  17,795

  9,004

  51

  Isle of Wight

  6,275

  1,912

  30

  Kent

  33,849

  16,210

  48

  Lancashire

  36,022

  18,524

  51

  Leicestershire

  16,794

  11,154

  66

  Lincolnshire

  23,274

  7,387

  32

  Norfolk

  10,044

  2,880

  29

  North Yorkshire

  7,735

  4,105

  53

  Northamptonshire

  10,076

  6,182

  61

  Northumberland

  5,601

  1,961

  35

  Nottinghamshire

  12,952

  3,716

  29

  Oxfordshire

  15,443

  3,751

  24

  Shropshire

  10,272

  6,319

  62

  Somerset

  13,498

  4,837

  36

  Staffordshire

  16,421

  6,375

  39

  Suffolk

  15,754

  7,921

  50

  Surrey

  11,805

  3,718

  31

  457

  LEA

  1990–91 Plans (cash)

  1990–91 Annual capital guideline (ACG) (cash)

  1990–91 Initial ACG percentage of plans

  Warwickshire

  6,355

  1,507

  24

  W. Sussex

  12,754

  3,633

  28

  Wiltshire

  19,214

  6,256

  33

  Notes:—All figures are in £000's and in cash terms.

  Students
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of(a) undergraduate and (b) postgraduate students studying in universities in England and Wales; and what are the estimated targets for undergraduate and postgraduate student numbers for each year up to 1995.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information published by the universities statistical record for the 1988–89 academic year, shows that there 223,311 undergraduates and 82,713 postgraduates studying at universities in England and Wales.

  Future levels of admissions are for individual universities to decide.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of(a) undergraduate and (b) postgraduate students in the university of Wales; and what targets have been set for (i) undergraduate and (ii) postgraduate numbers for each university college in each year up to 1995.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information published by the universities statistical record for the 1988–89 academic year, shows that there 17,618 undergraduate and 5,549 postgraduate students in the university of Wales. Future levels of admissions are for the individual constituent colleges to decide.

  Teacher Training
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will instigate an experimental period of payment for teachers who undertake training during holiday periods.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend agrees with the interim advisory committee's view that it would not be helpful to distinguish training which takes place within the 1,265 hours from training which takes place outside directed time.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the increase in cost of paying teachers for holiday training periods during the 1990–91 school year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  If such payments were made available, the cost would depend on a variety of factors including the amounts of holiday training undertaken and the extent to which it replaced the training currently undertaken in directed time, as well as rates of pay. Given these variables, an estimate is impossible.

  Assessment
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he circulated to the teacher unions for consultation the draft document entitled the Education (National Curriculum) (Assessment Arrangements in English, Mathematics and Science) Order 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Copies of the draft document were dispatched to relevant teacher associations on 18 May with the exception of two of the associations which, by error, were not sent copies. The Department has since sent copies to these two associations.

  Community Work Training
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what plans he has for the future of community work training;

  (2) what representations he has received about the future of community work training; and if he will place them in the Library.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  On 5 April my right hon. Friend announced that from 1 April 1991, he would channel funding to the national level youth service bodies through a single national youth agency. The agency will be based on the existing youth service bodies, in particular the National Youth Bureau (NYB) and the Council for the Education and Training of Youth and Community Workers (CETYCW). One of the functions of the agency will be the development, endorsement, accreditation and, in some circumstances, the provision of youth and community worker training and I shall look to the agency to build upon the work currently undertaken by CETYCW.

  My right hon. Friend has received a number of general representations about the establishment of the agency.

  School Buildings (Access)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he gives to local education authorities on the standards of access for people with disabilities for new designs for and adaptations to school and college buildings; and whether he will consult interested parties regarding statutory provision for standards of access for new school and college buildings.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Guidance to those responsible for making educational buildings accessible to disabled people and for adapting ordinary school buildings for pupils with special needs is given in design note 18 (1984) and building bulletin 61 published by DES architects and building branch. The design note is based on the recommendations of a working party including representatives of Her Majesty's inspectorate, local authorities and interested central Government Departments.

  Access for disabled people to new school and college buildings is required to be confirmed under the arrangements for obtaining the Secretary of State's approval to capital building projects.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many nursery, primary and secondary schools are fully accessible to pupils and teachers with disabilities; what are these figures as percentages of the total number of schools; and if he will make a statement.
  459
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what specific funding has been available to local education authorities to enable access to school and college buildings for pupils and teachers with disabilities in each of the last 10 years; and if he has any plans to make specific grants available to local education authorities to carry out necessary capital works to facilitate physical access for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  None. It is for local education authorities to decide their priorities for capital expenditure on schools and colleges, taking account of their responsibilities under section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

  Special Educational Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many appeals were received under section 8(6) of the Education Act 1981 by each local education authority; and what were the decisions taken by the appeals tribunal for each of the years from April 1983.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Appeals under section 8(6) of the Education Act 1981 are made directly to my right hon. Friend. Appeals to local appeal committees are made under section 8(2) of the 1981 Act. Information concerning the number and outcome of such appeals is not collected centrally.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many appeals were received under section 5(6) of the Education Act 1981 by each local education authority; and what were the decisions taken by the appeals tribunal for each of the years from April 1983.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Appeals under section 5(6) of the Education Act 1981 are made directly to my right hon. Friend. Since April 1983 he has received 164 such appeals. The following table lists by year the number of such appeals and the number of appeals under section 5(6) which resulted in my right hon. Friend directing the LEA to reconsider its decision not to make a statement of special educational needs.

  Year

  Appeals received

  LEA directed to reconsider

  1983

  3

  0

  1984

  19

  0

  1985

  19

  1

  1986

  21

  3

  1987

  31

  6

  1988

  17

  3

  1989

  12

  7

  There are 42 such appeals upon which my right hon. Friend has yet to reach a decision.

  Student Teachers
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of students with disabilities who have entered initial teacher training for each of the last 10 years; and what percentage of the total number of student teachers this represents.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  These data are not available centrally.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total of the reduction in his Department's expenditure on research and development achieved by taking advantage of the additionality principle when grants have been awarded to United Kingdom universities by the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  None. The European Community's requirements in respect of additionality arise in relation to the structural funds rather than to research and development, and the principle applies to the setting of levels of expenditure by public bodies, including Government Departments, rather than to universities which are private sector bodies.

EMPLOYMENT

  National Insurance Credits
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been disallowed national insurance credits for not being available or not actively seeking work in each quarter since January 1987; how many have appealed against those disallowances and with what result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage change in employment in manufacturing industry for each region of the United Kingdom from 1979 to the latest figures available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest employment estimates are for December 1989. The information is as follows:

  Employees in manufacturing in the United Kingdom Percentage changes June 1979 to December 1989, unadjusted

  Percentage

  South East including London

  -30

  East Anglia

  -14

  South West

  -14

  West Midlands

  -32

  East Midlands

  -18

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  -31

  North West

  -29

  North

  -29

  Wales

  -21

  Scotland

  -30

  Great Britain

  -27

  Northern Ireland

  -29

  United Kingdom

  -27

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage change in the north-west of employment in(a) the service sector, (b) self-employment and (c) manufacturing industry between 1979 and 1990.
  461
  Mr. Nicholls
  Latest employment estimates are for December 1989. In the north-west region, between June 1979 and December 1989, employment in the service sector rose by 10 per cent., self-employment rose by 50 per cent. and employment in manufacturing industries fell by 29 per cent.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing a ward-by-ward breakdown of the numbers of unemployed in the constituencies of(a) Burnley and (b) Pendle for the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following table shows a ward-byward breakdown of unemployment in the constituencies Burnley and Pendle as at May 1990, the latest available date. The figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Ward Unemployment—May 1990

  Ward

  Total

  Burnley

  Barclay

  232

  Briercliffe

  52

  Brunshaw

  109

  Burnley Wood

  172

  Calder

  366

  Cliviger

  30

  Coal Clough

  169

  Daneshouse

  301

  Deerplay

  12

  Fulledge

  120

  Gawthorpe

  120

  Hapton

  59

  Heasandford

  130

  Lanehead

  101

  Lowerhouse

  83

  Park

  117

  Queensgate

  88

  Rosehill

  114

  Simonstone Hill

  12

  Trinity

  185

  Whittlefield

  119

  Worsthorne

  20

  Pendle

  Barrowford

  51

  Boulsworth

  42

  Bradley

  193

  Brierfield

  143

  Clover Hill

  68

  Coates

  91

  Craven

  55

  Earby

  68

  Fence

  18

  Foulridge

  10

  Horsfield

  101

  Marsden

  98

  Pendleside

  14

  Reedley

  55

  Southfield

  104

  Vivary Bridge

  185

  Walverden

  84

  Waterside

  132

  Whitefield

  172

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently in work in(a) the east midlands and (b) Derbyshire; and how many people were in work in these areas in 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information relating to counties is available only from censuses of employment. The latest data relate to September 1987 and the earliest comparable to September 1981.

  The available estimates are as follows:
  462

  (a)EAST MIDLANDS

  Civil work force in employment

  December 1979 1,687,000

  December 1989 1,850,000

  (b) DERBYSHIRE

  Employees in employment

  September 1981 335,000

  September 1987 343,000

  Employment Protection
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to seek to change the law so that women with less than two years' service have the same protection against dismissal for pregnancy as women with a minimum of two years' full-time service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We have no plans to reduce the qualifying periods of service for unfair dismissal on grounds connected with pregnancy. To do so would add to the burdens of employers and thereby threaten employment opportunities.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research he has commissioned into the effectiveness of the wages councils.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The councils are empowered to set minimum rates of pay in certain industries. The extent of compliance with these rates is regularly assessed by reference to information collected by wages inspectors. This information shows that compliance with wages council orders is running at a very high level.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 13 June, what period is given to any hon. Member who is informed of the possible closure of a local part-time employment office to make representations regarding the proposal; by what mechanism such representations are considered; and whether the chief executive of the Employment Services Agency requires ministerial approval for a closure decision.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not the practice to undertake a consultation process as part of considering the closure of a part-time local employment service office.

  Any plans that the employment service has to close a full-time local office which involves the withdrawal of its services from a local community are subject to a consultation process in which the views of the appropriate hon. Members, local authorities, civil service trade unions and any other interests are sought and taken into account.

  I refer the hon. Member again to section 6 of the agency framework document which sets out the terms under which the chief executive has the authority to manage the employment service office estate.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many part-time benefit signing offices were operative in 1985; and what is the most recent figure available, giving the figures on a regional basis.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Member.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to introduce legislation for a minimum wage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so. A national minimum wage would raise employers' costs and destroy jobs.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the relationship between youth training allowances and the community charge following the meeting between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West on 6 June.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations about the relationship between liability to pay a proportion of the community charge and the minimum level of training allowance to young people aged 18 years or over who are on youth training. These representations have been referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is reviewing the operation of the community charge to see if there are any anomalies which need to be addressed.

  TVEI
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, by local education authority, the amount of money made available or planned for the technical and vocational education initiative in 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 13 June 1990]: Below is a table showing by LEA the budgets available or planned for TVEI extension in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  The additional information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Extension budgets 1989–90

  £

  Barking

  233,438

  Barnet

  377,91

  Bexley

  223,125

  Bromley

  499,979

  Croydon

  675,951

  Ealing

  607,368

  Enfield

  826,943

  Harrow

  78,173

  Havering

  712,951

  Kingston

  56,285

  Richmond

  171,174

  London total

  4,123,283

  Berkshire

  1,888,050

  Buckinghamshire

  1,556,313

  Essex

  3,963,826

  Hampshire

  4,089,115

  Hertfordshire

  2,915,486

  Isle of Wight

  273,423

  Kent

  3,549,967

  Oxfordshire

  1,235,000

  Surrey

  1,463,191

  East Sussex

  1,817,018

  West Sussex

  1,511,363

  South East total

  24,262,752

  464

  £

  Cornwall

  1,310,463

  Devon

  1,145,950

  Gloucestershire

  1,298,761

  Somerset

  1,192,075

  Wiltshire

  1,296,233

  South West total

  6,243,482

  Bedfordshire

  1,648,399

  Cambridgeshire

  1,114,039

  Derbyshire

  1,017,900

  Leicestershire

  2,994,284

  Norfolk

  1,818,302

  Northamptonshire

  1,677,071

  Nottinghamshire

  175,382

  Suffolk

  1,143,000

  East Midlands Total

  11,588,377

  Birmingham

  2,551,091

  Coventry

  1,018,000

  Dudley

  945,878

  Hereford

  2,293,950

  Sandwell

  754,630

  Shropshire

  851,000

  Solihull

  629,350

  Staffordshire

  4,475,150

  Walsall

  286,500

  Warwickshire

  1,586,291

  West Midlands Total

  15,361,840

  Bolton

  755,425

  Bury

  479,751

  Cheshire

  1,289,000

  Cumbria

  789,146

  Manchester

  841,964

  Rochdale

  475,000

  Salford

  515,500

  Stockport

  825,125

  Tameside

  399,991

  Wigan

  635,700

  Wirral

  822,910

  North West Total

  7,829,512

  Bradford

  1,990,934

  Calderdale

  510,000

  North Yorkshire

  1,845,205

  Sheffield

  271,030

  Wakefield

  541,400

  Doncaster

  91,680

  Humberside

  175,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  5,425,249

  Cleveland

  1,213,434

  Durham

  1,725,826

  Gateshead

  285,908

  Newcastle

  652,571

  North Tyneside

  504,592

  Northumberland

  1,106,328

  South Tyneside

  411,289

  Sunderland

  1,112,234

  Northern Total

  7,012,182

  Clwyd

  1,021,139

  Dyfed

  392,557

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,558,613

  South Glamorgan

  442,653

  West Glamorgan

  452,940

  Gwent

  712,013

  Gwynedd

  931,219

  Powys

  265,039

  Wales Total

  5,776,193

  465

  £

  Ayr

  104,239

  Borders

  206,025

  Central

  9,500

  Dumbarton

  70,800

  Dumfries

  420,250

  Fife

  899,376

  Glasgow

  1,487,372

  Lothian

  2,883,473

  Renfrew

  1,188,631

  Tayside

  82,882

  Scotland total

  7,352,598

  Great Britain total

  94,975,448

  Extension Budgets 1990–91

  Barking

  366,973

  Barnet

  232,000

  Bexley

  341,685

  Bromley

  683,274

  Croydon

  732,384

  Ealing

  750,794

  Enfield

  826,620

  Harrow

  216,000

  Havering

  791,663

  Hillingdon

  230,000

  Kingston

  215,026

  Merton

  97,000

  Newham

  224,000

  Redbridge

  165,000

  Richmond

  298,905

  Sutton (Development funding 1990–91, only)

  150,000

  London total

  6,171,324

  Berkshire

  1,908,986

  Buckinghamshire

  1,892,778

  Essex

  4,992,371

  Hampshire

  4,274,138

  Hertfordshire

  2,724,450

  Isle of Wight

  323,289

  Kent

  4,712,424

  Oxfordshire

  1,340,700

  Surrey

  2,234,785

  East Sussex

  1,524,934

  West Sussex

  1,772,089

  South East total

  27,700,994

  Avon

  910,000

  Cornwall

  1,343,225

  Devon

  2,458,501

  Dorset

  325,000

  Gloucester

  1,395,947

  Somerset

  1,392,574

  Wiltshire

  1,647,498

  South West Total

  9,472,745

  Bedfordshire

  1,449,300

  Cambridgeshire

  1,946,225

  Derbyshire

  1,738,300

  Leicestershire

  2,853,760

  Lincolnshire

  433,000

  Norfolk

  2,123,000

  Northamptonshire

  1,715,939

  Nottinghamshire

  418,000

  Suffolk

  1,932,125

  East Midlands/Eastern Total

  14,609,649

  Birmingham

  4,023,579

  Coventry

  917,195

  Dudley

  942,583

  466

  £

  Herefordshire

  2,293,861

  Sandwell

  955,280

  Shropshire

  1,554,925

  Solihull

  694,027

  Staffordshire

  4,800,305

  Walsall

  821,996

  Warwickshire

  1,653,847

  West Midlands Total

  18,657,598

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the relative advantages which follow from the practice of requiring inspection of slaughterhouses by prior arrangement with the proprietor as against unannounced inspections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities (district councils) are responsible for the enforcement of hygiene and welfare legislation in slaughterhouses. Visits made by officers of the state veterinary service are for the purpose of providing advice to the local authority and are made in the company of local authority personnel. It is usual for visits to be arranged with the plant concerned as their purpose is served best if representatives of plant management are present. Unannounced visits may be made, however, in response to reports of problems at a plant.

  Countryside Premium Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many landowners have entered the agricultural set-aside scheme; and how many are receiving additional payments under the countryside premium scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  Almost 3,100 farmers in the United Kingdom have entered the set-aside scheme. Of these, 115 have been accepted into the premium scheme run by the Countryside Commission in the seven eastern counties of England.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to which areas he has considered extending the countryside premium scheme beyond the existing pilot area in the east of England to other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply. The countryside premium scheme was launched by the Countryside Commission in June 1989 and initially covers seven counties in eastern England. Arrangements are in hand for monitoring the effectiveness of the scheme. It is too early yet to consider extending the scheme to other areas in England. Decisions on application of the scheme in other areas of the United Kingdom rest with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions exist to help ensure that land entered into the set-aside scheme, but not attracting countryside premium payments, is managed to a satisfactory standard of husbandry.
  467
  Mr. Maclean
  On land set aside to fallow under the scheme, a green cover crop must be established and maintained throughout the set-aside period, and must be cut at least once a year. Though there is a general prohibition on the use of pesticides, certain herbicides may be used with the permission of Agriculture Departments to cope with difficult weeds. The use of fertilisers is not permitted except in specific circumstances, and the land may not be used as a dumping ground for any kind of organic or inorganic material. We are considering in the light of the operation of the scheme so far whether the management requirements are adequate.

  Crabs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the numbers of crabs identified as showing levels of toxic contamination from the current shellfish closure area on the north-east coast; and if he will give the levels registered and the origins of the crabs concerned.

  Mr. Maclean
  Of the 190 crab samples from the north-east coast tested up until 8 June, 16 showed levels of paralytic shellfish poison toxin. These are as follows:

  Units of toxin per l00g in brown meat (digestive gland) of crabs

  Location

  Units of toxin

  Craster, Alnwick

  243

  Eyemouth

  206

  Eyemouth

  222

  Anstruther

  317

  Inshore Anstruther

  176

  Inshore Anstruther

  171

  Seahouses

  257

  North East Fife coast

  197

  Staithes Wyke

  244

  Financial year

  Aggregated Annual cost (£)

  Management consultancies

  Subject

  1984–85

  27,110

  (i) Binder Hamlyn

  Dairy Crest Foods

  (ii) Coopers and Lybrand

  Dairy Crest Foods

  (iii) Arthur Young McClelland Moores and Co.

  Financial management

  (iv) Dr. Goodwin

  ADAS work-time database

  (v) Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co.

  Decentralised budgetary control

  1985–86

  174,724

  (i) Dr. Goodwin

  Work-time database: continuation of above

  (ii) Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co.

  Decentralised budgetary control: continuation of above

  (iii) Touche Ross

  Dairy Crest Foods

  (iv) Touche Ross

  Milk quotas

  (v) B. R. Parkinson

  ADAS marketing plan

  (vi) R. B. L. Ltd.

  ADAS marketing plan

  (vii) Black Rod Ltd.

  ADAS marketing plan

  1986–87

  135,279

  (i) Dr. Goodwin

  Work-time database: continuation of above

  (ii) Touche Ross

  Milk quotas: continuation of above

  (iii) Special Research Unit

  ADAS marketing plan

  (iv) Coopers and Lybrand

  Reorganisation of MAFF's regional structure

  1987–88

  44,015

  (i) Touche Ross

  Dairy Crest Foods: continuation of above

  (ii) Mr. P. W. Cunliffe

  Review of animal medicines licensing

  1989–90

  162,114

  (i) Touche Ross

  Dairy Crest Foods: continuation of above

  (ii) Agro-Economic Services Ltd.

  Impact of Single Market on agricultural R and D priorities

  (iii) Deloitte, Haskin and Sells

  Fees to local veterinary inspectors

  (iv) Deloitte, Haskin and Sells

  Relocation of Ministry work

  1989–90

  143,150

  (i) Touche Ross

  Dairy Crest Foods: continuation of above

  (ii) Deloitte, Haskin and Sells

  Fees to local veterinary inspectors: continuation of above

  (iii) Deloitte, Haskin and Sells

  Relocation of Ministry work: continuation of above

  (iv) Agro-Economic Services Ltd.

  Impact of Single Market on agricultural R and D priorities: continuation of above

  468

  Location

  Units of toxin

  Staithes Wyke

  210

  Staithes Wyke

  255

  Whitley Bay

  260

  Off Beadnell Bay

  265

  Off Beadnell Bay

  260

  Hartlepool (1 mile)

  198

  Hartlepool (1 mile)

  229

  In addition, trace levels of toxin were found in a further eight of the 190 samples tested.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are in force to ensure that bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected material is not fed to mink and foxes.

  Mr. Maclean
  There have been no recorded cases of spongiform encephalopathies in foxes or, in this country, of mink. All carcases of known or suspected cases of BSE are burned or buried.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the studies conducted inside his Department by management consultants over the last 10 years, naming the consultancy, the cost, the subject and the outcome in each instance.

  Mr. Maclean
  The management consultancies, excluding computer consultants, engaged by my Department since 1984–85 are listed in the table. The annual costs have been aggregated so as to preserve commercial confidentiality.
  469

  Financial year

  Aggregated Annual cost (£)

  Management consultancies

  Subject

  (v) Deloitte, Haskin and Sells

  Review of veterinary manpower needs in the United Kingdom

  1990–91

  125,198 (Estimate)

  (i) Touche Ross

  Dairy Crest Foods: continuation of above

  (ii) Deloitte, Haskin and Sells

  Relocation of Ministry work: continuation of above

  (iii) Mr. R. S. Crespi

  Intellectual Property Rights and their exploitation

  (iv) Prof. Righelato (Ashbourne Biosciences)

  LINK programme on agro-food quality

  (v) K. P. M. G. Peat Marwick McLintock

  Training needs analysis

  The outcome of such studies is not recorded centrally. This information and data for earlier years can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Earth-banked Slurry Compounds
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement outlining the effect of BS 5502 on the future use of earth-banked slurry compounds;

  (2) whether he has any plans to prohibit the use of earth-banked slurry compounds.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government have no plans to prohibit the use of earth-banked slurry compounds. The proposals for regulations issued by the Department of the Environment would set minimum constructional standards for new earth-banked compounds and other effluent containment facilities (which the National Rivers Authority could, by notice, extend to include existing facilities where there is a significant risk of pollution). These standards would be based on BS5502 which is a British standard code of practice for the design of buildings and structures for agriculture including earth-banked compounds. The effect of the proposed regulations should be that the facilities are designed and constructed to a standard which minimises the risk of pollution.

  EC Surplus Food
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the names of the organisations in the Normanton constituency which are involved with the distribution of European Community surplus food;

  (2) what organisations are involved with the distribution of European Community surplus food in the area of the Wakefield metropolitan district council.

  Mr. Curry
  More than 500 applications to participate in the 1990 EC surplus food scheme have been received from charitable and other non-profit-making organisations throughout the United Kingdom. These applications are currently being considered and I will make a statement once a decision has been reached.

  Ewe Premium
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to pay the ewe premium; and if he will explain the reasons for the delay in making this payment to farmers.

  Mr. Curry
  We cannot make payments of sheep annual premium until the rates are published in the Official
  470
  Journal of the European Communities. The final rate of premium in respect of the 1989 scheme was published on 19 May 1990 and we have paid over 98 per cent. of claims received. The small number of outstanding cases are those for which our administrative checks have not been completed.

  Suckler Cows
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to raise the premium on suckler cows.

  Mr. Curry
  Ministers are currently considering the rate of suckler cow premium which should apply in the 1990–91 scheme year and will make an announcement in due course.

  Flood Relief Scheme, Maidenhead
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in implementing the flood relief scheme for Maidenhead.

  Mr. Curry
  The proposed scheme is planned to commence in mid-1992, although consideration is being given to ways of bringing this date forward. The National Rivers Authority (NRA) Thames region is currently consulting interested parties with the aim of reaching agreement prior to seeking planning approval early in 1991. This timetable has been agreed with the planning authorities. Detailed design of the scheme will be completed once planning consent has been obtained. The NRA also proposes to apply for grant from the Department towards the costs.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will obtain a copy of the report by the Institute of Economic Affairs, "Chickengate—an independent analysis of the salmonella in eggs scare"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has kindly sent me a copy of the book "Chickengate" and I have noted its contents. The Government's policy in relation to salmonella in eggs and poultry has been set out in evidence provided to the Agriculture Select Committee.

  Pigs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by county, for each week, the number of pigs slaughtered as a result of contaminated feed since the present incident was first discovered.
  471
  Mr. Maclean
  This information on a week-by-week basis is not readily available.

  North-east Drift Net Fishery
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet received the report of the inquiry into the north-east drift net fishery; and when he now expects to publish this report.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 26 April at col.317.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what specific research was considered by the Southwood committee into the transmissibility of BSE to household pets through pet food;
  472
  (2) what specific research further to that considered by the Southwood committee into the transmissibility of BSE to household pets through pet food (a) has been undertaken, (b) was in progress and (c) was under consideration by his Department (i) before the first suspected case of BSE-related disease in a cat and (ii) since.

  Mr. Maclean
  No specific research into the transmissibility of BSE to household pets through pet food was considered by the Southwood committee. No such research has been undertaken or is planned by my Department. Investigations are being carried out into the cause of the recent cases in cats. This includes the cats' breeding and feeding history. There is no evidence at present that the source of the recent cases of spongiform encephalopathy in cats was pet food or that the disease is related to BSE.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that arrangements have been made for me to visit Salford County Court on Friday, 22nd June, and Willesden and Uxbridge County Courts on Friday, 29th June. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 22nd June and Friday, 29th June.

Inflation Rates: Comparisons
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest announced increase in the annual rate of inflation; and what are the equivalent increases in Germany, France and the Netherlands.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, excluding mortage interest payments and the community charge, UK inflation was 7 per cent. in May. The latest more comparable figures are 2·1 per cent. for Germany, 3·2 per cent. for France and 2 per cent. for the Netherlands.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that: reply. Perhaps I may begin by congratulating him on his appearance in the honours list. That, I am sure, gives pleasure on all sides.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the headline inflation rate for the UK is 9·7 per cent., and the noble Earl said that the underlying rate is 7 per cent. Noting even the underlying rate of 7 per cent., which is almost treble the rates in the main competitor countries which he mentioned and double the average rate for other members of the European monetary mechanism, does the Minister not agree that there is little hope this year of meeting the Prime Minister's prime Madrid condition for entry into the ERN; namely, that there should be a convergence of inflation rates?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his first remarks. Regarding the question which he put to me, I shall not forecast the monthly inflation figure between now an 3 the end of the year. The forecast remains the same as in my right honourable friend's Budget.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we reiterate the congratulations given to the noble Earl on the honour recently awarded to him? It is a reflection not only of his personal qualities, but also of the importance that the Government evidently still attach to the extensive discussion of Treasury affairs in your Lordships' House.
In connection with the Question on the Order Paper and the noble Earl's response, is he aware that entry into the ERM has already been largely discounted by the market? Is he also aware that in the event of exchange rates remaining at their current very high levels, it is extremely unlikely that the Government will be able to reduce interest rates substantially below the current rate?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's first remarks. I believe that his question is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. The Government are seeking to tackle inflation, which we all agree is too high even though the underlying rate is still 0·5 per cent. below the lowest ever achieved by the Labour Party in the 1970s. We are seeking to reduce that by tight monetary and fiscal policy.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Bundesbank advised Chancellor Kohl against giving a one-for-one deutschmark-ostmark conversion, even at the limited level at which it occurred, I should like to ask this question. Is my noble friend not aware that there will now be severe inflationary pressures on the deutschmark because of the reunification of Germany? Will that not place extra pressures on our interest rates if we join the ERM which would not arise if we did not join the ERM?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a most interesting question, but it is rather wide of that on the Order Paper.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as the Government have failed completely to control inflation, and the Minister frequently makes a comparison with the record of the last Labour Government, does he deny that the average rate of inflation for the last 12 months of the Labour Government was 8·5 per cent., which compares very favourably with the present runaway inflation of 9·7 per cent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I disagree entirely with the noble Lord's suggestion that we have lost control of inflation. Inflation is a great deal higher than we would like it to be. We have set about reducing it; but, as the noble Lord will realise, it is nowhere near the 26·9 per cent. that his Government achieved.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the present rate of inflation has nothing to do with whether we are inside or outside the ERM, but is due to the failed policies of this Government—policies of high interest rates and allowing credit to expand beyond what is reasonable

595
for the economy and what the economy can stand? When will the Government do something about reducing interest rates instead of trying to fool the City that early entry into the ERM is imminent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, one of the reasons why inflation is at its present level is the addition of the community charge. I hope that the noble Lord will take this opportunity to condemn the substantial increase of rates equivalent in the community charge imposed by local authorities.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will help the House on the question of early entry into the ERM. All noble Lords probably read in the Financial Times last week that the Treasury has decided upon entry in August whereas No. 10 Downing Street announced that there was no acceleration in the timetable. Will the noble Earl help the House by telling us who conducts financial policy—Downing Street or the Treasury—and whether the Prime Minister is about to fall out with another Chancellor?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Financial Times is certainly not conducting financial policy.

The London Gay and Lesbian Centre
2.43 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What factors influenced their decision to intervene and prevent the transfer of the London Gay and Lesbian Centre from the London Residuary Body to the borough of Islington.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the principal factor to be taken into account when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment determines an application is the interest of the chargepayers in the cost-effective and efficient discharge of the functions of the applicant authority. In the case of the London Residuary Body, its interest extends to London's chargepayers as a whole through the distribution of capital receipts.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, does he agree with me that this has been a conspicuously successful example of public funding of a body which has made itself self-sufficient over the years? Does it not seem rather strange that that body should have been singled out for the treatment that it received from the department, particularly in view of the strong social role that it plays in counselling and giving advice to an increasingly threatened minority group?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, under Section 123(2) consent is normally refused unless it can be shown that it will be in the interests of the chargepayers of the disposing authority. Each case that comes before
596
the Secretary of State under Section 123(2) is judged on its own merits.
Lord Renton: My Lords, do gays and lesbians mix freely together at the centre and how much does it cost the public?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if one looks at the name of the centre, one sees that various groups attend it. However, the interest here is with regard not to the cost of the operation on a revenue basis but with regard to the property itself, which is held by the LRB.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the centre has done valuable work in counselling people during the epidemic of AIDS which has spread through the community and that it is a matter not of frivolity but of serious concern that the organisation has been singled out, as my noble friend said, for special treatment?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the lease that is effective at the moment lasts until August 1992. It is not within the LRB's remit to deal with the matters of policy to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us what are the immediate to medium-term commercial and planning development interests in that area and how much they have influenced the decision?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the current property market, I would say that it was a fluctuating figure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in view of the response which the Minister gave to an earlier question, is it not extraordinary that this is the only one of the 7,000 properties which the LRB inherited from the GLC to be treated in the manner that has been described? Is it not extraordinary that the centre, being in need, tries to raise the money to buy the property, is refused and it is then decided that the property is not to be transferred on the grounds that the centre can raise a commercial rent? If that is not discrimination, what is?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as always makes a forceful case. However, it is important to realise that although the figure of 7,000 is accurate with regard to the total stock held or managed by the London Residuary Body, the important issue here is Section 123 of the Act. That has applied to only six properties; this is the seventh.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for which of the other six properties has disposal been refused?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if a property is considered significant enough to come under the terms of Section 123 and must go before the Secretary of State it must be judged in each and every case on its merits. The first six properties were considered to have those merits. On the seventh, with regard to the matters to which I referred earlier concerning the prospects for the relationship to the chargepayers, the merits did not appear the same.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to give me a straight answer; no pun is intended. In the exchanges between the department, the local authority and the gay centre, the department mentioned the word "unacceptable" with regard to the level of subsidy, as it was described. What was unacceptable: the level of subsidy or the use of the building?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think I am correct in saying that if the word "unacceptable" has been used in the context to which the noble Viscount referred, it refers to the level of subsidy.

