Sitting of 24 April 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SHARD BRIDGE BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.
    GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 5) BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    CSCE
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in developing a conciliation mechanism within the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The CSCE experts' meeting on the peaceful settlement of disputes, held earlier this year in Valletta, agreed a report containing provisions for the establishment of a dispute settlement mechanism—a panel of indepedent experts—within the CSCE process. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House. The dispute settlement mechanism would offer advice and comment to assist states in resolving disputes. The Valletta report draws extensively on British ideas put forward last year for a CSCE conciliation facility. We expect the June meeting of CSCE Foreign Ministers to endorse the Valletta report and to set up the mechanism.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does not it demonstrate the good progress that has been made in the conference since the Paris summit and show the transformed political atmosphere in Europe? Can these procedures be used to help the suffering people in the Baltic states?
    Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks. As to the second, I do not think that this mechanism can he used to deal with the problems of the Baltic states, for two reasons. First, they are designed to address the problems of inter-state disputes and, secondly, there are exclusions in the procedures that would enable one party to a dispute to exclude issues relating to sovereignty. I agree, however, that the principles reflected in the 10 propositions annexed to the mechanism should
    1072
    guide discussions in the Baltic republics, and we want urgent discussions between the Soviet Government and the Governments of the three republics.
    Mr. Winnick: Does not progress depend to a large extent on the continuation of the democratic reforms taking place in the Soviet Union? Should not we pay tribute to the immense achievements that Mr. Gorbachev has brought about in the Soviet Union, transforming a totalitarian dictatorship into a near democracy? Is the Minister aware of the concern felt by many in Europe about some of the elements now appearing in Russia, which remind us of Tsarist tyranny? Such people should he warned that we do not want them to take power.
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly agree that President Gorbachev has contributed substantially to the liberalisation of life in eastern Europe—one has only to look at the present position of the states that were satellites but five years ago to see the truth of that. But we also need to understand that there is still a long way to go before a pluralistic democratic state emerges in the Soviet Union. Our support is for the process of reform rather than for any particular individual.

    Mass Destruction Weapons
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take steps to prevent the further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Yes, Sir. We are working to strengthen existing regimes of restriction and control. We have already reinforced and widened the scope of our export controls on chemical weapons precursors. We are considering urgently how to improve the regimes to prevent the export of technology and materials for biological weapons. We are also working for further accessions to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to strengthen the international safeguards run by the International Atomic Energy Authority, to secure a commitment to the early negotiation of a chemical weapons convention and the strengthening of the biological weapons convention at its review conference in September, and to strengthen the missile technology control regime.
    Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply. Does he agree that the powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency are clearly insufficient, given that Iraq was able to prove compliance with the rules of the IAEA as recently as November 1990? Does he agree also that the time is right for a significant new initiative in limiting the spread of weapons of mass destruction that will involve further inspection and verification powers for the United Nations, perhaps based on Security Council resolution 687, and that the United Kingdom is well placed to take that initiative?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a general point and directs it specifically to Iraq. The resolution that he mentioned provides for the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We are actively supporting the United Nation's secretariat's work in setting up a special commission to carry through the resolution. I hope that it will be in action before too long.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that a serious aspect of the problem is the growing number of nations that have access to sophisticated delivery systems? As there is a limited number of suppliers of systems such as those for ballistic missiles, is it possible to give serious attention to limiting the availability of the delivery systems?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. That is part of the purpose of the missile technology control regime, which I mentioned. We must try to broaden that so that it includes most of the main suppliers, including the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Robertson: In spite of that, did not we learn from the Gulf conflict the necessity of keeping nuclear technology out of the hands of the likes of Saddam Hussein? Surely, therefore, the first and essential step is to convert the partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive ban on all nuclear tests. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that after the sad and avoidable collapse of the review conference in January, the prospect of keeping in existence even the partial test ban treaty will die if the United States and Britain go ahead with continued nuclear tests?
    Mr. Hurd: I usually follow the hon. Gentleman's logic, but I do not on this occasion. I think that the step of which he spoke is some way down the road. The first and essential step, to use his phrase, is to ensure that Iraq's potential to employ weapons of mass destruction is destroyed, and that that destruction is verified. We can then proceed to strengthen the regime in the way that I have mentioned.

    CSCE
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to give individuals and non-governmental bodies an opportunity to participate in the CSCE process as extended by the charter of Paris.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We consistently uphold the importance of openness within the conference on security and co-operation in Europe process. We periodically hold consultations with individuals and non-governmental organisations. We include non-governmental representatives in United Kingdom delegations to some CSCE meetings. We also seek to ensure that individuals and NGOs have as free access as possible to CSCE meetings.
    Mr. Trimble: The Minister will be aware that the charter of Paris, which was signed in November, specifically provided for widening the process to enable individuals and NGOs to contribute. We are especially anxious to have a means of contributing to the process, for several reasons. First, we would wish to ensure that the security provisions of the CSCE could be applied to the breach of the Helsinki agreement by the Irish Republic. For some reason, that is an issue that the Foreign Office seems reluctant to raise. Secondly, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the charter extended the CSCE to include cultural conflicts and the extension of democratic rights. Is the Minister aware that we believe that on both fronts we could make a significant contribution, if only to draw attention to the almost complete absence of
    1074
    democracy in part of the United Kingdom? That is an issue with which the Foreign Secretary, because of his record, might feel inhibited in dealing.
    Mr. Hogg: We, too, wish to encourage openness in the process of the CSCE. I know that the hon. Gentleman is especially concerned about articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. I do not think that those issues are best raised within the context of the CSCE, if only because that is likely to entrench the publicly declared attitudes of the Republic. The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that article 1, I think, of the Anglo-Irish Agreement makes it plain that the Republic accepts the status of the Province unless the majority of the people in the Province wish otherwise.
    Mr. Wilkinson: On the question of openness and mutual understanding within the CSCE, would not east-west relations be much enhanced if the Soviet Union were to reconsider its circumvention of the arms control process by, instead of disbanding three divisions on the central front, assigning them to its navy? Have the Government any comment to make on that?
    Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend that the policy of subordinating the three divisions to naval command calls into question the Soviet Union's commitment to the principles of the treaty on conventional weapons in Europe. Before we ratify that treaty, we must explore how we can bring the spirit of the treaty back into operation. We want to ensure that the Soviet position broadly accords, in every material respect, with the letter and the spirit of the agreement.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that the formal inter-state arrangements enshrined in the charter do not adequately take account of the expense and the seriousness of disputes within states? I refer especially to the new nationalisms of central and eastern Europe and the potentially disastrous consequences of the inter-ethnic conflict that could arise.
    Mr. Hogg: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. However, had we tried to enshrine within the agreement a CSCE mechanism under which those internal disputes could be dealt with, it is probable that no agreement would have been made. The hon. Gentleman knows that a list of principles is attached to the CSCE disputes settlement mechanism, and they are applicable to internal disputes. They are largely procedural in character, but they can be invoked for internal disputes. The general principles that underpin the CSCE agreement are those that contracting states should have in mind when dealing with their internal negotiations.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways Her Majesty's Government will be assisting Nigeria in the run-up to the general election in that country.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Our substantial aid programme to Nigeria—more than £32 million in 1990–91—will continue. It includes help with public administration reform and police training and legal

    1075
    drafting, all with the aim of fostering good government and helping to establish structures and systems that will survive the transition to civilian rule.
    Mr. Speller: Will my hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, welcome the impending return of a democratically elected Government to Nigeria? Does he accept that Britain has had both a happy and a long-standing relationship with that country? That includes the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister worked there. Will he do everything possible to assist Nigeria as it comes back into the family of democracies?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The whole thrust of the Government's aid programme in Nigeria is to ensure support for the transition to, and the return of, democracy. Both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)—who is in his place—are, like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, old Nigerian hands. They and Opposition Members represent the long-standing friendship between Britain and Nigeria.
    Ms. Abbott: Would not one way to help Nigeria be to deal with the debt question? The Minister is aware that the Trinidad terms do nothing for middle-income debtors such as Nigeria. Just as Poland has required up to 80 per cent. debt reduction to get on its feet, will not countries such as Nigeria be able to help themselves only if there is serious debt reduction, in both the commercial and the financial sectors?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Lady makes a good point. We recognise that Nigeria is now a poor country, with a per capita income of below $300 and a very heavy debt burden. It does riot formally meet the criteria for reduction schemes available for the poorest countries in the Paris club, but we have argued that, because of its low per capita income, it deserves special treatment.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that Nigeria is a huge country with tremendous economic and political problems, but with a sensible and moderate Government, who deserve every encouragement as they endeavour further to pursue the path of parliamentary democracy?
    Mr. Garel Jones: Indeed, it is a huge country of which every corner is well known to my hon. Friend. We are supporting the efforts of the present Nigerian Government to return to civilian rule.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recent developments in the Gulf.
    Mr. Hurd: Following Iraq's formal acceptance of United Nations Security Council resolution 687, a formal ceasefire is in place in the Gulf. The resolution re-affirmed the Iraq-Kuwait border of 1963, established a compensation fund and provided for the destruction of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missile systems. Sanctions against the import of Iraqi products will be lifted only once Iraq has completed the steps necessary for the destruction of those weapons and weapons systems and once the Security Council has approved arrangements for the compensation fund. Other trade and financial sanctions against Iraq are subject to
    1076
    regular review by the council. The arms embargo will remain in force indefinitely. So long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, Iraq cannot hope to return to a normal relationship with the international community.
    Mr. Nellist: What assessment have the Government made of the Amnesty International report on torture in Kuwait, which says that electric shocks, knives, whips, sulphuric acid, sexual assault and threats of execution have been used by Kuwaitis on Palestinians and others? Where is the democracy and respect for human rights that the Secretary of State told the House were at the base of the reason for the Gulf war? Are the Government more concerned with Britain's share of restoration projects, including restoration of gold taps in the Emir's palace?
    Mr. Hurd: In pursuit of his argument, the hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent what I said. We went to war to reverse the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and to restore the legitimate Government. Those were the Security Council's words, that is what we set out to do, and that is what we did.
    We take the Amnesty International report seriously, because it has been clear to us, and was made clear by us to Kuwaiti Ministers before the liberation, that this should be a new and hopeful chapter in the history of Kuwait. After what the Kuwaitis went through, it is understandable that there should be retaliation and disorder for a time. However, when I go to Kuwait in the next few days, I shall reinforce the message that I gave when the Government were in exile.
    Mr. Budgen: On reflection, will my right hon. Friend concede that he may have been unwise last Wednesday when he said that the Government supported the Kurdish leaders' aims and objectives of autonomy within Iraq? Is not it vital to make a distinction between humanitarian aid and becoming involved in Iraq's internal politics?
    Mr. Hurd: We have no desire to dictate or arrange either the map of Iraq or its constitution. The purpose of the presence of our troops in northern Iraq is, as my hon. Friend said, purely humanitarian. That does not prevent us from saying, when asked about our views, that we believe that the Kurdish people should have autonomy within the boundaries of Iraq.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What steps is the Secretary of State's Department taking to elicit exactly what is meant by Saddam Hussein's offer of an autonomous region for the Kurdish population? Has the Secretary of State made representations to the United Nations to ensure that the Kurds are represented at the middle east peace conference?
    Mr. Hurd: I have not done that, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been in touch again this week with Kurdish leaders in London. I have no precise information, but I understand that some of them are holding discussions with the Iraqis. The Kurdish leaders know better than anyone else what Saddam Hussein is capable of.

    EC Foreign Policy
    Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of the experience gained during the Gulf crisis for the European Community's development of a common foreign policy.
    Mr. Hurd: The Twelve acted together in condemning Iraqi aggression and in applying sanctions. They are not a defence community and did not seek to agree on military contributions to the allied effort in the Gulf. It is in Britain's interests to seek the greatest possible agreement within the Twelve on foreign policy matters and to act jointly when such agreement has been reached.
    Mr. Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that foreign policy and defence policy must be in harmony for progress to be made? Does he also agree that the record of joint action, as distinct from rhetoric, both in the Gulf and in relation to the problems with the Kurds, makes unhappy reading? If that is so, does he agree that it is possible to be a good European by supporting the economic aspects of the EC, while seriously questioning the so-called advantages of a joint defence and foreign policy?
    Mr. Hurd: The defence policy for members of the Atlantic alliance should rest on that alliance. I do not agree with my hon. Friend's other point. In the Gulf, both during and before the war, the record of the Twelve was certainly patchy, as I have said before. With regard to the present position of the Kurds, not only is the Commission playing a substantial part in the relief effort, but we are working closely on the spot with our partners, particularly the Germans, French and Dutch.
    Ms. Short: Will the Foreign Secretary raise with all the European Foreign Ministers the present position in Iraq, the continuing uprising for democracy and, in my view, the disgraceful attitude of the west in failing to support that objective—[Interruption.] Please, Mr. Speaker, will you make Conservative Members behave themselves?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady can look after herself—but hon. Members should, please, behave themselves.
    Ms. Short: Will the Foreign Secretary openly say that Britain gives its support to the uprising for democracy, and invites other European countries to do so, is willing to meet the Iraqi opposition and will give humanitarian and political support to them, or are we happier to allow Saddam Hussein's regime to continue?
    Mr. Hurd: Of course we are not happier to do that. We have been in touch with Kurdish leaders, as I have said, and other opposition leaders as we are with a wide range of leaders of all opinions in many countries. As I have said, and as we have constantly said in the House, it was not the purpose of military action or of the presence of troops in Iraq—either during the war or now—to alter Iraq's boundaries or dictate its constitution.
    Mr. Burt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons of the Gulf conflict has been the need for European politicians to work more closely together? To
    1078
    that extent, does he welcome the closer relationship that now exists between Conservative Members of the European Parliament and their colleagues in Strasbourg?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, I do welcome that—it is a step forward. I am clear, as regards not only the middle east, but all our dealings with, for example, the Soviet Union, that it is a substantial strength to this country if we can reach agreement with our partners on such matters and act on them. If we cannot reach agreement, we should not be bound by a majority voting on such matters. If we can reach agreement, it makes sense to do so and to act jointly.
    Mr. Shore: I welcome the first part of the Foreign Secretary's reply, but put it to him, to place it clearly on the record, that the divisions in the European Community on how to react to the Gulf crisis were, to put it mildly, very worrying indeed, and if we had then been subjected to majority voting in Europe, no effective action would have been taken by this country or others in Europe. Therefore, in the light of the current discussions on a treaty for political union, will the Foreign Secretary make it plain that he will resolutely oppose the extension of majority voting to any aspect of foreign policy, as distinct from seeking consensus, which is entirely sensible, and co-operation with our European friends?
    Mr. Hurd: That is indeed our objective, but I hope that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other hon. Member will underrate the advantage to this country of seeking agreement and joint action within the Community. I find that that happens over and over again, although not always. It did not happen all the time in the Gulf, but when it does happen, it is well worth getting.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend stick to his guns and continue along the path down which he is already advancing, of ever-closer co-operation on achieving a more closely co-ordinated foreign policy?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. My hon. Friend chose his words carefully and I shall try to do the same. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said: if we had had majority voting at some of the discussions which I attended during the Gulf crisis, the contributions of Europe, and of ourselves and the French in particular perhaps, might well have been less than they were.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one perfect area in which to seek agreement and to execute joint action would be Antarctica? Is it not therefore a matter of great regret that Britain is now the only European country—[Interruption.] If hon. Members read the question carefully, they would see that it refers to lessons learned from the Gulf for joint European co-operation. Is it not therefore a matter of great regret that Britain is now the only European country advocating mineral exploitation?
    Will the Foreign Secretary and his Minister of State stop pretending that we are trying to find consensus when we are leading the minority opposing a consensus? Will the Foreign Secretary send his Minister of State to the Madrid conference now—I am sure that he would like to go—following in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), to take over the delegation and join the rest of Europe in opposing any mining in Antarctica for an indefinite period?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member has got lost, not for the first time. He strains our credulity when he describes the proposal for a moratorium which we put forward as advocating mineral exploitation. It is nothing of the kind.