Britain and France: Relations
2.48 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether co-operation between Britain and France in dealing with future developments in Europe and elsewhere is as close as it was when de Gaulle launched the Free French Movement from London 50 years ago today.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Energy (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the Free French and to their heroic efforts alongside their British friends and companions in the quest for freedom. Today, Franco-British relations are warm and friendly. We consult and co-operate very closely, both bilaterally and in multilateral groupings. The annual Anglo-French summit on 4th May saw fruitful discussion of European developments.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that positive reply. I wonder whether he has seen the moving declaration by Maurice Druon, the permanent secretary of the French Academy, to mark the occasion of 50 years ago, as reproduced in today's Financial Times and ably translated by Alistair Horne, the distinguished author of the biography of Mr. Macmillan, for the benefit of that minority of Financial Times readers who do not read French. Is he aware, even though he was not born at the time, that shortly before General de Gaulle made his declaration, Mr. Churchill made his dramatic proposal for the total union of the French and British nations? Now that we have continuing common interests with our neighbours across the Channel, does the noble Lord agree that there is a need to make a similar move to get closer together at least to the extent that Franco-German relations have developed? If so, what steps do the Government intend to take to achieve that end?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I entirely accept the moving nature of the original declaration by General de Gaulle. I have a text of it with me. I have not seen the article in the Financial Times to which the noble Lord refers, but from what he said it appears to underline the importance and continuing warmth of our relations with our French friends. I do not think that we need to apologise for those relations. They are extremely warm, close and cordial and no less so than the relations between France and Germany.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in order to foster closer relations with France at all levels, does the Minister agree that it would be better if we tried to improve our teaching of French? Are the Government aware that in France, English is taught at primary school level, whereas in this country in the public sector the teaching of French does not start until the secondary level and there is a large drop-out rate at the age of 14? Are they doing anything to improve that abysmal situation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as a matter of fact I agree with the noble Lord. Too few people in this country speak decent French and I am afraid that I am among them.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord what the Government were doing to improve the situation. Are they aware that the figures for pupils attempting A-level French have dropped from 20,000, 10 years ago, to 18,000 recently and it is not getting any better? Is he aware that those attempting French A-lever represent under 3 per cent. of the 17 to 18 year-old age group?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so but I am not sure that he is on the right tack. French A-level is a different matter because it includes a great many topics such as literature and French history which are perhaps not so immediately important as speaking the French language. I dare say that there are steps which could and should be taken to improve the take-up of French. Indeed, my own department, the Department of Trade and Industry, is doing something about that in the context of the single European market.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should all be better off if the General had not wilfully blocked our entry to the European Community?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord puts a different gloss on these matters. I can only add that we have come a long way since the battle of Waterloo, which was 175 years ago today.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord said that discussions on 3rd May had been fruitful. Can he tell the House precisely what was fruitful about them? Can he also say whether there was any discussion at that time about the social charter? Are we moving anywhere nearer to the French in their attitude toward that charter? Moreover, can he say whether there was any discussion about the ERM and our attitude about joining the ERM fairly soon?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caithness dealt exhaustively with the ERM a Question or so ago. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I am not dragged down that particular path. As for the social charter, the noble Lord knows the views of the Government. I can assure him that they have not changed.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of those on this side of the House believe that there would not be a France were it not for the Americans and the British—the nation of France would not exist? That is my first question. Secondly, does he agree that it is odd that France is not a member of NATO and still believes that she won the battle of Waterloo? Has the Minister anything to say about that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that I want to follow the noble Lord down that path. So far as our wartime experiences go, the part played by the Free French under the leadership of General de Gaulle was indeed remarkable.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that 50 years ago the British and Free French set aside their traditional commercial and cultural rivalries to fight side by side against a common enemy? Does he further agree that, as today there is no common enemy, naturally traditional rivalries must to some extent reassert themselves? Will he confirm that on a purely unofficial, person-to-person level, relations between the British and the French are probably better today than they have ever been?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is quite right. Our relations with France today are extraordinarily warm, friendly, cordial and very constructive. I believe that they have been made even better through the European Community and indeed will go further with the completion of the single European market.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one constructive and practical way to bring France closer to Britain would be to build a proper and modern railway between London and Paris?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we had better get the tunnel finished first.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, can the Minister say why we are concentrating on France when there are 11 other countries in the EC?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my Answers have related to the Question on the Order Paper which specifically referred to France.

Housing: Government Policy
2.56 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their housing policies and in particular their policies towards the voluntary housing sector are meeting the needs of people with housing and re-housing difficulties.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government's policies seek to satisfy people's housing needs by increasing consumer choice and good housekeeping
600
in the use of public money. The voluntary housing sector has a crucial role to play. In recognition of that fact resources for its development will increase from some £938 million in 1989–90 to £1·7 billion in 1992–93.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that he is aware of the Government's stated policy of almost removing local authorities from the house building programme? His answer to me on the last occasion was that they already had enough stock. With reference to the voluntary sector, is he aware that this year, because of financial problems, the housing associations in conjunction with the building people have had to cut their programme from 20,000 to 10,000? Does he consider that that is progress or progress in reverse? Does he expect that that will solve the housing problem?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am aware of the problem referred to by the noble Lord. But it is important to understand the context of the problem. It is owing to success. The success resides in the impressive speed of take-up which, with the new financial system under the Housing Corporation, has proceeded at a far greater pace than we ever expected. Thus, there is now a slight slowing down because there was already an increase in the number of houses going up. If one were to look at a graph one would find that as of today there are more housing starts than were expected because of the success of the take-up.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that last week Sir Christopher Benson, chairman of the Housing Corporation, had to apologise to his constituent members—namely, the housing associations—because money would be drying up towards the end of this year and a lot of new starts could not now take place? Have the Government ruled out completely bringing forward some of the money planned for next year into the latter part of this year so that the momentum can be kept up?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, what happened under the introduction of the new system was that it went too fast at the start. The suggestion of the noble Lord is that even more money should be brought into the system. I suggest that my first Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, pointing out that expenditure would rise from some £938 million to £1–7 billion between now and 1992–93 shows the level of the Government's commitment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, to what extent do the figures given by the Minister apply to Wales? I ask the question because a couple of years ago I had the honour of being the honorary president of Shelter under the UK chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. During that period there was considerable improvement in overcoming some of the housing difficulties in Wales.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, regrettably, I do not have a separate breakdown of the figures for Wales. However, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is there not cause for shame throughout the country when, in the large cities, including London, tens of thousands of our fellow citizens are sleeping rough and have no homes? Should not a special endeavour now be made through discussions with the large local authorities to concentrate on providing homes for those who are sleeping rough?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I draw the noble Lord's attention to the initiative of some £250 million announced by the Government several months ago. I draw his attention also to the fact that the Government recognise that the problem exists.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the Minister's reply to my question appeared to hint that in some way my suggestion that money be brought forward from next year to this year in order to sustain momentum would cause damage. Now that the associations are able to mount a substantial programme that should not be interrupted, would it not be sensible to ensure that some of the money is brought into use at an earlier stage?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is important to remember that the Housing Corporation is still reviewing its position. As regards such bodies, it is not for the Government constantly to initiate direct action.
Lout Stallard: My Lords, are the Government aware that it is estimated that there are 50,000 homeless people in London? Yet their response is to provide 3,000 temporary homes to cope with the problem. Does the Minister agree that the problem lies in the serious shortage of housing at affordable rents and that during 11 years of this Administration the problem has become increasingly worse? There has been no response from the Government. Can the Minister now say whether they have any plans to tackle the problem?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, an example, which reflects part of the problem referred to in the Question, is that as a result of the change the completion of schemes in the voluntary sector has dropped from approximately four years to two years. That must be a change for the good. However, the change has brought problems with it.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how many dwellings above shops throughout the country have been empty for years? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that trey are re-occupied and used as dwellings?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have a specific figure for the number of dwellings above shops. However, I am sure that if my noble friend wishes to table a Question I can endeavour to find a satisfactory Answer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to an earlier question the Minister referred to government initiatives in respect of the homeless who are among those in need of rehousing. Does he
602
acknowledge that what is needed is not short-term accommodation, however basic, but housing into which those people in short-term accommodation can be moved? Does he agree that changes are also required in the social security benefits system to enable young people in particular to have funds for their rent in advance when they first find housing and so avoid the need to borrow?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have answered various Questions on the subject from various angles and at various times since I had the honour of accepting the position which I hold. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has made those points previously; no doubt he will make them again. The fact is that the Government have responded and have taken initiatives. The hope is to provide a better level of results. That, in part, has caused some of the problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, at the beginning of his Question.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister help the House to understand the scale of the problem by providing some numbers? Will he confirm that the number of housing starts during the past year has collapsed, falling by about 40 per cent?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the figure for completions in 1989—
Noble Lords: Starts!
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the question asked by the noble Lord is slightly wide of that on the Order Paper. The figure for completions in 1989 that I have with me, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, would prefer to that which I do not have, is 166,000.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his answers the Minister has given the impression that the Government's house building programme, certainly in the voluntary sector, has been a success. Only a few months ago it was expected that the Government would start to build 20,000 houses. That figure has now been reduced to 10,000. As my noble friend Lord Northfield said, the housing associations are asking for more than £400 million of next year's money to be brought forward in order to keep up the momentum of the original programme. Bearing in mind the present high interest charges that must be paid for voluntary sector housing, does not that request make sense? Will the Government reverse their present policy to one that makes sense?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I remain uncertain about whether the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has appreciated the fact that although there has been a reduction in the number of starts this year there was an increase above the level anticipated for the past year.

Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 27 [For protection of rivers authority]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) moved the amendment:
Page 15, line 1, leave out ("works authorised by section 4 (Power to construct works) of this Act;") and insert ("National Power works or the PowerGen works, as the case may be;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill was orginally promoted by the Central Electricity Generating Board, which was to construct all the works proposed in the Bill. As your Lordships are well aware, the board is now succeeded by National Power and PowerGen. To give effect to that a series of amendments was made in the Unopposed Bill Committee. Unfortunately, a necessary amendment was omitted and that will be put right if your Lordships are good enough to agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Bill
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. — (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government Trading Bill
3.8 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [New provisions in connection with government trading funds]:
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 25, after ("or") insert ("while continuing to be operations of a department of the government").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the amendment with some confidence because I observe that in Amendment No. 3 proposed by the noble Earl the wording of the clause to which my amendment related incorporates the provisions that I have proposed. I am grateful to the noble Earl for having accepted the amendment which, as the House will recall, was moved as part of the argument that I adduced relating to the question of possible privatisation without primary legislation.
My original amendment endeavoured to deal with that point. However, I am assured and advised legally from this side of the House that, together with other parts of the Bill, the amendment will ensure that any endeavour to privatise the agencies which are the subject of the Bill will necessitate primary legislation. I am reassured by that and I am grateful to the noble Earl for having accepted the amendment in advance. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for tabling this amendment which I recommend that the House should accept. It proves the diligent work which the noble Lord has carried out on this Bill. It is something that we have come to expect from him and he has not let us down. He has given careful and detailed study to this measure.
I should like to stray slightly from the amendment to comment on a matter. Having re-read the Committee stage of the proceedings in this House, I should like to take up one point made by the noble Lord on accounts. In particular, he was speaking about IBAP's accounts. As part of the process of establishing IBAP as a Next Steps agency from April this year, IBAP and the Treasury agreed that IBAP's accounting should be improved by an accruals-based accounting system to Companies Act standards. The agency intends to produce such accounts in addition to the appropriation accounts for the 1990–91 accounting year, which the agency and the Treasury regard as the earliest practicable date. No doubt the noble Lord will have noticed that an NAO report recommended just that.
That intervention agency account will meet the noble Lord's criteria which he expounded to the Committee. In particular, it will cover all the funds flowing through the agency, provide for assets and liabilities and conform to best commercial practice. It will be prepared in the light of the Treasury pamphlet on trading accounts, which the noble Lord so warmly commended, and of further guidance which the Treasury is preparing on the form of agency reports and accounts which the agency has seen in draft.
The NAO is already being consulted on the precise form of the accounts and is a member of the IBAP's accounts project team. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that we take seriously the question of accounts but that we were right to resist the temptation of putting on the face of the Bill the words which he wanted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Minor and consequential amendments related to section 1]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 36, at end insert:
("(5) That Act, as amended by section 1 of this Act and this section, is set out in Schedule (Government Trading Funds Act 1973, as amended) to this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. However lengthy these amendments may appear, their purpose is very simple. This Bill amends the Government Trading Funds Act 1973. But, as your Lordships will be aware, it is not easy to follow the final result simply by reading the Act and this Bill together. Therefore, we considered that it would be helpful for those needing to use this legislation in the future to reprint the 1973 Act as it will be when amended. That is what these two amendments achieve.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that these amendments make no change to the text

605
of the Bill and reflect all amendments made to the Bill during its passage, including the amendment which, we have just agreed in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation in respect of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. As he will recall, in our deliberations previously I referred to the very complex and technical nature of the Bill and suggested that it would be helpful to consolidate it. I am entirely in support of the steps which the noble Earl has taken to meet that problem.
On the previous amendment, the noble Earl mentioned accounts. For the time being at any rate, I accept the assurances which he has given. There are a comparatively small number of government trading agencies covered by the Bill, and that number will not be greatly enlarged by the numbers that are to join them. Apart from the Patent Act which is dealt with somewhat differently and since all the accounts will be to the end of the calendar year, can the noble Earl arrange for copies of the accounts to be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House as and when they are published so that we can keep track Of this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall read with care what the noble Lord said when the Official Report is published to see whether I can meet his request.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, this schedule is very helpful in relation to the amendments to the 1973 Act. As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said about the Patent Act, perhaps I may ask a question in order to display my ignorance in this sphere. The Minister knows that recently a committee was set up under the chairmanship of Dr. Coleman which related to the possible trading activities of the Patent Office. Can the noble Earl tell me either now or later whether the provisions under Clauses 2 and 3 as amended affect the position of the Patent Office if in some curious way it has exploited its assets?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that he is ignorant on these matters, it is worth recalling that there is nobody in your Lordships' House who knows more about patent work than the noble Lord. Therefore, I am slightly wary in giving him a precise answer.
The amendment which we agreed deals only with accounts. I shall read with care what the noble Lord said and write to him on the matter.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 5, insert the following new schedule:

ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
1. Establishment of trading funds.

2. Assets and liabilities of funds.

606

2A. Public dividend capital.

2B. Borrowing by funds.

3. Payment into, and out of, a trading fund.

4. Management and accounting.

4A. Operations ceasing to be funded.

5. Provisions as to the coinage.

6. Orders.

7. The Mint.

8. Citation.

An Act to enable certain services of the Crown to be financed by means of trading funds established in pursuance of orders made by the responsible Minister with Treasury concurrence; to make consequential provision (in the event of a trading fund being established for the Mint) as to sums received by, or due from, the Treasury in respect of the coinage; and to amend the Coinage Act 1971 in respect of the establishment and operations of the Mint. [25th October 1973]
(Formal enacting words)
Establishment of trading funds
1.—(1) If it appears to any Minister of the Crown—

(a) that any operations of a department of the government for which he is responsible are suitable to be financed by means of a fund established under this Act (referred to in this Act as a "trading fund") and, in particular, to be so managed that the revenue of the fund would consist principally of receipts in respect of goods or services provided in the course of the operations in question, and

(b) that the financing of the operations in question by means of a trading fund would be in the interests of the improved efficiency and effectiveness of the management of those operations,

he may by order establish a trading fund for the operations in question as from a day appointed by the order.

(2) The power to make an order under this section is exercisable only with Treasury concurrence.
(3) Where a Minister of the Crown proposes to make an order in respect of any operations (not being operations then financed by means of a trading fund) and considers that—

(a) the operations in question consist substantially in the provision of goods or services in the United Kingdom otherwise than to departments of the government, and

(b) an opportunity to make representations to him should be given,

he shall take such steps as appear to him to be appropriate to give such an opportunity to such persons as appear to him to be appropriate.

(4) An order establishing a trading fund shall designate either—

(a) the National Loans Fund, or

(b) the responsible Minister,

as the source of issues to the fund by way of loan (referred to in this Act as the "authorised lender").

(5) Issues to the fund by way of loan by the responsible Minister shall be made out of money provided by Parliament, and the right to repayment of such issues ranks as an asset of the Consolidated Fund.
(6) An order establishing a trading fund for operations carried on by a person appointed in pursuance of any enactment may provide—

(a) for the fund to be under the control and management of that person instead of the responsible Minister and, accordingly,

(b) for this Act to have effect as if—

(i) the reference to the responsible Minister in section 3(1) of this Act and the first reference to him in section 4(1), and

(ii) such other references in this Act to the responsible Minister as may be specified in the order, where they are references to him in the exercise of his function of controlling or managing the fund,

were references to that person.

(7) In this Act—
"the funded operations", in relation to a trading fund, means the operations for which the fund is established,
"liabilities", in relation to a trading fund, does not include liabilities in respect of any amount issued to the fund under section 2B of this Act,
"Minister of the Crown" means the holder of an office in Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and includes the Treasury,
"order" except in section 2B(8) of this Act means an order under this section,
"originating debt", in relation to a trading fund, means any amount remaining after any repayment or reduction of the amount which, by virtue of section 2(3) and (4) of this Act, is the originating debt of the fund, and
"the responsible Minister", in relation to any operations of a department of the government, means the Minister of the Crown responsible for that department.
(8) References in this Act to the provision of services include—

(a) the provision of any authority required for carrying on any activity or exercising any right, and

(b) the performance of any other functions in connection with the regulation of any activity or right.

(9) References in this Act to a Minister of the Crown include Ministers acting jointly, but an order may not designate more than one Minister as the authorised lender.
Assets and liabilities of funds
2.—(1) Where any Minister of the Crown proposes to make an order establishing a trading fund for any operations or to vary an order by extending the funded operations—

(a) he shall with Treasury concurrence determine what Crown assets and liabilities are properly attributable to the operations for which the fund is to be established or, as the case may be, the additional operations and are suitable to be appropriated to the fund, and

(b) the order shall provide for the assets and liabilities so determined to be appropriated as assets and liabilities of the fund at values or amounts determined by him in accordance with Treasury directions.

(2) The responsible Minister may from time to time, in the case of any trading fund, with Treasury concurrence determine what additional Crown assets and liabilities are properly attributable to the funded operations and suitable to be appropriated to the fund and provide by order for the assets and liabilities in question to be appropriated as assets and liabilities of the fund at values or amounts determined by him in accordance with Treasury directions.
(3) Where an order establishing a trading fund provides for any assets and liabilities to be appropriated as assets and liabilities of the fund—

(a) the amount by which the values of those assets exceed the amounts of those liabilities, less

(b) any amount treated by virtue of the order as public dividend capital,

is originating debt of the fund and is to be treated as having been issued to the fund under section 2B of this Act on the day appointed by the order.
(4) Where, in the case of a trading fund established under a previous order, an order provides for any additional assets and liabilities to be appropriated as assets and liabilities of the fund—

(a) the amount by which the values of those additional assets exceed the amounts of those additional liabilities, less

(b) any amount treated by virtue of the order as public dividend capital,

is to be added to the originating debt of the fund and is to be treated as having been issued to the fund under section 2B of this Act on the day appointed by the order.
(5) The responsible Minister may with Treasury concurrence from time to time by order provide, in the case of any trading fund, for any assets and liabilities to cease to be assets and liabilities of the fund; but the power conferred by this subsection is not exercisable where section 4A of this Act applies.
(6) Where the responsible Minister exercises the power conferred by subsection (5) above, he may, in the case of any originating debt or public dividend capital which he may with Treasury concurrence determine to be properly attributable to the assets and liabilities in question—

(a) out of money provided by Parliament, repay the whole or part of the debt or make a payment into the Consolidated Fund in reduction or extinguishment of the capital, and

(b) by order made with Treasury concurrence provide for the reduction or extinguishment of any debt or capital remaining after the application of paragraph (a) above.

(7) An order providing for any assets and liabilities to be appropriated as, or to cease to be, assets and liabilities of a trading fund may describe the assets and liabilities in general terms.
Public dividend capital
2A.—(1) An order providing for any assets and liabilities to be appropriated as assets and liabilities of a trading fund may provide for any part of the amount by which the values of the assets exceed the amounts of the liabilities to be treated as public dividend capital of the fund.
(2) Where the responsible Minister—

(a) repays out of a trading fund before the due date any amount outstanding in respect of the principal of any sums issued to the fund by the authorised lender by way of loan, Or

(b) pays any amount standing in the reserves of a trading fund into the Consolidated Fund,

he may with Treasury concurrence issue out of money provided by Parliament a corresponding amount to the fund as public dividend capital.
(3) Where any sum is issued to a trading fund under section 2B of this Act, the responsible Minister may with Treasury concurrence pay out of the fund into the Consolidated Fund a corresponding sum in reduction or extinguishment of any public dividend capital.
(4) Public dividend capital ranks as an asset of the Consolidated Fund.
(5) For any financial year in which a trading fund has public dividend capital, there shall be paid out of the fund into the Consolidated Fund such sums (if any) by way of return on that capital and its reserves as the responsible Minister may determine, with Treasury concurrence, having regard to any balance in the fund at the end of that year and the amount of the balance which appears to the responsible Minister and the Treasury to be in the nature of distributable profit.
Borrowing by funds
2B.—(1) No amount shall be paid into a trading fund by way of loan except in accordance with this section.
(2) Subject to subsection (6) below, the authorised lender may issue by way of loan to a trading fund sums required for the funded operations.
(3) Sums issued under this section shall be repaid out of the fund on such terms, and interest on them shall be paid at such variable or fixed rates and at such times, as the Treasury may determine.
(4) A rate of interest for any amount so issued by the responsible Minister shall be determined as if section 5 of the National Loans Act 1968 had effect in respect of it and subsections (5A) and (5B) of that section shall apply accordingly.
(5) In the case of any trading fund where the authorised lender is a Minister of the Crown, repayment of any amount outstanding in respect of the principal of any sum issued under this section (other than repayment before the due date) may, with Treasury concurrence, be made to the Minister instead of into the Consolidated Fund and applied by him as money provided by Parliament.
(6) The order establishing a trading fund shall specifiy the maximum amount that may be issued under this section and the aggregate of amounts issued under this section in respect of the fund (other than originating debt) shall not exceed that amount, or that amount as varied by a subsequent order.
(7) The sum of the maxima in force in respect of all trading funds at any time shall not exceed £2,000 million.
(8) The Treasury may by order made by statutory instrument increase or further increase the limit in subsection (7) above by any amount, not exceeding £1,000 million, specified in the order but not so as to make the limit exceed £4,000 million.
(9) No order under subsection (8) above shall be made unless a draft of a statutory instrument containing it has been laid before the House of Commons and approved by a resolution of that House.
Payments into, and out of, a trading fund
3.—(1) There shall be paid into a trading fund all receipts in respect of the funded operations and there shall he paid out of the fund all expenditure incurred by the responsible Minister in respect of those operations, except expenditure in respect of liabilities not appropriated to the fund.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, there shall be paid out of the trading fund into the Consolidated Fund such sums as may be appropriate as representing accruing liabilities of the Treasury in respect of pensions (including increases of pensions), gratuities and other similar benefits for persons who have been employed in the funded operations and in respect of the administrative expenses attributable to those liabilities and their discharge; and—

(a) where the Treasury is the responsible Minister for the find, it shall be for the Treasury to determine the sums payable under this subsection, the amount of any payment and the time at which it is to be made; and

(b) in other cases it shall be for the responsible Minister to determine the sums so payable in agreement with the Treasury, subject to any directions given by the Treasury as to the amount of any payment or the time at which it is to be made.

(3) The enactments relating to public receipts, expenditure and accounting shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, except as may be directed by the Treasury from time to time; and if any question arises whether any particular sums are required by those provisions to be paid into, or out of, the trading fund, that question shall be determined by the Treasury.
(4) Nothing in this section affects the powers conferred in relation to fees and charges by section 102 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987.
Management and accounting
4.—(1) A trading fund established under this Act … shall be under the control and management of the responsible Minster; and in the discharge of his functions in relation to the fund it shall be his duty—

(a) to manage the funded operations so that the revenue of the fund—

(i) consists principally of receipts in respect of goods or services provided in the course of the funded operations, and

(ii) is not less than sufficient, taking one year with another, to meet outgoings which are properly chargeable to revenue account; and

(b) to achieve such further financial objectives as the Treasury may from time to time, by minute laid before the House of Commons, indicate as having been determined by the responsible Minister (with Treasury concurrence) to be desirable of achievement.

(2) With Treasury concurrence, the responsible Minister may establish and maintain general, capital and other reserves in the accounts of the trading fund.
(3) If at any time it appears to the responsible Minister that any amount standing in the reserves of the trading fund is surplus to any foreseeable requirements of the funded operations, he may with Treasury concurrence pay that amount out of the fund and into the Consolidated Fund.
(4) If in the case of a trading fund not having public dividend capital, the revenues of the fund for a financial year exceed the total sums properly chargeable to revenue account for that year, the responsible Minister may with Treasury concurrence—

(a) apply the excess for such purposes of the funded operations as he may determine, or

(b) pay the whole or part of the excess into the Consolidated Fund.

(5) Any money in the fund which appears to the responsible Minister not to be immediately required for the funded
610
operations may be invested by him in such securities of the Government of the United Kingdom or of the Government of Northern Ireland as the Treasury may approve, including Treasury Bills and Ways and Means advances.
(6) The Treasury shall appoint an accounting officer for the fund, with responsibility for keeping its accounts and proper records in relation thereto, and preparing and signing a statement of the accounts in respect of each financial year; and—

(a) the annual statement of accounts shall comply with any directions given by the Treasury as to the information to be contained in the statement, the manner in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared and contain such additional information … as the Treasury may require to be provided for the information of Parliament; and

(b) the statement in respect of each financial year shall, on or before 30th November next following the end of that year, be transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who shall examine and certify the statement and lay copies thereof, together with his report thereon, before Parliament.

(6A) The accounting officer shall send to the responsible Minister in respect of each financial year—

(a) the annual statement of accounts, and

(b) a report in such form and containing such information as to the performance of the funded operations as the Treasury may require,

and the responsible Minister shall publish any report received by him under this subsection, together with the annual statement of accounts (unless the Treasury otherwise directs), in such manner as the Treasury may require.
(6B) Where any enactment (other than this Act) requires, in whatever terms, a report to be prepared for any period as to the funded operations and sent to any person, or laid before Parliament, or both or so sent or laid by any time or times, an order may provide for that requirement to be treated as satisfied by preparing the report for the financial year and sending it to that person, or laying it before Parliament, or both or, as the case may be, so sending or laying it by the time or times specified in the order.
(7) As respects any financial year during the whole of which any operations of a department of the government are funded operations of a trading fund, section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 (preparation and examination of accounts of trading services conducted by government departments) shall not apply to those operations; but otherwise subsection (6) above is without prejudice to anything in that Act or the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866.
Operations ceasing to be funded
4A.—(a) This section applies where any operations for which a trading fund is established are to cease to be funded operations (whether the operations ceasing to be funded represent the whole or part of the funded operations or are to cease altogether or be funded of another fund or, while continuing to be operations of a department of the government, be financed by other means).
(2) Where the operations ceasing to be funded represent only part of the funded operations, the responsible Minister shall by order provide for such assets and liabilities of the fund as he may with Treasury concurrence determine to be properly attributable to the operations ceasing to be funded to cease to be assets and liabilities of the fund.
(3) In the following provisions of this section, "debt" means any amount outstanding in respect of the principal of or interest on sums issued under section 2B of this Act and "originating debt" includes any amount outstanding in respect of interest on such debt; and, where the operations ceasing to be funded represent only part of the funded operations—

(a) references to assets and liabilities are to the assets and liabilities ceasing to be assets and liabilities of the fund by virtue of an order under subsection (2) above,

(b) references to debt, originating debt or public dividend capital are to so much of any debt, originating debt or public dividend capital as the responsible Minister may with Treasury concurrence determine to be attributable to the operations ceasing to be funded.

(4) If, in a case where the operations ceasing to be funded are to cease altogether, the values of the assets of the fund exceed the amounts of the liabilities of the fund, the excess shall be applied in accordance with subsection (6) below.
(5) If in any other case—

(a) it appears to the responsible Minister that any amount standing in the reserves of the fund is surplus to any foreseeable requirements of the funded operations, or

(b) the revenues of the fund for the last financial year exceed the total sums properly chargeable to revenue account for that year,

the amount or excess shall be applied in accordance with subsection (6) below.
(6) The amount or excess in question shall be applied towards the following objects (applying paragraph (a) before paragraph (b))—

(a) the repayment of debt, and

(b) payment into the Consolidated Fund in reduction or extinguishment of any public dividend capital,

and if, where the operations ceasing to be funded represent the whole of the funded operations, any balance remains after the amount or excess has been so applied, the responsible Minister shall pay the balance into the Consolidated Fund.
(7) The responsible Minister may out of money provided by Parliament repay any debt remaining after the application of subsection (6) above or make a payment into the Consolidated Fund in reduction or extinguishment of any public dividend capital so remaining.
(8) Where the operations ceasing to be funded represent only part of the funded operations, the responsible Minister may by order made with Treasury concurrence reduce or extinguish any originating debt, or public dividend capital, remaining after the application of the preceding subsections.
Provisions as to the coinage
5. If a trading fund is established under this Act for the Mint, then as from the day appointed in relation to the fund under section 1(1) of this Act—

(a) any sums received by or on behalf of the "Treasury in respect of coin issued for circulation shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund; and

(b) any sums due from the Treasury as payment for coin withdrawn from circulation shall be charged on and issued out of that Fund.

Orders
6.—(1) The power to make an order under section 1 of this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and includes power to vary or revoke such an order, but no such order may alter the authorised lender in relation to any fund.
(2) No order establishing a trading fund, or extending or restricting the funded operations, shall be made unless a draft of a statutory instrument containing it has been laid before the House of Commons and approved by a resolution of that House.
(3) A statutory instrument containing an order under section 1 of this Act, if made without a draft having been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of that House.
(4) Where a Minister of the Crown has taken steps in pursuance of section 1(3) of this Act to give an opportunity for representations to be made about a proposed order, he shall, before laying, in accordance with subsection (2) above, a draft instrument containing the order giving effect to the proposal, lay a report before Parliament about the representations received and his conclusions.
The Mint
7.—(1) For purposes of this Act the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be regarded as the Minister responsible for the administration of the Mint; and this Act, so far as it requires the concurrence of the Treasury for the making of orders, or for anything to be done under or for the purposes of sections 2, 2A, 4 or 4A, does not apply to him as responsible Minister in relation to the Mint.
(2) In section 4 of the Coinage Act 1971 (which relates to the constitution and functions of the Mint), the following shall be substituted for subsection (2)—
"(2) There shall be a deputy master of the Mint, appointed by the Treasury";
and subsections (3) and (4) are hereby repealed; and subsections (6) and (7) (expenses and receipts) shall not have effect for so long as any operations of the Mint are funded operations.
(3) Section 5 of the said Act of 1971 (coining of bullion taken by the Mint) is hereby repealed.
(4) In section 9(1) of the said Act of 1971 (prohibition of coins and tokens not issued by authority) for the words "by or with the authority of the Mint" there shall be substituted the words "with the authority of the Treasury".
Citation
8. This Act may be cited as the Government Trading Funds Act 1973.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
3.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report. — (Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 48 [Assessment of need for community care services]:
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 168A:
Page 52, line 27, after ("services") insert:
("(a) shall carry out an assessment of his needs for those services giving due consideration to his views and the views of his carer; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I see that this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 169 and Amendments Nos. 177 to 179. I gather that if my amendment is agreed to, which of course it will be, the other amendments will not be moved. However, I cannot speak for the movers of those amendments because they may feel rather differently about it.
This amendment requires that as regards assessment the client and the carer should be consulted and their views should be given due consideration. At first sight that seems to be common sense and, therefore, the amendment appears unnecessary. However, I must raise some points from the Association of Directors of Social Services which throw rather a new light on the subject. It seems to the association to be a particularly glaring omission that the draft legislation does not require the views of the consumer to be taken into account during the course of assessment. Incidentally, I have seen the draft guidance on planning which I received today and I can find nothing in that on this subject. Therefore, this amendment would require the local authority to consult both the consumer and carer when undertaking an assessment. It does not place a duty upon local authorities to carry out the wishes of the person assessed but it establishes the principle that the views of such a person should have equal weight with other relevant organisations; for example, the general practitioner, the community nurse and so on. It is clear that the views of the consumer must have the greatest weight.
The association goes on to say that the social services departments are trying to escape from the charge that the professional knows best. Therefore, reaching an appropriate assessment should be seen as a partnership between the local authorities and those who need their services. Setting out the consumer/carer rights in law gives them the importance which they deserve. That reflects the principles of the White Paper and the whole government strategy which is constantly being asserted.
It is very easy to fall back on the rhetoric of caring and referring to the unsung army of carers and so on. However, the Social Services Select Committee Report published on 7th June shows that much more need to be done to enhance the status of carers and the value we all place on their activities. That can be done only through primary legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as I have tabled Amendment No. 169 I support this amendment but I hope that if it is passed my amendment will not be overlooked because of the greater emphasis that it places on carers. It is of the greatest importance that the needs of carers should be taken into account in exactly the same way as the needs of the person being cared for. That is in the interests not only of the carers themselves but of the person being cared for and the community as a whole. If the carers break down—and unless sufficient assistance is given they will break down—the burden will be thrown back on the community and the cost to the community as a whole will be greater than anything that would have been necessary to support the carer.
In particular I draw attention to the phrase in my amendment—it is not reflected in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm—which states:
"shall not assume that the carer will continue to provide care to the person where the carer is unwilling to do so".
That may seem to some people as encouraging carers not to accept the responsibilities that they ought to accept. I hope that we do not take that attitude. It must not be assumed when these plans are being made that because there is someone in the family who can be described as a carer or possible carer that person will automatically and indefinitely assume responsibility. If that happens it will be very much the worse for all concerned. I hope it will be found possible to incorporate the amendment on the face of the Bill.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are pleased from these Benches to support this amendment. In Committee we discussed an amendment that dealt with the needs of carers which was not accepted. These amendments deal with paying proper attention to the views of the person being assessed and also the views of the carer. After all, the carer is likely to know much better than anyone else what those needs are.
I am sure we all agree that all governments have shamelessly exploited carers. It is not right to assume that a carer will go on caring. We should also consider the importance of the training of carers. I believe that £2 million has been allocated to the training of managers of social services. It will be interesting to
614
learn how much has been allocated specifically for the training of carers. Where private and residential home care is in the community care package that is to be designed, how will the Government ensure that suitably qualified staff will be engaged in caring?
We should remind ourselves that the Social Services Committee report in another place, Community Care: Carers, stated in its recommendations:
"We share the view put to us that the needs of carers should be assessed separately, but at the same time as those of the dependant. In some cases we believe the carer herself or himself, who may know the disabled person's needs much better than any of the professionals, could also be the dependent person's case manager".
The report goes on to say:
"We recommend that local authorities consult carers and their representatives regularly and appropriately about their community care plans and about plans for individual packages of care".
I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendments.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, in principle I support all these amendments. I shall not say more at this stage.
Lord Henley: My Lords, when we debated this clause in Committee—it was then Clause 45—my noble friend Lady Hooper made clear the Government's position on similar amendments. It appears to be simply a question of whether these proposals should be on the face of the Bill.
We have repeatedly explained why we do not think it is necessary to place such a provision on the face of the Bill. Our guidance on assessment and case management will make it clear that the person concerned and any carers should be fully involved both in the assessment of care needs and in the subsequent decision about what services should be provided. I am sure that that is the most appropriate way of dealing with the point.
My noble friend explained to the Committee on that occasion that there is already provision for carers to be consulted when the needs of disabled people are being assessed by virtue of Section 8 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. To that extent no further statutory provision is required. In addition, as we have already made clear on several occasions, guidance on case management and assessment will stress the need to involve users and carers at all stages and to take their views into account. This guidance can be reinforced, if necessary, by directions. I feel this is as far as we can go.
However, there are two safeguards. First, local authorities will have to publish their arrangements for assessment as part of their community care plans. Those arrangements should make it clear how the views of users and carers will be taken into account. If these plans are published and are the subject of consultation—consultation which has been considerably widened in scope as a result of amendments now incorporated in the Bill—there is ample opportunity for local debate about the arrangements and for local voluntary organisations and users and carers to see that there are sufficient opportunities for views to be taken into account.