    British Hostages (Lebanon)
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to free the British hostages held in the Lebanon.
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in efforts to secure the release of British hostages in the Lebanon.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We continue to make every effort in our contacts with the Iranian authorities, who we believe to have a decisive influence, to secure the release of the hostages. We have also contacted other countries, and the European Community troika, to reinforce the point in their own dealing with Iran.
    Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development raised the matter with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 20 April.
    Mr. Hind: My hon. and learned Friend will no doubt agree that the detention of Terry Waite and John McCarthy is inhuman and morally unjustified, and should be terminated as soon as possible. Is he satisfied from his contacts with the Syrians and the Iranians, who have the key to their release, that the two men are still alive? How recently has information about that been made known to him?
    Mr. Hogg: As my hon. Friend knows, there are three hostages—John McCarthy, Terry Waite and Jackie Mann. We are deeply concerned about their plight. We believe that the Iranian Government have a decisive influence over their future. We have made it plain to that Government that we very much want to see our relations with Iran greatly improved. They will improve greatly once the hostages are delivered up.
    As to Syria, I was there last month and I raised the question of the hostages on every possible occasion, and with President Assad. We do not believe that the Syrian Government have a decisive influence over the fate of the hostages, but, of course, the Syrian Government have considerable influence within Lebanon and over Iran. The Syrian Government have assured Her Majesty's Government that they are using every opportunity to impress on Iran the need to release the hostages. I believe that the Syrian Government are doing that.
    Mr. Summerson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the people of Lebanon should have the right to self-determination? Does he further agree that, if they had their own sovereign state within a democratic framework, not only would the hostages be released but the taking of hostages in future for political purposes would never happen?
    Mr. Hogg: I do indeed think that the people of Lebanon have the right to self-determination. Apart from other things, that means that there should be no foreign troops in Lebanon, and that is a policy objective for which we must strive. Clearly, the taking and keeping of hostages
    1080
    is a dreadful business, and we must use every opportunity—and we are doing so—to procure the release of all hostages, especially the three to whom we have already made reference.
    Sir David Steel: Following the welcome and long overdue release of Mr. Roger Cooper by the Iranian authorities, is the ball not somewhat in our court? Should not we contemplate the appointment of full ambassadors in London and Teheran, and should not we be seen to be active in trying to secure the release of Sheikh Obeid from Israel, where he was abducted from the Lebanon?
    Mr. Hogg: I think that the taking of Sheikh Obeid, or anyone else of that kind, is an extremely reprehensible act, and it is extremely important for him to be released with all possible speed. As regards ambassadors, as I have already said, it is our intention to improve our relations with Iran as soon as the hostages are released. I think that ambassadors will be exchanged shortly after the hostages are released, but I do not see them being exchanged until that time.
    Mr. Madden: While improving diplomatic relations between the British Government and Iran and Syria are most welcome, and clearly hold part of the key to the release of British hostages in the Lebanon, does the hon. and learned Gentleman place more importance on the arguments by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democratic party, about the third side of the triangle lying in Israel? Will he put more pressure on Israel to release not only Sheikh Obeid but the large number of Arabs held prisoner or hostage by the Israelis, because many of us believe that that could be the decisive factor in obtaining the urgent release of British hostages in the Lebanon?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly should like the Government of Israel to release the people to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, there are two dangers in the argument that he deploys. First, the taking of hostages is a dreadfully wrong act, and it is important not to link one thing with the other. Secondly, and perhaps more materially, our influence over the Government of Israel is limited in that respect. Therefore, if one impliedly accepts a linkage between the two and then fails to deliver what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for with the Government of Israel, it could make prospects more, rather than less, difficult for the three hostages to whom I have already referred.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, in three recent visits to the Lebanon, I have received every possible assistance from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, both before, during and after my visit. I cannot recall a specific request that I have made to the Government to which they have not acceded. Having said that, may I reiterate to my hon. and learned Friend the last two questions from the other side of the House? Will he accept it from me that while the Iranians, who do not hold hostages, are doing what they can to help with the release of our people, the Israelis, who do hold hostages, are seemingly doing nothing whatsoever to give assistance?
    Mr. Latham: Israel has not got any hostages—Obeid is a terrorist.
    Mr. Adley: It is no use my hon. Friend saying that Israel has no hostages. We all know about Sheikh Obeid.
    Mr. Latham: They are terrorists.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Could the hon. Gentleman ask a question please?
    Mr. Adley: Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that, as regards relations, we mete out the same treatment on equal terms, to both the Iranians and the Israelis, as we are asking both of them to help with this problem?
    Mr. Hogg: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind observations on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, although it put me on the qui vive when I heard him saying it. I welcome his visits, and I am grateful to him for the persistence and the courage that he has shown. As far as Israel is concerned, I think that I have already responded to that issue and I do not think that I have anything to add. As regards Iran, I do not wholly agree with the premise of my hon. Friend's question, because I believe that Iran has a decisive influence and say over the fate of the hostages.
    Mr. Kaufman: Without in any way detracting from the hon. and learned Gentleman's efforts on the matter, and without any discourtesy to him, might I ask whether it would not have been appropriate, on the fifth anniversary of the incarceration of John McCarthy, if the Secretary of State had dealt with this question in order to emphasise the importance attached to it at the top of government? I am sure that, when he was in Damascus, the hon. and learned Gentleman was told what I was told when I went there for the same purpose—that the hostage takers pay great attention to the level at which such matters are treated, and that they drew attention to the fact that President Bush and Mr. James Baker had written personally, regularly and consistently about them to President Assad.
    Mr. McCarthy has now been incarcerated for five years; Mr. Waite is also there and we have no news of whether Mr. Mann is even alive. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that the Government will take every opportunity at the highest level to press the issue? Other countries have had hostages released and although there are no facile comparisons, the British people are determined that our hostages should also be released.
    Mr. Hogg: We believe that Jackie Mann is still alive. We cannot be certain, but we believe so. There is no item on the agenda between the Government and Iran which is more important than this issue. It is our paramount consideration and guides all our dealings with Iran. As to the importance that my right hon. Friends attach to the release of hostages, the Prime Minister has sent a message to President Rafsanjani. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Foreign Secretary Velayati about this issue, and I raised it on two occasions with the Iranian chargé, and also in Syria last month. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development also raised the matter in Tehrain last week and the European troika has been enlisted, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. We have taken every opportunity—through our friends and allies and by ourselves—to impress on the Iranian Government the fundamental importance of getting our hostages out. Nothing is more important in our relations with Iran.

    Iraq
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Iraq.
    Mr. Hurd: There can be no question of establishing normal relations with Iraq in present circumstances.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the presence in Zakho in northern Iraq of hundreds of Ba'athist armed police and of reports now coming out of intimidation and looting by them. Bearing in mind the potential for an armed clash between them and the Royal Marines now in the area and also bearing in mind the disincentive that they provide to the Kurdish civilians to come down from the hillsides and into care in the Zakho area, what steps are being taken with the Iraqi Government to secure the immediate withdrawal of those armed units?
    Mr. Hurd: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety. We are in close touch with our American and French allies to decide the best way of dealing with the matter.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can I ask a critical question about the Kurds? In the event of the discussion that is currently taking place in Baghdad between Mr. Talabani and the Iraqi Government leading to agreement, will the Foreign Secretary and the Government go to the United Nations to seek a resolution to underpin that agreement in as far as it provides an international guarantee? Is not that the only way in which the Kurdish population in Kurdistan can be reassured that whatever measures are necessary will be taken to ensure their future security? Is not that the only way to proceed?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not believe that the Kurds would feel particularly safe under the procedure which the hon. Gentleman sketches. They need, and will seek in any discussions in Baghdad or elsewhere with the Iraqis, something more local. They will need some clear assurance that, if they and their women and children return to their towns and villages, they will be secure, then, as the hon. Gentleman says, that they will enjoy autonomy. The Kurds need local assurance, and our humanitarian effort in the north is, of course, designed to help provide some of them with that.
    Mr. Bellingham: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that, during the Gulf war, the Iraqis committed some serious war crimes, including crimes against our own air crews based in west Norfolk. What is the up-to-date position on bringing the perpetrators of those crimes to justice?
    Mr. Hurd: We have emphasised throughout that anyone from the top down in Iraq who is guilty of committing these offences will be held responsible for them. Of course, one must first bring them under jurisdiction. The Kuwaitis are doing that, and the Saudis are doing it in some respects. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has arranged for the collection of any evidence. If my hon. Friend has evidence that he would like to make available, I hope that he will do so.

    South Africa
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the implementation of the United Nations declaration on South Africa adopted in December 1989.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: We continue to encourage all sides in South Africa to maintain progress towards the aims set out in the United Nations declaration—the end of apartheid and the adoption of a non-racial, democratic constitution arrived at by peaceful means through negotiation.
    Mr. Martlew: Surely the Minister agrees that it would not be right to remove sanctions at this time, because apartheid has not been done away with? Apartheid is not something which can be partially done away with. It must be put in the dustbin of history. We cannot take away sanctions, because there are still 1,300 political prisoners in South Africa and there are serious doubts that the land reforms proposed by the South African Government will take place. There is news this week that those land reforms will be watered down. I should be grateful for the Minister's comment on that point.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Britain, in conjunction with our partners in the Europe Economic Community, is attempting to recognise that President de Klerk has made substantial strides towards the type of society that all hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to see. That is the policy in both the United Kingdom and the wider community.
    I have seen an early-day motion on political prisoners, to which the hon. Gentleman and several of his hon. Friends have subscribed. Certainly, that is also a serious matter. We welcome the release of 500 political prisoners this year, and we hope that that process will continue.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit South Africa soon, for the statesmanlike remarks of President de Klerk during his visit to Britain, and for the arrival of Mr. Nelson Mandela in Britain this morning? Does he agree that the view that the progressive dismantling of sanctions is the best way of encouraging consolidated, desirable change in South Africa is ever more widely accepted throughout the world, except, it appears, by some of the dinosaurs on the Opposition Benches?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to South Africa this summer is a welcome step. It is a recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the encouraging progress that we have seen in South Africa. As my hon. Friend will be aware, Mr. Nelson Mandela will meet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon. I agree with my hon. Friend: some Opposition Members had the opportunity to meet President de Klerk during his visit to London. [Interruption.] I am afraid that they did. Whether that will cause them trouble in their own party, I am not aware. It is encouraging that some Opposition Members met President de Klerk. I hope that they were impressed, as many of my hon. Friends were, by what President de Klerk had to say about progress in South Africa.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that we expect from him something much better than parrot-fashion repetition of what he is told by President de Klerk? Is it not the case that the political prisoners have not been released; that the exiles have not returned home; that, since the release of Nelson Mandela, no progress has been made towards real negotiation about the transfer of power; and that the black majority in South Africa still have no vote? President de Klerk declined to meet the all-party South Africa group and when, yesterday, he was asked about the political prisoners, he could not answer but responded with the memorable "Majorian" phrase, "Wait and see." Does not the Minister realise that the people of South Africa cannot wait any longer? The peace progress is in great danger, and nothing that the Government are doing is helping to put pressure on de Klerk to deliver the goods.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Member's interest in and commitment to an integrated South Africa is well known, and I respect it. However, he is not prepared to recognise the very encouraging steps that have been taken by President de Klerk. It is untrue to say simply that political prisoners have not been released. In fact, 500 have been released in the past year. In addition, more than 1,000 political exiles have returned to South Africa. Unless the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends are prepared to recognise the real progress that has been made in South Africa, they will not make the contribution to the future of that country that I am sure they would wish to make.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: May I endorse warmly the welcome that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) has just given to the news that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is to visit South Africa and that, possibly, there will be a visit shortly after that by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? May I remind both of my right hon. Friends that, in 1962 or 1963, the then right hon. Harold Macmillan made a very dramatic speech before both Houses of the South African Parliament, in which he referred to "the wind of change"? I suggest that, if the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister is asked to make a similar speech, they will recall the hurricane of change that has blown through that continent and elsewhere in the world. The world as a whole is pretty sick of hurricanes, so perhaps such a speech would be more appropriately referred to as "the change of wind" speech.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend's visit to South Africa will be part of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to continue the process of changing it into a non-racial, democratic country. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would like to visit South Africa when the time is right. No doubt he will be encouraged by the cautious welcome that the Leader of the Opposition has given to that proposition.
    Mr. Anderson: Do not the Government recognise the potential danger to British interests of our being still seen in the international community, including the European Community, the Commonwealth and the United Nations, as enthusiastically in favour of the premature lifting of sanctions? Are the Government prepared to listen not only to President de Klerk but to the representatives of the majority? Will they recognise that, in addition to the matters that have been referred to by my hon. Friend the

    1085
    Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), the Internal Security Act, particularly section 29 on preventive detention without trial, is still in force? Until that Act is scrapped, all the exiles are back home, and all the political prisoners have been released, there cannot be a climate for negotiations with a view to bringing South Africa truly back into the international community.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sorry, but I am afraid that I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. For example, the recent decision of the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Community to lift sanctions against South Africa was not pressed by Britain, but was taken unanimously. As the British Minister attending that meeting, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I received substantial and solid support both from Mr. Genscher and from Mr. de Michelis. I do not think that Her Majesty's Government would for one minute apologise for attempting to lead the European Community and the rest of the world in recognising the very important changes than have been taking place, courageously led at the moment by President de Klerk.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friends take the opportunity to get through to Mr. Mandela and to the African National Congress the message that the world is growing increasingly impatient with their persistent policies of sanctions and non-co-operation in the time warp in which they seem to be stuck? Will my hon. Friend take every encouragement from what President de Klerk has been saying this week, that legislative apartheid will be abolished in June and that the British Government's policy of relaxing and indeed abandoning sanctions will help that process far more than the ANC's policy of trying to wreck everything?
    Mr. Garel Jones: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the consistent policy that the British Government have pursued has played an important part in the process of reform to which he referred. Mr. Mandela is a force for moderation, and his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon will undoubtedly be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to make some of the points to which my hon. Friend has just referred.

    Iraq
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had concerning the Kurdish population of Iraq.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend has had many intensive discussions with his American, European Community and other colleagues, the United Nations Secretary-General and relief agencies. The United States Secretary of State and European Community Foreign Ministers discussed the plight of the Kurds when they met on 17 April in Luxembourg.
    Yesterday, I had meetings in Geneva with Prince Salruddin, Mr. Stafford of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, when we discussed the plight of the Kurds. I have also had three meetings with representatives of Iraqi opposition groups, including Kurds, and one of those delegations met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Minister for that reply. Did he discuss with the Iraqi opposition their calls for a provisional coalition Government? Does he agree with their views that that would help overthrow Saddam Hussein more permanently? Finally, will he comment on the desperate need to get material aid moving in Britain as so much of it is being stored in warehouses? People have been gathering material together, but cannot get it shipped out to Iraq because of organisational problems in this country. Will he support more material and organisational aid to the Iraqi opposition?
    Mr. Hogg: United Kingdom support for delivery and dispatch of aid is very considerable. The hon. Lady will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said on that subject on Monday. The Kurdish opposition groups did not talk to me about a provisional Government. They think in terms of the Iraqi army overthrowing Saddam Hussein. They talk about their aspirations, which we strongly support, for a democratic pluralistic society, ensuring civil rights by constitutional means. They also support the concept of an autonomous Kurdish region within the existing frontiers of Iraq.

    Jordan
    Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Jordan.
    Mr. Hurd: I last visited Jordan in January. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State went there last month for useful discussions with King Hussein. I hope to visit Jordan again before long.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Since the Jordanians are likely to suffer a loss of$3·6 billion largely due to export reductions, transient payments and lack of remittances from the Gulf, and since it is important to maintain stability in Jordan and the middle east, what ideas does my right hon. Friend have for providing support to the Jordanian people during their crisis?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. We have a long friendship with Jordan, which will survive the disagreement we have had over the Gulf. There is no doubt that a stable Jordan is in Britain's interests. We have a bilateral aid programme, and we are also joining the substantial European Community aid programme, which amounts to £105 million, the first charge being delivered in February this year.
    Mr. Kaufman: When the right hon. Gentleman has discussions with King Hussein and other leading figures in the Jordanian Administration, will he discuss with them the ideas which have been put to me by Mr. Peres, the leader of the Israeli Labour party, and which have been considered constructive by the Foreign Minister of Egypt and by Mr. Faisal Husseini, that Jordan can play an important part in bringing about a settlement of the Palestinian problem by helping to solve the problem of how the Palestinians should be represented?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the King and in every other circumstance the strong support of the United Kingdom Government for the strenuous and admirable effort made by Mr. James Baker to bring about a middle east settlement? Will he also publicly deplore in

    1087
    this House the setting up of a new settlement by the Israeli Government on the west bank, which cannot do other than damage the attempts at a peace settlement in the middle east?
    Mr. Hurd: 'We strongly support the efforts that Mr. Baker is making at the moment. We constantly urged the United States to make an energetic attempt to tackle the problem when the Gulf war was over, and Mr. Baker is now attempting to do that. Last week, in Luxembourg, he explained to us the lines on which he is working and they seemed sensible to me. Whether they will succeed is another matter.
    I agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the foolishness, to put it mildly, of the Israelis establishing, and trumpeting their establishment, new settlements on the occupied territories at the present time. That policy is wrong at all times, but particularly damaging at the present time.
    One of the key problems is who speaks for the Palestinians. As the right hon. Gentleman said, Jordan might be able to play a helpful part in that. That is not certain, but it is something which is being considered, and it is worth doing so.

    President Iliescu
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with President Iliescu of Romania.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had no opportunity for substantive discussion with President Iliescu during the latter's recent visit to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that President Iliescu welcomes the help given by this country to the 170,000 children still in Romania's orphanages? Will he confirm that the British embassy in Bucharest will give all possible help to British couples who have been cleared to adopt Romanian orphans?
    Mr. Hogg: Yes, indeed, but we must also remember that the interests of the children in question must be the paramount consideration of everyone.