615
Finally, if people are denied the opportunity to express their views and subsequently feel dissatisfied with the service provision, they will have to write to complain under the new complaints procedure set out in Clause 51 of the Bill. Although in an ideal world it might be possible to provide users and carers with the services they want, any realistic and affordable community care scheme must be based on providing services to meet the need for care. The final decisions about what those needs are and the best way of meeting them must be left to those responsible for arranging the services concerned; in other words, the local authority. Thus, any duty to have regard to users' and carers' wishes would have to be subject to qualifications which would rob it of much of its force. Indeed, in the opinion of the Government it would do so to an extent that would not make it worth including it in the Bill.
In moving the amendments on which we divided in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said:
"It is essential that the carers' position and the carers should be on the face of the Bill".— [Official Report, 10/5/90; col. 1561.]
I have to tell the noble Baroness that I still disagree with her on that point. As I said, our guidance will cover the need to consult carers and to take account of their views. As regards community care support for himself or herself, the carer can of course ask for an assessment just as anyone else can. There is thus no reason to put anything about taking account of the views of users and carers on the face of the Bill, however highly desirable the noble Baroness and her supporters may think that to be. I have to tell her that I am unable to accept the amendments and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he said that in Section 8 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 there is a duty on local authorities to consult carers. I have the Act with me. Section 8(1) states that:
"the local authority shall, in deciding that question, have regard to the ability of that other person to continue to provide such care on a regular basis".
The authorities have to bear in mind the ability of the person, but there is nothing in the Act, as I read it, that makes them consult the carers. The authority may decide that the carer is capable of carrying on, but the carer may know quite the reverse. Perhaps my noble friend will comment on that because I do not believe his arguments stand up.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend's interpretation of Section 8 probably differs slightly from mine. My understanding is that if authorities have to take into account the ability of carers, that would require a certain degree of consultation with the carer.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I find that a very airy-fairy explanation of why the amendment should not be accepted. I believe that it is important for the amendment to be included on the face of the Bill for another reason. We shall come to Amendment No. 168B which is about complaints. Very often the complaints are that there has not been proper
616
consultation beforehand. In other words, I believe this amendment is a great protection for everyone concerned in regard to complaints. I cannot therefore accept the explanation and I must press the amendment.
3.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 168A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monson, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

Cox, B.

Northfield, L.

Crook, L.

Oram, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Porritt, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Ennals, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Seebohm, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Fitt, L.

Shannon, E.

Gallacher, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Galpern, L.

Soper, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Butterworth, L.

Allerton, L.

Caithness, E.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Annaly, L.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Balfour, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cawley, L.

Beloff, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belstead, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cullen of Asbourne, L.

Birdwood, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Dudley, B.

Borthwick, L.

Eccles, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ellenborough, L.

617

Elles, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Onslow, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Orkney, E.

Fairhaven, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Faithfull, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Foley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Quinton, L.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Renton, L.

Havers, L.

Rodney, L.

Henley, L.

Romney, E.

Hesketh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hives, L.

Savile, L.

Hood V.

Selkirk, E.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ironside, L.

Slim, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strange, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Layton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Long, V.

Lovat, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Lyell, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathspey, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swansea, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Teviot, L.

Manton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Margadale, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mersey, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ullswater, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Napier and Ettick, L.

Westbury, L.

Nelson, E.

Wolfson, L.

Newall, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Norrie, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 168AA:
Page 52, line 30, at end insert ("and
(c) in the event of change of residence any existing assessment shall apply in whichever local authority the person becomes resident until the new authority is able to reassess their claim.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is bound to be a good deal of migration or cross-boundary movement of people covered by Part III of this Bill. This amendment seeks to ensure the continuity of community care services for persons moving from one local authority to another. The amendment reads:
"in the event of change of residence any existing assessment shall apply in whichever local authority the person becomes resident until the new authority is able to reassess their claim".
There are various categories of people who will be affected by this amendment. In particular, people suffering from the HIV disease frequently have to move from one local authority to another. The most common reasons are the following: first, harassment. People with HIV are frequently subject to harassment and may need to move quickly to another area. I have here a number of examples to illustrate the point and some of them are pretty harrowing. I shall not go through them all but I shall give noble Lords two or three examples.
A couple are living in a privately rented flat in West London. One of them has full-blown AIDS and is extremely anxious and depressed. The conditions
618
at the flat are poor. There is damp and the walls are covered with mould. In addition to problems of environment, the landlady of the flat found out about the AIDS sufferer's condition and started telling the other tenants. On one occasion she even went out into the street and broadcast the fact to passers-by. The sufferer applied to his local authority saying that he was homeless, but it refused his application on the ground that he actually had suitable accommodation despite the public harassment.
Another case involves a girl who moved to London from Edinburgh in order to seek better medical treatment. She had lost her job when her employer found out, through a breach of confidentiality on the part of her GP, that she was HIV positive. In London she moved into a bedsit costing approximately £100 a week. It had no heating and was reached by climbing four flights of stairs. She shared the toilet, bathroom and kitchen with 14 other people. She has ARC—AIDS related complex—some of the effects of which are chronic diarrhoea and fatigue. Consequently she found her accommodation more and more difficult to cope with. Eventually her weight dropped to under six stone. She was admitted to hospital and her social worker referred her to a voluntary housing association. This case has a happier ending because accommodation was found. Her weight has increased and there has since been a great general improvement in her health.
My final case involves a horrifying instance of another girl who had been living in the north of England for some time when she found out that she was HIV positive. She returned to London with her boyfriend hoping that she would get support and help from her family and friends. Unfortunately they would have nothing to do with her and she and her boyfriend moved into a squat in Brixton. She then became friendly with a neighbour and confided in him that she was HIV positive. Later on that day he broke into the flat and beat her up and her boyfriend so badly that they both had to be admitted to hospital. On being discharged from hospital they were both too scared to return to the squat. They ended up sleeping in a multi-storey carpark for two weeks until some friends offered to let them sleep on their floor. During this period, not unnaturally, the girl's health deteriorated disastrously. The local authority has not yet been able to house the couple due to lack of vacancies. At present she is moving around, sleeping on various people's floors.
Those are various instances of harassment. I pass to another consideration—drugs. The discovery that they are HIV positive encourages a considerable number of people to give up drug taking. But this means that they may well come under considerable pressure from pushers and other users—their previous companions—to continue the habit. This may drive them, in order to preserve some kind of anonymity, to move to areas where they are not known to the intravenous drug using community.
Another reason for moving from one local authority area to another is the need to be near to hospital services and carers. As noble Lords will know, some hospitals are developing specialist

619
services which draw in people from wide geographical areas. Some people will therefore move to be near what they consider to be their hospital—the place where they are receiving treatment. That is certainly the case with people who are HIV positive. They move specifically in order to be treated at centres of excellence on HIV and AIDS. They do so because the services are perceived to be of high quality, a degree of anonymity is assured and voluntary support groups are available. People with HIV and AIDS also move in order to be close to carers and friends. Some, knowing that they are reaching the end of their lives, naturally move back to their home locality to gain the support of their families. Often the lack of preparedness of local services for such immigrants leads to a panic response rather than a balanced reaction and the necessary support.
The failure of an adequate community response also has a knock-on effect on hospitals, which find themselves having to cope with people who are not currently receiving active treatment or therapy but are unable to find anywhere else to live which would entitle them to social services. That puts increasing pressure on the scarce resources of the NHS.
I think that I have said enough to show that something along the lines of the amendment is required to deal with these cross-boundary movements. It is also possible that savings would be achieved not only for the NHS but also for local authorities if the idea of a portable assessment were accepted and became widespread. This could mean that a new assessment would not need to be made on every occasion but only when the condition of the person in question changed. I think that I have given sufficient background to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is a sensible amendment. Amendment No. 171 will deal with cross-boundary funding. The amendment before us deals with cross-boundary assessment. It is important that the Government should explain how the problems which the noble Lord has described so well will be dealt with. It is not entirely clear when one reads the Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, regarding HIV and other problems. However, I do not think that the arrangements envisaged by the amendment are practicable.
I agree that it is important that when people receiving community care services move, there should be a continuity of service provision. However, it may not be possible for the existing pattern of service provision to be replicated at the person's new address. For one thing a change of address may well produce a different pattern of care needs if the person moves into a different domestic setting or into a very different type of accommodation. In many instances where day care
620
is being provided, the person would, on a change of address to a different local authority, in any event move too far away from the day centre which he is attending still to be able to get there. The way that we would envisage changes of address being handled would be for someone in receipt of community care services to approach the local authority into whose area he intended to move to make application for community care services there. Ideally this should be done in time for local authorities to carry out an assessment and decide what services should be provided before the change of address takes place. In cases where a person moves to alternative accommodation because of his care needs and possibly with the involvement of the first local authority, it is obvious that there needs to be collaboration between the two authorities to ensure that there is continuity of service provision. Should any particular problems arise in this area we feel that we can address them through our guidance, which, if necessary, could be reinforced by directions. I hope that, in the light of those considerations and the assurance I have given, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has recognised the importance of the continuity of care across boundaries. However, I do not think that the rest of his response was quite what I had hoped for. I take his point that a change of circumstances may ultimately not lead to the same assessment because residential accommodation may turn into day care or vice versa. But what worries me is his suggestion that an application should be made in good time for assessment. I do not know how long on average those assessments will take. In an earlier amendment a time limit was suggested, which, so far as I know, has not been accepted.
I tried to illustrate in my remarks that the need to move is often urgent, particularly in cases of harassment. To suggest that people should calmly go to the authority to which they would ideally like to move, wait to be seen and wait for the assessment while they are being harassed by neighbours to leave the accommodation in which they are living is not frightfully helpful. That must be taken into account.
I should have thought that my suggestion of a portable assessment for a limited period was not a bad one. In many cases there would then be the need for reassessment. However, I should have thought that the idea that one could move with one's existing assessment and that its validity would be upheld for an agreed time—a fortnight, a month or some such period—would do a very great deal to end some of these extremely nasty cases.
I shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said. I shall not press the amendment to a Division but I may well come back to it at Third Reading. I hope very much that before the Bill leaves the House the noble Lord will be able to assure me—even if it is through guidance—that the kind of circumstances which I have outlined will be taken into account. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 168B;
Page 52, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) A person who is dissatisfied with an assessment which has been carried out in accordance with subsection (1) above shall have 21 days in which to appeal to the local authority (or a committee thereof) whose decision shall be binding.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is self-explanatory. An appeal procedure is necessary. It has been suggested that people should go to the Secretary of State but I believe that that would be time consuming and would place a quite unreasonable burden on the Secretary of State. I looked through the Marshalled List to see if other amendments about complaints had been tabled. Amendment No. 183A was the only one I could find, but it concerns appeals against the discharge of the duties and not against the assessment. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I think we can all agree that the availability of a right of appeal if a person is dissatisfied with his assessment is essential. However, the House would be interested to know how the Government propose that the problem should be dealt with. Clearly, as the community care packages start to come into operation, there will be people who are dissatisfied with the assessment they have been given. How is it proposed that such people will be able to express their dissatisfaction without a right of appeal being provided for in the Bill?
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment. It is very important for the person concerned to have the right to appeal against such decisions. The Association of Directors of Social Services supports the right of appeal against decisions made on an individual's behalf. The association said:
"Such considerations are too important for an assessment simply to be delivered, unchallengeable, on tablets of stone".
That right of appeal could make the difference between a person staying at home or moving into residential care.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, if people have the right to appeal, they are much more likely to accept a decision made on their behalf. Alternatively, it is to be hoped that they will have a say in the matter through the appeal procedure.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, there are certain conditions which arise whereby the individual has both good and bad days. At the same time, the assessor also has good and bad days. What is the position when the disabled person is having an extremely good day but has to meet with a very grumpy and bad assessor? It is absolutely essential that there should be a right of appeal.
Lord Henley: My Lords, to begin with I should like to clarify the position so that we all know what we are discussing. I take it that we are speaking to Amendment No. 168B and not to Amendment No. 170, which was originally on the grouping list. As I understand it, noble Lords would prefer to take these amendments separately. I propose to do so.
622
A similar amendment was moved in Committee in another place. My honourable friend the Minister for Health explained that we consider it undesirable to introduce an appeal procedure into community care provision. Although other noble Lords have spoken briefly—and I am grateful for that—I think that it might help the House if I were to set out the reasons for our view.
First, an appeals procedure could very well be an excuse to introduce into community care assessments an unwelcome measure of bureaucracy. If a decision was likely to be appealed against, that would lead to meticulous recording of the information collected at the assessment and the reasons why the decision was reached. Secondly, an appeals procedure would introduce a legalistic overtone into the assessment procedure. Such legalism would not sit well with what is intended to be an interactive social work process. Thirdly, we have to have regard to the costs of such a procedure, which could well divert resources from service provision. Service provision itself might also be skewed by the findings of appeals as, in the terms of the amendment, the decision of the person considering them would be binding on the authority, which would then have to provide the services it was decided to award. Fourthly, there are other means already in existence by which decisions of local authorities can be challenged and it would be open to someone who was deeply dissatisfied by the treatment they had received from the local authority to seek redress in that way.
Finally, as a result of concerns expressed in another place and in this House, we have introduced into the community care arrangements a requirement that local authorities should have a procedure for dealing with complaints and representations. This is embodied in Clause 51 of the Bill. In our guidance associated with this requirement we shall make it clear that local authorities must be able to deal properly with complaints, and, while we are not recommending a separate structure for complaints against assessment, such complaints could be considered by the mechanisms that the local authority would be required to set up. Our guidance also makes it clear that the final stage in the complaints procedure must bring in an independent element on lines similar to that which local authorities will be required to have under the Children Act 1989.
In conclusion, I should mention that we must bear in mind the fact that the social services department will remain accountable to its council and that there is always the form of redress available to anyone of appealing through their elected county councillor, or other councillor, in terms of the accountability of the department to the council. For the reasons I have given, I feel that the requirement to have a complaints and representation procedure is as far as it is appropriate to go in the field of community care. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, the proposal here was in the nature of a probing amendment. It is very important that there is some form of appeal

623
available. However, I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord said. I must say that I am not completely satisfied with his reply and I may return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 168C:
Page 52, line 30, at end insert:
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice with respect to assessments carried out under this section which shall make provision as to the advice which a local authority should seek in making assessments.
(1B) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1A) above, the code of practice issued under that subsection shall give guidance as to when a local authority should seek medical or nursing advice, and such other advice as may be advised.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment would ensure that there are clear guidelines for local authorities regarding assessment procedures. The White Paper stated that local authorities would need to form their own views about whether a formalised assessment process was necessary. There are many Members of your Lordships' House, as well as members of the Royal College of Nursing, who feel that that is not sufficient and there should be a firmer commitment that assessment will involve a multi-disciplinary approach.
Amendments were moved in another place which would have established a multi-disciplinary team to conduct assessments. However, they were dismissed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales as being too bureaucratic and rigid. It is for that reason that this amendment has been made much more flexible. It relies upon the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice.
A code of practice would define when a local authority should seek particular forms of advice. It is not a new idea. It follows the precedent within the Education Act 1981 which made similar provision for a code of practice in respect of assessments for children with special needs. If the Government's proposals under the community care Bill are to be successful, one of the most important parts of it will be the assessment process. It has been described as the hinge point where health authority and local authority social service actions interface. Therefore, it is desperately important that this assessment process draws on the full range of knowledge and contributions which can be obtained by making use of all the available professional advice.
I understand that the Welsh Office has issued what is generally considered to be quite an admirable guidance on assessment processes. So far as I know, such guidance has not been forthcoming from the Department of Health. It may have helped us in our considerations if we had seen that guidance document. Of course guidance in itself is not enough; but there is no reason why the Government should resist its incorporation into a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State.
The White Paper Caring for People repeatedly referred to the need for full co-operation. For
624
example, with regard to the organisation of assessment, at paragraph 3.2.7., it says:
"an essential skill which case co-ordinators will need to deploy will be to manage the involvement, contribution, co-operation and partnership between the local authority … and professions in providing services. The Government expects all those concerned to contribute positively to such arrangements".
However, those expectations are not reflected in the Bill. While I have the utmost admiration and respect for social workers, I still claim that a nurse has a greater knowledge of the services available and a greater capability of diagnosing what could help a patient improve his standard of life. It is for the nurse to decide when to call on a continence adviser, an occupational therapist, a physiotherapist or a speech therapist. It is important that the nurse's view should be part of the assessment process. Nurses should be equal partners in the provision of assessment and care delivery.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It is flexible and would ensure that assessment in the community makes the utmost contribution to the success of the community care proposals. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I give the fullest possible support to the amendment which stands also in my name. The noble Baroness is correct. If community care is to become a reality it is vital that the established methods of working together embodied in multi-disciplinary teams should have some formal recognition within the Bill to ensure the best possible and most appropriate services for consumers.
There are many different professionals. The noble Baroness referred to the importance of trained nursing staff, with which I agree. The role of the social worker is also important. I should add—perhaps being prejudiced, as president of the College of Occupational Therapists—the occupational therapists who often have a central role to play in assessment and case management. They have the skills and experience which enable them to bring together those with more precise skills. In a sense, they have a holistic approach to their clients. The concept which we are trying to write into the Bill, by means of a code of practice, is important. It is not for any of us to say that one profession is more important than another. All play a role, as they do in the medical profession.
The code of practice, if properly applied with proper consultation, would underpin the Bill. I should have liked to have seen a similar but more detailed amendment written into the Bill. But, as the noble Baroness said, that was tried in another place and defeated. I guess that if we tried the same here, it would also be defeated. This proposal is the best that we can have. I warmly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness raised an important point. I believe that I can meet almost all her objectives, short of putting the amendment on the face of the Bill.
I can assure your Lordships that we shall be issuing guidance not only on the administrative procedures

625
to be followed, but on the more professional aspect of carrying out assessments. That will cover the points mentioned in the amendment. While I appreciate the feeling behind the amendment and the desire to have that provision placed on the face of the Bill, by virtue of existing legislation, local authorities will have to have regard to the guidance we issue, and, as we have pointed out on several occasions, if necessary we can reinforce that guidance by directions. I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall not hesitate to use the latter power if it appears that local authorities are not seeking proper advice in carrying out their assessments. The requirement in Clause 43 for local authorities to seek the approval of a health authority before arranging nursing home care is designed to ensure that there is a medical and nursing input to those decisions.
The draft guidance on that issue—Draft Guidance for the Assessment and Case Management—is now in the public domain. Paragraphs 28 to 31 are pertinent. Advice on suitable mechanisms to carry out that procedure will follow the draft guidance. All that is being asked for in the amendment is being carried out. It is already in hand, and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It was much more helpful than I expected it to be. I shall read the guidelines with great interest. Nevertheless, I am always sad that the answer always is, "We cannot have it on the face of the Bill". I have the utmost confidence that what the Minister says is what she intends to carry out; but the provision will not be on the face of the Bill. We shall not always have the same Ministers or government, but the Bill will remain. That is what worries me about the legislation.
I should like to read the guidelines, and I reserve my right to return on Third Reading if I do not find them satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 168D:
Page 53, line 30, at end insert:
("(1A) A local authority shall have the power to enter into arrangements with voluntary organisations whereby the voluntary organisation shall carry out an assessment under subsection (1a) above of the needs of any person and decide under subsection (1b) above whether his needs call for the provision of services.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is common sense. The people who run drug and alcohol homes are the experts who have to do assessments before they start rehabilitation. The amendment gives local authorities the power to enter into arrangements for assessments with voluntary organisations. That should save time, duplication, money and a great deal of red tape. As has been said previously, confidentiality also comes into this issue.
If the local authorities have to train and pay extra social workers to do the work, the taxpayers might have something to say because that will be a waste
626
of public money. The Crossroads care attendance scheme gives disabled, ill and elderly people help in their own homes. As a result of the Committee stage, there is a feeling of concern because the ability of organisations such as Crossroads to carry out assessments is at the heart of their independence from the statutory sector. Unless the voluntary sector can maintain its independence and integrity from the statutory sector, there is a real danger that the Government will find that the Bill, far from facilitating service provision by the voluntary sector, will militate against it.
Local Crossroads schemes are worried that they will lose the good will of the voluntary management committee whose commitment is to Crossroads and not necessarily to social services departments. Moreover, the informality and flexibility that Crossroads offers at present will be lost if all its clients' assessments have to be carried out by the local authorities. Voluntary organisations, many of which are professional and expert, feel that they should be included in the legislative requirements in respect of assessments.
With a growing elderly population, we must consider seriously the problems that might arise when there are insufficient people willing and able to undertake all the care needed in the community. Voluntary organisations should be treated with all the respect that they deserve.
Will the Government explain how all the assessments needed will be undertaken and by whom, and how long the waiting lists for assessments will be? Will people have to do without help until an assessment has been completed? Will there be an emergency assessment procedure? I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to add my name to the amendment and to express the support of these Benches. The amendment draws attention to a very important aspect of the whole assessment procedure, which has been exceedingly well described by the noble Baroness. As she said, we have been briefed by Crossroads—who have great anxiety about this matter—and other organisations. They have drawn attention to a problem in the assessment procedure with which the Government must deal.
Will the Minister tell us whether the Bill, as drafted, means that organisations will receive funding only for individual people who have already been assessed by the local authority? If not, will local authorities be able to continue to give block grants to organisations to provide the care attendant service such as Crossroads? Those schemes earned their reputation by being able to decide what services were required and by providing them. Will that continue after the enactment of the Bill, or will local authorities have to carry out assessment on an individual basis?
I was given a scenario by Crossroads, which may be worth repeating and asking the Minister to respond to it. A carer suddenly needs to go away for an afternoon because a relative is seriously ill. At present, the carer goes to Crossroads. They immediately send in a care attendant to relieve the carer for that afternoon. Under the new system, will

627
Crossroads have a budget to cover such eventualities or will the carer need to obtain local authority assessment for her need in order to cover the cost of the service? Will the service be provided by Crossroads, who will then have to ask the authority for reimbursement afterwards, and perhaps not receive it?
The issue is extremely important, and we need to know whether voluntary organisations are to be included in the assessment procedure. If they are not, a very real problem will arise with the gaps which will be caused in providing the assessment; with the waiting time; and with the rejection of the expertise that exists within the voluntary sector.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I also support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lady Masham covered the ground so well that I do not propose to go into the issue deeply. I particularly hope that the Minister will be able to say something positive regarding the issue of block grants to voluntary organisations such as Crossroads. They were extremely worried by the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, at Committee stage. That is as follows:
"There can be no question of the local authority writing a blank cheque to them to spend as they see fit on what they decide to be the need of an individual for whom they provide services". —(Official Report, 10/5/90: col. 1570.]
I hope the Minister will say that we misinterpreted her words.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, perhaps I may also briefly support the amendment. Voluntary organisations use a great deal of skill in assessing disabled people. Some of the specialist voluntary organisations by their very nature will know a great deal more about an individual's specialised disability—if I can put it that way—than local authorities who will be dealing with all kinds of disability: physical, mental, sensory, and so forth. It is an eminently sensible amendment.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, perhaps I may also join in supporting the amendment. I apologise to the noble Baroness, but I was a little late entering the Chamber and I did not hear the beginning of her speech.
It is important that the Government impress upon local health authorities that they recognise the greater level of expertise that currently exists in the voluntary sector. One of the problems that existed in the past was inaccurate and inappropriate assessment by the statutory bodies.
A boring example of that is that in the average year 25,000 alcoholics are assessed and placed in psychiatric wards. Almost 100 years ago Sigmund Freud wrote that alcoholism was not a psychiatric disease. It is a pity that 100 years later we are still making very expensive inaccurate assessments. Those patients fill beds which could be filled by people who need them. It is very expensive to keep patients in those beds; and it is better that alcoholics should be cared for in the community. Voluntary sector organisations do not make those expensive mistakes.
628
Local authorities are not very keen to form permanent and long-term relationships with voluntary sector organisations. I know from what the Government have already said that they are keen that authorities should form those relationships; but that is where the problem with a framework Bill occurs. What the Government want, and I believe what your Lordships want, does not seem to be getting through. It would be helpful if in some way that could be stamped firmer on the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, having listened to the debate, it is clear that we still have a communication problem. On this issue, there are some perceptions which are wrong. One perception is that local authorities will conduct all the assessments themselves. That clearly will not be the case. Without the voluntary sector, local authorities cannot cope with some of the specialised assessments that will need to be carried out.
We recognise—and our guidance on case management and assessment will make this clear—that local authorities may wish to contract out to voluntary bodies some of the more specialised aspects of assessment. That will be particularly appropriate for people suffering from conditions of which local authority staff have little experience and where a great deal of knowledge and understanding of the condition is to be found in a voluntary organisation. We have already heard of such organisations. It is particularly the case with drug and alcohol misusers, but it may also apply to people with other conditions which give rise to special needs. Since we want local authorities to seek the most expert opinion they can in arriving at community care needs, that is something that we would want to encourage in appropriate cases. The legislation as drafted puts no barrier in the way of local authorities taking that action.
For local authorities to be successful providers in the field of special needs, they will have to rely upon the voluntary sector. However, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness goes further and enables local authorities to contract out the making of the decision whether the authority should provide any community care services. I submit that it would be wholly inappropriate for a local authority to contract out such a responsibility. As we have made clear, the decision on what services to provide must be taken by the authority in conjunction with the user and his or her carers, having regard not only to the assessed needs of the person but also to the availability of resources and services to the authority. Ultimate financial responsibility for the provisions of services must rest with the local authority, and that is inseparable from the process of making a decision on what services should be provided to an individual user. Furthermore, the user may have needs for community care services which go beyond what the voluntary organisation carrying out the assessment could provide, and it seems wholly inappropriate for a voluntary body to be able to commandeer services from other providers by reaching decisions about service provision on their behalf.

629
Again, I refer the noble Baroness to paragraphs 28 and 37 of the draft guidance which is now available for consultation. She will find those helpful. They make the point concerning contractual arrangements between local authorities and the voluntary sector.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), referred to decisions being taken by the voluntary organisations. If an organisation is in the position of assessing people and deciding what services to provide, then the local authority would be abdicating its responsibilities. That is one of the points I made. Once the assessment is made, it will be for the local authority to take that assessment and any other related needs of a person and make a judgment regarding meeting those needs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised an important point regarding emergencies. Amendment No. 169A, which will be moved shortly, will be helpful in that respect. Another amendment—I am unable to recall the number—was passed on Thursday; that too will be helpful. Clearly on occasions there needs to be the facility and mechanism for making emergency assessments.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask for two points of information. First, she referred to the draft guidance referred to last Thursday and published last Friday. Is it intended that we should receive a copy of the draft guidance? It has been referred to a number of times and it will be helpful to all of us.
Secondly, if a local authority does not use the voluntary organisation as it should, or as the voluntary organisation thinks it should, to carry out the assessments, will the voluntary organisation be able to use the complaints procedure under Clause 51(7B) in order to bring the local authority to account?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope to receive the answer to the second part of the question before I finish speaking. On the first part, I am only just in receipt of the draft guidance that went out on Friday. I understand that it will be in the Library of the House and it is available to noble Lords now. I am reluctant to quote from the draft guidance because it is up for consultation. It is in draft form and therefore any comments that noble Lords may wish to make will be welcomed by the department. I promise to write to the noble Lord on access to the complaints procedure.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, and with the leave of the House, l asked about block grants. She spoke very fast. I may have been stupid in not picking it up, but I do not believe that she answered my point. The mater has given concern to the voluntary organisations. Will the local authority be able to give organisations a block grant or will it only be for the individual person assessed? I was worried by the statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, at Committee stage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, my understanding is that in terms of finance the local authorities will contract with voluntary organisations for a general service. In other words, they will be involved in general assessment work and funds will be made available for that. There will also be flexibility to engage in contracting for individuals. If I am misleading the noble Baroness in that reply, I shall put it right in correspondence with her. I believe that the whole essence of the contractual arrangements between the local authority and the voluntary body is to have flexibility so that all the agencies are brought into play in serving needs. Clearly the application of resources will be important.
I was probably misleading about the complaints procedure and perhaps sounded too negative. It is not the organisation that can make the complaint but the individual. If an individual has been badly served, a complaint can be made on his behalf rather than on behalf of the organisation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for trying to explain the provisions. This is a complicated matter. The Government have put down Amendment No. 169A, and as the voluntary organisations are extremely worried about the matter the best thing to do at this stage is to take the amendment away and consider it. Many noble Lords have amendments on assessment so perhaps we could get together before the Third Reading and see whether some more satisfactory wording can be found. It is important to be clear. At the moment voluntary organisations are not clear about the position, nor are local authorities. The noble Baroness spoke about communication problems. Perhaps some exist, and that is the reason we want a provision written into the Bill to clarify the position. Therefore at this stage I shall withdraw the amendment and perhaps bring it back later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 168E: Page 52, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) In carrying out duties under subsection (1)(a) above a local authority shall periodically review the assessments made at intervals to be specified by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and myself. She has asked me to say that she is chairing an important meeting this afternoon and is sorry that, although she may be present for some amendments, she will not be here for this one. Therefore I move it on behalf of both of us.
The amendment would make provision for individuals' assessments to be reviewed and updated to take account of changing needs. It follows on naturally from the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on an earlier amendment. We are concerned about what it seems are the limitations which have been put upon assessments. Bearing in mind what the noble Baroness said a moment or two ago, Caring for People states in paragraph 3.2.1:
"Local authorities will need to form their own views about when a formalised assessment process becomes necessary".
I suppose that that should now be, "Local authorities and, when delegated, voluntary organisations acting on their behalf', or similar wording. It is not surprising that we received the impression that it would be local authorities.
We fear that this may lead to individual clients receiving rather infrequent assessments or even one-off assessments without provision being built in for any review of their needs. We believe that the framework for the assessment process should be more tightly regulated. After all, many people's needs change over a period of time. Elderly people especially have a wide range of complex health and social care needs which should be constantly reassessed. Individuals could then receive the most effective care at the time when they need it. Care plans will need to be amended according to whether the condition of individuals has improved or deteriorated so that the clients are able to fulfil their full potential. I am sure that the noble Baroness will see the significance of the point. I look forward to her reply. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the amendment is sensible. I wonder whether the best way of dealing with it is the following. When an assessment is originally made, there should be a recommendation as to when there should be a reassessment. Obviously some people may not need an assessment for a number of years. Others whose condition changes rapidly may need further assessment after only a matter of months. The best way of dealing with the point might be for it to be tied into the assessment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, can face being answered by me instead of the noble Baroness! Obviously I accept the concern behind the amendment that assessment of community care needs should be regularly reviewed. However, as we have said on other occasions, we do not feel able to accept that this should be on the face of the Bill.
Our draft guidance on assessment which was published on Friday provides that assessments should state the time at which a review should take place. Clearly, the timing of such a review—as my noble friend Lord Swinfen suggested—depends upon the condition of the person being assessed and the type of needs revealed. Someone who is in a very stable condition will obviously need a review less frequently than someone whose condition is still rapidly changing. This is particularly the case where the person is receiving some form of rehabilitation. For all these reasons, I feel that it would be impracticable for the Secretary of State to prescribe the intervals at which reviews are to take place.
As I have said, our draft guidance, which we can reinforce with directions, makes it clear—I refer noble Lords to paragraph 39 of the draft guidance on assessment and case management—that reviews should take place. I feel that that is as far as it is practicable to go. I hope that in the light of these assurances and considerations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. It would have been a great advanatage to have the draft guidance in front of us so that we could try to speak with the same authority as the Minister. However, he is obviously very much seized of the problem and I am glad that he accepted that there needs to be a review, depending on the nature of the condition of the person. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, the condition of people varies. The condition of some people will be stable while that of others will change, particularly as they age.
I am happy about the Minister's response and I look forward to seeing the guidance. If I have time, I shall rush off to the Library and collect a copy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 169:
Page 52, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) In carrying out an assessment under this section, a local authority shall have regard to the abilities and views of any carer of the person being assessed, and in particular, shall not assume that the carer will continue to provide care to the person where the carer is unwilling to do so.
( ) In this section, "carer" means a person providing a substantial amount of care on a regular basis, who is not a person employed to provide such care by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment, to another person who is living at home.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 168. We received an unsatisfactory reply and then lost the vote. In the circumstances, since this is a similar amendment, there is no point in moving it. I shall have to contrive a way to bring something similar back at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 169A:
Page 53, line 16, at end insert:
("(4A) Nothing in this section shall prevent a local authority from temporarily providing or arranging for the provision of community care services for any person without carrying out a prior assessment of his needs in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section if, in the opinion of the authority, the condition of that person is such that he requires those services as a matter of urgency.
(4B) If, by virtue of subsection (4A) above, community care services have been provided temporarily for any person as a matter of urgency, then, as soon as practicable thereafter, an assessment of his needs shall be made in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendments Nos. 145ZA and 145B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 53, line 18, at end insert:
("( ) Section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 (which deals with the assessment by local authorities of the needs of disabled persons) shall come into force on the same day as this section.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when moving this amendment in Committee my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton said:
"it is central to this part of the Bill that Section 3 of the 1986 Act should be implemented"[Offical Report, 10/5/90; col. 1583.]
He withdrew the amendment—it was 11.15 p.m.—on the understanding that we would return to the matter I am therefore returning to ask the Minister a few questions. I shall be reasonably brief, although probably not as brief as he would wish, but I want to know the latest state of the Government's thinking on Section 3.
Section 3 gives disabled people three rights with regard to assessment. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, how crucial the whole assessment process is. The rights are: first, to make representations about their needs; secondly, to have a written statement on the outcome of the assessment; and thirdly, to have a review. This would be quite informal and unbureaucratic; not an appeals procedure.
Section 3 is fundamental to good community care. It was drafted only after full consultations, and it was agreed by the Government, the local authorities and the disability organisations to be the best way of proceeding. In fact, I understand that the department actually wrote Section 3.
Can the Minister say whether the Government have changed their minds? Would he agree that Section 3 should be implemented if we are to ensure that local authorities provide a uniform standard of assessment? What is the Government's response to the Social Services Select Committee report Community Care: Choice for Service Users, which was published on 14th June and which recommends that Sections 1 to 3 of the 1986 Act be brought into force a3 soon as possible?
Section 3(6) provides that where the disabled person or his representative is unable to communicate orally or in writing, the local authorities shall provide any necessary services—for example, a sign language interpreter—for the assessment procedure. Deaf people have sometimes been wrongly assessed because of communication problems. Does not the Minister agree that the provision is vital if profoundly deaf and deaf blind people are to be involved in their assessment? Does he not agree that it is actually more likely to be cost-effective if the assessment is right first time round?
This is a very important provision and I do not think it comes into legislation anywhere except in the disabled persons Act. I hope the Minister will be able to say something about this.
When the three local authorities conducted a pilot study of the implementation of Section 3 there were no appeals, presumably because they got the assessment right in the first place as the disabled persons were directly involved. Two out of the three local authorities found that written statements were so useful that they continued the practice after the study was completed. The assessment procedure was simple and unbureaucratic: the disabled persons were asked how they felt their needs could best be
634
met; a letter was then sent to them about the services agreed, and then they were invited to challenge the letter.
I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to say, first, whether the Government still believe they got it right when they, along with the local authorities and the disabled organisations, agreed that Section 3 was the best way of going about assessments. Secondly, does the Minister agree that getting the assessment right in the first place is cost-effective, at any rate in the long term? Thirdly, given that new Section 7B in Clause 51 provides a mechanism for a complaints procedure, is it not logical to include a mechanism for getting the assessment right? I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to support most warmly the noble Baroness on this matter for the reasons which she has given. That provision of the 1986 Act was so important that it is surprising that after four years it has not been implemented; and as we are considering the matter afresh and in depth it does not seem to be right for us to lose this opportunity of insisting that is should be implemented as soon as possible. Of course we realise that the whole of the Bill is going to be enacted anyway only on an appointed day or goodness knows how many appointed days, but it would seem to be sheer nonsense to have Clause 48 implemented on an appointed day and still have Section 3 of the disabled persons Act not implemented.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment as I have added my name to it. In particular, I support the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), concerning representatives of disabled people, especially of those who have communication difficulties. Only in Section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 is the authorised representative of a disabled person taken into consideration. As I understand the Bill we are discussing, there is no procedure for that at all.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, this provision was accepted by both Houses of Parliament in 1986. If the assessment had been implemented, we should not be so concerned now. There is also concern about the type of assessment. As has been illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, many people think the Government are taking a backward step in the present legislation in trying to involve carers. If at all possible the person who is being assessed needs to be able to put his or her own views forward; otherwise we shall be taking a backward step.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I too was pleased to add my name to the amendment and I support it from these Benches. We have been round this course before over the past four years. The Minister will know that there was a meeting last week between the noble Baronesses Lady Hooper, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), Lady Masham, and myself which did not take us much further. It is clear that the Government are going through the consultation procedure. They have sent a letter to local authorities which virtually