  BILL PRESENTED
    HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (TOBACCO SMOKING)
    Mr. Alan Amos, supported by Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. John Bowis and Mr. Roger Gale presented a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 so as to provide for the control of smoking in places of work; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 May and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

Local Authorities (Street Lighting)
3.31 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require relevant local authorities to make an annual assessment of street lighting needs; to set standards of quality, maintenance and improvement; and for connected purposes.
I make no apology for raising the subject of street lighting once again, as it is important for hon. Members to recognise that the existing stock of street lighting in Britain is in an appalling state. Much of that stock is already unsafe as well as shamefully unsightly. In fact, most of the United Kingdom stock of municipal lighting is more than 40 years old, worn out and well past its true shelf life. A massive backlog of work cries out to be done.
Street lighting has become one of the Cinderellas of local authority spending, and as other pressures are exerted, the renewal of Britain's lighting stock has been put to the back of the queue. Worse still, every year, when the sun comes out and the clocks go forward, the problems of inadequate street lighting are forgotten for another year. For the most part, therefore, existing budget levels are totally inadequate.
Spending at current levels, for example, is now insufficient to meet the replacement of deteriorating columns in all metropolitan districts. Overall, estimates reveal that metropolitan districts should be spending some £19·5 million per year over the next five years to replace expired columns. However, only £6·9 million per year is being spent—a shortfall of about £12·5 million per annum.
A major spending programme is, therefore, genuinely required. That will not be achieved if we continue with the inaction and neglect that means putting things off year after year. The solutions lie with central and local government. It is no use the one blaming the other. Both must recognise that what is required to tackle the problem is a radical change of policy, with a new framework to produce solutions and actions, and funds to finance those actions.
Historically, street lighting has been installed to enable the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians in the hours of darkness. Such installation has been related largely to the public highway and is based on accident reductions from nationally accepted "accident saving" figures.
The Department of Transport readily accepts that effective lighting reduces night time accidents by at least 30 per cent. and that lighting can reduce accidents in fog. It has been argued that the recent M4 carnage might have been avoided if lighting had been fitted as standard on the motorways, as the police had previously urged.
In recent years, there has been increasing evidence that the appropriate level of street lighting can make a significant contribution to crime reduction and, in particular, to reducing public apprehension of crime, not least among the elderly and women. A British standard now requires that pavements should be better lighted—in the past, the object was to light roads for traffic rather than give a care for those on foot.
Today it is evident that good road lighting installations improve the confidence of road users, particularly pedestrians, and assist the police and emergency services. Before and after studies of relighting schemes carried out by Middlesex polytechnic's centre for criminology in some
1090
London boroughs showed that good lighting has a valuable role to play in the reduction of crime and the perceived fear of crime.
Recently, the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham commissioned one of the reports as part of its relighting programme. The feeling of personal safety was increased for 63 per cent. of householders and 62 per cent. of pedestrians questioned. In addition, the threat of harassment to women decreased spectacularly.
In the London borough of Tower Hamlets, another revelation was that 69 per cent. of people interviewed felt that their personal safety had increased and 94 per cent. believed that fear of crime had been reduced. In addition, residents believed strongly that crime and anti-social behaviour had decreased.
The Home Office has a tendency—indeed, it is always tempted—to dismiss this kind of strong human reaction as unscientific, perhaps because it does not do the research itself. That is probably why, of all London boroughs, it chose Wandsworth for its research, the results of which we have been awaiting for far too long.
The House will also be interested to know that six independent academic surveys are being carried out at present in the major cities of Manchester, Birmingham, Hull, Leeds, Glasgow and Cardiff on the relationship between street lighting, crime, the fear of crime and the quality of life. The work involves a relighting scheme preceded and followed by detailed survey work by academics from local universities and polytechnics.
I am informed that as yet it is too early to provide a comprehensive picture from the initial survey findings, but the results in some of the large cities are as dramatic as those of the first surveys in London. Street lighting has been shown to have an important effect on crime, fear of crime and the quality of people's lives. Between 65 per cent. and 75 per cent. of people regard fear of going out alone after dark as a problem.
Some examples of that include the fact that more than half those questioned said that they deliberately avoid certain streets at night because of fear. More than 60 per cent. of people regard their street lighting as inadequate and poorly spaced. In a large 1960s housing estate in Leeds, 95 per cent. of people believed that improved street lighting would be the most effective way to increase women's safety in the locality.
One problem for local authorities is that street lighting cuts across different Government Departments. The benefits of better public lighting are of real importance and are the proper interest of the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and the police. Yet the spending decisions fall to the Department of Transport and the highway authorities. As long as no one Department ultimately has responsibility, we are likely to have difficulty and we must find a way to bridge that crossover of interests.
In recent years there has been a revolution in public lighting technology. In many cases, spending on improved lighting can have a demonstrable pay-back—a positive rate of return. The London borough of Enfield is devoting half the funds raised from recycling glass to renewing its street lighting. A £300,000-a-year programme to replace existing street lighting will be combined with improvements to footpaths, shopping parades and mini-roundabouts. The borough engineer and surveyor has also

1091
been authorised to carry out a boroughwide survey of accidents and to report on how improved lighting could help to enhance safety.
Today's lighting is better and cheaper. A single street light burning all night, every night, provides for seven households at an operating cost of £30 per annum. New lighting soon recovers its cost because it uses less energy and is much cheaper to operate. It brings benefits by reducing accidents, crime and fear of crime and by improving the quality of life especially for women and the elderly.
Local authorities must be encouraged to develop assessment criteria and techniques to build on the work of the academic surveys to date and the example of places such as Enfield, and they should be required to use that approach in ordering spending priorities. They should be required to ask themselves the following pertinent questions to show the physical state of clapped-out columns and equipment. First, what is the spending level of replacement lighting equipment and how does that compare with the levels required to prevent further deterioration? Secondly, when do we start the programme of replacement? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the impact of improved lighting upon crime, the fear of crime and the quality of life of residents? Improved lighting is highly popular with men and women, young and old, and is a visible demonstration of concern for people as well as vehicles in the priorities for transport and highways.
The after-dark environment of our towns and cities is a key factor in our quality of life. In our residential areas as well as our town centres, a decent environment demands freedom from robbery and burglary, from vandalism, harassment and threats and from anxiety and fear and freedom to walk the streets at night. That would make better public lighting attractive to ordinary people.
I firmly believe that community problems such as street crime, vandalism, harassment and fear can be solved by well resourced. co-ordinated initiatives managed by local authorities. Better public lighting is a basic requirement of local communities. It would help to cut crime, to increase people's sense of security and to inspire wider community activity.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. George Robertson, Ms. Joan Walley, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. George Buckley, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse and Mr. Ray Powell.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (STREET LIGHTING)
Mr. Alan Meale accordingly presented a Bill to require relevant local authorities to make an annual assessment of street lighting needs; to set standards of quality, maintenance and improvement; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 142.]
Orders of the Day
  Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
    Clause 1

      ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CARRYING ON OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES
      3.42 pm
      Mr. Allan Rogers: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page I, line 22, leave out from 'for' to end of line 23 and insert
      `an Executive Agency within the Civil Service of the Crown to carry out designated activities at the premises; and'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, leave out lines 24 to 27.
      No. 2, in page 1, line 24, leave out 'or another company' and insert 'Executive Agency'.
      No. 4, in page 2, line 4, leave out 'their services and'
      No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 7 and 8.
      No. 8, in page 2, leave out lines 10 to 13.
      No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 10 to 19.
      Mr. Rogers: Our amendments are an attempt to restore a little sanity to this vital issue. Over the next few hours, we shall debate, in effect, the privatisation of the production of nuclear warheads. That fact cannot be dressed up, however much the Government may try to do so by using words such as "contractorisation", and by saying that they will keep control. As the Minister acknowledged throughout the Committee stage, this is privatisation—privatisation based on the Government's incompetence. In effect, they are saying that they cannot manage Aldermaston and our nuclear weapons production any more, and that they are not good enough at the job, so private contractors will have to be brought in.
      As my hon. Friends know, the Conservative party is the party of big business. It likes to present an efficient streetwise image, although we know that it cannot manage the economy. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement was a member of the Committee, but he was too busy to turn up for its meetings. He was probably too busy polishing his antique cars to bother to show up. With his background, it is no wonder that he does not want to talk about defence procurement. After all, he is the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. Any procurement failures in the areas that we shall be discussing this afternoon and evening fall directly upon the right hon. Gentleman.
      The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Name one.
      Mr. Rogers: The Minister says, "Name one," by golly. We shall be embarking upon the single-service debate shortly. Every procurement problem that we have faced has involved overruns in time and costs. The Minister knows that he is hopeless at doing his job, but he is a military historian. He is not like his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the Secretary of State for the Environment. [Interruption.] Well, I do not know

      1093
      whether the right hon. Member for Henley is his friend. I believe that he described him as the "wrong horse" on one occasion. The right hon. Member for Henley was appointed Secretary of State for Defence specifically to introduce a business element into the Procurement Executive. He brought in his friend Sir Peter Levene to head the executive, and for the ensuing seven years we have had disaster after disaster.
      The right hon. Member for Henley is now, as I have said, the Secretary of State for the Environment. Again, we shall have disaster after disaster. The right hon. Gentleman walked out of the Cabinet because he had quarrelled with his mistress or master. I am not sure how the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), should be described. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is likely to run out again over the community charge or poll tax problems.
      The decision to privatise the production of nuclear warheads was based upon the incompetence and mismanagement of the Government. They set up a committee of inquiry under Sir Francis Tombs, who is now Lord Tombs and the chairman of Rolls-Royce. The Tombs report never really came out. It has become one of the most secret documents under this most secretive of all Governments.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) asked on several occasions whether we could have sight of the Tombs report and other documents so that we could properly conduct our opposition to the Bill. We were allowed no sight of the report. The Government said that we could not have the report in full or in summary: the report remained entombed. The Government said originally that they would not let us have sight of it because it contained confidential advice to Ministers. There was talk of an internal advice note. In Committee, the Minister said:
      "The Tombs report is an internal report that was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence for its own use on the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Many other Departments in Whitehall commission their own reports to help them to manage their own Departments effectively. As it is an internal report, it is not for publication. Indeed, it would be bizarre if every such report were made public. That is the main reason for it being confined to the Ministry of Defence."
      That is not a good enough reason. The Minister added:
      "Secondly … it refers to the Atomic Weapons Establishment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 24 January 1991; c. 5.]
      In other words, anything that refers to the establishment has a security classification.
      Later, when the Government's credibility was punctured, they played their usual Tory trick. They wrapped themselves in a Union Jack and responded a little more hysterically, saying that disclosure would be against the national interest and against national security. The truth is that disclosure would be against the interests of the Tory party. I venture to guess that there is no classified material in the report. I guess also that there is no mention in it of the production of nuclear weapons. I have no doubt that it refers to organisation and management, but that could be the organisation of management of Marks and Spencer or Tesco. The same principles are involved.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: If there were classifed material in the Tombs report, would it not be simple to excise it and allow the remainder of the report,
      1094
      and in particular its conclusions, to be put in the public domain? Would that not better inform the House when it is making a decision on whether the Bill should pass into law?
      Mr. Rogers: We specifically asked on many occasions the Government to do that. [Interruption.] The Minister is not really interested in the Bill; he showed that in Committee. That is why he is rabbiting on now. Instead of gabbling with his colleagues on the Front Bench, he should listen to the debate; he might then learn something about his Department.
      The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) raised a valid point. We asked the Minister to take the classified material out of the report. Hon. Members who serve on the Public Accounts Committee or the Select Committee on Defence receive reports from which large sections have been censored. Of course, as Members of Parliament we cannot be trusted. The Government would not even think that Members of Parliament should be privy to organisation and management reports. We gave the Government the opportunity to delete classified material from the reports, but they refused to do so. They shrouded themselves in the Union Jack and said that it would be against the national interest.
      The Government took the same attitude with the Select Committee on Defence. Despite the fact that it is Conservative dominated, the Government said that it could not see the report. The Select Committee commented on that in its report:
      "A study undertaken by an outside consultant, on the board of a public company, is in a rather different category from advice tendered to Ministers by a Civil Servant acting in a professional capacity. It is unsatisfactory that, where a report by a distinguished industrialist may have formed the basis of a major change in policy, the House let alone the Select Committee charged by the House with oversight of the Department concerned, should be denied a view of it."
      It is not only Labour Members who object to the Government's secretive manner; so does the Conservative-dominated Select Committee.
      If mere management reshuffling was all that would result from the internal review and the Tombs report, we would say that, like every other Department, the Ministry of Defence was entitled to reorganise its management if it so wished. However, it is not just a matter of reorganisation. The Government have the right to instigate such reviews and to implement their findings on the basis of departmental management. But we are dealing with fundamental proposed legislation that will affect the way that we produce the most fearsome weapons that mankind can devise.
      We tabled this amendment, which suggests an executive agency rather than contractorisation or privatisation, because we are greatly concerned about the way in which the Government are behaving. The employees and trade unions involved produced proposals and then presented a document to the Secretary of State. They met him and suggested ways in which the Government's fumbling, dithering and mismanagement could be overcome. The Secretary of State rejected those suggestions and said that the Government would go ahead with privatisation.
      We understand the Government's objections to trade unions as a matter of political dogma. For the Government, anything that comes from the work force or the trade unions must be bad, while anything that comes

      1095
      from their friends in the City or from big business must be good—except, of course, certain comments made yesterday, which must also be bad. However, as soon as the trade unions make a suggestion, the Government turn a blind eye. They jumped to the most extreme option available to deal with the problems at Aldermaston.
      The Labour party and the trade unions accept that changes needed to be made, and still need to be made, in the management of the production of nuclear weapons. On many occasions we have criticised the Government, and we are not alone in doing so. The Tory-dominated Defence Committee said:
      "It must be open to question whether the shortage of production and management experience now identified at AWE should not have been recognised at a much earlier stage and remedial action taken then, rather than after the programme had run into difficulties. Much the same thing happened with the construction of the A90 building.… It would appear that the culture of the 'self-sufficient' research establishment was not only entrenched in AWE but also in senior MoD management who failed to grasp that the AWE lacked the management resources required".
      Just as importantly, we also recognise, as did the trade unions and the workers in Aldermaston, that a change was needed in the relationship between the Atomic Weapons Establishment and the Government—a relationship that has deteriorated to such an extent that it has led to the Government's extraordinary admission of failure to run those establishments. However, never did we or any rational person expect the Government to come up with the half-baked, ill-considered proposals in the Bill. They are so daft that we can see the Minister of State's hand in them. Such proposals could come only from his hand. I notice that he has retreated from the Chamber in disarray. He probably realised what I was going to say and has gone to the underground garage to polish his Rolls-Royce.
      Even the Select Committee on Defence was taken aback by the Government's proposals. Paragraph 57 of its report says:
      "On 5 December 1989, the Secretary of State announced measures far more radical and far reaching than the evidence put before us last year had implied, with his proposals for the full-scale contractorisation of AWE."
      Paragraph 60 of the report says:
      "Although the Secretary of State recognised the 'valid concern of the Select Committee about the need for improvements at AWE' and sought to place his proposals in the context of that concern, it is clear that they go a great deal further than this Committee envisaged or suggested".
      Not even the Select Committee on Defence, which investigated this issue in great detail, envisaged that the Government would jump over all the reasonable options and land up with this most unreasonable proposition.
      Our amendment would set up an agency formed on the model that was envisaged in "Next Steps", the document issued by the Government. It would be fully in line with the Ibbs report, the recommendations of which were fully accepted by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The then Minister for the Civil Service, the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), characterised "next steps" as the Government's way of improving value for money and quality of service in the absence of a market mechanism. He also made it clear that
      "More direct accountability would not be allowed to undermine the Northcote-Trevelyan principles upon which the Civil Service is based."—
      that it should not detract from the essential accountability of departmental Ministers to Parliament; such matters are permanent. By adopting that dogma-based suggestion, the Government are creating yet another division between
      1096
      Parliament and the control of vital issues. When I spoke at a public meeting near Aldermaston some months ago, one of the supervisors said, "Mr. Rogers, I wish that they would realise in London that in Aldermaston we are producing not rocking horses but the most fearful weapons." However, it seems that the Government's political dogma has dictated their actions and prejudiced their judgment.
      4 pm
      The dogma is seen particularly in Government's attitude towards the work force in the establishments. If ever there were an industry requiring high morale to ensure maximum safety and security, it is this most potentially dangerous of all industries. But the Government, by their action, have created a poisoned atmosphere of mistrust among the workers and low morale, leading to increasing numbers of people leaving—the very thing that the Bill was supposedly intended to prevent.
      The trade unions in the plant and the workers in the plant—more often constituents of Conservative Members than of Opposition Members—have continually made constructive suggestions to improve production and management. They have entered into pay agreements providing considerable flexibility and said that they were prepared to accept new frameworks for consultation. They recognise existing problems and have made positive suggestions, but the Government, due to their incompetence and inability to manage—which we see in so many aspects of public life today—have refused to respond. All reasonable objections and all reasonable suggested options have been rejected. That is why we have had to table the amendment and why we shall push it to a vote.
      Sir David Mitchell: The Bill considerably affects my constituency because a large number of the people who work at Aldermaston live in the villages of Tadley, Baughurst and Kingsclere and a number of surrounding villages. Therefore, anything arising from the Bill, particularly as it affects the staff, is of significant importance to my constituency.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister was helpful in explaining a number of the Bill's aspects as they affected my constituents. I think that hon. Members from both sides of the Committee will agree that the Minister was helpful throughout, and courteous in his treatment of the Committee. Therefore, I should like to express my gratitude to him, but remind him that, in politics, gratitude is a lively anticipation of further benefits to come.
      Will the Minister repeat on the Floor of the House the assurances that he gave in Committee on four matters? First, will he give an assurance that existing and pre-contract No. 1 standards of safety will be maintained and rigorously enforced? Secondly, on security, will he assure us that the costs and standards of staff screening will remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence? Thirdly, will he assure us that there will be no reduction in the pensions that staff now have reason to expect, and that full indexation of pensions will remain?
      Can my hon. Friend say a little more about a matter that I raised with him in Committee concerning contributors to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority pension scheme, known as the ukulele scheme? Those people were covered by the original arrangements for Aldermaston. When it was transferred to the Ministry

      1097
      of Defence, they were given the option not to move to the new pension scheme, and many remained in the old one. There are about 700 people who would like to remain in that scheme. I have put the point to my hon. Friend, and he has expressed sympathy for the workers. Has he made any progress on the matter?
      Fourthly, in Committee, my hon. Friend gave considerable assurances about redundancy. He did not expect any skill redundancies. If there are redundancies, he said that compensation would be on the same scale as for people employed in the civil service. Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me a little further by explaining how far into the future assurances that he can give about the maintenance of the arrangements for compensation for redundancy will continue. I understand that, at the time that the change to contractor employment takes place, redundancy will be fully covered by the existing arrangements. Will the workers be covered two months, three months or six months later by the assurances that my hon. Friend gave in Committee?
      Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Minister gave assurances in Committee on redundancy compensation and said that it would be in line with redundancy compensation for civil servants. Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that, when we pressed the Minister on the issue, he acknowledged that he would not have control over it, that the workers would be employed by an employing company and would effectively not be civil servants, and that therefore he could not give any promise that they would have civil service treatment if made redundant? If the hon. Gentleman recalls the events in Committee, he will remember that we reminded the Minister what happened when the royal dockyards were privatised.
      Sir David Mitchell: My understanding was that the matter was dealt with fully and carefully in Committee when my hon. Friend explained that the contract would require the contractor to meet those terms on redundancy. I think that I understood correctly what my hon. Friend said in Committee. I am now seeking assurances as to how far the contract will bind the contractor into the future.
      Assurances on those four matters are of enormous importance to my constituents. I hope that when he replies to the debate my hon. Friend can repeat those assurances on the Floor of the House.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I too should like to pay tribute to the courtesy and, indeed, good humour of the Minister in Committee. I regret that his courtesy did not extend to accepting the quality and effectiveness of many of the arguments mounted against various clauses as the Committee stage proceeded.
      Amendment No.1 raises the fundamental issue of principle in the measure. That issue of principle was referred to by almost all who spoke on Second Reading and it came up time after time in our clause by clause consideration of the Bill in Committee. Of course, it gives rise to the consequences of some of the issues which have just been referred to and in respect of which undertakings have been sought. If the Government were not embarking upon contractorisation of the kind which the Bill
      1098
      embodies, the undertakings sought by the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) would not be necessary.
      I remain firmly of the view that, in the development and production of nuclear weapons, there should be no dilution of ministerial responsibility. Ministers should be obliged to come to the Dispatch Box and to answer to the House for that responsibility. I remain of that view because these are weapons of mass destruction. I suspect that, of all the duties that are incumbent upon Ministers of the Crown, the responsibility to determine whether weapons of mass destruction are deployed, or even used, is probably the most awesome.
      In my judgment, it is in the public interest that those who have that responsibility—a responsibility that includes the development and production of such weapons—should be answerable to Parliament. It may well be said that they will remain answerable to Parliament if these proposals are allowed to go through. However, as I have sought to point out on Second Reading and at every available opportunity since, if there is any falling down in safety, if there is any element in the way that the contract is fulfilled that is contrary to the terms of the original contract, Ministers will not say at the Dispatch Box that their Department has failed to exercise proper supervision; they will say that there has been a breach of contract.
      As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, it beggars description for us to believe that we should go to the High Court in the Strand and litigate about such matters, especially at a time of national or international tension, when I should have thought that nothing could be more calculated to be damaging to morale.
      This amendment is at the heart of the proposal. I am not persuaded that the production and development of something as important and responsible as nuclear weapons should be handed away, or that it should be subjected to the interposition of some other company between Ministers and their responsibilities. After all, the proper defence of the realm is perhaps the most significant of all ministerial responsibilities.
      The Minister has tried, with his courtesy, tact and good humour, but he has not persuaded me that the proposal in respect of which this amendment has been tabled is valid. I encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in support of the amendment. Respectfully, it seems to me that, if it were carried, the Bill would better reflect Ministers' responsibilities and would much better reflect the public interest.
      Mr. John McWilliam: I am not prepared to argue, because the Select Committee on Defence, on which I have the honour to serve, has looked long and carefully at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Indeed, many years ago it was given a duty by the House to report annually on Trident and our nuclear weapons, and it still does so. I am not convinced that the pre-existing structure was right for AWE and I would not for one minute attempt to argue that it was. It could have been amended without recourse to "next steps" agency status, but the Government were not prepared to do that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has already quoted from a report in which the Committee was unanimous in saying clearly that the Government's proposals in the Bill go too far. There was no Division in the Select Committee. There has been only one Division in that Committee, which was many years

      1099
      ago, because we strive to reach unanimity on major questions, especially on this most important question of the safety and continuity of our Atomic Weapons Establishment.
      We have to consider the establishment in context. The only other establishment of the kind in the western world—one that is capable of making Trident warheads—was at Rocky Flats and it is now shut. The Americans have no capability to make warheads for their Trident missiles. That was widely reported last week in the Congressional Armed Forces Committee review, where the question was asked. I believe that diplomatic sources have been approached to find out whether Aldermaston could make warheads for them. I was given to understand that the reply was no and that Aldermaston was too busy trying to make them for our own requirements. Therefore, AWE is the only establishment of its kind. The question must be asked, what happened to Rocky Flats? Was it not capable of making weapons? Of course it was, and they were tested, but it was run in precisely the same way that the Government propose to run Aldermaston under the Bill and it became unsafe, polluted and a disaster area, which it still is. I do not believe that the installation will reopen.
      4.15 pm
      In 1978, the Pochin report was published. It dealt with a previous occasion when areas of Aldermaston became unsafe. Paragraph 3 of annex H states:
      "In matters of safety it is necessary to have redundancy in all aspects: in materials ('safety factor'), in control systems ('back-up'), in personnel ('emergency teams'), and so on. For example, a bridge or a lift that is just safe, but has no safety margin, paradoxically is in its most dangerous state. Redundancy of effort is as necessary as redundancy of materials. Where staff is the minimum necessary to achieve the bare level of safety any unusual concatenation of events may bring trouble."
      I agree entirely with the Pochin report in that respect.
      It may be convenient if I remind the House that because the new commercial management, which seems to have been in operation even before the Bill is passed, took steps to change the arrangements of shift working for routine maintenance—a desperately important safety requirement—for the first time since the closure of plant which led to the Pochin report, the plant failed to operate on one normal working day. Everybody turned up for work but could not work because the maintenance effort had been cut. That is just one example of what we appear to be facing.
      A few weeks ago, when Dr. Glue appeared before the Select Committee, I questioned him about what had occurred. He is supposed to be responsible to the Minister for ensuring that the plant is operated in a safe and efficient manner. I was less than impressed by his response. He implied that it was more important to score minor points against the trade unions on a rota working agreement than to ensure the safety and continuity of the plant. What was the Government's response? It was to continue with the Bill as drafted.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) explained in detail why we have tabled the amendments. I listened carefully to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who is not here. The only way that he can be certain about the issues that he raised is to join us in the Division Lobby in support of the amendments. Anything that the Minister says is consequent on him achieving a good enough contract with the managing contractor and
      1100
      on that contract being complied with. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) rightly pointed out, if such matters are dealt with in that way, they will literally become matters of opinion, and that opinion will have to be decided in the High Court. That is not good enough for something as potentially dangerous as the Atomic Weapons Establishment.
      I pay tribute to the management, to the employees and to the design of the new buildings at Aldermaston because they are excellent and work safely, and efficiently, when they are allowed to do so. Having said that, because of the previous direct civil service conditions of service and the contraints on the plant, the way it was operated as a research establishment and nothing more and the way in which the manufacturing aspect was taken care of were good enough. However, a "next steps" agency under the Government's own arrangements could take care of those problems without the potentially dangerous introduction of a management contractor, over which the House and Her Majesty's Government would have control only through the contract itself.
      I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House who are convinced that Aldermaston should work in a safe and effective fashion to support the amendments. If they do not, they may allow Aldermaston to be run in such a way that there is a better than even chance, on the evidence before us, that it will have to be shut for safety reasons.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Those hon. Members who did not go through the sweat and long hours of the Committee stage should be reticent in arguing with their colleagues. I should have liked to serve on the Committee, but it took place alongside the proceedings on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill on which I had a lot and a half to say, so I could not serve on the two Standing Committees at once. I excuse myself to the Minister for not being on the Committee.
      This is a most important Bill. Like the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), I believe that the Bill is the core of an important argument. We have read press reports which may or may not be accurate to the effect that there is some question—I put it no higher—about the stability and long-term safety of existing British nuclear weapons.
      I had the honour to be asked to contribute to the obituaries of the late Lord Penney. I recall that one of his anxieties over the years was that testing, monitoring and checking had not taken place because, the distinguished physicist argued, no one could be certain that arms that were stored for a long or longish period of years would remain stable. I am not in a position—I do not think that anyone in the House is—to make judgments about the physics of such weapons, but when a man of the experience of Lord Penney says that there is some doubt, it is up to us to take some notice.
      I know better than to ask the Minister outright whether British nuclear weapons are unsafe. Even if he thought they were, I suspect that he would be justified in not telling me, at least on this occasion, in open debate and without the coverage of the Official Secrets Act, by which I am not covered. However, I am entitled to ask a rather different question. Are the Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and their senior colleagues satisfied that, under the arrangements that they propose, important matters can be monitored in the detail that they certainly were at one stage by those working at Aldermaston? The answer

      1101
      may be that they are quite relaxed about it, that they have made all the arrangements and are absolutely certain that there are no possible dangers and no possibility of the physics of instability applying at Aldermaston. If the Minister said that, I for one would not dispute it much further. I would take it as an honourable answer on behalf of the Government. However, I would like it to be put on the record that the Minister really believes that, under the proposed arrangements, the stability of the weapons can be properly and effectively monitored.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Through circumstances far beyond my control, I was unable either to speak in the Second Reading debate on the Bill or to take part in the Standing Committee proceedings. My information on what was discussed in the debates is somewhat limited, so I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible.
      As both Aldermaston and Burghfield are in my constituency, the question of safety is of paramount importance to my constituents—not only those who work in the establishments, but everyone. I live only five miles from Aldermaston. My hon. Friend must be aware of the long-running saga of the leukaemia and lymphatic cancer cases. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment has looked at these, but has not yet come up with a definite answer.
      COMARE—a Government body, albeit independent of Government control—is responsible for doing what its title suggests it should do. I applaud much of what this Bill contains. If it becomes law, will COMARE retain its predominant position? Will it still be able to investigate anything that gives rise to concern about safety in an establishment, anything that worries people living in the area? I am thinking about possible emissions from Aldermaston or Burghfield. Such an assurance would go a long way towards putting at rest the minds of those who are concerned that contractorisation and the safety element are not spelt out quite as clearly as we should like.
      Over the 18 years during which I have represented the constituency of Newbury, there have been a number of reported leaks. On such occasions it is very reassuring to my constituents that their Member of Parliament can put down a question and expect a reply within three days, and that if that reply is not adequate further questions may be put down. If, in such an event, it is no longer possible to take some safeguarding steps on behalf of my constituents, contractorisation will damage itself in terms of the security that is necessary for the sake of the future of the establishments.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: My comments will be even more brief than those of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir Michael McNair-Wilson). I want simply to reinforce the points that he made and the argument that I understand was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). Aldermaston is indeed in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, but it is also very close to the borders of three parliamentary constituencies, of which Basingstoke is one. As I live about one mile from the Aldermaston perimeter, I can beat the claim of my hon. Friend.
      1102
      I hope that the Minister is taking serious note of hon. Members' concern about general matters of safety. Members of Parliament representing constituencies in this area feel that they have a particular responsibility. I welcome the assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister has given to date.
      Mr. McWilliam: I am very surprised at what the hon. Gentleman is saying. In Committee, he had the opportunity to vote for specific safety amendments that we introduced, but he did not do so. Indeed, he opposed them.
      Mr. Hunter: That is very easy to answer. I listened to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, but was not convinced by them. That is why I did not vote for the amendments.
      Mr. McWilliam: Rubbish.
      Mr. Hunter: We listened for many hours to the arguments, but we were not convinced. The fault lies with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, not with us.
      Mr. Rogers: Even if the hon. Gentleman felt that our arguments were not good enough, surely he should have been convinced by the content of the amendments, every one of which was worded carefully with a view to enhancing the safety aspects of the operation at Aldermaston. I accept that we may not have been able to convince the hon. Gentleman by argument, but surely the text should have done the job.
      Mr. Hunter: I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but I certainly dispute the force of the argument which supported the amendments, and for those reasons I shall have no part of them.
      I conclude by stressing that I look forward to further reassurances from my hon. Friend the Minister.
      4.30 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): It is a pleasure to reply to the first debate on the Bill on Report. As the House will know, the amendments are intended to ensure that the Atomic Weapons Establishment will in future be operated not by a commercial company but by an executive agency within the civil service. We have had a very sober debate, and I shall seek to answer the points that have been made and restrict myself to the scope of the amendments.
      We have to admit that, if we accepted the amendments there would be no need for the Bill. Obviously, the Secretary of State has the power to set up an executive agency without a Bill. Therefore, everything in the Bill relates directly or indirectly to the fact that, under contractual operation, the staff at the AWE would no longer be civil servants. However, I should like to reply to the point made initially by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and stress that we are not privatising the assets, property or equipment of the AWE, which will remain under the ownership of the Secretary of State. We are transferring only the management of the manufacturing. It is important to bear that in mind when people start talking about privatisation.
      Mr. Rogers: I am afraid that, like the Minister of State, who has left the Chamber, the Minister simply was not listening to what I said. I never said that the Government were privatising the assets or property of the AWE. I said

      1103
      that they were privatising the management of the production of nuclear warheads within the establishment. I accept that the Minister will remain the janitor of the buildings.
      Mr. Carlisle: I am glad that, in that poetic way, the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that we have reached agreement on that particularly important point.
      In contrary to his assertions, we have seriously considered the arguments in favour of a "next steps" agency at AWE. Such agencies have considerable attractions for those organisations which should be part of the civil service, but after careful thought we reached the conclusion that the AWE is not such an establishment. However, I should like to join the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) in paying tribute to the staff at AWE. The fact that they are being contractorised is no slight on their considerable and unique talents, expertise and skills. Some of the staff at AWE are pre-eminent in the world in their branch of science.
      However, we believe that enterprises, especially industrial ones, are generally run more efficiently in the private sector. Therefore, where it is right and feasible to introduce full contractorisation, we prefer to do so.
      The Atomic Weapons Establishment is involved in research and development and in manufacturing. In our view, such an establishment belongs in industry and not in government. Of course, the fact that the business is nuclear means that very stringent safeguards are required, but not that personnel must be civil servants. Just because manufacturing is best managed by those with experience of industry, agency status would be only a partial solution to the problems at AWE. That would not involve the full and early introduction of private sector expertise and would not allow access to the production and management expertise of a large industrial concern. In my view, it is only full contractorisation that can give full, private-sector management flexibility, pay flexibility without reference to Whitehall, as well as the all-important access to the corporate expertise of a major industrial company or consortium.
      AWE does everything from research and development to production, in-service maintenance support and final dismantling. AWE is therefore a complete industry and it should be allowed to benefit from the industrial management expertise of the private sector. I believe that the logic of that argument means that we have every right to carry it through.
      We must always remember that our ability to meet the challenging Trident programme which is now building up is our prime aim. That is vital if we are to sustain our independent deterrent. We believe that the contractorisation of the operations at the AWE will secure that aim.
      I have visited the various establishments, and I know that there is concern among the employees about various aspects of the change because we are asking them to leave the civil service. Many of the issues raised by them relate to employment and safety.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) for his kind words, as well as for those of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Those hon. Members and others are particularly concerned about safety aspects, which formed the bulk of the questions raised in the debate. Safety is the paramount aim, which
      1104
      we intend to achieve. We shall have all the existing safeguards, such as the safety directorate, but we shall also introduce two important additions.
      First, the compliance office, which is responsible to and employed by the Ministry of Defence, will be represented at the four establishments. The staff of that office will have the right to go anywhere in those establishments to monitor any activity to ensure that full safety is achieved. The second addition is the safety requirement which will figure largely in the contract. Penalties will be imposed if safety is not properly pursued, and, in addition, incentives will be part of the contract to reward excellent performance on safety.
      Mr. McWilliam: Who will pay the salary of the compliance officer and his staff?
      Mr. Carlisle: The MOD. The staff will be employed by the MOD, thereby ensuring their independence.
      If the contractor impinges on the safety requirements or does not live up to his legal requirements he will, for the first time, be subject to a court of law, which the Secretary of State never can be.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is the compliance office responsible for passing judgment on the stability or otherwise of existing nuclear weapons? If not, who is responsible?
      Mr. Carlisle: I shall deal with that point in a moment, but it is important to remember that the responsibility for safety does not rest just with the compliance office. That responsibility will rest largely with the contractor and the work force.
      As I said, the safety directorate will remain at the AWE, and the unions and all the employees will have a direct interest in safety. When I visited those establishments, they told me that they would be the first people to jump on any lapse in safety standards according to their views. Therefore, safety is not just the responsibility of one person; it will depend upon the combined surveillance and alertness of a range of people.
      The points raised about safety are of particular relevance to the local people and to my hon. Friends the Member for Hampshire, North-West and for Newbury (Sir M. McNair Wilson), who wrote to me raising points of interest throughout the Bill's passage, and it is nice to see him in recovered health, and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who also pursued safety matters throughout the Bill's passage.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Minister tell us a bit more about how he envisages the compliance officer operating? Can any employee of the private contractor go freely to the compliance officer and say that an infraction of procedures has taken place, of which the latter may not be aware because some of the poisons are invisible and cannot be recorded on a monitor, without it affecting his promotion or job prospects?
      Mr. Carlisle: That would be a reasonable way to proceed. The compliance officer will not only receive information as a result of his own observations and studies but also from within the establishment. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman suggests takes place.
      Sir David Mitchell: Since the compliance officer is to have a relationship with the Ministry of Defence, can my