635
invites a negative response by suggesting that they might like to wait until after the community care reforms are implemented, whenever that may be.
Those of us interested in this subject on all sides of the House, and indeed in other places, cannot understand the Government's reasons for refusing to implement Section 3. I hope that if the Minister's answer is unsatisfactory the noble Baroness who moved the amendment will decide to press it to a Division in order to give the House a chance to express a view, because the Government have to come up with a better answer than they have given in the past.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has said, we considered this matter at an earlier stage in our deliberations. I think it was my noble friend who explained on that occasion that no decision could be made about the implementation of this section and the remaining sections of the 1986 Act not yet in force until we had received cost estimates from the local authority and discussed them with them. We have still to receive those cost estimates. But I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who mentioned the fact that we had written to the Association of County Councils, that on 12th June, six days ago, we received an interim reply from one of the associations, the Association of County Councils, indicating that it and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities are currently engaged in drawing up,
"suggested procedures for operation of the outstanding sections and costing these".
I give an assurance that we shall be pursuing the matter vigorously.
During the last debate on this issue we incurred some criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Allen—and that criticism has been repeated by my noble friend Lord Renton—about the length of time which has elapsed since the passing of the 1986 Act and our consideration of this section, together with Sections 1 and 2. I should like to take the opportunity to set this issue in context. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), that Section 3 was redrafted by the Government. From the outset the Government made it clear that implementation of the Act was subject to the availability of the necessary resources. That has not been an excuse for inaction. On the contrary, as my noble friend said on a previous occasion, key sections of the Act, which convey considerable benefits to disabled people, have been brought into force. From 1st April 1987, on the implementation of Sections 4, 8(1), 9 and 10, local authorities have been required to assess need on request, to have regard to the abilities of carers, to provide additional information for disabled people and to consult organisations of disabled people when making appointments. Since 1st February 1988 young people with disabilities have benefited from the implementation of Sections 5 and 6 which lay a duty on local authorities to identify school leavers with a disability and assess their needs for services. Further progress was made at the end of last year when Section 11 was brought
636
into force with the laying of a report on community care for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people.
Priorities for implementation were agreed with the local authority associations, and at each stage agreement has been reached with them on the resource implications of the relevant sections. These have been taken into consideration in the appropriate public expenditure round. My noble friend mentioned on a previous occasion that the figure taken into account this year for the implemented sections of the Act was the substantial sum of £31 million. I make no apology for repeating what my noble friend said to demonstrate to the House that the Government have not been idle in their approach to the Act. We have, from the outset, stipulated that progress on the Act should not jeopardise high priority social services policy such as the Bill before us today. In my view we could not reasonably do otherwise, and I am sure that noble Lords will accept that as a necessary, indeed vital, proviso.
I recall a suggestion mooted at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that the implementation of Section 3 of the 1986 Act would not increase the demand on government funds. I understand that that conclusion was drawn from the results of a pilot study initiated by a consortium of voluntary groups and conducted in just three local authorities. We still do not know which those authorities were. I am rather doubtful about such a conclusion, as the same study showed that assessments carried out under the terms of Section 3 took around 30 per cent. longer than assessments in a control group which did not observe the strict terms of that section. I also find the suggestion surprising in the light of past intimations by the local authority associations during the preliminary consultations a few years ago that they believed the resource implications of this section would be considerable.
It is not the Government who have been saying that there are resource implications but the local authority associations who are the experts. It would be quite irresponsible of us to ignore their earlier view, and even more so not to await the considered and up-to-date estimates which we have been told are now in preparation—and I quoted from the letter of 12th June—and to take a decision tonight which would effectively say, "Despite the evidence to the contrary, and despite anything you were about to tell us in response to our consultation letter, we don't think this will cost anything, so why not get on with it.
In conclusion, I should like to assure the House that we shall proceed with the consultation exercise on Section 3 with all possible speed. In the meantime I hope that the movers of the amendment will accept that the Government are committed to ensuring maximum choice and independence for everyone who is in need of care in the community. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he realises that he has

637
not dealt with the point that the amendment makes. The amendment merely suggests that Section 3 of the 1986 Act should be the subject of the same appointed day order and be brought into force at the same time as Clause 48 of the Bill which deals with assessments of need for community care services. The two are closely interlinked. Will my noble friend deal with that point? It is a matter of timing.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is trying to impose a timetable on the Government. I tried to make clear that we shall continue our consultation with Ideal authorities but that we wanted to know more from the authorities, who are the experts, about the cost implications. Until the consultation is complete we cannot take the matter further.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for replying at such length and so carefully. I appreciate that. However, I cannot say that I am anything but disappointed with his reply. That will not surprise him.
I was very careful not to say that there would be no resource implications in the amendment. I said several times that I believe that it will be cost effective in the long run to carry out the assessment process properly, to get it right so that people are satisfied and do not appeal, and to supply what is needed at the outset.
The noble Lord said that he did not know who participated in the pilot study. I can tell him the names of two local authorities which do not mind being named and which have decided to continue with written assessments. Those authorities are Cleveland and Oldham. I am afraid that I do not not know the name of the local authority which did not continue with the scheme. The other two authorities found the written assessment so useful that they continued with it after the pilot study was completed.
The noble Lord did not say anything about communication provision for the deaf and interpreters. If this section is not implemented I believe that it will be necessary to provide somebody to interpret during the assessment procedures.
The Minister will have noticed the support for the amendment from all sides of the House. I am disappointed by his response. However, the noble Lord says that he will pursue the matter vigorously and with all possible speed. We have managed to get one interim letter since the Committee stage. I hope that he can speed up matters and that we may learn more t y Third Reading. I should like the noble Lord to come back with some very good news at Third Reading. Although I hate returning again and again to the same amendment, as no doubt does the noble Lord, I reserve the right to come back and pursue the matter further at Third Reading if we do not make progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 171:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Grants for community care services
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make a scheme whereby he shall, with the approval of the Treasury, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make grants to voluntary organisations providing community care services for the provision of those services where—

(a) the users of those services are persons who are not ordinarily resident in the area of any single local authority; or

(b) the numbers of users of those services who are ordinarily resident in the area of any single local authority is likely to be so small that the Secretary of State is satisfied that no single local authority is likely to provide moneys for the establishment of those services, or

(c) the users of those services are persons ordinarily resident in the areas of so many local authorities, that the Secretary of State is satisfied that it would be impractical for that voluntary organisation to enter into arrangements with each of those local authorities separately;

and where it would otherwise be impractical to secure funding for the voluntary organisation to provide such services.
(2) Prior to making a scheme under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult those persons who appear to him to be representative of voluntary organisations providing community care services, of the users of community care services and their informal carers, and of local authorities.").
The noble Lord said: My noble Lords, the amendment refers back to a discussion that we had in Committee when the proposal became mixed up with some other amendments which were not quite in line with it. In that discussion the Government accepted that there was a serious problem but then propounded solutions which suggested—and I say this with great diffidence—that they did not appreciate just how grave it was.
The amendment seeks to provide for the setting up of a scheme for the support of those agencies which work with people coming from a number of authority areas where the problems of securing funding may well prove insuperable as the Bill now stands. There are many schemes run by voluntary organisations which have a local catchment area. Examples of the agencies that I have in mind are those which work with clients who come from a number of areas within which these are people with an AIDS-related condition—of whom there will be too few in any one local government area to justify provision for them alone—drug dependency units, drawing their clientele from a wide area, and projects working with single homeless people. Those are areas, and there are others, where innovatory projects have been started and are being run by voluntary organisations and where there is a need which seems not to be met by the statutory body. For many it will be impossible to say in any given year where their clients are likely to come from. They may come from prison, from psychiatric units, from under the arches at Hungerford Bridge, from Ireland or elsewhere.
I have had an opportunity to look at the draft guidance which has now made its appearance and shall be happy to offer my help in improving its grammar. I am afraid that I cannot find anything approaching a solution to the problem in all the words of the documents.
The Government's line has been that responsibility for paying will fall to the authority in whose area the person is ordinarily resident. There is reference to a person being ordinarily resident in premises in Clause 44, but that is not relevant in the present context. For our immediate purposes, we are presumably referred back to the National Assistance Act 1948, but there is no definition in that Act of what ordinary local residence means. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was good enough to give us an interesting account in Committee of what it all meant, I have no idea on what authority that exposition was based. Once again, I cannot feel complete confidence that the Government's views will always prevail over the desire of a local authority to take a more restricted view of its responsibilities under the law.
I gather that, in the brave new world into which we are entering—we had some discussion on this matter a few minutes ago—the emphasis will be on block contracts which may well be all right where there is just a local catchment area. However, if it is impracticable for the voluntary organisation to negotiate a block contract and it has to go for individual contracts to the authority where the person is ordinarily resident—whatever that may mean—the problems could be horrendous.
The individual will first present himself to the voluntary organisation which will have to try to find out where he comes from and then attempt to obtain funding from that authority—if it is an authority in this country—with which the individual may well have had no previous contact of any kind. The individual may stay only for a short time and may well have gone long before the wrangling with the local authority has finished. The imagination boggles at the thought of a voluntary body, with its resources already stretched to the limit, having to cope with 40 or 50 local authorities in that way.
I have received a great many representations from bodies which see their future at risk. In view of the pressure on us with regard to time, I shall mention only the Alcohol Recovery Project, which has worked out that it might be involved in links with about 55 authorities, some of them in Scotland and Ireland, and the Hungerford Drug Project, which, on last year's experience, thinks that it would be involved with between 35 and 40 authorities and that it would have about 190 clients for whom no local authority could be identified.
If this part of the Bill is to succeed, it is legitimate to turn to government to do something to secure the preservation of those socially highly desirable activities on the part of voluntary organisations which meet a need of increasing importance. I am well aware of the difficulties—I have been too long in government not to appreciate them—but the Government should be prepared to find some way of funding desirable projects which reach beyond the boundaries of the responsibilities of individual local authorities, or perhaps to provide some scheme whereby the local authorities could collectively provide funds for such projects. That will not happen unless there is some additional provision in the Bill. I am not wedded to the particular formula that I
640
suggest in the amendment and, if the principle is accepted—namely, that something must be done—the Government may want to do it in some other way. However, there is precious little time and there is no doubt that something needs to be done.
Perhaps I may therefore end by posing three simple questions to the Government. Where shall we find the definition of "ordinarily resident" in the area of a local authority for the purposes of Section 29 of the 1948 Act on which the noble Baroness based her remarks at col. 63 of Hansard on 14th May? When she referred to the difficulty of avoiding the closure of those voluntary organisations, she said that she hoped it could be overcome with sensible local organisation. Could we perhaps be told a little more about what that sensible local organisation might be? Could we also be informed why, so far as I can see, the draft guidance is completely silent on what might be done in those circumstances; or would the Government just prefer that those voluntary agencies should be closed down? I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the previous debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred hung on an amendment which I had tabled at that stage and, as he said, it was rather muddled up with a batch of other amendments which were not strictly germane to it. I am therefore glad that the noble Lord has put down a separate amendment this time and we can discuss it fully and without other complications.
My concern is with day care and drop-in services—in other words, those that are not residential—which for the most part cover far more than the area of any one local authority. When I raised the point in the previous debate on 14th May, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said:
"I readily acknowledge the difficulties in coping with that situation".
However, she then went on to say that the Government believed that it was extremely important not to break:
"the important principle that local services should normally be locally funded". —[Official Report, 14/5/90; col. 62.]
She then criticised my amendment on the grounds that it broke that principle.
However, the point is that the services that we are discussing are by definition not local. No satisfactory mechanism exists for funding them. At present, the only mechanism whereby local authorities can collectively fund voluntary sector services across their boundaries is through Section 48 collective grant-giving schemes in the former metropolitan county areas. There is only a handful of such schemes, most of which have limited resources and cannot expect to expand their funding programmes for many years ahead. Many projects funded by them have not even received inflation allowances.
I understand that the guidance to which the noble Baroness referred last time has been published, but I am afraid that I have not had the advantage of looking at it as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale has had. However, it is clear from his remarks that it does not address itself to that problem. Exactly the same view has been expressed to me by someone else who has read the guidance.

641
One of the problems of moving from grant-based funding of voluntary bodies operating across a number of local authority areas to a contractual system with individual authorities is that it imposes a great deal of difficulty on the voluntary bodies concerned. Knowing my interest, the noble Baroness will not be surprised if I refer to the Terrence Higgins Trust which last year received 42 per cent. of its total income from one application to central government. This year it has had to engage an additional member of staff in order to make 69 separate funding applications to the 33 London boroughs and to a large number of regional and district authorities. This organisation is a national organisation in the sense that 22 of its 30 services are supplied nationally and the other eight services are simply London-wide. Last year it received £450,000 from the Department of Health. This year from 69 applications it has received only £102,000.
The Terrence Higgins Trust is a relatively large and efficiently run voluntary organisation. Obviously, smaller organisations are in even greater difficulty. One which has been drawn to my notice is called Black HIV/AIDS. It employs only four people and has up to 50 volunteers. Bodies of that sort are put under immense strain. When they have to make applications on that scale the effect is that they have to cut back on their front-line activities. The organisation of which I speak has not even had the time or resources to find out the right procedures for applying in various different areas. So that gives some idea, taking a relatively large and a relatively small organisation, of the kind of problems that they run up against.
It seems to me to follow quite naturally that national voluntary organisations should be funded nationally. If the Government want the voluntary sector to act as a partner—they desperately need it to act as a partner—over the whole field of community care, they should treat it on an equal basis.
Finally, I associate myself with the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. The noble Baroness referred to sensible local organisations. What exactly does that mean? Will there be any guidance on that point? Apparently at the moment there is none. Do the Government agree that there is a need for services of this type to be grant-aided rather than case by case contract funded? The question is: do they agree or not that there is a need for such cross-boundary national organisations in the voluntary movement in this field?
5 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should very much like to support this amendment in principle. I do not know so much about the details. It would be extremely helpful to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship if we were to have some legislation of this nature. As noble Lords are aware, schizophrenics are particularly difficult people to handle. There is a pressing need in all the big—and not so big—city centres to have day centres to which people from the surrounding countryside from other boroughs, districts within a county or even adjacent counties can attend. It does not seem to me that the Bill as
642
presently drafted addresses itself to that need. That is why I believe that this amendment is necessary.
There is another factor to take into account. Voluntary bodies are largely dependent on raising funds from trusts, their own members and the like. They find it very difficult to raise the kind of sums that are necessary for the day centres that I have just described. It needs some positive pump-priming such as Amendment No. 171 would provide.
I hope that the Government will feel able to respond to this amendment. However, if they do not like it they can always return with another at Third Reading. I hope that they will not say that it is all in the guidelines. I have not read the guidelines, although other noble Lords may have done so. I only just made it to this place because the traffic was bad and it is raining in the south.
I am in a better mood tonight. I must say that last week I was very upset. It is the first time that I have heard any government say to those moving amendments in your Lordships' House that they will not agree because of some circular or guideline, whether published or not does not matter, produced by the department. In the past we have grumbled because the Government have said that there will be secondary legislation. It is a well known argument to which your Lordships are accustomed. However, at least we get a look at secondary legislation. It may be difficult to handle because we cannot amend it but at least it has to go through Parliament in one form or another. Departmental circulars are a fall-back position that strikes me as being incredibly weak. I commend to my noble friends that neither they nor any other government Ministers produce such an argument in the future.
The trouble with departmental circulars is that we do not have any control over their implementation. They do not have any bite from the point of view of local authorities which get so many thick great piles of direction and guidance. One can see them in any local authority. With the best will in the world, they cannot get through them. There is therefore a permanent excuse for not properly putting them into effect and no one can say to them that they are not doing what is written in the Act of Parliament.
I am sorry to spend time on this matter but I wanted to continue what I was saying last week when I was in a bad temper and could not say it properly. I hope that when my noble friends come back to this matter they will take up this amendment as something that needs to be in the Bill in some form or another. I hope very much that they will accept it.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I want to support this amendment from the point of view of a director of social services to whom someone may come and request a service—for example, a person who is blind may want to have a special book. It would be quite impossible to run such a service in one's own local authority because it would be completely uneconomic when there are perhaps only a dozen such people to take into account. However, those people's needs are very great. Therefore one must have recourse to an office in London.

643
I cite that example because it is quite an outstanding service that enables blind people to be able to order and receive a book that has been prepared in London. That organisation has the most oustanding set of volunteers who translate books for the blind. There are many other examples of services which it would be quite uneconomic to set up in one's own area, even if it were possible to do so.
Secondly, from the point of view of local authority finance one cannot give money to a national organisation. Therefore, although the local authority makes use of such organisations, it cannot give them a grant from the local authority's coffers. There are many different organisations in that position. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks on guidance made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, as I believe will most others who have taken part in various debates on this Bill. I approve of the general principles behind this amendment although I do not know whether the wording in detail is the best possible. I wonder what would be the position of an EC national working in this country, which will increasingly be the case after 1992, who will not be the direct responsibility of any local authority. Where will the money come from? Such people are just as likely to require community care as anyone else.
From my experience with John Groom's I know that when working in the area of one local authority it is difficult to obtain funds from other local authorities. In Edgware we have a home where we deal with about 30 individuals from that number of different local authorities. They have agreed to carry out negotiations with the local authority in whose area the home is situated. However, none of the authorities will receive a penny until the agreement has been reached. I would hope that a government organisation operating the system on a central basis would be a great deal more efficient and quicker.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment, which appears to be practical and reasonable. The Government should be able to accept it or, if it does not meet their wishes, find a way of accepting it in principle and putting it into practice.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I had intended to concentrate entirely on general principles. However, I was most struck by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about the experience of the Terrence Higgins Trust. One of the great anxieties in relation to such cases is that although the Government rightly say that they wish to safeguard taxpayers' funds and ensure that resources are used efficiently, they end up with a bureaucracy so complex that one wastes vast amounts of money on form filling. That is undoubtedly to the detriment of the service in which one is interested. The noble Lord's point is well taken.
644
As regards the general principles, the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Swinfen, are right to worry about guidance and the problem of debating that. In this case we are perhaps more fortunate. Although it arrived in our hands only during the past half an hour, we have xerox copies of the draft guidance. Therefore, at least one or two of us have had a chance to look at it. Some of the draft guidance is sensible but that which corresponds to the subject that we are now discussing is, to say the least, unattractive. If noble Lords will bear with me I shall read out the exact wording in Caring for People; Implementation Documents, Draft Guidance; Assessment and Case Management. Paragraph 30 states:
"Where a user's needs appear to fall entirely outside the responsibility of the local authority it will usually be sufficient to refer the person to the appropriate agency and to notify that agency accordingly".
That is a great collection of weasel words. The guidance says "appear to fall" rather than "fall". It uses the word "entirely" although it is difficult to define the kind of needs which will fall entirely in one place rather than another. It uses the words "it will usually be sufficient" rather than "it will be sufficient", and so forth. In terms of guidance the document is, to say the least, somewhat blurred. It reminds me most of the old Elizabethan poor law—if you can possibly persuade yourself that it is nothing to do with you, you can send the person somewhere else. That is not a principle upon which one would wish to base community care.
That leads to a logical question which concerns incentives. I see nothing in the community care section of the Bill or in the draft guidance which will make a local authority actually seek to do the job. All the incentives are the other way because if it seeks to do the job it will incur costs but no benefits. It has been pointed out to me that there is a logical contrast between the community care side of the Bill and the health side. On the health side of the Bill at least the money follows the patient. Therefore, if one has the patient one has the resources that go with him. However, on the community care side the money definitely does not follow the patient; only the problem follows the patient. The Government appear to have no degree of consistency in that regard.
It is a moderate amendment and one which either in this or a rewritten form the Government could accept. I have hurriedly searched the draft guidance document and, like the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, can find no definition of "ordinarily resident". The definition of the term is not obvious. Quite the contrary; it is obscure to say the least. From the way in which the Government are proceeding we shall end up without the effective use of resources. We shall certainly end up with potential litigation, which, as legislators, we should try to avoid. However, what finally matters are the people who are looking for community care. The one aspect that we do not appear to be achieving is effective community care. We could achieve that either with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, or, as the Government claim always to be more expert at drafting amendments, with an appropriate government amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome references to the draft guidance, although we appear to be entering into criticism of it early in the day. The department will welcome any comments which noble Lords may make during the course of the document's circulation for consultation.
I understand the concern behind the amendment. As the noble Lord explained, they relate to voluntary organisations providing specialised services which draw their users from a wide area including some who are homeless. I agree that such voluntary organisations will be faced with a new situation when the new community care arrangements come into effect and will have to take steps to cope with it. I understand that the amendment is intended to help them but I do not believe that it will do so because it cuts across the way the new community care arrangements will work.
It may help if I explain that in more detail. First, everyone is ordinarily resident in the area of some local authority. If a person has no fixed abode he is reckoned to be ordinarily resident in the place where he happens to be when the need for services arises.
A number of fairly pointed questions were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Peston. In this context the place of an individual's ordinary residence is defined thus. In a House of Lords' case, Shah v. Barnet London Borough Council, 1983 (1 All England Law Reports 226), the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said (at page 235):
" 'ordinarily resident' refers to a man's abode … which he has adopted voluntarily … for the time being, whether of short or long duration".
Therefore, even a short stay in a particular area can qualify as a place of ordinary residence.
If a person has no fixed abode he is reckoned to be ordinarily resident in the place where he happens to be when the need for services arises. Under the new community care arrangements the local authority where a person is ordinarily resident, and as I have explained there always will be such an authority, will be responsible for assessing and arranging community care services. This will entail the local authority entering into agreements with the providers of appropriate facilities. Thus it does not matter how few users the local authority has in any particular care category; it will still have to make arrangements to meet their care needs in the most appropriate way. This means that voluntarily organisations will have to deal with the local authorities which place people with them. If they wish to admit a user who will need local authority support to remain in the facility they must contact the local authority in whose area the user is ordinarily resident. In the case of a homeless person who arrives and applies for admission that could well be the authority within whose area the facility is situated.
I accept that that means voluntary bodies must adapt to a new situation. As with any area of change, there are bound to be some hiccups but I am confident that once the situation has settled down the advantages of the new arrangements for voluntary organisations and users alike will become evident.
646
Voluntary organisations and local authorities will have to evolve mutally acceptable ways of working. We discussed that in more detail in Committee in connection with services for people dependent on drugs or alcohol. However, I do not accept that in any of the cases instanced it will be impracticable for a voluntary organisation to secure appropriate funding for its services. Therefore, the amendment will have no effect.
At present I understand many voluntary organisations rely on income support payments. People who reside in various facilities will still be able to claim income support and housing benefit and, where care needs are not great, payments may cover the bulk of the cost. Thus, the need for additional funding from local authority sources may not be very great in every case.
As regards emergency admissions, voluntary organisations may be able to agree with local authorities that one authority should act on behalf of all of them. That brings me to my final point. The local social services must be locally financed. Grants made to voluntary organisations from central sources are usually restricted to the central administrative expenses of national organisations. Thus, the problem which the new clause seeks to address must be resolved locally. It would be quite impractical to administer centrally grants of the type envisaged. Accordingly, I do not believe that the new clause is compatible with our community care arrangements. Nor does it provide a practical solution to the problems of voluntary organisations which are best addressed through our proposed community care arrangements.
On voluntary organisation funding, I appreciate the difficulties which may arise when voluntary organisations seek funding, for example, for posts. Under our new arrangements the emphasis will be on providing care for people. The voluntary organisations will contract with the local authorities to provide services. Their staffing will follow the number of places which they are contracted to provide. I feel that in time that will prove to be a more straightforward way of proceeding.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, criticised my use of the word "sensible". What I intended was reference to the sensible organisation of voluntary bodies rather than sensible organisations.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I was not criticising the use of the word "sensible". I was trying to find out what are the sensible arrangements.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall try to elucidate. Voluntary bodies will need to ensure that local authorities are aware of their services and the expertise which they can offer. There will be opportunities for them to do so as part of the planning process. As I have said, that will be mentioned when drawing up specifications for services. And there the voluntary organisations will play a role.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was anxious about the closure of organisations. The aim is not that organisations should close. Our guidance

647
makes it extremely clear that they will play a vital part in the future organisation of community care and, in particular, in ensuring that local authorities are aware of services and standards of care which they can provide in purchasing services. Indeed, I understand that local authorities will be very relieved to have organisations offering that sort of provision for what is very often a difficult client group.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, mentioned block contracts. Again, the emphasis is not on block contracts. The local authorities will need to select the appropriate form of contract for the services which they wish to purchase and in doing so they should consider the need for consumer choice, quality of service and value for money.
That the needs of those client groups should be met is very important. The fact that somebody is either sleeping under a bridge or wandering the streets is very much a matter for the local authority where that person is at the time.
Lord Peston: My Lords, what the noble Baroness said is terribly important. To clarify her statement on the Government's position, is she saying that "ordinarily resident" means exactly where you are at the moment? You do not have to establish any local connection other than that. Is she saying that that is what was said earlier and that that is what it means? Is she saying that all the other worries about establishing a local connection in other legislation will not apply to community care from now on?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yes. Where the person is ordinarily resident and is walking the streets of Lambeth, Blackpool or Manchester, the place where they are when the need arises is their place of residence. That local authority will have the responsibility of meeting the needs of that person. I hope that with that explanation, the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Carter: My Lords, let us take the example of a schizophrenic referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Let us assume that he is registered with one authority for the community charge but happens to be found in need of help in another authority. Will it be the duty of the second local authority to provide that help?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is my understanding. A schizophrenic may well be suffering from amnesia and not know his identity or why he is in that place. If he has a particular need to be met, the authority in whose area he is is found must meet that need.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify further? I gave an example of an organisation which wishes to have a day centre. It is providing that service because, for all sorts of reasons, the local authority is not making provision. However, the people drawn into the centre come from many adjacent authority areas. Therefore, from the definition which we have been given, the people who attend the centre are resident in the area in which
648
they live but are visiting a day centre in another local authority area. That situation does not seem to be answered by the definition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. Therefore, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could clarify the position.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that we are speaking of two categories of people. There are those who are possibly vagrants and happen to be in a particular place because they have no other place to reside and therefore are nomadic and wandering about the countryside. There is another group of people for whom a local authority may buy in the services of a drop-in centre. Those people have a place of residence and are known in a particular area but their needs are best met by the local authority which will contract with the day centre or a particular provider of the services. In that case, money will change hands between the purchasing and providing authorities. We are talking about two categories of people: genuinely homeless, nomadic people in a particular place who have a particular need; and those who are properly registered, who have a home address but whose need is met by the local authority purchasing services across county boundaries.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down and purely for clarification, she said that if an individual is paying a community charge in one area and is found in need of community care in another local authority's area, the second authority would become responsible for paying. Surely if the person is paying the community charge in the first local authority, he must be resident there in order to be liable for that community charge. Therefore, the first local authority would be responsible for that individual. I believe that the noble Baroness was rather muddled.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that I am muddled. We are confusing different categories of people. We began by discussing vagrants or schizophrenics who, at a particular moment, may not have a place of residence. In that case wherever they happen to be will be their place of residence. I believe that we are now talking also about people who pay charges, who have a home in another part of the country but who happen to fall ill or have a particular need while en route to somewhere else.
Perhaps your Lordships will accept that my answers refer to the first category of client. However, I must write to the noble Lord as regards a person who happens to be travelling but pays taxes and community charge and has a bona fide residence elsewhere, in order to confirm what is the position in that case.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, pressed me on ordinary residence. He asked whether that was necessarily the last place of abode. I understand that in the case of an itinerant there would be no obligation on any authority which he may have visited previously. It is a fact, as regards an itinerant person, that wherever that person is when a need arises, the local authority will be obliged to meet the needs of that person.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I could assist the noble Barones by clarifying further what I said. A nomadic person was not what I had in mind. I had in mind someone who said, "I lived there but now live here. I do not want to be sent back there; I want to be dealt with here because this is where I am". I understood the noble Baroness to say that all that person had to do was to say, "I now live here and this local authority must take care of my needs". I am amazed to discover that the law is as she stated. I am no expert, and if she says that that is the law, I cannot argue. I just want to make sure that she knows what she is saying.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Baroness finally sits down perhaps she will explain how money can change hands if confidentiality is of the essence and the person seeking advice is not prepared to divulge his or her place of residence. That is the essence of walk-in services. What incentive is there for the local authority to provide such services in that case?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that I can provide an answer to that question off the cuff. I can say, for example, that where a person has registered for and paid the community charge is not necessarily relevant. It will depend on where the person has decided to live when the need for the service arises.
If a person happens to go into a walk-in centre for the kind of confidential service and advice referred to by the noble Lord, my understanding is that there will be a requirement for confidentiality to be observed in that case. The service will therefore be met because the authority in which that person has chosen to be at that time will be under an obligation to meet those needs. If the service they are receiving is one where confidentiality is important, my understanding is that confidentiality must be observed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she say whether that situation is the exact opposite from the situation that will exist in the health service? Will that not cause great confusion?
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether the situation has changed. When I was a director of social services and there was a crisis involving a person, the authority where the crisis happened dealt with that person. If that person did not pay rates in that area, the authority was still bound to help that person but could claim from the authority where the rates were paid. That was always the method we adopted. Has it changed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have given a large number of answers with the leave of the House. The questions are coming thick and fast and we are making no progress on the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lords will be patient and allow me to answer their specific questions in writing.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House who have
650
spoken in support of the amendment. I am also grateful for the fact that on this occasion we have not been told that it is all being dealt with in guidance. I said that there was nothing in the guidance. I have seen the paragraph to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred, but did not understand it and it did not seem to me to be relevant to the topics we are discussing. It is certainly no solution.
I do not want to sound patronising. The noble Baroness has done her best, but the questions being fired at her and the difficulties being discussed demonstrate that there is no accepted definition of "local residents" for these purposes consistent with the definitions adopted for other purposes. The noble Baroness referred to the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. I suspect that if we proceed on our present path there will be many more court judgments that she will be able to quote in the coming years.
There are difficulties in the response of the noble Baroness. She spoke of involvement in planning. How can a London-based organisation become involved in planning with an authority in Newcastle? Will new clients be eligible for grant? They will come to the voluntary organisations; they will not be referred by local authority. They might come from Scotland, Ireland or, as has been pointed out, from Europe.
I can only interpret the answer of the noble Baroness as meaning that the Bill does not meet the problems clearly explained by others, if not by me. If the amendment or something like it—I am not wedded to the form—is not introduced, we shall be passing a sentence of death on a number of worthwhile voluntary organisations. If we are to pass a sentence of death, we had better do it in a formal way. I so move.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 171) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 101.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Airedale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L. [Teller]

Ennals, L.

Erroll, E.

Ardwick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Aylestone, L.

Falkland, V.

Birk, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Foot, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Galpern, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Carr of Hadley, L.

Carter, L.

Greenway, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Grey, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hampton, L.

Crook, L.

Hanworth, V.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

David, B.

Hirshfield, L.

651

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Oram, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peston, L.

Hughes, L.

Phillips, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jeger, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kilmarnock, L.

Seear, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Seebohm, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Lawrence, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lockwood, B.

Swinfen, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McNair, L.

Thurlow, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tordoff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Walston, L.

Milverton, L.

White, B.

Molloy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Mottistone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Northfield, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Layton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lyell, L.

Allerton, L

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Arran, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Balfour, E

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Margadale, L.

Beloff, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Bessborough, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Blatch, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Blyth, L

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Nelson, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Newall, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Norrie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Orkney, E.

Caithness, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pender, L.

Carnock, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cawley, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Coleraine, L.

Prior, L.

Colwyn, L.

Quinton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rees, L.

Crathorne, L.

Rodney, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rodney, L.

Cullen of Asbourne, L.

Romney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Savile, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Strange, B.

Elles, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Foley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swinton, E.

Gridley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hanson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hood, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Vinson, L.

Inchcape, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.44 p.m.
[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 173:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Local authority assessment of needs of disabled persons
.—(1) When requested to do so by—

(a) a disabled person,

(b) his authorised representative, or

(c) any person who provides care for him in the circumstances mentioned in section 8 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986,

a local authority shall decide whether the needs of the disabled person call for the provision by the authority of any services in accordance with section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
(2) Where a local authority are satisfied that in order to meet the needs of a disabled person it is necessary for that authority to make arrangements for any services referred to in subsection (1) above, it shall be the duty of that authority, with the consent of the said person, to make those arrangements.
(3) In this section—
"disabled person" and "authorised representative" have the same meanings as in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
"local authority" has the same meaning as in section 43 above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed in Committee and then withdrawn, but my noble friend Lord Ennals made it clear that we were not satisfied with the Government's response and would certainly wish to return to the matter on Report.
The purpose of the amendment is this. Currently, disabled people, or their representatives or carers, have a right to ask for an assessment of their need and for domiciliary services under Section 4 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The local authority then has a duty to meet that assessed need. This new clause would give disabled people a right to ask for an assessment of their need for residential care and respite care and would therefore place a duty on local authorities to meet that assessed need. That is particularly important in view of the fact that the Bill passes to local authorities all responsibility for the arrangements for residential care.
We believe that without such a duty a two-tier system will be created with statutory rights for assessment to meet assessed need existing for some services—that is, the domiciliary services—but not for other services; that is, residential care and respite care. The amendment clearly states that the local authority,
"with the consent of the said person",
shall make the necessary arrangements. Therefore, it clearly establishes that people would not go into residential care against their wishes.
When we discussed this matter in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, implied that the amendment would undermine the position of day care services by putting residential care and respite

653
care on the same basis as day domiciliary services and that in some ways that would devalue the residential care and the domiciliary services. We cannot understand that argument. We strongly agree that community care is preferable to residential care, but this amendment simply gives people a right to ask for an assessment of their needs for residential or respite care if they want it. It is also vital that people have access to short-term residential or respite care in order that they may remain in the community.
We have already referred to the excellent report from the Social Services Committee in another place, Community Care; Carers. In the committee's conclusions and recommendations, paragraph 10 on page 27 of the report states:
"We recommend that in all areas there should be available the following, types of 'respite services'".
It refers, among other services to:
"in-patient accommodation for longer periods and respite care for the most disabled people … hospice care for terminally ill patients; residential care and nursing home places near to the patient's home, with community health service support; placement with an alternative family and other types of placement schemes such as supported lodgings; overnight respite care".
Those are all areas where we feel a duty should be placed on local authorities to secure this form of assessment and meet this need.
The report continues:
"We believe that the Government should demonstrate its stated commitment to supporting carers by allocating additional sums to local authorities to enable new respite services to be developed where necessary".
As I said, we feel it is essential that it should be a duty on local authorities that residential and respite care, which are essential parts of the community care packages, are placed on the same basis as domiciliary services. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I very much support this amendment. With a disabled person living at home the strain on a family can be appalling. When someone needs to be taken to the lavatory more than once every single night, or perhaps has to be turned so that he or she does not develop pressure sores, or is generally disruptive to the rest of the family, particularly when there are children, there can be a danger of a breakdown in health of those who are caring and indeed a breakdown of the family itself.
Care in the community is, I understand, the cheapest method of caring for a disabled person. Full-time residential care is a great deal more expensive. Respite care, in particular, will often prevent a disabled person being forced into full-time residential care because it gives the family a much needed break.
I know from my own experience that at present many local authorities are extremely reluctant to pay for respite care. It appears to me the authorities would far rather see the family break down and the individual be forced into full-time residential care because they are not prepared to pay £1 now to save £10 later. That is ridiculous and pure short-sightedness. I strongly support the amendment.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I support this amendment. The majority of adults with mental handicap live with their parents, many of whom are frail and elderly themselves, and very much pressure can be put on them. Therefore, respite care is essential, but it is thin on the ground. MENCAP has found that of 475 adults with mental handicap and living at home, only 134 had any respite care. It is also necessary that a range of residential care is available for adults with mental handicap.
It is a relief for ageing parents to know that their son or daughter is safely and happily settled before a crisis point is reached. At this point some mentally handicapped sons or daughters may find that they lose both their parents and their home at the same time. Therefore, residential care should be a positive option and not a last resort.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I also support this very important amendment. The choice of the kind of respite care is very important. The problem of the AIDS tragedy has shown the need for respite care. In fact, some of the services now provided for AIDS patients are better than those available for people with many other types of disability.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is an amendment that we discussed in some detail in Committee. The noble Lord and others have expressed the view that the purpose behind the amendment is to ensure that respite care would be available if this seemed the best way of meeting a user's need. One of the great hopes of the new system as opposed to the old one is that, where a local authority feels that it makes economic sense—a point made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen—it will be forced to consider respite care more seriously as a provision.
I recognise that respite care can play an important part not only in helping someone to remain in the community most of the time but also in giving his or her carer a much needed break. I agree that it should be available when needed. But I do not think that this amendment is required to secure that. The outcome of the needs-based assessment should be the provision of services which best meet those needs. The statutory requirement to provide day and domiciliary care is enhanced to reinforce this and not to restrict the range of care offered by authorities. I can assure your Lordships that we shall see that this point is brought out in our guidance to authorities.
The amendment we are debating goes a lot further than respite care and embraces all forms of residential provision. As I have said, that may not be helpful. I hold to the view expressed at Committee stage that this amendment is not necessary and places the emphasis on people being admitted into residential accommodation rather than exploring the alternatives. In the light of that explanation I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that was the answer I expected and it is extremely disappointing. The noble Baroness said that she believed that local authorities would be forced to consider the matter. How can a local authority be forced to consider a

655
particular issue if there is no statutory duty to do so? That is the whole point of the amendment; namely, that this measure should be placed on the face of the Bill so that the local authority has a legal obligation.
The noble Baroness appears to welcome the fact that a local authority will be forced to consider the matter, but she refuses to accept that without the amendment there is no element of force to make a local authority consider the issue. There will still be no statutory duty to assess and provide residential and respite care. The noble Baroness glossed over the matter by saying that the question was larger than the provision of respite care.
As we all know, the provision of respite care is essential to the success of community care. The noble Baroness said that the amendment was not helpful but she did not say why. Is it because the Government are concerned about the cost which might fall on local authorities? If that is it, they should say so.
I believe that the noble Baroness said that the amendment would mean that people could be forced into residential care. But it states that it will be the duty of the local authority,
"with the consent of the said person".
In other words, nobody would be forced into residential or respite care if the amendment were accepted because the person would have to agree. All we are asking is that there should be the same duty on the authority as now exists in connection with the provision of domiciliary services and home services to assess and provide residential and respite care.
The answer was very unsatisfactory. Since Committee stage the Government have shown no movement at all on this matter or signs of even beginning to understand the problems. Therefore, I ask for the opinion of the House.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 173) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Airedale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ennals, L.

Ardwick, L.

Erroll, E.

Birk, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Falkland, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Foot, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

Galpern, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Greenway, L.

Crook, L.

Grey, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Halsbury, E.

David, B.

Hampton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Hanworth, V.

656

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rea, L.

Hughes, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hylton-Foster, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Jeger, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seebohm, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strabolgi, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Longford, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Thurlow, L.

McNair, L.

Tordoff, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Walston, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

White, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ogmore, L.

Winstanley, L.

Oram, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Peston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lyell, L.

Allerton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Arran, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Balfour, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Beloff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Borthwick, L.

Moran, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Nelson, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Norrie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Caithness, E.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnock, L.

Pender, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Cawley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Colwyn, L.

Prior, L.

Craigavon, V.

Quinton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Crathorne, L.

Reay, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rees, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Savile, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elles, B.

Strange, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gridley, L.

Hanson, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinton, E.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Ullswater, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Vinson, L.

Layton, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Lewin, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Long, V.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 97 names. The Clerks recorded 98 names.]
6.2 p m.
Loud Allen of Abbeydale Loud Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 174:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Authorised representatives
. Sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 shall come into force on the same day as section 48 above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already discussed Section 3 of the 1986 Act. On this occasion it was the unhappy lot of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to persuade us that the Government have been briskly active over a period of four years in implementing some parts of the 1986 Act. The Act received the Royal Assent on my birthday. That annual reminder of the passing years is always tinged with melancholy at the thought that yet another year has gone by without the Act being fully enforced.
Sections 1 and 2 raise a point quite different from that in Section 3, although there are consequentials. In Committee we had, rather late in the evening, what I fear was a not very satisfactory discussion on the amendment. Section 1 of the 1986 Act gives a right to a disabled person to have an authorised representative. Section 2 lays down the rights of those representatives. They will be unpaid. The local authority can, if need by, make arrangements for the appointment of a volunteer, probably by arrangement with a voluntary organisation. Without a right to representation the plain fact is that some of the disabled will be unable to have any say in how to live their lives. My noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton and I tried to argue that this right is essential if Part III of the Bill is to be properly implemented. The persons we are talking about are those vulnerable disabled people—for example, the deaf blind—who have no relatives or carers to speak for them and are not really capable of speaking for themselves.
In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, made what I thought was the rather surprising statement that these two sections, with Section 3, are the most complex and potentially the most expensive of all the provisions of the 1986 Act. I simply do not agree with her. Some administrative expenses would be involved in implementing Sections 1 and 2 but what those sections are essentially concerned with is the provision of unpaid voluntary representatives. MENCAP, for example, would be happy to arrange for a pool of such volunteers to be made available.
Reference was made in the earlier discussion to the rather leisurely approach made by the Government to the local authorities. That approach carried the suggestion that these sections, having waited for four years, might wait even longer, until the Bill and the Children Act had been put into force and had had time to settle down. I very much hope that, whatever the local authorities may say, the Government will think again. I was encouraged to note that this view was shared by the Select Committee on Social Services of another place. The Government's approach overlooks the fact that if there is representation the chances are greatly improved of achieving assessments which are more
658
likely to be satisfactory to the individual and to the community and to be cost-effective into the bargain. That seems to fall exactly in line with what the White Paper and this part of the Bill aim to achieve.
I must not take up too much time but I should like to give an example. It concerns Mr. James—that is not his real name—who is in his early seventies and is partially sighted. His wife is in her late fifties and is deaf. Their daughter, who has a mental handicap, is in her late twenties and since leaving school has seldom been out of the house. She receives no benefits of any kind. Years ago the parents approached the social services for help but were so terrified when there was a suggestion by the mental health officer that their daughter should be taken away and put into an institution that they have had no further contact with social services and since that time have had no help whatsoever.
The daughter's continuing isolation has naturally increased her disabilities. In order to communicate with Mr. and Mrs. James one must first speak to Mr. James, who as I say is partially sighted, and his wife in turn, will lip-read what he says. They desperately need and want the support of an authorised representative who will deal with social services on their behalf and on behalf of their daughter. Without Sections 1 and 2 of the 1986 Act it is not clear that there are any arrangements for them to be represented.
We happen to know about the James family but one wonders how many families there are in a similar plight about whom we do not know. About 10 years ago the Government published a document entitled Mental Handicap: Progress, Problems and Priorities. It included this statement:
"The most important factor in safeguarding the position of vulnerable patients and ensuring their rights are upheld is personal contact between the patient and someone whose job it is to explain the position from the patient's point of view".
That is exactly what the amendment is aimed at achieving. If I may remind the House of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on the earlier occasion, it is not an amendment to provide that these sections should immediately come into force; it is an amendment proposing that they should come into force on the same day as Clause 48 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was very pleased to be able to add my name to the amendment. As usual the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has explained the situation admirably. The amendment proposes that people with disabilities should be given a right to advocacy thus enabling any individual, regardless of his communication difficulties, to have a public voice. That is what Sections 1 and 2 deal with. We can all agree that the right to freedom of individual expression is fundamental. Most people take it for granted; but some people may not be able to exercise the right because of mental, sensory or physical disabilities. As the noble Lord said, without the right of representation some disabled people will be unable to have a say in how they live their lives.
The noble Lord mentioned the case of Mr. James and his family. We are all familiar with the tragic case of Beverley Lewis; so there is no need to go into

659
detail. She received no education from the age of nine and simply starved to death at home because her mother neglected to feed her properly. The health authority, the social services department and the education department knew about Beverley's case; yet they failed to prevent her death. It was not until several weeks after her death that her mother was diagnosed as suffering from severe schizophrenia. There is just a chance that, if Sections 1 and 2 of the Act had been in force, the local authority could have appointed authorised representatives for Beverley and her mother. If the Minister refers to cost, I shall have to weigh up the considerations of cost against the other Beverley Lewises of this world and similar cases about which we simply do not know.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment. If my noble friend of the Front Bench is proposing to reject the amendment on the grounds of cost, will he please advise the House just what the cost is: first, in financial terms; and, secondly, in terms of the cost to disabled people as regards their physical and mental welfare? I can see neither a logical nor a moral reason for rejecting the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I can condense what I have to say into one sentence. In my view, it is utterly deplorable that here we are, four years after the Bill was enacted, having to ask that its provisions be implemented. That is terrible.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope first that my noble friend will carry out the suggestion made by my noble friend. If he plans to reject the amendment—which I hope he will not—on the grounds of cost, he should state fully what the cost will be. Secondly, perhaps he will offer some answer to the rather difficult question of why, four years after Parliament enacted the measure, it has still not been put into force. If it was right four years ago—after all, it was carried by the same Government—can he explain why it is not right now?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I can take the House much further as regards Section 3 than I did when it was discussed on a previous amendment. As I explained in connection with that amendment, which was designed to bring Section 3 into force at the same time as Clause 48, it would be irresponsible for us to proceed to further implementation of the Act before our consultations with the local authority associations are complete. I said that we were pursuing the matter with all possible speed. I think I can also say that it was agreed with the local authority associations at an early stage that Sections 1, 2 and 3 should be considered together for implementation.
I have mentioned the letter which we received from the Association of County Councils on 12th June of this year in which it replied also on behalf of the AMA. The association stated that it is drawing up procedures for the operation of the outstanding sections and costing them accordingly. The
660
association stressed that it would be happy to discuss such matters in time. I honestly do not think that I can take the matter further at present. With that consideration in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he tell the House when the consultations which are not yet completed actually began?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. However, I can repeat the assurance I gave to the House as regards Amendment No. 170, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). We will pursue these consultations with all possible speed. We have received a reply from the Association of County Councils, but we do not think that it would be responsible to continue at present until we have had further discussions with the associations.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, four years have elapsed since the enactment of the Bill. Therefore, how can the Minister say that the Government will proceed "with all possible speed"? I know that they have an agreement to take the implementation of all three sections together, but if they had wanted to implement them they would have been able to do so. I am sure that the local authorities would have been prepared to go along with them rather than see a four-year delay. The situation is really quite intolerable.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, we have already implemented considerable parts of the Act. The noble Lord will know that when the legislation was enacted, on the birthday of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, we said that we would implement the sections when we could. However, we stressed at the time that there were financial implications. I shall continue to stress that point. We shall continue to discuss the matter. I have given the assurance that we will make all possible speed and that we will continue to discuss these matters with the Association of County Councils and the AMA. After that has been done, and at an appropriate stage, these sections can be implemented. I must stress again that we agreed that they would be taken together.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the letter which was sent to local authorities was dated February or March of this year? In any event, that is three and half years after the Bill was enacted.
Lord Henley: My Lords, consultations began on 19th February. However, perhaps I may repeat what I said to the noble Lord. We have already implemented large parts of the Act. We always stressed that there were financial implications and we continue to say so. As I said, continued discussions are necessary with the local authority associations.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by asking the noble Lord a question. I am sure that the leave of the House will be readily forthcoming to enable him to answer. He said that the Government will proceed with all possible speed in the matter. Does that mean that they have abandoned the idea of a postponement until this Bill and t le Children Act are operating and have settled down, as suggested by the letter sent earlier this year?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House I can only give the answer I gave earlier: we shall continue to pursue the matter with all possible speed. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance on that point.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I think that an assurance on those terms is not worth very much. I do not understand why we cannot have a simple statement from the Government that when the consultations are completed and the cost, which I accept is relevant, assessed, although the amount, I submit, would be very small, taking into account the savings referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, this section will be brought into force. The lives of many people in this country continue to be miserable because of the absence of such powers.
I do not wish to divide the House yet again, but I should warn the Government that if these sections are not implemented soon there will be further parliamentary problems for them. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 175 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 176:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Direct payments by local authorities for welfare services to disabled persons.
. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 29(6) of the National Assistance Act 1948, a local authority, having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, may make payments to a disabled person for the purchase of care or personal assistance services.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment would enable local authorities to make payments directly to disabled people so that they can make their own care arrangements and thus have a greater control over their lives. My noble friend Lady Masham moved this amendment in Committee to discover what progress the Government had made following an undertaking in another place by the Minister for Health to consider the proposal.
In his reply on that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that consideration was still in progress and that if it was at all possible a government amendment would be brought forward at a later stage. I am moving this amendment again to try to elicit the latest state of play and also to ask the Minister a few questions.
I have a sense of déjàvu;. Does the Minister agree that the current situation is unsatisfactory? Despite the lack of legal clarity, several local authorities make payments to disabled people directly or via
662
a third party. Disabled people also receive direct payments through the Independent Living Fund. Those arrangements work well, and there appear to be no undue complications.
A further question: the Spinal Injuries Association suggested in a letter of 8th March to the department that it could give details of successful schemes used by its members. Will the Minister ensure that there is a meeting between voluntary organisations, such as the SIA, and the department to try to resolve any difficulties? Thirdly, will the Minister clarify that it is at present lawful for a local authority to make payments to a disabled person via a third party, because there seems to be some confusion over the present state of the law?
Will the Minister say what is meant by a "third party"? If it is possible to allow payments through a third party, is there any reason why local authorities cannot allow payments to be made directly to the disabled person, who should surely be treated as being as responsible and accountable as the third party? The issue is one about which disabled people have strong views.
A direct payment scheme does not suit everyone as it requires an ability to deal with everything related to employing people; but it should be a possible option so that those who are agreeable and capable and who want to do so can take charge of their own lives. That is something that the able-bodied adult takes for granted.
One local authority that has made payments directly to individuals for more than 18 months said in a letter to my noble friend Lady Masham that there was clear evidence to show that making direct payments to disabled people to enable them to make their own care arrangements could work, and enhanced the quality of life afforded to them.
I hope that the Minister can clarify the existing legal position. If she has no positive news about a government amendment will she take a long, hard look at the matter before Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. It is important that as many disabled people as possible, and as many as can cope, should have the independence to negotiate and be involved in their own packages. By "packages" we mean life enhancement. There is a great deal of support for that policy. It is a pity that the Government have not brought forward an amendment to deal with the issue.
I have looked at the views expressed by some of the organisations which have experience of this matter. The British Association of Social Workers recommends that all money for individual care programmes be paid directly to the individual to purchase the care that he or she needs. The Audit Commission report, Making a Reality of Community Care, published in December 1986, says that disabled people construct their own care packages and employ their own staff in a highly autonomous fashion. They effectively do their own joint planning. The Prince of Wales Advisory Committee on Disability and Living Options states:

663
"Client-directed services offer severely disabled people the greatest degree of control over the personal, domestic and social care support that they receive".
It is extremely important that that provision should be facilitated. The Government have not tabled an amendment, and I therefore hope that they will accept this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. Perhaps I may give two instances. One is of a man who is unfortunately now dead. He was paralysed from the neck downwards, but he was able to run his own life, hire and fire his own helpers and use his own social security benefits to that end, and manage his finances. He lived at home. He said that doing that considerably enhanced the quality of his life.
The other instance is of a young married couple who are both spastics. The wife is severely disabled. She needs about eight hours' care a day. The husband has considerable involuntary movement but can run his life with the aid of a computer, which he operates with his feet. They cannot obtain from their local authority a grant to help them live independently. However, they have a council house which was converted for them. The local authority pays the grant that it would like to pay to that disabled couple to a third party who, acting on their instructions, pays for the help that they need. The disabled couple interview and hire their own help. Without that £200, which is used for them by a rather roundabout and at present illegal route, they would be in a home.
If that couple were in a residential home it would cost the public purse—I am lumping together local authority and central government funds as one public purse—in excess of an extra £200 a week. The amendment would not just benefit physically handicapped and other disabled people, by giving them a greater responsibility for their lives, freedom and enjoyment—we all like making our own mistakes, and we have the freedom to do so, but disabled people are not allowed to risk making mistakes—it would benefit the public purse considerably. I can see no logical reason for the Government to reject the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, this is, again, a commonsense amendment. The matter will be up to the local authorities. If the scheme did not work, they could stop direct payments. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the amendment would encourage responsibility, and that surely should be the Government's aim.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I support the amendment, which would enable local authorities to make payments directly to disabled people to buy their own care arrangements. As my noble friend Lady Darcy has said, such a scheme would obviously not suit everyone, as it requires an ability not just to deal with everything related to employing people but also to cope with the money. However, it should be an option that is open to everyone, as it would give a feeling of independence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we have always made it clear that the Government have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose behind the amendment. At an earlier stage we agreed to look positively at how and whether the Government could bring forward an amendment to meet that purpose, albeit initially on a limited or experimental basis.
A considerable effort has been made to achieve that purpose but Ministers have reluctantly had to conclude that we are unable to take powers to enable payments to be made directly to clients in that way. The difficulty hinges on the proper control of public expenditure and the need to ensure that the local authority is accountable for the expenditure it makes through having to maintain responsibility for arranging those services that it judges are needed and which it can fund.
There are of course other difficulties with the proposals. My honourable friend the Minister of State outlined them in another place. They included: determining which clients were suitable recipients; the bureaucracy required to run such a dual system; and avoiding abuse of the use of funds. In addition there are the difficulties to which the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) referred. The sticking point is accountability for public funds.
In answer to the noble Baroness's three questions: first, as I have already said, we have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. Secondly, as the noble Baroness knows, I am willing to be involved in and to help to arrange a meeting, if that is felt necessary, between the voluntary sector and the department, as she suggested. As to payments via third parties, that is a complex issue. If the noble Baroness is agreeable, I shall write to her on that issue because the reply may have to be at some length.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does that mean that there could be consultation before Third Reading in the hope of some agreement on an amendment?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am quite willing to have a meeting whenever it is convenient to other noble Lords.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would that mean that local authorities would still be accountable? If the scheme was not working, they could stop it. Surely they would still be accountable for the money.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, would my noble friend consider putting in an independent individual to monitor such schemes? I am sure that the House will give her leave to answer.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret that I am not able to add anything to what I have said. It amounts to the fact that I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his helpful intervention at the last minute. I thank the Minister for her reply, I know that she is sympathetic towards the amendment. She will not be surprised to hear me say that I was disappointed that she could not accept it. I appreciate that if she will have a meeting and talks perhaps we can achieve something before Third Reading.
I do not quite understand the worry over accountability. The Independent Living Fund makes payments direct to individuals and it has had no problems. A contract would be drawn up with the individual; care needs would be specified and the local authority would have the right to inspect the books. Perhaps too much is being made of the problem. Contracts will be the order of the day under the Bill and I do not see why one cannot draw up a contract with the individual disabled person, just as one would for the service provider.
Thanks to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the noble Baroness has agreed to enter into discussions. I understand that that is without any firm commitment. I hope that we can convince her that accountability is not that much of a problem. I was somewhat disappointed that she could not state that it is now legally possible to pay money to a third party. Is that what she said? Perhaps she would write to me about the meaning of "third party". May I press her to say now that it is legal to make payments through a third party? I understand that I cannot do so, that is clear. I pin some hopes on the discussions but, in view of that indication of dissent, I must point out that disabled people feel passionately about this and we may well have to return to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56, [Duty of local authority to make assessment of needs]:
[Amendments Nos. 177 to 179 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 180 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 180A:
Page 61, line 22, at end insert:
("(4A) Nothing in this section shall prevent a local authority from providing or arranging for the provision of community care services for any person without carrying out a prior assessment of his needs in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section if, in the opinion of the authority, the condition of that person is such that he requires those services as a matter of urgency.
(4B) If, by virtue of subsection (4A) of this section, community care services have been provided for any person as a matter of urgency, then, as soon as practicable thereafter, an assessment of his needs shall be made in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 181:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Scottish Community Care Inspectorate
.—(1) There shall be constituted a body to be called "the Scottish Community Care Inspectorate."
(2) It shall be the duty of the Scottish Community Care Inspectorate:—

(a) to monitor the provision of community care in Scotland; and

(b) to advise the Secretary of State on ways to improve the standard of community care in Scotland.

(3) The Secretary of State shall prescribe the constitution of the Scottish Community Care Inspectorate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is designed to correct a long-standing omission in the framework for community care in Scotland by establishing an inspectorate to monitor the performance of local authorities and to ensure that good examples of community care are recognised and followed.
England has had a social services inspectorate as part of the Department of Health for many years. Throughout the debates on the Bill it has been repeatedly said by the Government that there was no need to write safeguards into the Bill because the social services inspectorate would monitor standards of service and inspection. That is at col. 29 of the Official Report for 14th May.
In Scotland the social work services group plays a limited central role in the Scottish Office but there is no equivalent of the English social services inspectorate. The usefulness of the inspectorate is also demonstrated in other areas. For instance, schools have an inspectorate and long-stay hospitals are monitored by the Scottish Health Advisory Service. It recently strongly criticised the provision for psychiatric patients.
The proposed inspectorate would be much wider in scope than the local authority's arm's length inspection units. Registration can only deal with individual establishments, as they arise. The inspectorate could look at the whole system of the delivery of community care in each local authority. It could examine whether the services offered were relevant to the actual users. It would monitor the effectiveness of the new case managers. It could also look at what services are not being provided. For example, several adult training centres for mentally handicapped adults now designate part of the week as being leisure and do not work with the trainees on these days. The theory is that the trainees will be occupying their time constructively elsewhere, but often the trainees are simply sitting at home. The inspectorate would also consider the adequacy of domiciliary and home care, which is not currently subject to any registration procedures.
The inspectorate would not only monitor services but would play a positive role in seeking out examples of good practice and innovation and ensuring that the principles behind them are made known and implemented throughout the whole of Scotland.
There is also a need to provide impartial guidance to the various statutory bodies: social work departments; health boards; housing authorities,

667
etc., which have generally not worked well together in planning and delivering services. This is demonstrated in the report of the Scottish Working Group on Care in the Community, most aptly called, Stop … Start … Stutter!
There would be less need for this clause if the Scottish Office had taken the positive role adopted by its counterparts in England and especially in Wales. Examination of the Scottish chapter in the White Paper, Caring for People bears out the suspicion that the Scottish office has no clearly articulated policy for community care. In joint planning it has abandoned attempts to make local authorities and health boards work together. In many cases it appears to have abdicated its responsibility to produce guidelines for the registration of services, leaving it up to the Association of Directors of Social Work to produce guidance for residential homes and failing altogether to provide any guidance for day care centres.
If the Government do not accept this clause, they must surely explain why the social services inspectorate is a vital part of community care in England but is not necessary in Scotland. They must explain how they propose to provide in Scotland the strong central strategy that Sir Roy Griffiths rightly identified as being necessary if community care is to be more than merely a slogan. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, having been an inspector in both the Home Office and the Department of Health. I have also, as a director of social services, been inspected. So I have had the experience of an inspectorate from both points of view.
In England and Wales the inspectorate was abolished in 1970 and was turned into an advisory service and not an inspectorate. It was then found that there was a great gap in maintaining standards throughout the country. The inspectorate was brought back again about three years ago, so in England and Wales the inspectorate was found to be a necessary adjunct to good practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made many points. Perhaps I may reinforce them. First, on the question of spreading good practice throughout the country, when I was an inspector and visited in one area I came across very good practice but when I visited another authority I found that it had not implemented that good practice. Thus one was able to make an exchange of views and ideas and spread good practice throughout the country. Furthermore, through the inspectorate it was possible to have uniform and consistent policies throughout the country and to maintain high standards. A number of my staff used to look forward to the inspections because they felt that every now and then it was psychologically very good to have someone from outside the local authority coming to look at their work.
Another very important factor was that the inspectorate was able to bring into the department ideas it had picked up in the country. The
668
inspectorate was able to act as a bridge between the administrators, who very often did not get out much, and what was going on in the country. It seems to me most extraordinary that although Scotland is ahead of England and Wales in its social and penal policies in this one area it lags behind. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment and hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, my Scottish blood advises me to support the amendment. With so much change and the need for accountability it seems wise and useful to have an inspectorate. An inspectorate can advise and pinpoint needs. It can prevent money being wasted and encourage people when they are doing a good job. I should like to ask why Scotland has not had an inspectorate during all these years.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I shall be delighted to answer the noble Baroness in due course. I thank the noble Lord for introducing this amendment, which I think should have been reached at an earlier stage. We did not have an opportunity to debate it before.
The new clause seems to be based on the belief that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to set up a new organisation in order to discharge his role in the central monitoring arrangements described in paragraphs 5.25 to 5.27 of the White Paper Caring for People. As the White Paper makes clear, the statements of intent which appear throughout chapters 1 to 8 are related specifically to England but will have a more general application in practice unless there is some specific reason to the contrary. The references to the Social Services Inspectorate in that part of paragraph 5 which I have just mentioned are specifically related to England, as the context makes clear. They could not apply to Scotland because there is no precise equivalent of the Social Services Inspectorate there, as has been said.
What we have in Scotland instead—and I hope to persuade my noble friend that we are not lacking in imagination in how to go about these things—is a central corps of social work advisers who operate as professional staff within the social work services group of the Scottish Education Department. Those officers are responsible for advising the Secretary of State on professional issues relating to the development of the whole range of social work services. They also have informal responsibilities for work with local authorities and voluntary bodies on particular aspects of service development, and carry out specific inquiries and other projects which equate with some of the work now done by the Social Services Inspectorate in England. Like the English inspectorate, our arrangments are non-statutory.
I can assure your Lordships that the lack of any specific reference in chapter 10 of the White Paper to Scottish intentions in regard to the monitoring of community care development should not be seen as having some special significance. As is clearly stated in chapter 10, we also see a need for central monitoring of the community care plans which are to be prepared by local authorities. Paragraph 10.9