      1105
      hon. Friend give the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) asked in relation to answering questions in the House?
      Mr. Carlisle: All Members of Parliament will be able to ask questions in the House on any matter concerning the AWE, and the Secretary of State will have to answer them.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: What about the question of safety? It will be the responsibility of the compliance officer to see that everything is okay, but what powers will he have if he notices that the contractor does not have enough staff on the job to provide safety cover? That could happen tomorrow, and we want to know what the compliance officer would do if it did.
      Mr. Carlisle: The compliance office will have strong powers. It will be able to instruct the contractor to remedy the defects, and if the contractor fails to do so, the compliance office will have the power to shut down that part of Aldermaston; so its powers are strong.
      Mr. Rogers: If that is the case, why are the compliance officer's terms of reference not within the Bill? As I understand it, the compliance office will be set up. Under the terms of contract as outlined at various times by the Minister, if the contractor conforms he will receive his money, if he puts up a good performance he will receive extra money, but if he does not perform, the only way to make him do so is to go to court. That is what the Minister said when he opened the debate. Why does not the Minister put the functions and duties of the compliance office in the Bill, as the Opposition suggested in an amendment in Committee?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House long enough to know that everyone frowns on a part of a Bill that is superfluous. The Secretary of State already has the power to set up a compliance office. To prove that, the compliance office is already being formed. It is bad practice to put into a Bill powers which already exist, and it is right to follow good legislative procedures.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not the Minister being a little disingenuous in that answer? This is a matter of public confidence. We are changing, dramatically and fundamentally, the way in which nuclear weapons are developed and produced. Would it not be in the interests of public confidence and in support of what the Government now propose to ensure that the compliance officer has express statutory responsibilties in respect of the new arrangements that the Bill seeks to introduce?
      Mr. Carlisle: No, the Secretary of State already has the power to set up a compliance office, and he has given undertakings time after time that the compliance office will be a central part of our plans for contractorisation. As I said, it is superfluous to write it into the Bill. If one were to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's line of argument, every Bill would be massive, because everyone would be seeking guarantees. I remind Opposition Members that this is a narrow Bill, which creates arrangements in connection with the setting up of an employing company.
      Mr. Haynes: The Minister really is talking a load of rubbish.
      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that.
      Mr. Haynes: I am saying it. He is talking rubbish. We want to know what kind of safety cover will be available in the units and what kind of responsibilities this chappie will have. He has massive responsibilities and it is a load of rubbish to say that they should not be in the Bill. It is not just hon. Members who want to know exactly what responsibilities this chap will have. The Minister is pushing things to one side in this important measure.
      Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make such an intervention, he should listen more carefully to the debate. I have answered quite a few of his points already and it was a mistake to give way to him.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has been very patient. He raised an important point. As I understand it, he was talking about the implications of the Drell report. We remain closely in touch with our United States colleague. Governments of all parties give the most careful consideration to safety matters, because safety of the nuclear warheads and missiles is pre-eminent.
      It may be of some comfort to the hon. Gentleman to know that the warhead that we will be using in Trident will be designed and manufactured in the United Kingdom. It is not the same as that designed in the United States, although we have confidence in the United States warhead. It will be the subject of a comprehensive series of trials and independent assessments to ensure its safety both before and during operational service. There is an independent check on the safety of our nuclear weapons in the form of the nuclear weapons safety committee and the ordnance board, both of which have independent status and which report on and study carefully the safety of our warheads.
      We take the matter extremely seriously, but we are confident that what we are designing and have designed is safe. In addition, as I have already explained, safety will be central to the contract, and we will not compromise on it one jot. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman. It is obviously a matter that we will have to continue to regard seriously.
      Mr. Dalyell: Will the ordnance board, under the terms of the contract, have complete access to the confidential information of the contractors? Are the contractors obliged to reveal anything that is asked of them to the ordnance board?
      Mr. Carlisle: The contract has not yet been written, as Labour Members know, but we intend to put into it everything necessary for safety. The nuclear weapons safety committee and the ordnance board will continue to have the full authority of their independent status.
      Mr. Rogers: To use the words of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) the Minister's response is disingenuous. We tried in Committee to get details of the contract, and we were told that the contract had not yet been drawn up. For the past year, however, 22 people at Aldermaston have been carrying out the functions of phase 1 of the contract. The Minister therefore should not say that we do not know what is in the contract because it has not yet been drawn

      1107
      up. There is an extant contract, and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has asked whether the provisions governing the ordnance board are in that contract.
      The Minister appears to be nodding. In that case, next year, after we win the election, we shall check those terms, because he will not let us know them now.
      Mr. Carlisle: The provision does not have to be in the present contract, because the place has not yet been contractorised. So the authority of the ordnance board and the nuclear weapons safety committee is the same as it has been for the the past few years. The hon. Gentleman cannot have understood the Bill. At the moment, in phase 1, there is an interim contract. Only in October 1992 will we enter the second phase of full contractorisation. There is no point in starting to draw up the contract in detail until we have secured the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Blaydon asked a question about safety, referring to the American experience. The American experience, and indeed the experience of Russia, where there was an horrific nuclear explosion at Chernobyl in a nuclear institution run by the State, show that, whether nuclear facilities are owned by the state or are privately operated, safety has to be considered as a separate issue. We have studied the American experience carefully and have ensured that we would add the safeguard of the compliance office to our current safeguards. Safety will be written into the contract, and we are satisfied that our arrangements will meet any criticisms that arose with the GOCO experience.
      Mr. Dalyell: There must be a careful study of the American experience. Has the Ministry of Defence considered the Zebrowski report on Three Mile Island in that context?
      Mr. Carlisle: I am certain that it will have done, but perhaps I should write to the hon. Gentleman, who is a past master at bowling googlies.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury raised an important point about the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. Its studies will continue and have our full support. We value them highly. It may be of some comfort to my hon. Friend to know that the latest study of his area showed that radiation from Aldermaston and Burghfield was negligible—far too low to account for any observed increase in childhood leukaemia in his area. In any event, I understand that the increases noted appear to have taken place in major urban areas such as Reading, not in the villages next to the Atomic Weapons Establishment site.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Would it be fair to ask my hon. Friend whether the tritium leak will be referred to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment?
      Mr. Carlisle: That is very much up to the Committee. The incident took place in a research facility which had nothing to do with the manufacturing operation now being helped by Hunting-BRAE. The leak was very small—only two thousandths of the normal annual natural radiation to which people are exposed. Nevertheless, any leak of any sort is serious, and we are investigating it. We intend to learn the lessons of any inquiry into it.
      Mr. Rogers: Again I do not understand the Minister's answer. The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M.
      1108
      McNair-Wilson), in whose constituency Aldermaston lies, asked the Minister about the tritium leak. I understood the Minister to reply that the leak took place in a research facility, but in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), he said that it took place in the A91 building, which is a production facility, not a research facility. Can the Minister clear up the confusion?
      Mr. Carlisle: The A91 building has not even been commissioned yet. There is no tritium in the A91 facility. The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. [HON. MEMBERS: "You gave that information yourself."] I shall have to look into the matter.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West was worried about other aspects of safety and security. The Ministry of Defence will retain responsibility for the positive vetting of everyone concerned. Redundancy terms for anyone now at the AWE will continue as if they were in the civil service before vesting day. Those terms will be written into the contract, which will come up for renewal after five or seven years, but the redundancy terms would continue thereafter as a condition of service, which could not change without the employees' agreement. If employees did not agree, they could claim unfair constructive dismissal, under which they would be entitled to their previous redundancy entitlement. That gives them security.
      Mr. McWilliam: Will the Minister confirm that the protection under TUPE will last only until vesting day, and that from vesting day plus one it will disappear?
      Mr. Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that question?
      Mr. McWilliam: Will the Minister confirm that the employees are protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 until vesting day, but that after they have been transferred into their new employment, they will lose that protection? Even before that time, they can claim only unfair dismissal.
      Mr. Carlisle: That is not true. The TUPE regulations persist for a certain time after vesting day.
      Pensions were debated at length in Committee, and the House will recall that AWE staff are usually members either of the principal civil service pension scheme or the UKAEA principal non-industrial superannuation scheme. Following contractorisation, a single new scheme will be established for AWE staff; it will match as closely as possible the schemes as they are at vesting day. No one will be made to suffer detriment to their pension arrangements as a result of contractorisation. The pension rights will be written into the contract and thus guaranteed, so that everyone's pension will be at least as good as the pension that he can expect now.
      Sir Anthony Durant: Will my hon. Friend comment on the transferability of the new pension under the new structure? Will it be transferable to other pension funds if the staff move elsewhere?
      5 pm
      Mr. Carlisle: I shall continue with the section of my brief that I was on before my hon. Friend intervened. I understand that he may wish to return to the question of transferability.

      1109
      I fully understand that individuals feel an attachment to their pension scheme and may be anxious at the prospect of leaving it. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West and others were especially concerned about members of the AWE staff who are members of what they have described as the atomic energy scheme. I undertook sympathetically to consider the arguments that my hon. Friends advanced.
      I am pleased to confirm that, if they so choose, staff of both pension schemes will be able to leave their accrued service up to vesting day in their present schemes. They will not have to transfer their accumulated pension rights to the new AWE scheme. A person will therefore be able to receive an atomic energy or civil service pension on retirement that is based upon their length of service before vesting day. That will be topped up by an additional pension under the new scheme that covers service after vesting day. This option may be especially relevant to the older AWE members of the atomic energy scheme, given their attachment to the scheme and the considerable length of service covered by it. To this extent, no one is being forced out of his or her existing pension scheme.
      I have discussed in some detail with my colleagues in the Treasury and the Department of Energy the possibility of going further and allowing, by amendment to the Bill, service by ex-atomic energy staff at AWE after vesting day to accrue within the atomic energy pension scheme as opposed to the new AWE scheme. My hon. Friends will remember that the possibility was debated in detail in Committee.
      I must tell them, however, that the conclusion of the discussions with the Treasury and the Department of Energy was that it would be wrong to agree to such an amendment. That is partly because of longer-term complications that would result in having some former civil service staff at AWE in a different scheme from other employees, and partly because it is the Government's general policy that, whenever staff are transferred from the public to the private sector, they should not remain in a public service pension scheme.
      I must emphasise that staff will not have to take their accrued service in the atomic energy scheme and the civil service out of the atomic energy scheme if they do not wish to do so. I can help to some extent those who are concerned about these matters. I know from the contents of my postbag and from talking to those who are concerned that the older members of the atomic energy pension scheme are by no means entirely content with all its provisions. Some of those at AWE are less than happy about the scheme's constraints on retirement before the age of 65.
      I shall ask my officials to discuss with the trade unions possible ways of extending to ex-atomic energy staff at AWE some of the flexibility that will be incorporated in the new pension scheme for AWE staff after contractorisation. It is unlikely that we shall be able to substitute 60 years for 65, but we may be able to ameliorate the position somewhat. To that extent, the new pension scheme at the contractorised AWE will be an improvement on the pension conditions which would otherwise have prevailed for the ex-atomic energy staff at AWE. When the pension
      1110
      arrangements are improved in the way that I have described, I hope that my hon. Friends will be partially satisfied at least.
      Since 5 December 1990, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence first announced the Government's proposal to introduce full contractorisation at AWE, there has been much debate about the principle of contractorisation and the options. I have heard nothing to weaken my conviction that the introduction of a contract operation with appropriate safety, security and financial safeguards is the best way forward for AWE. The House will know that AWE has been able to meet the requirements of the early stages of the Trident programme. As the requirements increase and AWE's manpower shortage continues, it is necessary that it should do even better.
      To achieve that, we must bring to AWE the production management expertise and freedom to manage which a contractor operation can offer. We cannot secure that freedom or full management and manufacturing experience if AWE remains an agency. I therefore recommend that the House reject the amendments.
      Mr. Rogers: I am most unhappy with the Minister's reply, although I am obviously pleased, as are those who represent employees at Aldermaston, with the proposed alterations to the pension fund. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would welcome the proposals, as would the work force and the trade unions.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) asked the Minister whether he could give any assurance that employees would be protected from redundancy after vesting day plus one, and referred to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The Minister replied, "Yes, that is in the regulations." Where does it appear? I ask the question at an early stage in my remarks, so that those in the Box can have time to advise the Minister.
      Sir David Mitchell: I understand that the assurance appeared in the contract and not in the regulations. It will be part of the terms of the contract that the contractor has to comply with the civil service terms on redundancy during the term of the contract. I understand also that that is what my hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to confirm that. I hope that I have succeeded in explaining why the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) cannot find the assurance in the regulations.
      Mr. Rogers: I was not talking about what was said in Committee. I was referring to what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box a short while ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon asked the Minister whether there would be any protection from redundancy for workers on vesting day plus one. The Minister replied that the answer was to be found in the 1981 regulations. My colleagues and I have read the regulations, and it seems that they do not provide the assurance that the Minister suggested. Our argument is that all the talk about protecting people's rights falls in the absence of the assurance in the regulations.
      Mr. McWilliam: Perhaps my hon. Friend will reflect on the Minister's statement that the contract has not yet been written. I do not know how he can construct legislation

      1111
      that ends in a contract when he does not know what will be in the contract. Have I understood correctly what the Minister appears to be saying?
      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle rose——
      Mr. Rogers: I shall respond, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon intervened in my speech. He has raised a point of interest, not merely a debating point.
      There are 7,000 workers who are concerned about redundancy, and most of them are the constituents of the Minister's hon. Friends. I am happy to allow the Minister to make even a lengthy intervention to clarify the issue.
      Mr. Carlisle: With the leave of the House, I shall intervene. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) has provided the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) with the correct answer. The 1981 regulations have been implemented in the transfers of many employees, not least those in the dockyards.
      It seems that the hon. Member for Rhondda has not read my answer on building A91. There is no tritium in the building and it has not yet been commissioned. It has been constructed for the treatment of low-level liquid waste. Some faults were found in it while it was in the process of being commissioned. That is why there was no radioactive material in it. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads my answer.
      Mr. Rogers: I am quite happy to read the answer. The Minister said that there was corrosion in the A91 building and that it was a production, not a research, facility. I have the grace to say that, in that matter, the Minister may be right. I only wish that he had the grace to apologise when he has been shown so often to be wrong. Hansard will show what he said about the transfer of undertakings on the protection of employment. He cannot bury his answer under a frivolous remark about safety problems. Many constituents of Conservative Members are concerned about the protection of redundancy and pension rights. Indeed, I am not sure about any protection. If those people asked me for advice, I could not give it to them.
      The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who is a former Transport Minister, is an expert in privatisation matters. I served on the Committee that considered the Bill to privatise bus services. He was so good that, when we asked him why he wanted to privatise bus services, he said, "I went to Cheltenham, where there is a private scheme. I jumped on a couple of buses and asked a few old ladies what they thought of privatised bus services. They said that they thought they were good, and that is why we want to extend privatisation throughout the country." That was the great scientific survey on which the Department of Transport based the privatisation of bus services. Nevertheless, more thought went into the privatisation of bus services than has gone into this Bill, which will privatise the production of nuclear warheads. It is a cobbled-together Bill.
      I do want to delay the House as we are anxious to proceed to the first vote. I am anxious to discover how Conservative Members will vote. When we tabled amendments in Committee dealing with such matters as safety, pensions and redundancy, which sought to enhance the position of the constituents of Conservative Members and others who, like me, live in south Wales, Conservative Members voted with the Government. We must not forget
      1112
      that Aldermaston is only one of four atomic weapons establishments. If Conservative Members had any guts or gumption, they would vote with the Opposition tonight. They cannot be clear about the issues. I challenge them—especially those who have had letters from constituents, copies of which have been sent to us—to vote with us tonight.
      I know that the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West voted with us once in Committee, so perhaps I am doing him a disservice. He spoke fluently and impressed the Minister. Conservative Members must put their votes where their mouths are, and that means voting with us tonight.
      Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has issued a challenge, and I will take it head on. My constituents have raised certain matters with me through letters, meetings and interviews. On each of the four matters on which I asked for assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister, I have had assurance. That is why I feel confident in supporting my hon. Friend in the Lobby.
      Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is easily pleased. He should have pressed the Minister to include some safeguards in the Bill. The Minister said that it is a very narrow Bill. When we spoke about share deals and other matters being included in the Bill, he said that it was too narrow. It is; it is only three or four pieces of paper. There would have been plenty of room to include the regulations and safeguards that we want. We would have been quite happy to read a couple more pages if that meant that we could protect the interests of those working in the establishments.
      5.15 pm
      We are not happy with the Minister's replies. He will not accept the amendment that would establish an agency, and that is a severe indictment of his party's policy. We want an agency based on the "next steps" model, which is his party's policy. It has been promulgated, developed and promoted by the Government, but the Minister would not trust it to run Aldermaston. He claims that any industrial activity is better in private hands. We all know what happened to Rolls-Royce; it did not do very well in private hands.
      Mr. Greg Knight: It did.
      Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is ignorant of what happened. He is only a young lad in school at the time. His school probably did not have newspapers. The hon. Gentleman is one of those to whom the Prince of Wales referred recently.
      Rolls-Royce was a private company, but it went bust. It was taken into public ownership and turned around, and it was then returned to the private sector. Ferranti, another defence company, also went bust, was taken into public ownership and turned around. It is now back in the hands of the private-sector friends of the Tory party. There are numerous examples of private companies which, were it not for public intervention, would have collapsed. That is the history of the car industry. The private-sector friends of the Minister are not really that good.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's theme. Will he apply his mind to what would happen if a company that obtained the contract that the Bill would pass to the private sector fell into liquidation or

      1113
      became incapable of fulfilling its responsibilities under the contract? What would be the consequences for national security?
      Mr. Rogers: I had intended to deal later with the problem of the contract. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke eloquently about that both in Committee and in his earlier intervention. The only recourse against a contractor would be through a court of law. Let us suppose that there was an emission of radioactive waste, followed by litigation against the company. Which company would be the subject of that litigation? Would it be the No. 2 company—the employing company—which is the only company with which the Government will have any connection? At present, the contracting companies are Hunting Engineering, Brown and Root and the Atomic Energy Authority. One of those companies is an American company based in Dallas. Another is a major engineering company, for which the production of nuclear warheads will be only a minor activity.
      Against whom can the constituents of Conservative Members litigate? The employing company will exist only to employ people. What assets will it have? The Minister has already said that the Government will not give it any. Against whom can the workers and the communities litigate should there be yet another emission of radioactive material?
      The proposal for contractorisation has been ill conceived out of the incompetence of the Government. It is a cobbled-together Bill. In Committee, it was evident time and again that the Government had not thought through the problems. They saw the American GOCO scheme and wanted to follow it, rather like some people wanted to follow schemes for marinas and theme parks. The Government therefore picked on the Atomic Weapons Establishment and decided to make it into a GOCO scheme without thinking the matter through. The production of nuclear warheads is far too serious an issue for a Government experiment. That is why we shall press our amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 219.

      Division No. 125]

      [5.19 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Alton, David

      Canavan, Dennis

      Anderson, Donald

      Cartwright, John

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Clelland, David

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Barron, Kevin

      Corbett, Robin

      Battle, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Bellotti, David

      Crowther, Stan

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cryer, Bob

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Cummings, John

      Benton, Joseph

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Darling, Alistair

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dixon, Don

      Caborn, Richard

      Dobson, Frank

      Callaghan, Jim

      Doran, Frank

      1114

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Meale, Alan

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fisher, Mark

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Flannery, Martin

      Mullin, Chris

      Flynn, Paul

      Murphy, Paul

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Nellist, Dave

      Foster, Derek

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foulkes, George

      O'Brien, William

      Fyfe, Maria

      O'Neill, Martin

      Galloway, George

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Patchett, Terry

      George, Bruce

      Pendry, Tom

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Gould, Bryan

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Prescott, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Grocott, Bruce

      Radice, Giles

      Hain, Peter

      Randall, Stuart

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Haynes, Frank

      Reid, Dr John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Richardson, Jo

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Henderson, Doug

      Rogers, Allan

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Home Robertson, John

      Rooney, Terence

      Hood, Jimmy

      Rowlands, Ted

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Howells, Geraint

      Salmond, Alex

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Ingram, Adam

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Janner, Greville

      Short, Clare

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Snape, Peter

      Lamond, James

      Soley, Clive

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Livingstone, Ken

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Loyden, Eddie

      Straw, Jack

      McAllion, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McCartney, Ian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McFall, John

      Turner, Dennis

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Vaz, Keith

      McKelvey, William

      Wallace, James

      McLeish, Henry

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      McWilliam, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Madden, Max

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Marek, Dr John

      Winnick, David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Worthington, Tony

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Martlew, Eric

      Mr. Ken Eastham and Mrs. Llin Golding.

      Maxton, John

      Meacher, Michael

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Body, Sir Richard

      Amos, Alan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Arbuthnot, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Bowis, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Bellingham, Henry

      Brazier, Julian

      Bendall, Vivian

      Bright, Graham

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      1115

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Kilfedder, James

      Buck, Sir Antony

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Burns, Simon

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Burt, Alistair

      Knapman, Roger

      Butterfill, John

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Knowles, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Knox, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Latham, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Couchman, James

      Lord, Michael

      Cran, James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Critchley, Julian

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Curry, David

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Maclean, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Day, Stephen

      Madel, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Mans, Keith

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Marland, Paul

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Dover, Den

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Mates, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Favell, Tony

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Mills, lain

      Franks, Cecil

      Miscampbell, Norman

      French, Douglas

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fry, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Gale, Roger

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gill, Christopher

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Moss, Malcolm

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mudd, David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Nelson, Anthony

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gregory, Conal

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Grist, Ian

      Norris, Steve

      Hague, William

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Paice, James

      Hannam, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Harris, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Riddick, Graham

      Hayward, Robert

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Speller, Tony

      Irvine, Michael

      Squire, Robin

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Jack, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Steen, Anthony

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Key, Robert

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      1116

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Watts, John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wells, Bowen

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Whitney, Ray

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Thorne, Neil

      Wilkinson, John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Wilshire, David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Wood, Timothy

      Tracey, Richard

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Trotter, Neville

      Yeo, Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Walden, George

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Waller, Gary

      Warren, Kenneth

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Rogers: I beg to move amendment no. 6 in page 2, line 8, at end insert—
      '(3A) The secretary of state shall not make arrangements under subsection (3) above with any company—

      (a) in respect of which more than 10 per cent. of the relevant share capital is held by—

      (i) a person who is not a British subject entitled to residence in the united kingdom, or

      (ii) a company in respect of which a majority of the relevant share capital is held by a person or persons who are not British subjects entitled to residence in the United Kingdom, or

      (b) which is a subsidiary of a company which would be caught by paragraph (a) above, or

      (c) which does not fall within paragraph (a) or (b) above, but which nevertheless appears to the Secretary of State to be under the effective control of a person or a company defined in paragraph (a) (i) or (ii) above,

      and if paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above apply to a contractor at any time, then any arrangements made by the Secretary of State with that contractor shall be terminated forthwith, any contract between the Secretary of State and that contractor shall be void forthwith, and no compensation shall be payable to a contractor on account of such termination or voiding.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 21, at end insert
      "'relevant share capital" means the company's issued share capital of a class carrying rights to vote, and as further defined in section 198(2) of the Companies Act 1985; and a percentage holding of such relevant share capital shall be calculated as set out in section 200 of that Act.'.
      Mr. Rogers: This group of amendments deals with the ownership of the companies involved in the privatisation. ownership was and is a matter of great concern and we discussed it a number of times in Committee. The Opposition hope to convince the Government of the foolishness of their proposals. We want to ensure that any contract made between the Secretary of State and a contractor would contain a proviso in relation to any transfer to a person or persons not in the United Kingdom of any shares in such a company, so that if a transfer took place, it would be notified to the Secretary of State. in addition, we wanted to ensure that, where the transfer exceeded 5 per cent. of the income or value of the total share capital of such a company, the Secretary of State should terminate the contract.
      Obviously, ownership is a major security worry. it would be of great concern if the company running the AWE were owned or controlled from overseas. There is nothing in the Bill, and we have received no assurances

      1117
      about this from the Government, stating that the contract must provide that the ownership of the production of nuclear warheads at Aldermaston, Burghfield, Foulness and Cardiff should not be in the hands of a foreign company or that there should be no foreign nationals working there.
      Concern on this issue was expressed not merely by Opposition Members. Conservative Members, in particular the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), voiced deep fears. The hon. Gentleman mentioned security, and said:
      "secondly, the protection of the national interest, in that secrets which are involved in the high technology production of atomic weapons should not be penetrated by any outside commercial or foreign power interests."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 31 January 1991; c. 77.]
      Earlier in Committee, the Opposition had moved an amendment in an attempt to ensure that legitimate national interests could be protected against the vagaries of the stock market and money lenders. Although we pressed it hard, the Government rejected the amendment and the reasoning behind it—that, in the exceptional sphere of arms production, it was necessary to maintain not only accountability to Parliament, but domestic ownership of the companies involved in production.
      In the third sitting of the Committee, the Minister stated in response to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell):
      "I accept that share ownership details must be spelt out in the contract. It would be possible to set out in the contract who should own the shares and how many and provide for the Ministry of Defence to give prior written consent to any changes of ownership and shareholding. That would cover any takeover of the contracting company, and I guarantee that such a provision will be made in the AWE contract when it is drafted. That will meet the Committee's fears on that score."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 31 January 1991; c. 85.]
      It is significant that there was no mention of a special share in either that quote or anywhere else in the Minister's answer. Obviously, there was no intention at that time to introduce the concept of a special share.
      Even that statement by the Minister was unsound. The Government will not have any control over the purchase or sale of shares in the contracting company in which the Minister will have a special share because that special share is in the employing company. The contracting companies are Hunting Engineering, Brown and Root and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, so how can the Minister have a special share in those companies? The only place where he can have a special share is in the employing company.
      Mr. McWilliam: What about the contracting company?
      Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend mentions the contracting company, but the contracting company is Hunting-BRAE. Hunting Engineering, Brown and Root and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority are private companies. The Minister intends to set up another company, which will be the employing company. It will operate within Aldermaston and will be a company with no assets. The Minister says that the Government will have a special share in that company. It will not even be floated on the stock market, so how can the Minister buy a special share? In Committee, in response to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, the Minister said that it
      1118
      would be possible to set out in the contract who owned the shares. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the mechanics of a special share.
      This is another example of the Government's muddle-headedness over the Bill. They have not thought the matter through. The Minister has an opportunity to put the record right, or will we have long letters later, as we had in Committee, giving the explanation? When we raised matters in Committee, we were often told that the Minister would write, and a day or two later we got lengthy explanations. The trouble is that the Minister is running out of time. He must stop dithering and decide what he will do.
      In Committee, we moved an amendment proposing that the Government retain a majority holding in the company so that there could be accountability to Parliament for the production of nuclear warheads. We thought that we had lost that undertaking. Then, after the fourth sitting of the Committee, we had a letter from the Minister saying that the Government would retain a special share. How can they retain a special share in something they do not own? Is the Minister going to create a special share? Perhaps he can satisfy us on that point and say how he will stop shares being sold. If he can explain how he can prevent shares in Brown and Root being sold on the Dallas stock exchange, I will be more than pleased. I was pleased at first sight by what seemed to be a return to sanity, but after closer examination of what the Minister had said, I realised what a sham the announcement was.
      The Minister gave reasons in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). My hon. Friend has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence. His wife had an operation yesterday and he has had to return home. I thank him and all my hon. Friends for their enormous support in Committee. Had my hon. Friend been here today, he would have been speaking from the Front Bench on some of the issues.
      In his letter, the Minister said:
      "The Secretary of State's special share in the employing company will give him certain rights, including the power to prevent the company being dissolved or sold to outside interests. This means that he can ensure that the company will continue indefinitely to fulfil its sole function of acting as the employer of AWE staff."
      At one time, the Minister says that he will retain a share to ensure that the company does not fall into foreign ownership, and at another he says that its only function will be to act as the employer of AWE staff. Of course, it will not have shares that can be bought or sold, because it will not be a registered company. There will just be a contract cooked up between the Minister and his friends in big business. The Government have done nothing about control of ownership of the contractor, about foreign ownership or about access by foreign nationals into this most sensitive of defence areas. Those matters were of fundamental importance in our amendments in Committee.
      The Minister scoffed when I talked about control of ownership of the contractors and friends of the Conservative party. He should look at where the money comes from to elect him. Millions and millions of pounds are paid by big business to ensure that Conservative Members are elected. Surely the Minister does not think that he has been elected because of his great charm.

      1119
      5.45 pm
      The shares of Hunting and of Brown and Root will be sold on stock markets—the shares of Hunting in London, and the shares of Brown and Root, a wholly owned subsidiary of an American company incorporated in Dallas, on the Dallas and other American stock exchanges, although not in London. Our amendment may be too late, because part of the management control of the production of our nuclear weapons is already in the hands of a foreign company. However, the Minister said that he would not mind Americans being in control. He does not regard Americans as foreign nationals.
      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle indicated dissent.
      Mr. Rose: It is no good the Minister shaking his head. He should know by now that I read Committee proceedings. If he wants me to, I can quote what he said about not objecting to Americans because they are friends of ours. If they turn into enemies, perhaps something will be written into the contract to cover that. Perhaps it will say, "If the Americans become enemies, the contract will be null and void."
      In that context, we must remember that an important statutory function of our Atomic Weapons Establishments is to carry out research and development. Such is the production facility that all our basic nuclear research and nuclear secrets may he in the hands of foreign nationals. The special share could not prevent that, and the Minister knows it.
      Let me quote from the same letter to my hon. Friend:
      "I should first say that this special share does not run counter to anything that I said about the ownership of the contractor during the debate on amendment No. 3. We do not intend that the Secretary of State will hold shares in the contractor. The employing company is a separate company, formed by the Secretary of State solely for the purpose of employing the AWE work force. When a contract is awarded for the operation of AWE, the contractor will be required to acquire the employing company which will thus become a wholly owned subsidiary but only for the duration of the contract. If that contract were to change hands, the employing company would be acquired by the new contractor."
      How the special share means that there will be any public accountability, or that the company cannot fall into the control of foreign nationals, is absolutely beyond me.
      The ownership of the company is a matter of great concern to Conservative Members, as I mentioned when we were debating the last group of amendments. Compensation and possible litigation in the event of accidents were matters raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East and by my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Against whom will there be litigation if there is an accident? Will it be against the company with no assets, which exists only to employ staff, against the foreign-owned company or against the Ministry of Defence, which will be the landlord or janitor, depending on how we want to describe it? Perhaps the Minister can tell the House.
      We tabled the amendments because we are concerned about the matter. The problem is that the Government have allowed their party political dogma to shroud the national interest and to prejudice their judgment. They have not thought this through. The experiment is doomed to failure; that is why I hope that hon. Members will support our amendments.
      Sir David Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), to the extent that there is a need to ensure that nuclear secrets remain secrets and that the contractor is United Kingdom-based. However, the amendments go much further than that and pursue an extraordinary course of action. They would have three principal effects. First, they would bar a company in which 10 per cent. or more of the shares are held by a non-United Kingdom citizen from having the contract; secondly, they would ensure that, if 11 per cent. of the shares are owned by a non-United Kingdom citizen, the contract is void; and, thirdly, they would ensure that no compensation will be paid if the contract is made void in such a way. That is different from ensuring that a foreign citizen does not have a majority shareholding, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist this group of amendments.
      These amendments are especially revealing about the Labour party's attitude in 1991. They exemplify its narrow-minded, anti-foreigner attitude. It is a party prepared to accept the United States's nuclear umbrella but not prepared to allow a 15 per cent. shareholding by a citizen from that country. It would not allow a 15 per cent. minority shareholding by a NATO citizen, or by an Irish national, but it would allow——
      Mr. Rogers: Does the hon. Member agree that it also would not allow Saddam Hussein to acquire a 15 per cent. shareholding, in the way that he did with Matrix Churchill and other companies that provided the armaments to kill British soldiers?
      Sir David Mitchell: It is perfectly reasonable to ensure that the contractor company does not fall into foreign hands, but that is quite different from saying that no more than 10 per cent. of the shares can be held by any citizen of the various countries that I have described, which are friendly to us in so many ways.
      The hon. Member for Rhondda is saying that a CND supporter can have more than 10 per cent. of the shares, but that a citizen of a NATO member country cannot.
      I recall that the hon. Gentleman is a former card-carrying member of CND, as was his No. 2 spokesman in Committee. All his CND colleagues would be allowed to hold shares through his amendment, but a staunch supporter of NATO would not be allowed to. That strikes me as a pretty nonsensical amendment to table.
      Mr. Rogers rose——
      Sir David Mitchell: I have not finished with the hon. Gentleman yet.
      One wonders why the hon. Gentleman takes such a view. Is it because he is desperately anxious to ensure the confidentiality of everything that goes on at Aldermaston?
      Mr. Rogers: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if I bought shares in such a company, it would be as an ex-member of the Welsh Regiment and not as an ex-member of CND.
      Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman does not deny that he is an ex-member of CND—a former card-carrying member—and, if I recall correctly, he said that he was proud of it.
      I asked whether the hon. Gentleman was anxious to secure confidentiality in what happens at Aldermaston—I