669
is quite specific about the Secretary of State's intentions to call for reports from local authorities in connection with progress in implementing these plans and to examine different aspects of community care.
It will not be a desk exercise. We fully intend that professional and other social work services group staff should pay visits to local authorities for that purpose, and we are giving consideration to the role of existing professional staff which may need to be adapted to meet such needs. Local authorities will be closely involved in the development of the new arrangements.
At this stage we do not think it necessary to form a separate group of advisers dealing with community care questions and to give them a different status from their colleagues who are concerned with other professional social work issues, including matters relating to child care, the staffing of social work departments, or training needs—all of which are concerns for existing social work services group professional staff. The Social Services Inspectorate in England is not divided in that way and, given the smaller scale of operations in Scotland, the case for doing so there would be even more difficult to justify. I understand the noble Lord's wish to proceed as in England. The question of employing existing social work advisory staff within the social work services group to contribute more directly to the objectives of chapter 5 of the White Paper on achieving high standards of care is already being addressed.
I come now to the specific points which have been made in the course of this debate. The noble Lord raised the question of adult training centres not being used to best effect. We have looked closely at the future of adult training centres by funding a major research work. It is certainly not a situation which we simply accept. We are always looking for improvements and new developments. After all, coma unity care is a developing science.
The noble Lord also spoke of joint planning not being effective at present. We have always accepted that the existing system of joint planning was not universally successful, although it had some notable successes. We are moving forward with a new planning system. The local authorities will now have clear lead responsibilities. As to the noble Lord's rather unkind reference to the Scottish Office not having a community care policy, the simple answer to community care policy in Scotland can be found in chapter 10 of the White Paper, just as it can be found for England and Wales in a similar manner.
I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree that the clause is unnecessary in seeking to create a separate organisation of the kind proposed purely to deal with community care, and that the best approach meanwhile will be to redeploy existing staff in a more limited way along the lines I have suggested.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister talked about more informal consultative methods. Does he not agree that such informal consultative methods did not work in England from 1970 to 1977? Does he not think that a more
670
structured inspectorate is going to set a better standard throughout the country?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the answer is that I do not think so as regards Scotland at this stage. We feel our integrated approach is the best way forward for us. There is a difference between England and Wales and Scotland, as I have tried to make clear. I understand that my noble friend has a great deal of experience in this field. Perhaps I may talk to her afterwards. She may like to come and see how it is done in Scotland, and inform herself as to whether we are doing it as well as we could. There is always room for improvement but we think that the way we are taking it forward is the right way.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down finally, perhaps I may ask him whether the White Paper is going to be a kind of working reference for the future.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, yes indeed. The White Paper Caring for People, and specifically Chapter 10, is a working paper for the future and something on which we shall base our judgments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Masham, both of whom have a great deal of experience in this field. In particular the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, as she put it, has been both an inspector and inspected. That is quite a record.
The Minister, as always, was very helpful. I shall need to read with great care what he said, but he appeared to say "We have all of this but we call it something different".
The amendment was put forward by people who are involved in this work on a daily basis. They do not look at the matter in the same way as the Minister. The SWSG has a job to do and does it, within its limits, extremely well. However, it appears that it is being given a role which is greater than was originally envisaged.
I shall study with great care what the Minister had to say. He genuinely tried to reassure us. I believe that it would be good for the Scottish SWSG if the Minister followed up his suggestion and had a talk with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on the matter.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to assure him that the role of the SWSG will be strengthened in the future.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, that is an important point. Perhaps we shall have an even stronger inspectorate but under a different name. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Inspection of premises used for provision of community care services]
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 182A:
Page 53, line 31, after ("premises") insert ("and the facilities and services provided therein").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment fulfils an undertaking that I gave at Committee. Amendment No. 182A makes it clear that the persons inspecting the premises under Clause 49 can also inspect the facilities and services provided in them. I believe that that entirely meets the proper concerns expressed by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 182B:
Page 54, line 12, after ("records") insert ("or other records identifying an individual's medical status").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 49 of the Bill as it stands allows:
"Any person authorised by the Secretary of State",
access to:
"such information as he may request",
from any person employed in premises where community care services may be provided. The clause is quite draconian in that respect, but an exception is made in subsection (5), which states that:
"No person may … exercise the power conferred by subsection (2)(b) above so as to inspect medical records … unless he is a registered medical practitioner".
After the words "medical records" the amendment would add the words:
"or other records identifying an individual's medical status".
This is an issue of confidentiality. As it stands the Bill would appear to allow social services inspectors access to information about clients in community care facilities which could create considerable anxiety among inter alia people with HIV or AIDS. Noble Lords may be aware that unless confidentiality is guaranteed many people with HIV and AIDS may be deterred from seeking local authority services. People with HIV and AIDS needing assistance already contact voluntary organisations in the first instance because they believe that local authorities are lax or careless in maintaining the confidentiality of people with HIV.
It is well known that people with a history of illegal drug use, many of whom may have been unwittingly infected with HIV, are notoriously reluctant to contact statutory services because of anxiety about confidentiality. Women with HIV, especially those with children, are also very concerned to protect themselves and their children from the social hostility and discriminatory behaviour that may ensue if their HIV status becomes known.
In making HIV antibody testing available at GUM clinics, where special measures to protect confidentiality are required by law—and I refer to the National Health Service venereal diseases regulations of 1974—the Government have recognised the principle that confidentiality must be an essential component of HIV and AIDS services if people with or at risk of HIV infection are to be encouraged to come forward for testing, advice and care. It should not be necessary for the purposes of inspection under the provisions of this clause of the
672
Bill for inspectors to know the medical status of named individuals. The purpose of such inspections, as set out in paragraph 5.24 of the White Paper Caring for People, states:
"The Department of Health proposes to issue further guidance for registration and inspection staff on the conditions to be expected in a good home … It will give a special emphasis to assessing the quality of care provided and the quality of life of residents as well as physical conditions".
Those seem to be perfectly acceptable objects of such inspections. To achieve those objects it seems to me to be quite unnecessary that an inspector should have access to information which may be held not only on medical records, which are excluded by the Bill, but also on social work records and possibly on the records of voluntary organisations. In order to close that loophole I have sought to insert in the Bill the words which appear in the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. It seems very sensible.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree that access to medical records should be very tightly controlled to prevent them falling into the wrong hands. That is a very well-established principle in health care management. That is why Clause 49(5) prohibits anyone other than a registered medical practitioner from inspecting medical records during the course of an inspection.
The amendment, however, goes rather further. It would extend the restriction to any record which identifies an individual's medical status. Much as I understand the concern underlying the amendment, it could do more harm than good. We are not talking of the dissemination of detailed medical records; simply of documents which may refer, in broad terms, to the patient's condition. It might often be very important for non-clinical staff carrying out inspections, such as social services inspectors, to know in very general terms a user's medical status. I am concerned that in taking the very important principle of confidentiality to this extent the amendment might in some cases inhibit the proper inspection of services. In the light of that information, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will feel persuaded not to press his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am not persuaded. We have agreed that medical records per se are exempted from inspection under the Bill because, as I have explained, there are other types of record on which the HIV status of the resident of a home or the receiver of day-care services or whatever it may be can also be held. I refer to social work files and, I dare say, the files of some voluntary organisations. I cannot understand why it should conceivably be necessary for the inspectors to know that in carrying out the type of inspection which is described in the White Paper and to which I referred.
The deterrent effect on people who, rightly or wrongly, fear that their status may be revealed and cause discrimination against them could be considerable, so I do not accept the explanation of

673
the noble Baroness. However, I shall certainly read it just in case I can put some other gloss on it, but if I am unable to do so I shall almost certainly return to the matter on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Transfer of staff from health service to local authorities]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 182C:
Page 54, line 43, leave out ("when a person") and insert ("if a person declines an offer of employment made with a view to such a transfer or return as is referred to in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above and then").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this technical amendment is necessary to give proper effect to Clause 50. I beg to move.
Clause 51 [Powers of the Secretary of State as respects social services functions of local authorities]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale move Amendment No. 183:
Page 55, line 20, at end insert:
("(3) Before issuing any direction under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult organisations representative of social services authorities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we reach Clause 51 we depart from community care and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, made clear, start to deal with the social services functions of local authorities in a wider sense, including, for example, their responsibilities in relation to children and the mentally disordered—all that notwithstanding the Short Title of the Bill.
It seems to me quite wrong that the clause should be in a part of the Act under the heading which noble Lords will find before Clause 47; namely:
"General provisions concerning community care services".
Whatever Clause 51 may be, it is not a general provision concerning community care services. As my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton pointed out in Committee—and he is no mean authority—it raises the question of whether the Long Title is defective. Although in the Long Title power is taken to amend various named Acts, there is no reference to the Local Authority Social Services Act of 1970 which is amended by this clause. There is no doubt some good explanation from the experts, but it would be agreeable to have it on record. I have heard nothing from the Government since those points were raised in Committee, but that is not an experience entirely without precedent.
On the amendment itself, the explanation given by the noble Baroness confirms that this is an important clause, adding as it does extensive new powers of direction from the centre to the provisions which already exist in the 1970 Act about issuing general guidance. It represents a significant change in the relationship between central and local government. When the point was taken that there should be consultation before those new centralised powers were exercised, the noble Baroness said:
674
"Before issuing general directions, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will consult local authority associations and other bodies in the customary way".—[Official Report, 14/5/90; col. 96.]
However, the provisions in the Bill are not limited to general directions. Although the noble Baroness is in no doubt, we think that in view of the significant and far-reaching addition to the powers of central government which this provision embodies it would be right to spell out the requirement for consultation on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly to this amendment which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Henderson of Brompton, and of my noble friend Lord Carter.
I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Allen, on the esoterica of the Long Title or anything of that kind. I am looking forward to an explanation of those fundamental matters. However, on the substantial amendment, it seems to me very straightforward and the very least exposes the difference between the Government and the rest of us. Any rational Secretary of State would certainly consult organisations representative of social services authorities. That goes without saying. However, one does not write legislation simply on the assumption that the Secretary of State is always rational and sensible. One writes legislation on the basis of what is itself rational and sensible. As this is a straightforward requirement, the obvious way to deal with it is not to worry about guidance, regulations or guidelines but to put it on the face of the Bill. It is with great pleasure that I support the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am always a little disturbed about these kinds of amendments. You either have faith that the Secretary of State, whoever it is, is competent to give the direction that the Bill enables him to give or you have not. It has been suggested that you cannot anticipate him having the good sense. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, used the word "rational". Surely we must presume that we are passing legislation and that the people who have to operate it will be rational people. You cannot anticipate irrational people holding high offices of state.
Lord Peston: My Lords, with permission, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that if everyone was rational we would not need any legislation. It would all happen automatically. As I understand it, the point of writing legislation is to make people do the right thing.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: What a sceptic the noble Lord is. Although everyone is not rational, one presumes that someone who has gone through the sieve of being elected is likely to be as rational as you would want him to be when you gave him the power. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are at Report stage. The Long Title refers clearly to the social services functions of local authorities. The clause is

675
therefore within the Long Title of the Bill and the rules of relevance.
First, general directions will normally be issued as part of a circular. It is well established and usual practice for local authority associations to be consulted before any circulars are issued unless they are of a purely routine nature. I can assure your Lordships that there will be such consultation and that the practice is so well-established that it does not need to be written into legislation.
Secondly, there are specific directions to an individual authority. They will normally be issued where a local authority is failing to deliver its services, often as a preliminary to default action. The issue of such directions is essentially a matter between the Secretary of State and the authority. I do not think that it would help matters—indeed, it could be a positive hindrance—if the Secretary of State had to consult the local authority associations before issuing directions in those circumstances. Finally, it might be necessary on very rare occasions for directions to be issued as a matter of urgency and again a requirement to consult the local authority associations might be an impediment to speedy action.
For those reasons the amendment appears to be either not required or to be positively unhelpful. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should just point out to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that the statute book is littered with requirements for consultation. There is no novelty about this proposal. I was very disappointed in the reply about the Long Title. At Committee we took the point that the Long Title referred to social services. If that is enough, why does one need to refer to the national health Acts? Why does one not say in the Long Title: "To extend the powers of the Secretary of State over national health"?
I am disappointed that we did not have a rather more technical and professional explanation. It was not a point that I myself took originally. I am sure that we all defer to the great wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in this area. I am sorry that the point which he took in all solemnity has been so light-heartedly brushed aside. Nor has the noble Baroness referred to the point that I made about the subheading in the statute, which, even with all the ingenuity supplied by her civil servants, I think she would find very hard to defend. I understand that under our procedures we are not allowed to tinker with marginal headings but I hope that the point will be borne in mind for the next print of the Bill.
Her reply on the merits of the amendment comes as no surprise. Although I am not satisfied with it, I am not prepared to continue with the matter at this stage of the evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Grantchester): My Lords, I must tell the House that, if we agree to
676
Amendment No. 183A, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 184 to 187.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 183A:
Page 55, line 24, leave out from ("them") to end of line 45 and insert ("by a qualifying individual, or anyone acting on his behalf, in relation to the discharge of, or any failure to discharge, any of their social services functions in respect of that individual.
(2) In relation to a particular local authority, an individual is a qualifying individual for the purposes of subsection (1) above if—

(a) the authority have a power or a duty to provide, or to secure the provision of, a service for him: and

(b) his need or possible need for such a service has (by whatever means) come to the attention of the authority.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, when I brought forward Amendment No. 168A about complaints, we were persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that there was sufficient provision for complaints without any additions in the Bill. This amendment drives a horse and cart right through that statement. In the Bill as it now stands, Clause 51, Section 7B states:
"The Secretary of State may by order require local authorities to establish a procedure for considering any representations (including any complaints) which are made to them with respect to the discharge of their social services functions made by or on behalf of … [inter alia] any person whose request for such a service has been refused by the authority".
I cannot see that provision in this amendment. It seems to me that that is now completely abolished. Is it the intention that nobody should ever be able to complain that he has not received service or assessment?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I find this discussion very difficult because Amendment No. 183A was grouped with Amendment No. 164B on Thursday and no provision was made by those who made the grouping—they are perhaps the ones to take note—to include at that time Amendments Nos. 184 to 187, which now cannot be called. I shall not be able to make a long speech about my Amendment No. 186, but I should like to say briefly that the section as drafted now, before Amendment No. 183A is considered, will not enable many private carers taking responsibility for those with schizophrenia to make representations to their local authority about the services which they have a power or duty to provide.
I should like to continue speaking but I do not think it is quite right to do so in view of what has happened. All I can say about Amendment No. 183A is that it makes even worse the bad situation which my amendment sought to correct. I plan to write to my noble friend, saying what I would have said if I had not been pre-empted. I hope to get a very coherent reply from her.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am in exactly the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. My amendments, Amendments Nos. 184, 185 and 187, have now been pre-empted. Obviously this is a very unsatisfactory situation. We have a number of anxieties about the revisions which have been made

677
to the complaints procedure. I think it best to discuss this matter after this stage of the Bill to see whether we can do anything at Third Reading or at least have a letter from the Minister to explain and answer our concerns.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to reconsider her amendment and if necessary come back at Third Reading with other amendments to make certain that we cover people such as schizophrenics as well as others who have disabilities with long periods of remission when they may not need any help but with whom the disease recurs quite suddenly.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Sanderson explained when speaking to the original grouping, this amendment is designed to increase the scope for complaints. It does not rule out complaints by or on behalf of clients by carers. Instead, it allows for complaints at any stage of the assess Tent process.
I am assured that this amendment takes into account the various points that were raised earlier at Committee stage. However, I shall be happy to follow up the suggestion to enter into correspondence if that will help my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 184 to 187 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 56, line 11, after ("held") insert ("upon representation or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 188 and 188A. In this case I wish that the Minister had been able to speak first. It might have saved me some time in thanking her. I think that her amendment is perhaps better than mine, although I am just not sure about it. I wish that she had spoken first. However I think that we shall be pleased to accept her amendment. I can then withdraw mine. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am more than happy to oblige the noble Baroness. As I said at Committee stage, we shall take this anxiety away and see whether the wording of the Bill can be amended. I shall be happy to move the amendment standing in my name, which inserts words into the new Section 7(c) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 similar to those at present appearing in Section 32 of the National Assistance Act 1948, which is to be repealed by the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will find that reassuring.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, does not make totally clear that the decision whether or not to hold an inquiry, even if representations are received, must in the end rest with the Secretary of State, although I agree it does not impose an unconditional obligation upon him. In the light of what the noble Baroness said, I believe that she will be happy to accept the government amendment and I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her own amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and I accept her amendment. I just wish that the Governement had been able to take a few more of our amendments away and do the same with them. We should then have saved a lot of time and made a lot of people outside this House much more confident and happy.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, having been so critical of the failure of the Government to move, and since my name is on the amendment, I thought I should speak. I am grateful on this particular occasion.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 188A:
Page 56, line 11, after ("where") insert ("whether on representations made to him or otherwise").
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 56, line 40, at end insert ("and persons who are presently or recently have been dependent on alcohol or drugs.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as those of your Lordships who were present at previous stages of the Bill will know, this amendment makes it possible for the Secretary of State to make grants for the residential treatment of drug addicts and those who are dependent on alcohol and drugs. The reasons are well rehearsed and I do not propose to go over them again.
I admit that the Government have stated that they are fully aware of the problems of alcohol and drug addicts. They have taken account of that in the Bill and that has been a step forward. However, the fact remains that local authorities throughout the country have an uneven record of acknowledging the need for the treatment of such people. An account in today's Daily Mail states that several industrial companies in the Midlands have decided to institute treatment which they will finance. The courses will run for 30 days at a treatment centre in Birmingham of which I know little. They believe that, because through treatment people can be made productive citizens, it is economically sensible to treat them rather than to dismiss them and go to the expense of engaging new people. In my view and in that of the voluntary agencies, that approach holds good in the country at large.
An undertaking that the Government will step in if local authorities do not fulfil their obligations to alcohol and drug addicts is not good enough. During the interval a number of treatment centres will close, which will create an intolerable situation. I propose to go no further than that. Such a provision in the Bill will deal with the problem. I cannot understand why the Government have not yet acknowledged the seriousness of the situation which demands an amendment of this kind. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I support the amendment. On the third day of the Report stage I spoke at length about the problems that would be faced in the near

679
future by organisations involved with those abusing drugs and alcohol. Including such people within the clause is one way of dealing with the problem. I believe that the noble Viscount has the provision right and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I hope that we never reach the position in which we write onto the statute book the American word "presently" as though it were synonymous with the English phrase "at present".
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too support the amendment. Alcohol and drugs have been linked with mental illness. Responsibility is now being moved to local authorities. As I said previously, unless special safeguards are implemented there will remain considerable misgivings about the move. Therefore, the amendment is most important.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I know that there is a strong feeling about the issue. On several occasions we have discussed whether there is a case for ring fencing community care. The Government have carefully considered their position following the Committee's decision to support amendments which bear on the subject. Apart from the important point that ring fencing limits local flexibility and determination, all the evidence thus far shows that expenditure on personal social services does well out of non-ring-fenced funding and has risen substantially in real terms as compared with other lower areas of expenditure. The reason why we must make an exception to that general policy for those who are mentally ill is that this is an area where we know well that resources have been inadequately applied and that in some cases services have been less than we would have wished.
As regards the services for drug addicts and alcoholics, when we debated an identical amendment in Committee the noble Viscount pointed out that he was concerned that, without a specific grant, services would not be provided for such groups. I shall not go over the ground that we then covered about the various services and funds that have been made available by the Government and as a result of government action. However, that should not allow anyone to subscribe to the view that insufficient attention is being given to this.
As I explained when we debated the amendment to Clause 43 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, we shall be issuing a guidance to local authorities on the provision of services for this group. It will include approval by the Secretary of State of schemes to provide residential care under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and non-residential welfare services under Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977. This will be the first time that we have issued such comprehensive guidance to local authorities.
Secondly, we shall be directing local authorities to include services for drug addicts and alcoholics in their community care plans and thus they will be required to translate our guidance into specific proposals for their areas. Finally, amendments
680
already made to the Bill require local authorities to consult in drawing up care plans with health authorities, the new family health services authorities, housing authorities and voluntary and other bodies providing services. That is deliberately designed to ensure that services provided by other statutory agencies and by voluntary bodies all mesh together and to improve the scope for developing relevant services to all client groups, including alcohol and drug misusers.
I hope that in the light of that explanation and the assurances that I have given the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wish to ask a question. If the money is not specially linked to alcohol and drug problems, how can the Government give the assurance that it will be spent on those problems?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the whole object of the exercise of requiring local authorities to produce community care plans is to create much greater transparency. First, they must consult in the preparation of those plans; secondly, they must publish the plans. The provisions that they are making will be evident and interested parties will have every opportunity to be involved in the process.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am sure that the directions and guidance which are sent to local authorities will be excellent and complete. My anxiety and that of those who are involved in such treatment is about the speed with which the local authorities will react. Local authorities may be aware of the problems but generally their record is not encouraging. We believe that unless a similar amendment is included in the Bill sufferers will find themselves without treatment. During previous stages of the Bill it was said that certain local authorities had not yet fully grasped its implications or the Government's intentions.
At this stage it would not be possible for me fruitfully to divide the House. However, I reserve the right to return to the issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 56, line 40, at end insert ("and for the purpose of this section the illness may be overt or may have resulted in continuing disability").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment to establish whether those people who were substantially handicapped as a result of a previous mental illness would be eligible for services provided by local authorities with the help of a specific grant. That is the subject of this section of the earlier Act. I was reassured by the Government's statement that the term "mental illness" would bear its normal meaning and encompass,
"all stages of mental illness; not only acute episodes but any continuing or persistent disabilities".
However, on 14th May, the very date on which the statement was made to this House, the Department of Health dispatched its draft circular about the specific grant to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and, no doubt, to other similar bodies. In that draft circular a distinction is drawn, between:
"Those among the homeless population suffering from overt mental illness",
and others, also homeless, whose mental illness may not bi; obvious but who may nevertheless be just as much in need of social and medical care and for whom services financed by the specific grant are very much needed because of the disabilities resulting from a mental illness.
I have returned to this issue because the reassurance which my noble friend gave in Committee seems less convincing in the light of the draft circular. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only repeat the assurance, given by my noble friend Lord Henley at the earlier stage, that all mentally ill people, at whatever stage of illness, are covered by the definition in the Bill and that no further explanation or clarification is required.
My noble friend referred to the draft circular. It is in draft form in order that it might be improved. Perhaps we can look at it in the light of my noble friend's comments and see what alterations are possible in order to clarify fully the point because I believe that the assurance given at an earlier stage still holds good.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reaffirmation of the assurance and also for undertaking to look at the draft circular to see whether its wording can be improved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 191:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause:
("Role of Director of Social Services
. In section 6 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (which requires a local authority to appoint a Director of Social Services) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (3) to (8)—
"(3) The Director of Social Services of a local authority shall not, without the approval of the Secretary of State (which may be given either generally or in relation to a particular authority), be employed by that authority in connection with the discharge of any of the authority's functions other than social services functions.
(4) A local authority shall secure the provisions of adequate staff to assist the Director of Social Services appointed by them in the discharge of his functions.
(5) A local authority shall not, without the approval of the Secretary of State (which may be given either generally or in relation to a particular authority), arrange for the discharge of any of the authority's social services functions by any officer who has not been appointed by, or is not under the direction of, the Director of Social Services for that authority.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, an officer appointed by or under the supervision of a person subordinate to the Director of Social Services shall be
682
deemed to have been appointed by or, as the case may be, to be under the direction of the Director of Social Services." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had quite a full discussion on this matter in Committee. I did not divide the Committee because the Minister, having indicated that the points were not covered in her brief, said that she would consult the department.
I have made one minor alteration to the original amendment; that is, to leave in Section 6(2) of the 1970 Act authorising two local authorities to combine the appointment of a joint director with the approval of the Secretary of State. That is to cover the only example which I could find dealing with Cornwall and the Scilly Isles: I do not wish to upset that.
I return to the main argument which was the basis of the 1970 Act; namely, that the Director of Social Services,
"shall not, without the approval of the Secretary of State (which may be given either generally or in relation to a particular authority), be employed by that authority in connection with the discharge of any of the authority's functions other than their social services functions".
If that was considered important in 1970, how much more important is it now that the duties of the director have been so heavily increased by the enactment of the Children Act and the imminent implementation of this Bill and other matters which have arisen in the past 20 years?
Confusion seems to have arisen because of the wording of subsection (1) which states:
"A local authority shall appoint an officer, to be known as the director of social services, for the purpose of their social service functions".
At least one local authority has apparently argued that that allows it to do what it likes. In one case the director is used only as an adviser. That is a dangerous interpretation and quite contrary to the spirit of the Bill and the Seebohm Report which engendered it.
I understand that some local authorities have already been given permission by the Secretary of State to add responsibility for housing to the functions of the director of social services. I deplore that. Other authorities have acted similarly without the authority of the Secretary of State. I expect that such authority was given before the last two Bills were introduced into Parliament. I firmly believe that the matter must be made abundantly clear by this amendment. If it is not, it will be a severe disappointment to the directors (on whom so much depends) who have to implement Part III of the Bill. They need the line of accountability enshrined in legislation. I know that they will be on tenterhooks to learn what are the Government's views on the matter.
The Association of Directors of Social Services has told me that it considers the amendment a crucial precondition to the successful operation of the community care legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have been pleased to add my name to the amendment and to support it from these Benches. We all know that the noble Lord,

683
Lord Seebohm, speaks with great authority on these matters. The House will have listened with great care to the anxieties which he expressed.
Directors of social services have greatly enlarged responsibilities under the Bill. It is essential that the role and the responsibilities of directors are clearly spelled out. Clear line management cannot and must not be divorced from legal responsibility. There must be a single officer charged with the strategy. He can and should leave the tactics to others. However, the strategic role of planning and direction must be clear. We support a clear statement on the face of the Bill so that misunderstandings and muddles can be avoided.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the amendment. Social workers are in a very difficult position. There have been many cases of children dying or being seriously abused. Social workers need to have a direct line management and need to know exactly who is responsible. When I was running a small department, no abuse case was dealt with without the papers arriving on my desk. That gave social workers a sense of security. I took the blame and the buck stopped there.
If directors of social services are to have wide responsibilities which include housing, they will not be able to give a sense of security and line management to social workers. In the days when social work departments were working mainly with children, I should have welcomed the responsibility of the housing department because the housing situation was so difficult. However, now that there is the Children Act and this Bill, it is beyond the bounds of any one person to take on responsibilities for housing and the additional responsibilities of these two Bills and at the same time have line management giving security to the social workers.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I too support the amendment as I did in Committee. I do not wish to repeat the arguments which I advanced then. I merely wish to ask a question. My recollection of the reply which we received on that occasion was that further inquiries had to be made into precisely what was the present situation. I have no doubt that those further inquiries have been made. I should like to know whether, having inquired into the situation, it has been decided in the department that the actions of some local authorities in that regard are ultra vires? If so, are steps being taken?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, to some extent we are ad idem on this matter. We are all concerned to ensure that directors of social services have, and continue to have, adequate authority to carry out their responsibilities and that they can be effectively held accountable for doing so.
We are all anxious to avoid the addition of inappropriate responsibilities to the director's social services functions, the erosion of his authority or unclear lines of responsibility for he or his staff which undermine his position. Where we differ is over whether we need to add to existing legislation to secure that aim.
684
Reference has been made to the reorganisations carried out or under consideration by certain authorities involving the management and delivery of services, including housing and other elements besides social services. Such arrangements are not necessarily detrimental to the proper provision of services; indeed, they may have advantages in allowing for co-ordinated and comprehensive response to the needs of an individual or of a family. Much will depend on local circumstances. The Government are anxious that authorities should be free to organise the way in which they carry out their statutory duties with the minimum of restrictions.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, specifically mentioned the case of Tower Hamlets where application has been made for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to give approval under Section 6(5) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 for its director of social services to take on additional functions, including housing. Approval has not yet been given. The Social Services Inspectorate is currently assisting the authority in the clarification of management arrangements to ensure that the director has the necessary authority and accountability. We shall certainly require to be fully satisfied in that regard.
We believe that the Secretary of State has adequate powers to prevent directors of social services being inappropriately burdened with additional responsibilities. The amendment does not propose any modification to the provision of Sections 6(5) and 6(4). It may be argued—and rightly so—that the power is not comprehensive and local authorities may reorganise their services or otherwise erode the position of their director of social services without necessarily falling foul of Section 6(5) or needing the Secretary of State's agreement under it. However, the clause of the Bill now under consideration includes new general direction-making powers relating to local authorities' social services functions. That power will enable the Secretary of State to issue directions on the manner in which local authorities are to carry out their duties under Section 6 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.
Perhaps I should say a little more with regard to Section 6. We are particularly concerned with two subsections. Section 6(1) requires that a local authority,
"shall appoint an officer, to be known as the director of social services, for the purposes of their social services functions"—
those functions also being specified in the Act. It follows from that that the director so appointed should have the authority necessary for him to carry out those functions effectively and be accountable for them to the social services committee to which they are allocated. Under Section 6(6) of the Act local authorities must provide adequate staff,
"for assisting him [the director] in the exercise of his functions".
Clearly he should be able to direct such staff in the way in which those functions should be carried out.
At the earliest possible opportunity the Government intend to use the powers contained in Clause 51 to ensure that the intention of Section 6 of the 1970 Act is clearly stated and that all authorities abide by it. That would be achieved by issuing suitably worded directions to all authorities dealing

685
particularly with Sections 6(1) and 6(6). The Government already have sufficient powers to ensure the proper exercise of the role of directors of social services and are ready to use them. There is therefore no need further to extend the legislation as proposed by the amendment, and in the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, this is another instance where these responsibilities could be included on the face of the Bill. Directions are all very well, but clarification of the 1970 Act is necessary because of the concern of the directors. If the position was clear they would not be so concerned.
We must give support to directors of social services to enable them to complete their task. They want this provision and on this occasion, regarding this important role, we must give them what they require. In those circumstances I must press the amendment.
7.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 191) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 50.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Birk, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Brooks, of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McNair, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seebohm, L. [Teller]

Ennals, L.

Stedman, B.

Faithfull, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Swinfen, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grey, E.

White, B.

Halsbury, E.

Winstanley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Balfour, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hesketh, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hives, L.

Caithness, E.

Hooper, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cox, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Merrivale, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mersey, V.

686

Mottistone, L.

Swinton, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Norrie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Orkney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vinson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wise, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.53 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 191A I should inform your Lordships that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 192 to 194A.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 191A:
Page 57, leave out 1 to 6 and insert:
("(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, a local authority shall exercise its community care functions under this Act in accordance with any general directions issued by the Secretary of State and shall take account of any general guidance issued by him.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had understood that these amendments were grouped together. The purpose of Amendment No. 191A is to seek to ensure that the Secretary of State may issue general directions only in relation to a local authority's community care functions. The amendment also brings the provision more closely into line with the Social Security Act 1986, and that, after all, is what the Government say is their intention.
Section 33(10) of the Social Security Act 1986 states:
"An officer shall determine any question under this section in accordance with any general directions issued by the Secretary of State and … shall take account of any general guidance issued by him".
I am sorry to note that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is not in the Chamber, because this applies to some extent to what he said earlier. It is interesting to note that in the case of R. v. The Secretary of State for Social Services Ex-parte Stitt (21st February 1990) the Secretary of State had purported to direct social security officers to reach a decision with regard to, inter alia, their budgets. The result was that an officer could not make a social security payment which would result in the budget being exceeded.
That was ruled to be an improper use of the direction and therefore this is a fundamental amendment which I hope the Minister has had examined with the same view as is taken by those who have advised me. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I agree that Amendments Nos. 191A, 192, 193, and 194A have been grouped together. These amendments give a menu of different ways of curtailing the Secretary of State's power under Clause 52 to issue directions to local authorities on matters relating to their social work functions. Our community care proposals will mean major changes in the way in which people's needs for health and social work services are assessed and delivered. Local authorities are being given

687
important new responsibilities and, while I have no doubt that these tasks will be carried out with the utmost care and professionalism, there is always a risk that unforeseen circumstances may arise or other difficulties emerge. It is in anticipation of that risk that we have drafted Clause 52.
Amendments Nos. 191A, 192 and 193 have a common factor: they would restrict the Secretary of State's powers of direction under that clause to those matters concerned with community care. There is no doubt that the Clause 52 direction-making powers will be highly relevant to community care in particular, because of local authorities' new duties to carry out assessments and to prepare and publish community care plans. However, it would not be possible to restrict that direction-making power entirely to the community care field. The Secretary of State's existing powers to issue general guidance and make regulations extend to the whole spectrum of local authority duties under the 1968 Act and other relevant enactments. It would not be consistent with this to limit the direction-making power to the community care field. Nor, I am reliably informed, is there any reason why the present Bill should not contain provisions which in some cases extend beyond the community care context to the wider social work field. I believe that is what the noble Lord asked for.
Amendment No. 191A would also restrict directions to those of a general, rather than a specific, nature. That could, I am afraid, crucially weaken the ability of Clause 52 to achieve its aim. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, tabled in Committee an amendment which would have replaced the power to issue directions with one to issue general guidance. I said then, and I repeat now, that an important advantage of directions is that they can be tailor-made to individual circumstances. Thus, they allow the Secretary of State to step in when an individual authority seems to be falling down on very specific aspects of its duties. In short, directions can, and might, be used as a fine tool but this amendment would reduce them to a blunt instrument.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 194A, which would remove the requirement for local authorities to comply with directions under Clause 52. This sits oddly with the noble Lord's other amendments, which, while limiting the power to make directions, do not remove it. I therefore assume that he accepts the need in principle for a power of direction, which seems to me to be paramount. He will also surely accept that to be meaningful it must be more than just a paper power. It must have teeth. That is not to say that the Clause 52 power should be seen as a new tough measure to control local authorities. On the contrary, we see community care as an area where there is a large degree of agreement and consent with common objectives. Clause 52 provides a reserve power which I do not expect will be used very often, but one which clearly needs to be binding on local authorities if it is to be effective.
I hope that that explanation shows why the Government believe that Clause 52 as it stands is necessary.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, in his reply the Minister said that he was advised on certain matters and possibly because he is in the same position as myself we are getting into fairly deep water. For example—he did not refer to this—I wonder whether the court decision which I cited had been taken into account in the framing of Clause 52.
It seems to me that if there were a budget it would take away the requirement for the Secretary of State's social work functions. He could say that he had spent his budget, and the budget could be reduced ad infinitum until theoretically, there was no money for any social work. That seems dangerous. I shall not press the amendment, but I hope that the Minister will look at the point, which has a certain relevance. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 192 to 194 not moved.]
Clause 59 [Power of Secretary of State to make grants]:
[Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
8 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 63, line 14, after ("Parliament") insert ("in addition to that made available under the Revenue Support Grant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, unlike Chapter 4.25 in the English White Paper, the contribution of resources transferred from the health boards to the local authorities receives no mention in the Scottish chapter yet it remains fundamental to the achievement of this aspect of community care. The National Health Service changes proposed in the Bill may ensure that greater pressure is put on the resources released from long-stay hospitals and for them to be retained and diverted elsewhere within the health boards. There is no legal obstacle to the English equivalent of dowries in Scotland. Without the transfer of resources, the burden of paying for care will have to be shouldered by local authorities and communities. Long-stay hospital discharge programmes should not be subsidised out of the care element except on a bridging basis.
There is concern that the specific grant for mental health will be top sliced from existing local authority expenditure. It will be project led and, unlike England, it will be applicable in cases of hospital discharge but without contribution from the National Health Service. I hope that the Minister will see the point that I am trying to make and that he will consider this amendment favourably. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I admit that I did not expect to see this amendment on the Marshalled List. We had a long discussion on it at the last stage of the Bill. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's wish to return to the issue of whether the specific grant should be new money—that is what we are talking about—or diverted from existing resources, which is the noble

689
Lord's fear. In Committee, I gave a very lengthy explanation of why this amendment is not desirable or necessary. Perhaps I went on too long so I shall try a shorter version.
The key point is that it is not appropriate to deal with this kind of issue in primary legislation. Indeed, I am aware of no precedent for doing such a thing. In particular, the amendment does not take into account the actual mechanism for supporting local authorities. Local authorities now work within a total level of support from the Government, known as aggregate external finance, which includes revenue support grant, non-domestic rate income and any specific grants such as that provided for in Clause 59. What is crucially important is not so much the relative size of these three elements but the total amount of aggregate external finance. We are currently in consultation with CoSLA and others about those factors that need to be taken into account in setting the level of aggregate external finance for the next financial year.
Clearly we shall be paying particular attention to local authorities' new responsibilities under the Bill in deciding on the total size of the settlement. It is worth noting that revenue support grant already supports local authority spending on services for mentally ill people.
The noble Lord asked about the resources aspects not referred to in the Scottish chapter of the White Paper. Dowry payments, with which Chapter 4.25 of the White Paper is concerned, can be made by Scottish health boards when patients are discharged from hospital, as in England. In a nutshell, what the noble Lord wishes me to say is along the following lines. He knows as well as I do how difficult public expenditure discussions can be. The key point is that grants will be new money for mental illness, betokening the importance that we attach to that area. It will be used not to allow local authorities to reduce the money they already spend but rather to support improvements. The noble Lord and I could dispute for the rest of the evening whether the total envelope of local authority external finance is high enough or higher than it would have been without that grant.
The key point in debating community care this evening is that the grant will represent new money for mentally ill people. I insist that that is the situation as we see it. However, I cannot commit the Government to what the totality of the envelope might be in any one year.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, that is part of the worry. There may be more money but it may not be new money. However, the noble Lord said that we could discuss this matter for the rest of the evening, but realising what lies ahead there is not much of the evening left. I shall take advice on the complicated reply that the Minister has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved amendment No. 198:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
Clinical Standards Advisory Group
(".—(1) There shall be established in accordance with this section a Clinical Standards Advisory Group (in this section Vol. 520
690
referred to as "the Advisory Group") which shall have the following functions:—

(a) in accordance with a request made by the Health Ministers or any one of them, to provide advice on the standards of clinical care for, and the access to and availability of services to, national health service patients and, in this connection, to carry out such investigations into such matters (if any) and to make such reports in relation thereto as the Health Ministers may require;

(b) in accordance with a request made by one or more health service bodies, to provide advice on, to carry out investigations into and to report on the standards of clinical care for, and the access to and availability of services to, national health service patients for whom services are or are to be provided by or on behalf of the body or bodies concerned; and

(c) such other functions as may be prescribed by regulations.

(2) The Advisory Group shall consist of a chairman and other members appointed by the Health Ministers and regulations may—

(a) require that one or more members of the Advisory Group shall be appointed from persons nominated by such body or bodies as may be specified in the regulations; and

(b) provide that one or more of the members who are not appointed from persons so nominated must fulfil such conditions or hold such posts as may be so specified.

(3) Regulations may make provision as to—

(a) the appointment, tenure and vacation of office of the chairman and members of the Advisory Group;

(b) the appointment of and the exercise of functions by committees and sub-committees of the Advisory Group (including committees and sub-committees consisting wholly or partly of persons who are not members of the Advisory Group);

(c) the procedure of the Advisory Group and any committees or sub-committees thereof; and

(d) the attendance at meetings of the Advisory Group or any committee or sub-committee thereof of persons appointed by the Health Ministers and the extent of their participation in such meetings.

(4) Proceedings of the Advisory Group, or of any committee or sub-committee of the Advisory Group, shall not be invalidated by any vacancy in membership or by any defect in a member's appointment or qualifications.
(5) The Health Ministers—

(a) may pay to the chairman and members of the Advisory Group, or of any committee or sub-committee of the Advisory Group or any persons appointed as mentioned in subsection (3)(d) above, such sums by way of remuneration and travelling and other allowances as the Health Ministers, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine;

(b) shall make available to the Advisory Group and to any committee or sub-committee thereof such staff and other services or facilities as are necessary to enable them to carry out their functions; and

(c) shall defray such expenditure as is reasonably incurred by the Advisory Group in carrying out their functions.

(6) Where the Advisory Group carry out an investigation or make a report in accordance with a request made by a health service body, that body shall reimburse, in such manner as the Health Ministers may determine, so much of the expenditure incurred by them under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (5) above as they certify as being attributable to the carrying out of that investigation or the making of that report.
(7) In this section—
"clinical care" means any action which is taken in connection with the diagnosis of illness or the care or treatment of a patient, and which is taken solely in consequence of the exercise of clinical judgment;
"the Health Ministers" means the Secretaries of State respectively concerned with health in England, in Wales and in Scotland;

691
"health service body" means—

(i) a health authority, within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977,

(ii) a Health Board or Special Health Board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978,

(iii) a State Hospital Management Committee constituted under section 91 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984,

(iv) the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service,

(v) a National Health Service trust constituted under Part I of this Act or under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, and

(vi) a Family Health Services Authority;

"national health service patient" means any person for whom any services are or are to be provided by or on behalf of a health service body;
"regulations" means regulations made by the Health Ministers and any such regulations may make different provision for different cases or descriptions of case, including different provision for different areas; and
"services" means services provided—

(a) in England and Wales, by virtue of directions under section 13 or section 14 of the National Health Service Act 1977 or section 5 of this Act; or

(b) in Scotland, by a health services body under Part I or Part III of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;

(c) pursuant to an NHS contract, as defined in section 4(1) of this Act or section 17A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 198, Amendment No. 198A:
Line 7, after first ("to") insert ("continuity").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 199B and 199C. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 204A. I spoke to these amendments when we dealt with this subject at an earlier stage. Amendments Nos. 198A and 199C seek that when the advisory group carries out investigations and gives advice on standards and the availability of services to NHS patients it should give it on continuity as well.
Amendment No. 199B asks that voluntary organisations be given authority under subsection (1)(b) to request investigation by the advisory group. I spelled that out at some length on the earlier occasion. My noble friend the Minister has written me a splendid letter explaining why these amendments are unnecessary. It will be helpful for the record if the matter can be explained to your Lordships as well. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may make some comment on Amendment No. 198 as well as on other amendments. At Committee stage, in congratulating the Minister on tabling the amendment concerning the Clinical Standards Advisory Group, I said that there were issues which concerned many of us. Some of those concerns were reflected in amendments, though most of them have been subsequently withdrawn. However, they will reappear in one form or another at Third Reading.
692
The first issue concerns the degree of independence of the CSAG. In the Official Report on 12th June at col. 246 I asked the Minister whether the group would be able to act on its own or whether it could only do so on request. She replied that there would be,
"nothing to prevent the group initiating activity, though we would largely expect it to respond to requests".
Later, at col. 247, she said that the programme of work is,
"intended to be settled between it and the health Ministers".
There is a great deal of room for misunderstanding here. What would happen if the group wished to initiate an inquiry to which the Minister was opposed? That is a fundamental question. The issue might well be one in which the Minister was involved. The original amendment stated that the group would,
"provide advice on … the access to and availability of services to, national health service patients".
That might concern the allocation of resources or the consequence of a management board decision—a matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, had much to say. It is essential that the amendment and the face of the Bill in its final form should not leave that kind of room for misunderstanding. The purpose of legislation is to prevent misunderstanding.
The question of the group's independence was raised not only by me but also by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, at col. 248 of the Official Report of 12th June. It was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in her contribution. We cannot legislate in a way that could lead to major doubts about the interpretation of the law. We must clarify the matter and therefore discussions should be held very quickly between those who seek to make amendments and the Minister, so that amendments clarifying the issues can be tabled for Third Reading.
A number of issues are involved, including the question of who can nominate members. The amendment states that the advisory group may:
"require that one or more members of the Advisory Group shall be appointed from persons nominated by such body or bodies as may be specified in the regulations; and provide that one or more of the members who are not appointed from persons so nominated must fulfil such conditions or hold such posts as may be so specified".
The Minister made some suggestions. She said that the group will consist of members appointed on the nomination of medical, dental and nursing Royal Colleges and the chairmen of the standing medical, dental and nursing advisory committees. That is very good. My specific question would be: what about the College of Occcupational Therapists and other professions allied to medicine? What about the representatives of community health councils or the representatives of other community bodies?
This matter cannot be left to a ministerial explanation in your Lordships' House. These issues must be on the face of the Bill or there will from the start be disagreements between the advisory group and the Minister. That would be grossly unsatisfactory. The Minister said (at col. 258 of the Official Report of 12th June) that the voluntary organisations might be a source of suggestions.

693
The question of the annual report must also be considered. The Minister implied that it was likely that reports would be published. It is essential that this matter should be on the face of the Bill. I do not want to go any further, but several issues are involved. There is the question of preventive services. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, raised the question of whether clinical care should be interpreted to include continuing care. There are still many unanswered questions. I hope that it will be possible to have a friendly meeting very quickly so that at Third Reading an amended amendment can be brought forward to remove any uncertainties that could be counter-productive.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, in introducing the amendment, the noble Baroness has evidently not want to discuss it again today. I want to make my position clear, particularly as I have withdrawn a number of amendments which I had originally tabled to the government amendment. When we last debated this matter on 12th June I put to the Government a list of matters which I hoped would come within the purview of clinical standards. They included control of infection, investigations of deaths, investigations of accidents, readmission rates, the use of blood, peri-operative deaths, waiting lists, medical audits, and hygiene, food and so on. On that occasion I was glad to get an encouraging response from the noble Baroness, who said:
"The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, quoted nine key areas. I assure him that, with the single exception of catering and hygiene standards, all the areas he has mentioned will fall fairly and squarely on the remit of the group as defined in the Government's Amendment No. 198". —[Official Report' 12/6/90, col. 259.]
That was as good news. The variant that we were advancing at that time—to call it a Clinical and General Standards Board—would no longer have been necessary if all those matters were covered.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on that day, the noble Baroness also offered (at col. 257 of the Official Report) a meeting to discuss any remaining outstanding points. Because we seemed to be getting very close, and in order to improve the climate for discussion, the amendments to which I referrec—in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and myself—were taken off the list and so are not down for discussion today. In fact the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, still has one amendment left—Amendment No. 201A—on the right to initiate. In addition we shall later discuss Amendment No. 204AA, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunter of Newington, Lord Carr of Hadley and Lord Ennals, which I shall be happy to support as an additional safeguard on non-clinical matters. The so-called "soft" issues are also important—customer relations, courtesy, the physical conditions of clinics, and so on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, one or two important points are still outstanding, although I am glad to say that we are moving closer. He was quite right to say that the right to initiate inquiries is crucial to the credibility of this body. The noble Baroness was not wholly clear in response to a query of mine (at col. 260 of the Official Report of 12th
694
June) about the position on that point. In her reply she seemed to be slightly frightened of upsetting the Royal Colleges. I remind the House that the Royal Colleges are not gods—they may be demigods—and I cannot imagine that they would object to this additional power for the group which they have agreed to join. I regard that point as crucial.
The group can expect to command extremely little respect unless it has a certain freedom of manoeuvre. That is not, so far as I can see, in the Bill. I remind the Government that analogous foreign bodies in Canada, Australia and the United States are entirely dependent of central government. We have had an arm's length tradition and that is the road we are going down on this occasion. I am all for following our own traditions and practices. But I have absolutely no doubt that the body concerned would command very much more respect if it had this additional power and was not confined to being switched on by the Secretary of State or called in as a consultant by a health unit.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, also mentioned the importance of an annual report to Parliament. I support him on that point. Although we are closer together, these matters are still outstanding. It will therefore be interesting to hear what the noble Baroness says when she comes to reply. I would be happy if a meeting could be arranged to discuss these outstanding points. If nothing came out of it we should want to return to these points at the final stage of the Bill.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I support this government amendment. It is a most important development. I know that it was not easy to arrive at and I congratulate both the Minister and those involved on bringing it forward. I do not want to propose anything that would upset that. I pay attention to the need for the body to have the right initiative. I also believe that it should report regularly. However, I do not quite understand why that should not be set out in the amendment. I am perfectly content with the quite clear assertions from the Front Bench that the group will have the power of initiative and that it will report. Nevertheless, I should prefer to see this provision in writing, although I shall not press the point provided the Minister can assure us that there is no doubt that the body does have the right to take such initiatives and that it will report.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's remarks. I hope he will agree that when we come to legislate on such issues, we are not legislating for a particular government or for a particular Secretary of State; we must legislate for whatever government is in power and for whichever secretary of state is involved. In my view, clarity is absolutely essential. I have served, as has the noble Lord, Lord Carr, as a Secretary of State. The worst thing we can have is legislation which is not clear and which leaves room for argument.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we had some discussion on this amendment last week. I should like to point out again—although it means repeating

695
what I said on that occasion—that the Government amendment represents the results of negotiations with representatives of the Royal Colleges and other representatives of the medical professions. The result is most important because it is one which will receive the support of those bodies, which is one of the most important ways of making such measures effective.
I explained last week that the proposed group's programme of work would be arranged between it and the Health Ministers and that it would be an open process. I also said that proposals from all persons and bodies including, for example, the Royal Colleges and the voluntary and consumer organisations, will be considered in order to produce a suitable and manageable programme. However, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has again said that the group should have a right to initiate studies on the grounds that if it does not have complete independence of action it will be a paper tiger. I believe that that view reflects a misunderstanding of the way in which the group is intended to function and the purpose for which it was set up with the support of the Royal Colleges and other bodies.
The group will be independent and authoritative. I do not doubt that a body consisting of distinguished nominees of the medical, dental and nursing Royal Colleges, together with the chairmen of the standing advisory committees, would play an influential role in the determination of its workload: equally, I am sure that it will be forthright in giving praise and, where appropriate, making suggestions for improvements in standards of clinical care.
The group's remit will enable it to provide advice on all aspects of clinical care standards. The word, "standards" certainly embraces the concept of quality. I am advised that nothing would be gained by writing the word "quality" upon the face of the Bill, not least because this is not a statutory concept and may therefore be one which provokes difficulties of interpretation. Nor, indeed, is it necessary to include explicit references to the prevention of illness or continuity of care, as both aspects are covered by the present wording.
As regards the question of continuity raised by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, subsection (1)(a) and (b) gives the group powers to advise on standards of clinical care, access to services and, in addition, availability of services. A break in continuity which adversely affected the quality of treatment of a patient would certainly fall within the scope of an investigation into standards of clinical care. Moreover, a discontinuity in treatment could well be the result of restricted access to, or, alternatively, availability of a service. Either way, I believe that my noble friend's legitimate concern about continuity of services is fully covered by the existing provision.
I turn now to deal with the question of an annual report. It is the Secretary of State and the Ministers who are accountable to Parliament for the provision of an efficient and effective National Health Service. As noble Lords will know, that accountability takes a number of forms; for example, it may be through debates, parliamentary Questions or responses to and appearances before Select Committees. Reports
696
to Parliament of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group can therefore be provided through any of those channels. Therefore, requiring the group to provide an annual report direct to Parliament, as provided for by Amendment 201A, would only disturb these well-established accountability procedures. I see no reason why the Clinical Standards Advisory Group should be an exception to that rule.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, also referred to the membership of the group. This will closely follow the agreement to which I have already referred between the Secretary of State and the Royal Colleges. Members drawn from the medical, dental and nursing Royal Colleges, and the standing advisory councils, will be best placed to advise on the rather specialised area of standards of clinical care. The group cannot be all things to all men. A very widely based membership, as advocated by the noble Lord, might only reduce the authority of the group's advice on clinical care issues. With that explanation, I trust that I have responded, or at least touched upon, all the points that have been raised.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps she will make the issue as regards reporting a little clearer. I have served as Secretary of State in more than one department. I recollect that there were various bodies associated with the departments of which I was Secretary of State which made annual reports. I cannot remember there being any way in which they stood between me and my accountability to Parliament.
I honestly do not understand the point my noble friend is making. It may well be that the reports were not made to Parliament but made to the Secretary of State concerned. I do not think that any of us who want such reports to be made would quibble about that point. We would not want to do anything to weaken the Secretary of State's accountability to Parliament. However, I think that there are plenty of precedents concerning bodies, committees or inspectorates which make annual reports as required by statute and yet the Secretaries of State involved are still directly responsible to Parliament. As I said, I do not understand the point that my noble friend is making.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wish to make exactly the same point. On the last occasion when we discussed the matter, the Minister said:
"I expect that it will become normal practice for the reports to be published and made widely available on most cases, certainly as regards national issues. However, that matter must be decided between the group and the Minister or body commissioning a study".—[Official Report, 12/6/90; col. 259.]
I think that that provision weakens the powers of the group. I am sorry that an amendment tabled in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, refers to,
"an annual report to Parliament".
I do not think that it should be to Parliament. In fact, I thought that that particular amendment had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. It appears that a mistake has been made in that connection. Moreover, to leave it to the discretion of the Minister as to whether this body makes a report is grossly

697
unsatisfactory: equally, to leave it to the discretion of the Minister as to whether this body should introduce an inquiry of its own is also unsatisfactory. I should have thought that the Minister would have agreed that those two points must be clarified in the legislation.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, as other noble Lords have been asking questions of the Minister before she finally retakes her seat, I trust that I may ask her one further question. My question is but a brief one. None of us wishes to unpick the agreement which has been painstakingly stitched together with the Royal Colleges. If the Government were to refer back to the Royal Colleges before Third Reading and convey the strongly felt view of this House that this body should have power to initiate inquiries, is the noble Baroness saying that they would be seriously likely to reject outright a proposal which would actually strengthen their hand and that the whole structure would fall apart as a result.? I find that conclusion extremely hard to accept.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I do not believe that I can add anything to what I said today and last week.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, unlike other noble Lords, I am happy with my noble friend's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 198A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 198, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 199 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 199A to 199C, as amendments to Amendment No. 198, not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 200 and 201, as amendments to Amendment No. 198, had been withdrawn from the Marshalleld List.]
[Amendment No. 201A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 198, not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 202 to 204 as amendments to Amendment No. 198, had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 204A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 198, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 198 agreed to.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington moved Amendment No. 204AA:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
("Advice on standards other than those provided for in section (Clinical Standards Advisory Group)
There shall be established an independent group which shall have the function of providing advice to the Management Executive in the discharge of its responsibilities for setting and achieving all standards in the National Health Service other than those provided for in section (Clinical Standards Advisory Group) above.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in recent weeks I have been studying intensively the role of the management executive. I find that the management board was superseded by the management executive in January 1989. Of course, in March 1990, as
698
the House is aware, the director of research and development, whom the Government proposed in response to a recommendation from this House, was made a member of the management executive. I say that merely to show that the Government have been flexible and concerned to evolve the best possible system.
In March this year the Secretary of State, in addressing the Select Committee on Science and Technology, said the evolution was an essential part of the new proposals, all of which could not be introduced in the spring of 1991. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, suggested that in the first instance it was likely that a limited number of NHS trusts and fund-holding practices would be established. It is my understanding that an undertaking was given that the results would be carefully monitored and the outcome of those experiments made widely known.
In the interim, Duncan Nichol, the chief of the management executive, has not been idle and has made vigorous contacts with local management within the health service. One thing that has been done, for example, is the allocation of regional quality funds to a total of some £7.5 million.
In response to an amendment tabled by me that the director of research and development should have an advisory committee, I finally accepted the argument that the person appointed could determine the need and the kind of advice that he might require depending upon the circumstances at the time. I therefore withdrew the amendment.
I return to the central issue which the Government agreed is the responsibility of the management executive; that is, the detailed assessment and systematic monitoring of standards. The need for evolution and the undertaking given by the Government that first steps should be carefully monitored justify the setting up of an independent group, as I have suggested. It is as well to remember that a substantial number of managers have recently been appointed and they are only now beginning to learn their role and develop the delicate and complicated business of working with the clinicians who are responsible for the diagnosis and treatment of patients. We must also remember that the study of the United States Medicare programme in relation to audit showed there to be a great range of difficulties which may arise here and may have to be overcome.
Policy proposals have been suggested which will require attention. The intensive monitoring of changes, especially the radical new proposals for trusts and the purchasing of facilities and services, require to be carefully examined in the first instance. It is the kind of role that one could have imagined Sir Roy Griffiths, who is now vice-chairman of the policy board, discharging extremely well.
An independent committee of the kind proposed would fulfil a number of roles. It would reassure the public that enormous care was being taken to try to achieve as smooth a transition as possible. It would reassure the medical profession and provide a body with which the clinical standards advisory group could discuss matters of mutual interest. Perhaps

699
as important, it would reassure everyone that the Government were truly concerned about the quality of the health service and the effect of possible changes on the welfare of the people. Setting up such a committee during the evolutionary period even for three years, with a six-monthly report would be enormously helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I support the amendment which I joined the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, in tabling. As your Lordships will be aware, in various debates on the Bill I, like other noble Lords, have made clear the great importance that I attach to the assurance of quality. The maintenance of quality is, above all, the responsibility of the management of the NHS, as it is of any organisation. Unless the management is almost obsessively dedicated to putting quality at the top of its list of priorities, no independent outside body will achieve that aim.
Even when there is that commitment to quality, some outside supervision, advice and comment is of value. It is of value to the service itself, and in something as delicate and personal to people as the health service, in which we propose to make radical changes which will inevitably create certain fears and doubts—whether ill-founded or well-founded; and noble Lords will know that I support the principle of the changes that the Bill introduces—there is an added need for some degree of independence to oversee the setting and achieving of standards.
The government amendment No. 198, which was accepted, dealt with that matter, if not perfectly at least satisfactorily. In that case clinical standards only are dealt with, in my view properly. Although the quality of the health service depends first and foremost upon the quality of clinical standards, it does not depend entirely upon clinical standards. That is why I, like the noble lord, Lord Hunter, and, I suspect, others feel that some further independent body should be involved in the setting and achieving of standards, other than clinical standards, in the health service. I commend the amendment to the Government. I hope that they will take it seriously. As I have said, it is good for its own sake and it is also an important element in winning that degree of support of all staff in the health service and the public, which will be important if not vital to making the changes proposed in the Bill successful in practice and to the contentment of the people of this country.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the amendment makes it clear that the responsibility for standards of clinical care should rest with the clinical standards advisory group which Amendment No. 198 establishes, and not with the NHS management executive. That is not the way I see the respective functions of those two very different bodies.
The NHS management executive is responsible to the Secretary of State for the quality of services in the NHS generally. That includes all aspects of quality from portering services and the food that patients receive right through to standards of clinical care. The different aspects of quality are naturally
700
the responsibility of different management executive directors. Clinical standards, for example, are an important part of the remit of the medical and nursing directors; but they all combine to influence the overall quality of service that the patient receives. It would surely be wrong to separate the clinical side of quality and place it in the hands of a different body.
The clinical standards advisory group will play a key role in guaranteeing and improving standards of clinical care. However, as I said earlier, its role will be to provide forthright and independent advice on clinical standards to the Secretary of State and the NHS management executive. It will not be accountable to him for those standards. To give the group formal responsibility for any area of National Health Service operations would only distort existing effective accountability arrangements and hinder the group's important advisory work.
At the highest level the National Health Service policy board supervises the work of the management executive under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State. It includes members with a wealth of experience both of the health service and of the management of other large organisations who provide valuable advice at both strategic and working levels on all aspects of its work, including quality improvement.
The management executive itself has a membership with in-depth experience of the National Health Service as well as members drawn from outside the pubic sector. As your Lordships know and as the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, mentioned, we are in the process of making an appointment to the new post of director of research and development. That post has been widely advertised to enable us to recruit the person of the right calibre, whether from government, the National Health Service or elsewhere.
My noble friend Lord Carr said that independent advice is needed. The management executive already has a large range of independent advisers to consult in its everyday work. Directors are in regular contact with regional chairmen and general managers, both informally and through the established review procedures. It is a reflection of the importance of quality in these contacts that it features on the agenda of all the reviews of regional health authorities' performance undertaken by the management executive last year. That pattern looks set to continue this year.
Equally important, the management executive has established effective working relationships with independent bodies. These can provide a valuable source of advice and support in specific areas of work, including quality. A good example is medical audit, where the management executive has allocated funds to a number of bodies, including the Royal College of General Practitioners and the College of Anaesthetists' quality of care unit to help in the development of a nationwide audit system. Substantial funds have also been awarded to the King's Fund for the purpose of establishing an information and data exchange.
I hope that these examples show that the National Health Service management executive is by no

701
means closed to independent advice and assistance in its work on improving quality, nor indeed on any other matter. On the contrary, they demonstrate an effective commitment to an open approach to its work. They show that partnership, whether with experienced individuals, health service bodies or independent organisations, is the management executive's chosen means of pursuing its goal of improving the delivery of high quality health care in the National Health Service. I hope that they show too that the important principle of independent advice embodied in the amendment is already a reality in the work of the management executive today. In the light of this, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, the Minister has given a clear and broad account of the activities of the management board and its connections with the King's Fund as well as of many other matters. If one looks closely at the matter, the same kinds of contacts existed previously in the medical world. I feel sad that the noble Baroness has drawn a distinction because one could argue—although I do not do so—that there is no need for the clinical advisory group. That seems to me a disastrous conclusion arising from what the Minister said.
I shall have to consider the matter because the suggest ion that the executive does not require any advice and that it can choose its advisers except in the medical field is one I find difficult to digest at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 9 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 204B:
Page 106, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert
("(b) for the entry relating to section 6 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 there shall be substituted—

Sections 6 and 7B of this Act

Appointment of director of Act social services, etc; provision and conduct of complaints procedure." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 109, line 36, at end insert:
(" ( ) For paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 25 of that Act (arrangements for provision of general dental services) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) For conferring a right, subject to—
(1) subsection (2A);

(ii) the provisions of this Part relating to the disqualification of persons providing services; and

(iii) section 8 (persons over retiring age) of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 and regulations made under that section,

on any dental practitioner who wishes to be included in any such list to be so included;".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 205 and speak to Amendment No.
702
209. These amendments take the opportunity afforded by the Bill to remedy a minor drafting infelicity in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 caused as a result of an amendment to Section 25(2)(b) of that Act by paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to the Health and Medicines Act 1988.
Amendment No. 205 provides a new wording for the 1978 Act and Amendment No. 209 repeals the wording in the 1988 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 110, line 48, at end insert:
(") In section 79 of that Act (purchase of land and moveable property)—

(a) in subsection (1), after the word "Act" where it first appears there shall be inserted the words "and may take any such property or land on lease,"; and

(b) in subsection (2), after the word "(1)," there shall be inserted the words "other than on lease".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects an anomaly by giving the Secretary of State specific powers to take on lease property or land for National Health Service use. That new power would then be delegated to health boards, subject to a financial ceiling. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 112, leave out lines 6 to 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 113, line 7, at end insert:
"The Acquisition of Land Act 1981
21 A. In the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, in section 17 (local authority and statutory undertakers' land). in subsection (4), in the definition of "statutory undertakers" after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(aa) a National Health Service trust established under Part I of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Enactments Repealed]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 121, line 60, at end insert:
("1988 c. 49. The Health and Medicines Act 1988.
In Schedule 2, paragraph 11.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 209A:
Page 67, line 45, after ("(3)") insert ("and (34)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 67, line 45, after ("(1)") insert ("and (3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to remove the application of Clause 43(2) to Scotland. Section 22(1) of the National Assistance Act 1948, which Clause 43(2) amends, was repealed for Scotland by the 1968 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill
8.47 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The main engines of government stimulus to the Scottish economy over the past decade or more have been the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Training Agency and the Scottish new town development corporations. Excellent as each has been, we need new structures to meet the new challenges of the 1990s, challenges which will be the providers of a good industrial base for Scotland well into the next century. That is why, with the evident support of the Scottish people, we propose in April 1991 to establish Scottish Enterprise in place of the Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency in Scotland and a parallel organisation, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, in the Highlands and Islands. We intend in the course of the next 10 years or so to bring the new towns to full maturity as communities. The Bill before us today gives effect to these proposals.
Our proposals to establish Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise were first set out in a White Paper, Scottish Enterprise: a new approach to training and enterprise creation. Our vision to integrate training with other economic development and environmental functions and to give leadership at local level to the private sector won strong support across the spectrum of Scottish opinion.
When we launched Scottish Enterprise and then Highlands and Islands Enterprise last summer we asked senior business men and women and others in the community to play their part in developing their own local economies by setting up local enterprise companies which would contract with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to undertake a wide range of functions. We have been extremely pleased by the enthusiasm and ability of the consortia which have come forward. Already we have awarded development funding to consortia covering the whole of the Highlands and Islands and all of lowland Scotland except as yet Tayside. This development funding will allow the consortia to draw up comprehensive
704
plans for economic development and training in their areas. Therefore, less than a year from now, Scotland should have in place a complete network of enterprise companies ready to work with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Those new companies will give a fresh opportunity to business people and to the wider community to assist in setting priorities and taking decisions which are of great importance to their local economies.
With regard to the new central bodies, we have been particularly fortunate that Sir David Nickson and Sir Robert Cowan have agreed to build on their work as chairmen of the SDA and HIDB by becoming chairmen-designate of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise; and the other board members-designate will bring an impressive range of skills and abilities to bear upon their work. In that work they will have first-rate support. The staff of the Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency and in that area the staff of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Training Agency are already coming together to undertake the work of planning for the mergers, which is proceeding quickly and smoothly.
The Bill is intended to provide an appropriate structure for Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies not just for 1991 but for the next decade and beyond. For this reason the general character of the Bill is enabling rather than prescriptive so as to leave as much room as possible for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies to decide for themselves what their detailed arrangements should be. The Government start from the expectation that the new bodies will thrive best with a minimum of constraint and interference. We are determined to give them all possible freedom to act on their own initiative.
The Bill gives Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise the full range of powers and functions now possessed by the Training Agency, SDA and HIDB respectively, and thus the ability to play a strong, strategic role on behalf of Scotland. But it does not say precisely how that must be done. It gives wide-ranging powers in relation to training of the employed as well as the unemployed. But it does not tie the hands of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise or the local enterprise companies on how this has to be delivered.
The Bill has been amended to simplify and make more flexible the financial arrangements for Scottish Enterprise: and this move away from the rather burdensome existing arrangements for the SDA was widely welcomed.
The Bill also reflects the distinctive nature of the Highlands and Islands and their needs. Highlands and Islands Enterprise, combining the economic and social role of the HIDB, the training role of the Training Agency and the environmental role previously confined to the SDA, will be even better placed to make a major contribution to the needs of the Highlands and Islands.
In another place we were also glad to incorporate a number of suggestions that improved the enabling