      1121
      see that he nods as an indication of his support for that view. Therefore, I shall quote from the Basingstoke Gazette:
      "A Labour MP leading the fight against bringing in private management at the Atomic Weapons Establishment has asked workers for information about the Aldermaston plant."
      Apparently the former card-carrying member of CND went down to Silchester, which is just outside my constituency on the borders of Aldermaston, and asked workers for information about the plant. Now he is tabling an amendment seeking confidentiality.
      I quote again from the Basingstoke Gazette:
      Mr. Rogers promised confidentiality for information received".
      It is a fine kettle of fish for the hon. Gentleman to come here now seeking to protect confidentiality, when he has gone to Aldermaston asking people to give him information about the plant.
      The other aspect of this pair of amendments that I find extraordinary is that no compensation will be given to the contractor if it finds that 11 per cent. of its shares are held by any of these offending citizens from America or from NATO countries.
      The hon. Gentleman has proposed that, if someone buys additional shares on the stock exchange and so acquires more than 10 per cent. of the shares, which the company has no power to prevent—it cannot control who buys and sells its shares—the contract becomes null and void. Not only that, but no compensation is paid. The shareholders who own nearly 90 per cent. of the shares will lose a valuable contract, with all that that implies, but will receive no compensation. The hon. Gentleman should take his amendment away, because it is rubbish.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope that I shall not be disqualified from participating in this debate by virtue of the fact that I have never been a card-carrying member of CND and have never had the honour to serve in the Welsh Regiment; nor am I a regular subscriber to that compelling organ of public opinion, the Basingstoke Gazette.
      The amendment seeks to examine—in the context of Report stage—the circumstances in which control of a company which had obtained a contract under section 1(3) of the Bill might raise questions of national importance in the minds of the people of the United Kingdom. It is right and proper that, when one considers the contractorisation of the production and development of weapons of mass destruction, which form a significant part of United Kingdom defence policy and are likely to do so for a long time to come, we should examine with some scruples the extent to which the control of any such company might pass into hands which are not entirely sympathetic to the objectives of the people of the United Kingdom.
      That seems an entirely proper issue for the House and the Select Committee to consider. The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) might have had something to say about the detail of these amendments, but may I respectfully say that he gave scant consideration to the principle behind them, which seems to me to be of considerable importance.
      I have re-read the Minister's observations in column 105 of the report of the fourth sitting of the Standing Committee. As I understand it, he said that the special, or golden, share, will apply only to the company formed for the purpose of employing those who will work at
      1122
      Aldermaston. Apparently there is to be no attempt to create or retain for the Government any similar control in the company which may win the contract. That might raise questions of national importance.
      If the shares of a company that won the contract for the production and development of nuclear weapons were to fall into the hands of other companies—or companies formed by national Governments; we know that that is by no means unusual—circumstances might arise in which control of the company at Aldermaston rested with another company or with a nation whose interests were wholly antagonistic to those of the people of the United Kingdom. How could we then guarantee that the company fulfilled the responsibilities placed upon it by the contract? It would be simple for the company to walk away from the contract during its lifetime and to say that it did not want to continue with it.
      We should be left—as hon. Members have said—to seek recourse on the Strand to try to compel them to continue with it. In legal terms, that would be extremely difficult, and the Government's remedy would be to try to obtain damages. In the meantime, the production and development of nuclear weapons—which is, and is likely to continue to be, a central part of the United Kingdom's defence strategy—might be brought to an end, prejudiced or dealt with in such a way as to make it difficult for us to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent.
      We are dealing with a substantial issue of principle, which we raised with the Minister in Committee. With respect, it seems that, in spite of his courtesy and tact, he did not contrive to deal with it in a way that could be considered intellectually compelling. It is now incumbent on him to explain to the House what remedy he believes that the Government would have in the circumstances that I have outlined. He might be dismissive of the amendments, but he must at least direct his attention to the principle they raise and give us what assurances he can about how the United Kingdom's national interest would be protected in such circumstances.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: If we were to follow the principles outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) to their logical conclusion, we should not buy the missile from America or from General Dynamics, but should make it in this country. We depend on the good will of the Americans for the missiles to carry the Trident warheads. Without that good will, we should not have nuclear missiles.
      6 pm
      Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is right. Since the Nassau agreement, the United Kingdom has depended on the good will of the United States for the provision of nuclear missiles. Some people regard that as politically acceptable and some do not, but it is a fact. I am concerned that we should have to rely not merely on that good will, about which I am reasonably confident, but on the good will of unknown companies or unknown Governments whose commitment to the same ideals as us might be, to say the least, lukewarm. They may not be members of NATO or share the aspirations of the western alliance; indeed, it might be in their interests to prejudice the production and development of nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom.
      The hon. Gentleman's intervention has, if anything, crystallised the argument. It has made even more sharply

      1123
      the point that the Minister must consider. I hope that the Minister will share with the House his doubtless extensive discussions with colleagues from the Ministry of Defence about how the interests of the United Kingdom can be protected if the contract is won by a company the control of which may pass out of hands that the United Kingdom would regard as entirely friendly.
      Mr. McWilliam: I listened carefully, and with some surprise, to the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). I thought that Senator Joe McCarthy was dead. Clearly, his descendants still exist in some form. He asked, "Are you now or have you ever been …?" If the hon. Gentleman wants to know, yes, I was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and I probably still am. I do not know. If not, I should be sorry because I should like to vote against some of its policies. One of the reasons for staying in an organisation is to change its policies.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Like the Labour party.
      Mr. McWilliam: Yes, like the Labour party. We are members of all sorts of organisations, not because we agree with all of their policies—although we agree with most of them—but so that we have the right to change things.
      The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) was right—I have been around Aldermaston. I probably have a higher security clearance than he has. That is not something to worry about.
      I worry about what the application of section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 to the selling of secrets about atomic production to a foreign national. There is an ugly word for that—treason. The Act does not differentiate between selling to a country that is friendly or unfriendly. It applies only to the passing of information.
      Our nuclear programme was founded on American technology and on American transfers of information, but it has come a long way since then, and it is not based on that technology or on those transfers now. Much of the research on which it was based was carried out in this country, so there is plenty of room for co-operation.
      The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West asked whether we should allow one of our NATO allies to acquire shares. I should be extremely worried it, for example, the Belgian company that refused to fill our 155 mm artillery shells, which we needed for the Gulf', was allowed to acquire shares. Belgium is a member of NATO, and that company could legitimately acquire shares if we accepted the hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not believe that that company should be allowed to do so.
      I realise that the drafting of the amendment is extremely tight, but it has to be. Hunting Engineering is owned by Brown and Root (UK). Brown and Root (UK) is a myth. It is registered in the United Kingdom, but it has no British shareholder, unless those shareholders have acquired shares in the United States as it is an American-owned company. I am not anti-American. I should object; if it were any other company.
      In Committee, we pressed the Minister at least to recognise that it was not a good idea to allow foreigners to acquire sufficient control of our atomic weapons production so as to jeopardise it. What is more, we said that it was not a good idea because the more foreign control there was, the more the security of information was compromised. The Minister did not accept those
      1124
      arguments. I am willing to bet that the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West will not tell his constituents that he fought for the right of foreigners to own shares in Aldermaston. I have news for him. I bet that the Basingstoke Gazette is hanging on my words, and I hope that it uses them.
      Sir David Mitchell: My point was that the amendment prescribes 10 per cent. as the barred level—so to speak—which seems ridiculous. Surely there can be no objection to a minority shareholding. There is an objection to a majority shareholding, which is why the Minister has introduced the golden share. That is different from the minority of 10 per cent.
      Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because it makes it clear to me that he has not even begun to comprehend what the debate is about. It is not about the niceties of who owns a company that makes ping-pong balls. If it were, I should leave the hon. Gentleman and his friends in the City to carry on—as they have since time immemorial—doing what they like. I am pleased that for the moment at least, such manipulation does not apply to the Atomic Weapons Establishment, but it will unless the amendment, or something similar, is adopted. We must prevent some of the things that happen in the City happening in the interesting area of protection.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) spoke about the Minister's letter about the golden share. I recall reading a newspaper during the Easter recess. Something in that letter triggered my memory, and I am reminded to ask the Minister a question. Which of the members of his private office is a medium, because I am convinced that Lewis Carroll wrote that letter?
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I listened to the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) with a good deal of interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) said, the hon. Gentleman sought to make membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament some sort of criminal offence. I remind the House that 139 states are in effect members of an international campaign for nuclear disarmament. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West would like to turn his attention to them and make similar sneering remarks about other NATO countries such as Norway and Denmark which refuse to have nuclear weapons on their soil. The Canadian Government, which is under Conservative control, also refuse to have nuclear weapons on their soil.
      The Government of Canada and the Governments of 139 non-nuclear countries share the views of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. They believe that it is sane and sensible not to have nuclear weapons on their soil. I should be interested to know whether any Conservative Members here today wish to persuade any of those 139 countries to take nuclear weapons into their possession. I should be interested to receive any. recommendations to that effect.
      Of course those countries will not take nuclear weapons. They know that the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty is an important treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Who can deny the assertion that, if nuclear weapons spread to other countries, there will be a greater danger of them being used? The rationale behind the amendment is that, because the weapons manufactured at the AWE are the most dangerous on earth, there should be some control by the Government.

      1125
      The Government wish to continue the policy—with which I disagree—of manufacturing nuclear weapons here in the United Kingdom. We cannot provide absolute prevention of foreign domination through legislation, but we can try. It seems to me that 10 per cent. is not an unreasonable limit on any shareholding. For example, if Saddam Hussein's front men had 10 per cent. of a company—Nuclear Weapons Manufacturing (Basingstoke) Ltd., for instance—the Tories would be slavering at the jaws and saying how dangerous it was that this Hitler-like person had obtained 10 per cent. of the company.
      Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Cryer: I shall continue with my remarks, if I may.
      The danger of someone like Saddam Hussein gaining more than 10 per cent. of such a company is one of the important reasons for the 10 per cent. limit. I shall come to Matrix Churchill in a moment, if that is what my hon. Friend has in mind.
      The 10 per cent. limit is also a safeguard against the shifting sands of other Government's policies. We all remember less than a year ago the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, not attacking Saddam Hussein as a potential tyrant, but attending a garden party organised by the Iraqi embassy at which he encouraged our manufacturing industry to sell equipment—weapons were embargoed during the Iran-Iraq war—to the Iraqis. That was why a perfectly good manufacturing company in the machine tool sector—Matrix Churchill—was bought up without the Government raising an eyebrow.
      Why did they not raise an eybrow? It was because their ideology is that capital should be free; there should be no impediments on it. It should move between countries, gaining its 5, 10 or 15 per cent. return as profit. Therefore, they believed that it was wrong and arbitary for a Government to intercede between the capitalist and the object of his investment. Lying beneath their policy is the ideology expressed time and again by people who are still in the Government.
      The present Minister is a perfectly polite and pleasant man, although he has wrapped a shroud around some nasty policies. However, he may not be in his job for long and some free-booting free-market Minister may be put in his place who might not treat the safeguards so conscientiously as the present Minister does.
      6.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West was saying succinctly that the rights of capital are superior to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Let me deal with another argument that he used. He suggested that the Labour party was anti-foreigner because Labour Members wished to exclude foreigners from ownership of the company. I am one of the those people who do not like pointing nuclear weapons at foreigners. By and large, nuclear weapons are pointed at foreigners. The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West is prepared to point a whole range of nuclear weapons at foreigners, so that on the scale of concern and affection for foreigners I rank higher than the hon. Gentleman. I am not prepared to exterminate foreigners on a greater scale than civilisation has ever achieved.
      1126
      I remind the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West that when we were friendly—when I say "we", I mean the Government——
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer his remarks to the amendment. They are rather too general at present.
      Mr. Cryer: My remarks deal with an amendment which is designed to protect against the purchase of an important contracting company by foreign owners through the penetration of foreign capital in a highly sensitive area—the manufacture of the most dangerous weapons that mankind has, sadly, discovered.
      The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) suggests that there are grave dangers in not including some legislative provision other than a golden share. We have often heard Ministers make the case for retaining a golden share in a company. One by one, Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and told the House that the Government intended to get rid of the golden share. They did so in the case of Jaguar Cars, which was supposed to be an important pinnacle of British manufacturing industry.
      There are other considerations. One is the nature of this area of manufacturing. That is why I am pointing out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had friendly relations with Iraq not long ago. Matrix Churchill was bought up under the eye of the Government to export good quality machinery for manufacturing weaponry. Some people understood that. I want to demonstrate that, even with this legislation there cannot be an absolute guarantee of protection. All we can do is to seek to influence behaviour and make it conform with the aim and spirit of the Bill.
      The perfectly decent firm of Sheffield Forgemasters was involved in the manufacture of a super-gun which the Department of Trade and Industry could not recognise. The Department could not recognise a super-gun if it was sprayed on its eyeballs. Yet we are to depend on the Government. If the gun had been assembled outside the DTI on Victoria street, the civil servants would have looked at it and said, "What a super piece of oil piping." It took the Iraqi civil service to tell them that the oil piping was more expensive and of a higher standard that the average bit of scaffolding, which was what the DTI thought it was.
      Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend talks about companies being encouraged to export to Iraq materials that could be used for the production of armaments. International Military Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence, actively encouraged Astra to purchase PRV of Belgium, which produced the propellant for the big gun, so that it could export the propellant to Iraq, or siphon it through Jordan into Iraq. Of course, this country's main producer of the propellant is Royal Ordnance plc, which was handed over to British Aerospace. Even the present Government would have looked a little sad if they had encouraged Royal Ordnance to supply the propellant for the big gun. However, they certainly encouraged Astra to purchase PRV so that it could do so. So far as this business is concerned, the Government's hands are very dirty indeed.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes an apt point.
      If the amendment were accepted, breach of the legislation would preclude compensation. Its purpose is to