705
framework which the Bill provides—for example to empower Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise specifically to increase opportunities for training for racial minorities; to give Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise a duty to encourage employers to promote opportunities for women, men, ethnic minorities and the disabled in sectors of employment or training in which they are currently under-represented; to give Highlands and Islands Enterprise a strengthened remit to have regard to the desirability of preserving the characteristic flora, fauna and physical features of the Highlands and Islands; and to give Scottish Enterprise a specific function of assisting the establishment of community and co-operative enterprises.
Conversely, having consulted the SDA and HIDB, we decided not to replicate for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise powers to seek planning permission direct from the Secretary of State in some circumstances that the SDA and HIDB already possess.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill, on new towns. The objectives of Part II are to enable the winding-up and dissolution of the Scottish development corporations to be carried out in a manner consistent with their individual circumstances over a realistic period of a decade. They embody the Government's carefully considered response to the very full consultation process begun in October 1988, spanning publication of our White Paper in July 1989 and the introduction of this Bill. The Government are committed to ensuring that the successes of the Scottish new towns will in no way be arrested by the dissolution of the corporations. As the 1988 consultation paper emphasised, we are concerned to "maintain the momentum".
Our proposals are distinctively Scottish. They have been framed to maximise the chances of the development teams' skills continuing to be available. They also seek to ensure the smoothest possible transition from present arrangements. Much of the work to be done in the winding-up and dissolution process is technical. It will also be demanding on the staff of the corporations.
Clause 33 replaces and extends the provisions in Sections 36 and 36A of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 relating to the procedures for the wind-up and dissolution of the development corporations. The main effects are to provide for individual wind-up orders to be made for each corporation, allowing maximum flexibility in determining when a development corporation should begin the wind-up process; to extend the scope for corporations to dispose of their property, rights and liabilities; and to provide for their transfer after a wind-up order has been made. The clause also empowers the Secretary of State to make grants in order to relieve any financial burden which is imposed by the transfer of corporations' property to another body.
The Bill also contains certain financial provisions affecting the development corporations. The corporations have always been financed mainly by borrowing. The original expectation was that corporations would incur revenue deficits in their early years which would be met by borrowing but
706
that progressive development of the new towns would create sufficient surplus in time to repay that borrowing. However, it became evident in the early 1980s that they would be unlikely ever to generate sufficient surpluses to service and repay their accumulated debt. This Bill therefore provides, in Clause 34, for the payment of grant to meet the cost of essential infrastructure provision which cannot be financed by borrowing and, in Clause 35, for a financial reconstruction of the corporations to reduce the level of debt outstanding.
Our provisions were criticised in another place as being insufficiently detailed. Experience in the wind-up of the English development corporations, begun in 1963, has convinced us of the need to give the corporations sufficient scope to manage wind-up in a positive manner. The development corporations have substantial tasks still to complete, as set out in their 1988 development profiles. Their management must be allowed adequate scope to realise both those tasks and dissolution, and our lack of prescription reflects our confidence that the corporations will deal effectively with those two imperatives while remaining fully accountable to Ministers. There are, therefore, matters on which decisions have yet to be taken, but this is where decisions are not needed, and with wind-up likely to be spread over almost the next 10 years this should come as no surprise.
There is one subject in particular where it is desirable not to take immediate decisions, and that is housing. We have discussed our proposals at length with the Scottish Local Authorities with New Towns (SLANT). I believe that both parties, the Government and SLANT, are fully aware of the respective positions. The White Paper committed the Government to consultation towards the end of the winding-up period with all interested parties, including representative tenants groups, on the transfer of housing remaining in development corporation ownership at that time. No one knows now how much housing there will be in each town. Transfers, which may include transfer to the district council, depending on the outcome of consultation, will then be effected. However, any housing still remaining in development corporation ownership on the actual day of dissolution will be transferred to Scottish Homes. Any tenant transferred under those arrangements will remain a secure tenant.
This Bill prrovides the framework for the future for the Scottish economy. The need to provide for the eventual winding up and dissolution of new town development corporations is acknowledged by all sides, while virtually the whole Scottish community has expressed its support for the creation of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
The Bill gives effect to these vital developments for Scotland's future. I believe that it is the most important development on the industrial front for many a long year and I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
8.59 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his detailed

707
exposition of the Bill. I am also grateful for the fact that he sent me copies of the Notes on Clauses. I apologise to him for not being in my place when he started, although I do not think that I missed a great deal—not that what he says is not always of vital importance, but he was obviously just clearing his throat when I came into the Chamber.
The Minister made some interesting points in his speech. Perhaps we shall go into those further when we reach the new town proposals which were given some trouble in another place. I am glad that it seems that there have been some second thoughts on that point.
It would be very wrong if I did not say to the House—because I have expressed the view to everyone else—that I believe that this is a vitally important Scottish Bill. It is one of the most important in the past few years after the poll tax measure, which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, so ably took through the House, yet we are debating it at nine o'clock in the evening. It is dreadful from the Scottish point of view that that should be so. That may sound wrong coming from me since I am the only person on this side of the House to speak on the Bill. The fact is that there are not enough of us and if there is any indisposition on this side of the House there are only one or two of us left. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will look on us with some sympathy and recognise that we have problems.
The concept of combining the Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency has a great deal to commend it. However, there could be considerable problems when Scottish Enterprise sets up the 12 companies for southern Scotland and the 10 companies are set up for the Highlands. I do not know whether all those companies are already established but I know that a large number of them are and that plans have already been put forward to the Scottish Office.
I was amused to read in a well accepted Scottish weekly or monthly paper, the Scottish Business Insider, an article by Chris Baur, who I am sure the Minister will agree is a respected Scottish journalist. The article states that part of the problem is the allocation of money. We do not know how much money is available. An estimate of the money available to the existing Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency is about £500 million, A fair amount of that will need to be retained by Scottish Enterprise because of ongoing commitments and the fact that it will have larger national schemes to put forward. For example, I believe that it is to retain Locate in Scotland. Therefore the money that will be given to the local enterprise companies will vary.
I believe that depending on their size they will have between £30 million and £100 million of short-term development funding to draw up their inaugural business plans. They will then require money for capital development or loans. The article states that:
"Sir David Nickson, chairman-designate of SE, knows how tough it is going to be to keep the lid on these local pressure-cookers".
708
As the Minister said, the companies will be run by fairly tough businessmen who will not only want to make their own companies better than the others but will individually want to make a name for themselves. Sir David Nickson says:
"There's no doubt that when we add up all the LECs' operational bids we are liable to be confronted with a total that exceeds the SE budget several times. There's going to have to be a very clear steer about priorities."
It may be the wrong time to ask the Minister for more information, but perhaps we can probe further at Committee stage. By that time there may be something more concrete to work on.
In respect of my other point I quote again from Chris Baur's article. He writes of:
"one senior gentleman who permits himself a brief moment to luxuriate in playful and private contemplation of the political power he is about to acquire".
I wonder whether the Minister has heard any of the stories that are coming from the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh. He will realise that the Secretary of State has his problems.
That respectable businessman, whose name is not given although I could guess it, said:
"I wonder — if Malcolm Rifkind really knows what he has created here. If people of the calibre he has recruited to run these shows throughout the country really dig their heels in about the way the job ought to be done and about the resources required to do it, what does he imagine he'll do if he disagrees with us? Sack us? Force us to resign? I doubt if he could risk the the public row of doing either, you know, with his party in its present predicament. I think that Scottish Enterprise and its local enterprise companies are going to be a formidable lobby in Scotland's affairs. Very powerful indeed. I simply do not see how they cannot get their way".
I am sure that the Minister has seen that report.
That is part of the problem that we see. We want devolved power. I believe in devolution. However, this looks as if the Government are giving enormous power to people who at the end of the day are unrepresentative. Those are points that we shall go into in very great detail when we reach the Committee stage. I hope that there will be more support on this side of the House when we reach that point.
I had prepared some material on the new towns but the Minister has to some extent answered many of my points by, for instance, his close association with SLANT, which I am very glad to acknowledge, and also the fact that he suggested that it would take a very long time. I think that the Minister said that local authorities may be given the opportunity to be one of the factors for the houses. In other words, they could go to a private factor, to Scottish Homes, or, if I heard him correctly, to the local authority. That is a definite advance on what I interpreted from reading the debates in another place. I hope that the surveys carried out in new towns of Scotland, particularly the figures in East Kilbride, which is the oldest of our new towns, have helped to convince the Government that everyone does not think that local authorities are bad factors, as some people suggest.
I am pleased with what the Minister has said tonight. It may even help to speed the Committee stage of the Bill if what I think he said means all that I think it means. I hope that we can have a good

709
and constructive Committee stage because there is no doubt, as he said several times, that it is an important Bill for Scotland.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I welcome the Bill warmly for a number of reasons, not least because it recognises the need for legislation which was originally created for assisting the development of different parts of Scotland to be updated after its operation for a number of years. The Bill largely does that.
I take my hat off to the Government for their progressive outlook in this matter. It is glaringly obvious to those of us who live in the area that the Highlands and Islands do not have a government representative in any of their seats. The whole area covered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board is therefore represented in Parliament by forces apposed to government policy. It says a great deal for the Government that they have not said, "Well, this might be a suitable opportunity to wind up the Highlands and Islands Development Board altogether". An unprincipled government might well have taken that decision, but this Government have acted in the true terms of democracy, extending to those who did not vote for them the same attention and privileges as those who did.
The Secretary of State, who comes under so much pressure from a variety of sources in Scotland, is due a hearty vote of thanks, not only from the people of the Highlands, who will see the Highlands and Islands Development Board modernised and encouraged to adopt a spirit of enterprise, but in the rest of Scotland where the Scottish Development Agency will be subjected to the same treatment. I therefore readily acknowledge what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has done. I should like to couple with that a thank you to the Minister of State because I know only too well the amount of hard work which he has done behind the scenes and I know how well thought of he is in the Highland area.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for concentrating my remarks principally on the area covered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, but I do so because I know that area particularly well. For 13 years I represented a seat within that area in Parliament and I therefore feel that what I have to say may perhaps be of some interest in that regard.
The 1965 Act was the brainchild of the late Willie Ross, or Lord Ross of Marnock as we came to know him towards the end of his political career. As one of those who crossed swords with him on more than one occasion, I have to admit that in this brainchild of his he created something which was of enormous value to the Highlands and Islands. The fact that so much of the present legislation re-enacts what was contained in the 1965 Act is probably as great a tribute to Willie Ross as he would have wished.
I understand—I was not in the House in 1965—that, although the Government gave a rather lukewarm welcome to the 1965 Act, they inherited it in 1970 and, like most converts, became more
710
enthusiastic about the cause than even the Labour Party itself had been. That enthusiasm continued throughout the 1970s when there were changes of government and from 1979 onward the present Government have given the Highlands and Islands Development Board enormous support, both in good will and money, which was even more important.
However, the situation in the Highlands of Scotland between 1965 and the present day has totally changed. Happily the days of poverty, which I remember only too well, have all but vanished. The aspirations of the people who live in the Highlands have changed entirely. The Highlands and Islands Development Board undoubtedly can take credit for a great deal of that prosperity. But that prosperity cannot be divorced from government policies. It is to the Government that the real thanks should be given for the prosperity which now exists in the Highlands and indeed in Scotland generally. If one listens to the Scottish media or reads the Scottish press one would imagine that poverty was rampant throughout Scotland and that Scotland was at the bottom of the league in just about every way. Yet the truth of the matter is that that is not so and conditions in Scotland are vastly improved compared with those that existed in 1965.
I want to say a few words about the Bill itself. I do not wish to encroach on areas that will be dealt with in more detail in Committee but I should like to say something about certain clauses. I was delighted to see that Clause 1(a)(iv) deals with improvement to the environment. I trust that protection of the existing environment is also highlighted in that clause.
There was a time in Scotland and in the Highlands of Scotland when the desperate need for jobs became so much a fixation with members of both parties in government that the environment tended to be put to one side. Those days are no longer with us. Jobs are vitally important but not jobs at any price. I hope that the new Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies which have been set up—again I pay tribute to the Minister of State for the efforts that he made in order to ensure that they were set up to the best advantage of those who live in the areas—will not overlook the environment.
I am glad also that Highlands and Islands Enterprise will not be allowed to apply directly for planning permission to the Secretary of State. It is right and proper that its planning application should go through the local procedure. I note that that was originally in the Bill but I understand that with all party support it was deleted in the Commons.
I am glad too that the powers of compulsory purchase which were given to the Highlands and Islands Development Board and which have continued with Highlands and Islands Enterprise have not been strengthened. There was a suggestion that those powers were not strong enough. I believe that they are perfectly strong enough. I do not believe that the Highlands and Islands Development Board itself would have wished the powers to be increased. The number of occasions on which compulsory purchase powers have had to be used is tiny in any event.

711
Clauses 10, 11 and 12 gave me just a little concern. They deal with obtaining information. My plea is that there will be no temptation to resort to a form-filling bonanza in order to acquire that information. There is nothing that small companies, small businesses and the self-employed in general resent more than the constant requirement to provide information by filling in forms. I hope therefore that any information that is required will be reduced to absolute essentials and kept to a minimum. I wonder whether Clause 17 is in fact necessary. It seems to me that Clause 2(4) would appear to cover adequately what Clause 17 is expected to do.
I want to say a few words about the membership of the new Highlands and Islands Enterprise company. The number has been fixed at 12, including the chief executive. However, the most important aspect is the removal of the provision in the 1965 Act requiring more than half the number to be full time. There is no doubt that there were some excellent members of the Highlands and Islands Development Board but it was extremely difficult to persuade a number of good people to make themselves available. After all, one wanted them as members at the prime of their lives and at the peak of their business careers. It was not easy to persuade them to take a five-year appointment and give up their prospects in industry. I am glad that the requirement has been removed. There never was a problem in persuading good people to take part-time appointments because they are prepared to give a limited amount of time, but it was always difficult to obtain good people for the longer term.
The Highlands and Islands Development Board is particularly fortunate in its present chairman, Sir Robert Cowan. He has done a marvellous job and has given splendid leadership. I am delighted that he will continue in the new Highlands and Islands Enterprise. That should see it off to a good start.
The local enterprise companies are in the process of being set up and I believe that they will be a great success. I know many of the people involved. They will grasp the challenge of their involvement in the companies and we look for great success from them.
I wish the Bill well. It is not particularly controversial and a great deal has already been done to improve it. I hope that it will have a speedy passage through the House so that it can be implemented as soon as possible.
9.22 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I too warmly welcome the Bill. I wish to concentrate my comments on Part I. Its general thrust—that is the bringing together of the functions of the three predecessor bodies to form two new bodies and the delegation by those bodies of much of the work to local bodies attuned to local needs—is eminently sensible. It will create a system much better suited to the needs of the 1990s. I was not surprised that the Bill was widely welcomed in Scotland, not least by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Council for the Development of Trade and Industry.
712
My experience as a commissioner representing Scottish local government interests and as chairman of the Scottish committee on the old Manpower Services Commission was that the MSC was a good instrument for developing national schemes for young and older people at a time of high unemployment. It helped them to train when employers could not do so. However, the MSC was not, and its successor Training Agency is not, the right instrument for remedying the continued undervaluing of training by employers, for the development of tailor-made training for Scotland or for the special needs of local labour markets in Scotland.
The problem in Scotland today is not high unemployment and the incapacity of employers to carry out training for unemployed people. The problem is skill shortage and the reduction in the number of young people entering work, which is even greater than the average reduction over the United Kingdom as a whole. There is no question that an essential ingredient in encouraging Scotland's industry and commerce, its workforce, its young people and their parents and its schools and colleges to become enthusiastic about training is to have the maximum amount of decision-making Scottish based and locally based. That has not been possible in the past. For example, the Scottish committee of the MSC was purely advisory and the MSC and the Training Agency were largely centrally-based organisations. What is now proposed is true devolution for Scotland to its local areas and that is much needed.
It is good too that Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will be able to build on two existing bodies of such proven success and that they will be able to foster training in the context of other aspects of the economy and business life of Scotland. It seems to me that the responsibilities fit very well together.
In the 1990s it is very wise to put employers in the lead role. I remember well in the early 1980s attending a conference of top level employers in West Germany. Youth unemployment in Germany was rising fast and there was need to find ways of training young German people at a time when employers did not have enough apprenticeships to offer. I was asked about our youth training scheme. It became clear that the employers had control of training and wanted to keep it. Indeed they were willing to pay for most of it simply to ensure that it was realistic and relevant to the needs of their workforce. If the government paid, the employers would lose control. They wanted to keep control of training, even of those who were unemployed.
We have not yet fully taken that on board in Britain. The majority of Scottish employers still leave most of the training effort to others. They believe that if they train people and pay for it, they waste the time and money of their firms because many of the people trained will go to work for other firms. Now at last we are taking a leaf out of the Germans' training notebook by inviting employers to take the driving seat. They are clearly responding with enthusiasm. That is the first move towards what the Government's White Paper described as getting

713
employers to develop a sense of ownership of training. It is only when employers take responsibility for training that it can be made properly relevant to the needs of their workforce and the workforce of others in the locality. Therefore, I am very pleased with the thrust of Part III.
Three aspects of the new arrangements need careful thought. I want to ask my noble friend Lord Sanderson two questions. I wonder whether the framework for delegation in the Bill is sufficiently clear. My noble friend says that the Bill is designed to provide an appropriate structure. Is the framework for deciding what can be delegated and how it can be delegated, first by the Scottish Office to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and even more importantly by them to the local enterprise companies, sufficiently clear?
If the framework is not sufficiently clear, it will leave room for the Scottish Office, when something is delegated, to come back and, as some might say, interfere with what the local enterprise companies are doing. I wonder if Ministers realise the importance of clear criteria for what can and cannot be delegated both in the Bill and in what is required of the local enterprise companies' contracts granted next spring.
I have good reason to appreciate the high quality and skill of civil servants in the Scottish Office and, indeed, in the Department of Employment. However, wittingly or unwittingly, the Scottish Office and the Department of Employment—and they are by no means the only departments of state to which this applies—enjoy making great play of the freedom which is being granted to the so-called arm's length bodies and then forever querying and negotiating about the details of those bodies' activities whenever a chink in the arrangement allows it.
The Scottish Office will wish to retain overall powers and resources for that which has to be done at the centre—national strategic functions, the monitoring of training, fallback arrangements if the local enterprise companies fail, and so forth. There is considerable scope for niggling, time-wasting interference by the Scottish Office or by the Department of Employment in Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise or directly in the affairs of local enterprise companies.
There is also room for interference, in the area dealt with in Clause 2(2) regarding the relationship of the two new bodies with the Secretary of State for Scotland, taken in conjunction with Clause 19, which deals with the delegation of powers to the local enterprise companies. Many bodies put up with constant querying and being called to account on matters supposedly delegated to them. However, the people who have agreed to run the local enterprise companies will not stand for it. They are business people accustomed to taking decisions and responsibility for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. If they prove incompetent they will expect to go. They have experience of proper delegation. They will recognise the special responsibility of using taxpayers' money and the fact that some powers must clearly stay at the centre. They have been invited to run the local enterprise companies in a
714
businesslike manner and will want to do so. If they find themselves required to spend time and energy on unnecessary niggling with the centre, they simply will not stay. They will find better, more useful things to do. That is a serious point. The way to avoid that is to ensure that it is absolutely clear on the face of the Bill what delegation to local enterprise companies means—what is delegated; and what can and cannot be queried. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is happy with that situation or whether it needs to be examined again.
It is essential so far as possible to avoid people contributing to the running of local enterprise companies in a representative capacity. Local government, because of its overlapping functions, feels that it should have representation. Voluntary groups and others continue to press for the statutory right to be consulted. Of course there will be times when consultation is the order of the day. But the kind of political ding-dong that goes on—with a small or a large "p"—when people feel that they have a statutory duty to fight the corner of those they represent, needs to be avoided if possible.
Such activity can hold up a youth training scheme for months. It got between the TVEI and young people in Scottish schools for months; even now, as my noble friend indicated, it is holding up the establishment of the local enterprise companies in Tayside. Those who suffer are the customers of training—young people, older people, local industry and commerce. I hope the House will resist any suggestion that people should have a statutory representative role in relation to local enterprise companies.
The other side of that coin is the importance of clarifying the relationship of local enterprise companies with local government. Virtually nothing is said about that in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Gray mentioned that normal planning permission will be required, and that is one clarification of the relationship. But local councils are not only the planning authorities; they are also the education authorities. They have to deliver a great deal of the training that employers ask for.
We do not want the disadvantage of representational roles for local governments. Perhaps the Bill should state more clearly how the local enterprise companies and local government relate. I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's comments.
There is one final point. Clause 1 states that Scottish Enterprise shall have the general functions of,
"furthering the development of Scotland's economy … enhancing skills … in Scotland and assisting persons to establish themselves as self-employed persons there … promoting Scotland's industrial efficiency … further improvement of the environment of Scotland".
Does that mean that in some respects Scottish Enterprise will be functioning in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area? For example, will that not be confusing when Scottish Enterprise seeks under Clause 1(a)(ii) to help people establish themselves as self-employed in, say, Dingwall or Stornaway when just such help is a function also of Highlands and Islands Enterprise under Clause 1(b)(ii)? Is that

715
overlap sensible? Will it perhaps cause problems? I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
With those comments and queries I believe that Part I is an enormous move forward. The people of Scotland will appreciate it very much. I hope the House will back the Bill and give it a Second Reading.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I rise only briefly strongly to support this Bill and, in doing so, I apologise to my noble friend and to your Lordships for not having put my name on the list of speakers. I had my name down earlier but thought that I should not be back in time to take part in the debate, so took it off. In the event, the earlier business went on rather longer than expected.
In common with my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, I have had some exposure particularly to the Part I aspects of the Bill—the present Highlands and Islands Development Board—having taken over from my noble friend the responsibility for that successful and important enterprise. I live outside that area, just to the south-east, in Aberdeenshire, but over the past few years there has been some pressure from those who operate in that area to bring within the ambit of the HIDB certain elements of Aberdeenshire.
I very much agree with my noble friend that that part of the world has unique characteristics in a number of ways. The enthusiasm with which many people in a whole variety of different industries and different ways of life pursue the activities in which they are involved is wholly encouraging for anyone who has the opportunity to become involved with it. I was lucky enough to have that responsibility for a few months. The entrepreneurial flair of those people, the nature of the countryside, its characteristics and its geography, make it an area in which it is not easy to encompass all the objectives that an organisation such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board seeks to achieve.
My noble friend Lord Gray referred to the role that Lord Ross of Marnock played when he set up the HIDB in 1965. Those were days when 1992 had not even been dreamt of; when, again, the demographic trough stemming from activities round about the late 1950s and early 1960s had not been. thought of. Therefore, it is only right that we should see the sort of development that we see now and Highlands and Islands Enterprise seems to me a worthy and exciting successor to all that has gone before; bringing training and development together for the first time in a way that must bring up to date the concepts which have been developed and which led to the establishment of the HIDB to carry us forward through to the latter part of the 20th century.
We have, therefore, a strategic approach and coupled with it the strength which will come from the local flexibility given by the local enterprise companies. To that extent, I very much agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy that we have a true devolution of that aspect within Scotland which is
716
wholly to be encouraged. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Bill. I am delighted to see it, as one who has had a small responsibility for an element of it in the past. It will bring the old HIDB up to date not just for the benefit of that particular region but, more importantly, by virtue of what will be its parallel association with Scottish Enterprise. It will allow a crossfeed of innovative ideas from the HIDB region, as it is now, to permeate the rest of Scotland and vice versa. That is wholly worth while. I strongly support the Bill.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but extremely important Second Reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, this is probably one of the most important Bills to come before your Lordships' House in relation to industrial development in Scotland. There is more that we have had to consider.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his general welcome for the Bill. I look forward to the Committee stage when I have no doubt we shall go into considerable detail on certain aspects of the Bill. I was amused by his description of the local enterprise companies as pressure cookers. That is certainly a new description to me. He may well be right. As a businessman, I know only too well that pressure exists and that when a few businessmen get together the pressure cooker syndrome can be very relevant.
First, I shall answer some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on enterprise, but, more particularly, about the new towns, which I shall come to in a moment. He asked about funding. He will be aware that the published budget for 1990–91 for the SDA at £180 million, the HIDB at £48 million and the Training Agency in Scotland at £267 million amounts to just short of £500 million. That is not a small amount of money.
We have already published provisional figures for the SDA and HIDB at £180 million and £51 million respectively for the current year. In due course we shall be coming to the figures relating to the Training Agency in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked what finance may be devolved to the local enterprise companies. It is too early yet to give other than the broadest indications about individual consortia. The figures are likely to range from over £70 million for Glasgow at one extreme to £1 million or so for Shetland at the other.
I can assure the noble Lord that all the embryo local enterprise companies bar one are in being now. They are working at their prospective business plans. Clearly, local enterprise companies will have high aspirations. The Government are not afraid of that, though resources cannot be infinite. I say to the noble Lord that businessmen understand—as I know only too well from speaking with those who are involved—that the funding of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise is pump-priming for the very big task of getting as much private sector cash as possible into those areas and into businesses.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he give some indication, by the time we reach Committee stage, of the kind of figures that the chairman of the companies are looking for? I understand that they are looking for anything between 30 per cent. and 60 per cent. more than the Government have given them. Can the Minister give any idea of what the Government believe they will need?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the chairmen of the local enterprise companies do not yet knew what amount Scottish Enterprise will be devolving to them. Ongoing discussions are taking place as to the split between what is devolved to those local enterprise companies and what is held by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise at the centre. I may be able to give more indication of that in Committee, although, as the noble Lord will understand, everyone will want to ensure that budgets are as large as possible to enable them to do as much as they can for the area.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin for his stout remark that the Government will not run away from their responsibilities in Scotland, and particularly in the Highlands and Islands, an area for which I have responsibility, even though the representation of the Government is negligible in the area. We very much believe in proper devolution. That is why we are so keen to see this form of devolution for the industry of Scotland. As my noble friend said, prosperity in Scotland and in his own area of Inverness is so obvious that it cannot be ignored. What he said about the Scottish press may indeed be true but I also believe that truth will out in the end.
My noble friend asked about protecting the existing environment. In Clause 5(3) Highlands and Islands Enterprise is required to have regard to the desirability of safeguarding the natural beauty, flora, fauna and special physical features of the Highlands and Islands. That is implicit in the Bill. I understand what he says and it is something which the Government take very seriously. My noble friend also asked about Clauses 10, 11 and 12. He thought that the acquisition of information might be somewhat onerous for small businesses. I can assure him that these clauses go no further than re-enacting the powers in the 1965 and 1975 Acts in relation to the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency respectively.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy was concerned about the framework for delegation and asked whether it was clear enough. We believe that it is. It will be set out in a clear management statement which the Secretary of State for Scotland will issue to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise later in the year. That is the position as concerns the central bodies. As regards the LECs, it will be set out in detailed contracts between Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. These contracts will be awarded once the parent bodies are satisfied that the contract arrangements are satisfactory.
There was general welcome for the way in which we have dealt with the boards. My noble friend
718
Lord Gray mentioned the Highlands and Islands Development Board. We wish to see the private sector playing a leading role in the boards of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. I am glad, however, that the existing full-time members of the Highlands and Islands Development Board have agreed to complete their terms of office with Highlands and Islands Enterprise. We propose to decide in the light of the circumstances at the time whether or not to appoint full-time members thereafter. I can assure my noble friend Lady Carnegy that in general board members have been appointed on the basis of their individual abilities, rather than on a representative basis, for the personal contribution that they can make, and that a two-thirds private sector majority reflects our belief that employers must be firmly in the lead in training and enterprise development.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may be approached from some quarters to argue for the local authorities. If he looks at the membership of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise he will see that eminent members of local authorities are on those boards. If it is any comfort to him he should know that in the embryo local enterprise companies—in Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise—the number of officials and councillors from the local authority quarter is 39 already. That is no small number and reflects the importance of that part of Scottish life in these new arrangements.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour asked about skill shortages. The Government have demonstrated their commitments to training in hard cash. Whereas under the last Administration the Labour Government spent £½billion in 1978–79, we are spending £3 billion this year. That is more than three times as much in real terms. Moreover, if I may say so, the United Kingdom now spends more as a percentage of gross domestic product on training than Germany, the United States or Japan. That is the measure of the increased priority we are giving to training.
My noble friend also asked about the relationship of local government with the local enterprise companies. I have told her about the individuals concerned, but undoubtedly local enterprise companies will want to work in partnership with local authorities, just as the SDA and its counterpart does so successfully at present in the Highlands.
My noble friend also referred to statutory consultations and said that they are onerous and should be avoided. The Bill enacts existing duties on the SDA and the Highlands and Islands Development Board to consult but proposes no new ones for precisely the reasons put forward by my noble friend.
My noble friend also asked about the overriding power of Scottish Enteprise throughout the whole of Scotland. She referred to Clause 1(1)(a)(i). I think that she ought to read that clause alongside Clause 21. She will then see that the remit is indeed correct but that there are provisions therein to safeguard the position in the Highlands and Islands so that the powers of Highlands and Islands Enterprise in that area are firmly published.

719
I turn now to deal with the question of the new towns. I should like to reiterate what I said in my opening speech for the avoidance of doubt in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The White Paper committed the Government to consultation towards the end of the winding-up period with all interested parties, including representative tenant groups, on the transfer of housing remaining in development corporation ownership at that time. No one knows now how much housing that will involve in each town. Transfers, which may include transfer to the district council depending upon the outcome of consultations, will then be effected.
I should like to mention the fact that I was somewhat disappointed by the reaction of CoSLA when it referred to,
"the deliberate exclusion of district councils from the transfer options available to new town tenants despite the Government's stated commitment to giving tenants choice".
I find those words difficult to reconcile with the clear statement contained in paragraph 5.10 of the 1989 White Paper on Scottish new towns, which states:
"At wind-up, the development corporations' role as landlords will cease to exist. Choices therefore have to be made at that time. The position in each town will be carefully considered once an order for dissolution has been made, and formal consultations will be held with the development corporations, district councils and representative tenant groups to review the position and to determine to what extent transfers might take place, be it to housing associations, co-operatives, district councils, private or other landlords. Those tenants who have not transferred to other landlords will be transferred to Scottish Homes at wind-up, with a view to pursuing further diversification with the small residual number of houses".
The Government have not changed their mind since publication of the White Paper. We remain committed to formal consultation with all the interested parties. We remain committed to the same list of potential recipients of development corporation housing as set out in the White Paper. For the sake of clarity, I will spell out again that list; it includes, housing associations, co-operatives, district councils and private or other landlords. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but it is such an important area and it is most important that we get it right before we reach the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I wanted to make the position absolutely clear.
I am most encouraged by the way in which the sale of stock of housing in the new town corporations is proceeding. I think that I can say with all honesty that the home ownership situation in the new towns
720
is looking extremely good. A target of 50 per cent. of stock sold is by no means far away now.
I shall refer once more to SLANT and its interesting survey which was published last week and one or two of its findings. It said that the clear majority believes that the right time to make decisions is at wind-up, as the Government said in their White Paper that I have already mentioned. I point also to the important fact that the SLANT survey confirms the 1989 survey findings which give added support to the Government's view that wind-up is the most appropriate time for decisions on transfers.
I cavil slightly at the figures produced by SLANT in its polls. It has misrepresented one figure. The methodology makes it plain that the 75 per cent. figure is 75 per cent. of the 37 per cent. who now wish to choose a new landlord. That is in response to its assumption that three-quarters of residents would choose a district council now. We must get that matter right. Those figures were again confirmed by my officials with Miss Stedward of East Kilbride District Council on Friday and so it is correct to say that only 28 per cent. of tenants, or over just one in four, wish to choose now and that their choice would be the district council. The majority of tenants agree with the Government's view set out in the White Paper that the best time for decisions on transfer to be made is at wind-up.
I hope that I have covered the major points that have been raised in our short but interesting debate. We are moving forward to a new framework for Scotland. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will help to underpin the creation of a buoyant, self-confident Scottish economy for the 1990s and beyond. Our proposals for new towns will complement that framework by bringing the Scottish new towns to full maturity so that they can make a maximum contribution to Scotland's future prosperity. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before ten o'clock.

  UK IMMIGRANTS ADVISORY SERVICE: DOVER OFFICE
  UK IMMIGRANTS ADVISORY SERVICE: DOVER OFFICE
  MIGRANTS DETAINED UNDER IMMIGRATION ACT
  MIGRANTS DETAINED UNDER IMMIGRATION ACT
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES
  NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS: LICENSEES' LIABILITY
  NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS: LICENSEES' LIABILITY
  PRISONERS' EDUCATION
  PRISONERS' EDUCATION
  PRISON EDUCATION PROVISION
  PRISON EDUCATION PROVISION
  ELECTORAL RIGHTS: OVERSEAS RESIDENTS
  ELECTORAL RIGHTS: OVERSEAS RESIDENTS
  LIFE SENTENCES: AVERAGE DURATION
  LIFE SENTENCES: AVERAGE DURATION
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: CATEGORY AND LOCATION
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: CATEGORY AND LOCATION
  YEAST: SCIENTIFIC APPRAISAL OF GENETIC MODIFICATION
  YEAST: SCIENTIFIC APPRAISAL OF GENETIC MODIFICATION
  WEATHER FORECASTING SERVICE: COST
  WEATHER FORECASTING SERVICE: COST
  WALES: ARMY COMMAND STRUCTURE
  WALES: ARMY COMMAND STRUCTURE
  SEA LEVEL: PREDICTED RISE
  SEA LEVEL: PREDICTED RISE