      1127
      encourage greater scrutiny by the people operating this company. They would realise that, if they did not exercise scrutiny, their pockets would be hurt. I am afraid that one of the traits of some sections of humanity is that, in the absence of a prod of that nature, they turn a blind eye, especially when they get no guidance from a supine and inert Government willing to sell pretty well anything at any time to anybody anywhere, so long as the people who contribute to Tory party funds make a fast buck. That may seem a little crude, but it is the reality, even if the Government try to avoid it with grand words.
      At Question Time today, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that he supported the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the 139 non-nuclear signatories to the NPT want some assurance. They get no assurance from this country, as it is embarking on the manufacture of Trident nuclear weapons. That is what this legislation is about. I do not want people to be put on the dole; I want expertise and skills in this field to be transferred to projects that would preserve and benefit life instead of having the potential to destroy it.
      I certainly want to see the end of the manufacture of Trident nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, so do those 139 non-nuclear nations. They keep telling us that it is unfair that the nuclear signatories, including the United States and the Soviet Union, should be negotiating some reduction—as they have been, through the INF treaty—while the United Kingdom does nothing of the sort. In review conferences, they keep asking, "Why should we get rid of nuclear weapons, and refuse to manufacture or deploy them, when the United Kingdom sets no example at all?"
      Sir Anthony Durant: I have been following very closely the hon. Gentleman's remarks about atomic weapons throughout the world. Does he advocate the closure of Aldermaston?
      Mr. Cryer: I thought I had made it absolutely clear that I should like to see the Aldermaston expertise and skills used in the development of materials and equipment for the preservation and development of life. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that getting rid of nuclear weapons would necessarily result in many people being put on the dole, he is mistaken. We can—indeed, we must—plan the change. It is the absence of planning that has resulted in so much redundancy following the so-called peace dividend.
      I want to return to the detail of the clause. The 139 non-nuclear nations to which I have referred are not impressed by the record of the present and previous Conservative Governments, who have spent £10,000 million on Trident nuclear weapons. If they see the manufacture of nuclear warheads handed over in a sloppy manner to private contractors, who, with regard to proliferation, may be subject to rather less Government control, they will be even less impressed.
      If the Government are to continue this manufacture, which I steadfastly oppose, and if they are to continue with this legislation, as I have no doubt they are, even though I steadfastly oppose and deplore it, we should at least have some safeguards. Perhaps one day the Minister will get a trip to Canada under Government auspices. If that should happen, would he not want to be able to say, "We are providing every possible safeguard"? If the people there said, "But Labour put forward some decent safeguards,
      1128
      and you rejected them," he would have a perfectly reasonable answer. He would be able to say that the safeguards had been rejected in the Commons but would be accepted in the Lords.
      I dare say that all legislation is flawed to some degree. However, the Minister should be in a position to say that the House of Commons at least tried to provide some control over the manufacture of weapons capable of causing more death, more destruction and more lingering horror than occurred in the whole of the Gulf war and the subsequent Kurdish crisis. These are important safeguards, and I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: I regret that I was unable to be present for the debate on the first group of amendments. I was attending a meeting of the Select Committee on Defence, which was considering the threatened closure of the Rosyth naval base. Having been a member of the Standing Committee that considered this Bill, I am glad to be able to contribute at this stage.
      It is with a feeling of unreality that we see the Government, in their dying weeks—we hope that these are their dying weeks—introducing legislation to commit the ultimate folly of privatisating the manufacture of nuclear weapons, having privatised almost everything else. In these circumstances, we can always depend on the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) to extend the unreality. He has certainly done so today. Evidently, he is prepared to go to the wall for the rights of any number of foreigners—people from Iraq, Argentina, the Soviet Union, or anywhere else—to purchase any number of shares in the operating company of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The hon. Gentleman's party regards itself as the party of patriotism. It is the party that wraps itself in the flag.
      Sir David Mitchell: I understand the reasons for the hon. Gentleman's absence from the earlier debate. He must have been still absent when I made my speech, as I did not make the suggestion that he has just put into my mouth.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I was present, and I listened very closely to the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech. He was at great pains to make clear what he felt about friendly foreigners. But there is nothing in the Bill about friendly foreigners; there are no restrictions. Share ownership in the operating company will be open to anybody. Evidently, the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a good thing that people from any country should be able to purchase shares. Plainly that is unreasonable, irrational and dangerous. There should be restrictions. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West, giving due consideration to national interests as well as local interests, will table a manuscript amendment putting foreigners into different categories. So far, he has not done so. He is prepared to go to the wall in support of the case that any foreigner should be allowed to buy any number of shares in the operating company.
      Sir David Mitchell: That is not what I said.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: So long as that person is not a member of CND.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, so long as he is not, and has never been, a member of CND, and has no relationship with it.
      Mr. McWilliam: Or the Welsh Regiment.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Or the Welsh Regiment, or the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, or the Durham Light Infantry.
      In the next part of his extraordinary contribution, the hon. Gentleman suggested that there was something seditious about the trip of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who led for the Opposition in the Standing Committee, to Aldermaston to try to get some perfectly relevant, openly available information about the way in which Hunting-BRAE was conducting its affairs at the time leading up to the introduction of this legislation.
      As ever, the Government have jumped the gun about privatising the Atomic Weapons Establishment and Hunting-BRAE is already involved. I put it to the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West that it was entirely proper for my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda to find out relevant information in anticipation of the proceedings in Committee and debates in the House. It was equally proper for employees at Aldermaston to brief hon. Members on both sides of the House and tell us what was going on there, how inefficient it was and how they had managed to lose an entire day's production because of the way in which they were conducting their affairs.
      6.30 pm
      On reflection, the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West should acknowledge that his outburst was unjustified and disgraceful, and hon. Members on both sides of the House should acknowledge that the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda on behalf of the Opposition is the correct and patriotic way to proceed with the legislation.
      I personally feel that the whole Bill should be thrown out. I find it quite bizarre that we are talking about privatising the operation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Certainly there must be safeguards as to who can own shares in that company in future. We heard from the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West on behalf of the unreconstructed Thatcherite Tory party that absolutely everything is up for grabs and that anything can be solved. The Tories would even sell their grannies. They would sell the Atomic Weapons Establishment to anyone, including Saddam Hussein. That is irresponsible, and that is why the amendment should be accepted.
      Mr. Haynes: The Government are privatisation-barmy. There is no doubt about that, but this time they have gone over the top. Here they are privatising the establishment that is responsible for the manufacture of nuclear warheads. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where are the Government going? The things that they are flaming well doing are clearly barmy. We are now discussing the foreign ownership of British companies.
      The Minister was warned in Committee, but he did not respond in the way we wanted about the foreign ownership of the four establishments. What are the Government doing? They privatised gas, oil and electricity, but the privatisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment is a different ball game.
      Mention has been made of Saddam Hussein. The Ministry of Defence let him get away with murder when it came to weapons. The Government did not do a damn
      1130
      thing. The Iraqis had pilots in the air in the Gulf war, and we damn well trained them. That is another point about foreign nationals. Now the Government are saying that those foreign nationals can come and buy shares in the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Never mind the percentage—the principle is rotten. I hope that the Minister has listened to all the speeches about foreign ownership of the AWE. The Minister is getting a bit eager. I have not finished yet. I have just opened my notes.
      I am worried because we are discussing the Ministry of Defence. I ask the House to concentrate on the cock-up that the Ministry of Defence and the Government have made of military establishments. We are talking about the AWE. Saddam Hussein has been mentioned; we should not forget Colonel Gaddafi. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), who is a great friend of Gaddafi. He goes to see him from time to time, and he tries to badger him into helping to release the hostages.
      What about Gaddafi buying into the AWE? After all, Saddam Hussein was supposed to be a friend of Britain and the Government encouraged him in all manner of things. Now the Government are leaving it wide open for Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and other nasty dictators throughout the world to buy into the AWE. While I gather my thoughts, I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. McWilliam: While my hon. Friend gathers his thoughts, he might recollect that, as far as I am aware, the Libyan Government own shares in the Agusta aircraft company, which is the part-manufacturer of the EH101 anti-submarine helicopter that is being developed for the Royal Navy.
      Mr. Haynes: We have another voice of experience from the Select Committee on Defence. My hon. Friends know a lot more than I do about defence because of their experience on that Select Committee. I am not a member of it, so they are way out in front of me, but I can see real dangers in the Bill resulting from foreign ownership of the establishment that manufactures wicked and dangerous weapons.
      In Standing Committee, we asked questions about security. We gave the Government a right going over, and we were not satisfied with the Minister's response. If they allow foreign nationals to buy into the Atomic Weapons Establishment, they will have a hell of a job with security and policing. I want to know whether they will build up the manpower when foreign nationals have bought into the establishment.
      Mr. George Howarth: Which manpower?
      Mr. Haynes: The manpower involved in security. The numbers employed in security at military establishments are dipping all the time. The end result is that they are using people who have just got out of prison to do security work.
      Security at military establishments is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. I want to stress the cock-up that the Government have made of that, but we are discussing something quite different—the manufacture of nuclear warheads. The Ministry of Defence will be responsible for the security of the establishment. If foreign nationals will be able to buy into the AWE, we must do something about the security system there. The Minister

      1131
      would not answer our questions in Committee. The things that are happening under the present Administration are quite appalling.
      I can tell the Minister that my constituents are not too pleased with the Bill. I go round to the British Legion club. Those boys were prepared to give their lives for our nation. They are concerned about what the Government are doing in the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill.
      There is another question that was not answered in Committee. If foreign nationals bought into the privatised AWE, how many jobs would be lost? Every time the Government have privatised an industry, jobs have gone—hosts of them.
      If such companies do not make enough money, more and more jobs go. If the companies start to lose money someone else must buy in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, if that happens in this case, who knows who will buy in? The Government will dilly-dally and dither all over the damn place in the hope that someone will come along and snap up the AWE quickly. They will not study who those people are, or who they represent. The Government have shot off in this direction and have not listened to the Opposition's suggestions. We have told them the things that could go wrong.
      I believe that the Government should dither on this issue so that it is studied properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made particular reference to the need to look at this matter properly. The Government should not rush head on. The Government dither on some things, but they rush like silly beggars on others.
      The Minister may think that this is a big joke, but it is a serious matter. In Committee I talked about his baby. He has a lovely baby.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Has he?
      Mr. Haynes: Oh, aye. That baby was also a serious matter and the Minister could laugh about that, because it was a happy event. I look forward to the next happy event, but he should think seriously about the problems we have described tonight. I hope that the Under-Secretary will convince the Secretary of State. It is no good talking to the Minister of State; he was not a member of the Committee, and today he ducked in here for about two minutes. Oh—I see that he has just returned. I did not notice him by the Chair, but now he is here to listen to the back end of my speech. He has missed all the others and all the serious issues that were raised.
      It seems that all the sheep on the Conservative Benches will follow the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, just like they followed them on the poll tax. They have had to back off on that, because they got their backsides kicked in their constituencies. I want their backsides to be kicked about this Bill, because, as soon as the electorate wake up to the effects of this privatisation, they will tell Conservative Members in no uncertain terms to back off, just like they did on the poll tax.
      After the next election, we shall act at the first opportunity to get rid of the Bill. We shall follow the proposals advocated by my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I have no quarrel with the basic principle behind the amendment, which is to protect United Kingdom national security interests. There are, however, other ways in which to do that than by including
      1132
      in legislation a requirement limiting the percentage of foreign ownership in the contracting company. The Opposition's suggestion does not represent the most effective way in which to secure full security. We believe that this issue is best tackled through the contract and other means, not through the Bill.
      I should remind the Opposition, as I did in Committee, that protecting national security is the job of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—it is his central role. He does not need a statutory obligation to ensure that he does his job. He would never hand over the running of the AWE to foreign control.
      I should also remind the House that the Government are retaining ownership of all the property, assets and equipment at the AWE. We are only contractorising the management.
      Mr. Rogers: The Minister says that he will prevent foreign ownership through the contract. We are simply asking him to tell us how.
      Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall outline how we will ensure security. I should be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman again later.
      It may be for the benefit of the House if I outline how we shall ensure that the Government retain influence over ownership of the companies involved in the operation of the AWE. I say "companies" because we intend to adopt for the AWE the two-company structure of an employing company and a contracting company. That was the arrangement we followed when contractor operation was introduced into our royal dockyards. It is therefore a well-proven arrangement, and itself provides important safeguards.
      6.45 pm
      Our intention is that, shortly before vesting day, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will form the employing company for the purpose of employing the AWE's staff. As I have said, this will be a different company from the contracting company, which will be the private sector company or consortium that wins the competition for full contractor operation of the AWE.
      As part of the contract, the contractor will take over ownership of the employing company from my right hon. Friend. The purpose of the employing company will still be to act as employer of the AWE staff. However, for the duration of the operating contract, the employing company will be wholly owned by the contractor, with the important exception of a single special share which will be retained by my right hon. Friend. That will provide important safeguards.
      The two-company structure and the special share in the employing company will benefit the staff by providing continuity of employment. If, after about five to seven years, a further competition is held and another contractor is appointed to run AWE on our behalf, that firm will be required to take over the employing company from the original contractor. Staff will remain employees of the same employing company.
      Similarly, if, for any reason, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wished to operate the AWE himself, or if we were unhappy with the contractor, the two-company structure and the special share would enable him to take back the employing company and thus the entire staff of AWE under direct Government control. That is an important safeguard for the Government, as, if necessary,

      1133
      we could revert to operating the AWE ourselves. I believe that that answers the particular concern expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).
      Given the safeguards provided by the two-company structure and the special share, I regard it as neither necessary nor right to seek to legislate on possible foreign shareholdings in the contracting company. The ownership question, which is linked with wider security issues, is better covered at the tender and contract stages.
      We have made it very clear that we shall ensure that the choice of contractor and the terms of the contract take full account of all security considerations. The contractor must comply fully with our security requirements, including satisfying my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about its ownership. I stress that we shall be looking for a United Kingdom-based prime contractor, who can comply with those requirements. We shall ensure that the ownership of the contracting company, whether or not it is owned by a consortium, is not prejudicial to our defence interests. I stress that we shall be most careful about that, but I reiterate that it is not a matter appropriate to legislation. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) put that argument convincingly.
      We will also take measures to ensure that, once the contract has been let, there is no possibility of national security considerations being compromised through shares changing hands. I repeat the guarantee that I gave in Committee—all the requirements to protect security and ensure that the contractor fulfils security criteria will be written firmly into the contract.
      I regard this as a matter for the contract rather than legislation, because, irrespective of any foreign shareholdings, there may be United Kingdom companies or individuals who would not meet our high security standards and whom we would find unacceptable as our operating contractor at AWE. That is why it is important that our security criteria are strictly applied both in the award, and during the term, of the contract. A restriction in the Bill defining an acceptable level of foreign ownership would, by itself, be insufficient adequately to protect national security. We need the whole strength of our ability to enforce security, not just a restriction set down in the Bill.
      Conversely, AWE experts have always co-operated closely with their counterparts in the United States and will no doubt continue to do so. I cannot accept, for example, that there is any objection in principle to a degree of involvement from companies based in the United States. As everyone will know, and as has been mentioned in debate, our nuclear links with the Americans are close and valued, and have been so valued by Governments of all parties.
      As the amendment is designed, albeit unacceptably, to protect national security, I should take this opportunity of reiterating the Government's commitment to maintaining the very highest standards of security at AWE. Those standards will be not only applied in our selection of contractor, as I have already mentioned, but also written in detail into the contract so that the contractor is under no doubt about the high standards that he must meet. In addition, every employee of the contractor, and any parent company, who has access to AWE information or sites will be rigorously vetted by the Ministry of Defence and will meet our high standards.
      1134
      The contractor will also be required to comply with our "need to know" principle which restricts the dissemination of classified information—a well recognised and widely used principle. Any individual who breaks security rules will risk losing his or her security clearance and could be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. In the event that the operating company was itself implicated in those theoretical events, sanctions will be available under the contract which could, as a last resort, culminate in terminating the contract. I must repeat that, if the Secretary of State is truly worried about national security, he has full power to rescind the contract and to take the employing company back into his full ownership.
      In conclusion, the Government are committed to maintaining the highest security standards at AWE. This includes the question of foreign ownership, although that is but one aspect in our overall security requirements. Coupled with the safeguards provided by the two-company structure and the special share arrangements in the employing company, it is far more sensible and effective to safeguard security by the careful application of well proven security criteria to those companies who tender for the contract, than by the blunt instrument of statutory provision. I therefore invite the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Rogers: I still cannot understand what the Minister is on about in relation to retaining a special share. He has said in his letter that he is setting up a company that will be solely an employing company; it will have no function other than to employ people. There will then be a quite separate contracting company. At present, on phase 1, that will be a consortium of Hunting Engineering, Brown and Root, an American company, and the Atomic Energy Authority.
      The special share will stop no one from purchasing shares in the contracting company. Anyone who has the money to purchase them on the London stock exchange, or the Dallas stock exchange in relation to Brown and Root, will be able to do so. The present 22 managers are employed by Hunting Engineering, Brown and Root and the Atomic Energy Authority. Is the Minister saying that the special share in the employing company will stop Brown and Root and Hunting Engineering trading on the stock exchange?
      I cannot see what the function of the special share is, except that it will prevent any transfer of that company to anyone else and so will secure the jobs of the people who are working there, something which I applaud. It cannot secure who works there in the first place.
      Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is worried about the transfer of shares in the contracting company. We can well write into a contract that the Secretary of State would have to be advised about the transfer of shares from a contracting company, and then the share in the second employing company, the special share, comes in. If, for security reasons, the Secretary of State disliked that transfer of shares and was determined to stop it but the transfer went ahead and the Secretary of State believed that that was not in the interests of national security, that special share in the employing company would enable him to cancel the contract and take back the employing company into his own ownership, and thereby take over the running of AWE himself. That is the final fallback, and it is foolproof.
      Mr. Rogers: It is incredible. The Minister says that he can write into a contract with a company the fact that its shares cannot be free traded on the stock exchange, or at least, if they are, that the Government must be notified before or after. If a company does that, the Minister's only response will be to cancel the contract. The company will be right in the middle of producing warheads for Trident. As the hon. arid learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, the Government will end up in the law courts in the Strand. I have never heard anything so ill-conceived in my life.
      Surely to goodness the Minister understands that a special share in an employing company, which in his own words is set up solely to employ people, will have nothing to do with controlling the management of Aldermaston. The Minister is setting up this structure to bring in outside management because, as he says, the Ministry of Defence is not good enough to run the place. He has said time and time again, "We do not have the expertise. We have got to go outside and privatise." Then straight away he says, "Ah, but we are going to set up this structure." The Minister is talking nonsense and the structure that he is proposing is ill-founded.
      My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) described the contribution of the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) as disgraceful. As it was an attack on me, I will leave the hon. Gentleman to live with his own conscience. Our amendments would prevent the proliferation of the technology and the expertise that are required for the production of nuclear weapons. Surely to goodness Conservative Members are not saying that they want an open seam for the production of nuclear weapons, especially after the Gulf war. Not even the Prime Minister believes in that.
      Only yesterday, the Prime Minister suggested that there should be an arms register. That happens to be about five years after the Labour party suggested it. Like his safe haven policy it is a little late—plagiarism yet again. We do not mind him copying our policies—that is why we advocate them—but an arms register is a step along the path of non-proliferation and we applaud it.
      We are glad that Conservative Members have come over to our way of thinking. Why not extend the idea to Aldermaston—[Interruption.] The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is muttering again, but as a military historian he should realise the sense of my argument—even though he never bothered to attend Committee to listen to it because he was too busy, as I said before, with his antique cars. He should have attended our debates and carried out his responsibilities as the Minister for Defence Procurement.
      7 pm
      The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West mentioned my former membership of CND. Sometimes people change their opinions in the light of new circumstances. The hon. Gentleman may be somewhat neanderthal in his views but some of us are a little more flexible. He suggested that my position as a Member of Parliament was unsound because I was a former member of CND. I know that Conservative Members do not worry about former members of the National Front. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that his background is more sound than mine. I know that membership of the Welsh Regiment does not count for much—not even with me
      1136
      —but for what it is worth, I was a national service man. I am not sure where the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West served, but he can take my membership of CND and the Welsh Regiment as he likes.
      If I had really wanted to be unsound, I would have been better off going to a public school, since one of the qualifications for membership of the long list of traitors to this country is membership of the Conservative party or attendance at public school. I do not know of many steel workers or miners who have sold secrets to the Russians, but I am sure that quite a few former university and public school boys who may have been friends of Conservative Members or even of the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West probably sold out to the Russians. The Tory party sold out to the Nazis before the war; it collaborated with them throughout the 1930s and claimed that Hitler was a wonderful man. So Conservative Members should not point the finger at us and call us unsound or traitors. They should look among their own ranks, where they will find a viper's nest. If anyone knows about loyalty in the Conservative party, it is the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
      These were probing amendments to which we have received no response. It appears that we are not going to get the Minister to change his mind, so we shall not press them to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule

      APPLICATION OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS
      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 27, at end insert—
      'Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (c. 34)
      4A.—(l) For the purposes of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, so far as relating to authorisations required under section 6(1) of that Act for the disposal of radioactive waste, a relevant site in designated premises shall be treated as a site in respect of which a nuclear site licence is for the time being in force.
      (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, "relevant site" means a site used by a contractor for the purposes of any activity which would, if section I of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 applied in relation to the site, require a nuclear site licence.'.
      This is a technical amendment. Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, there are two different regimes for authorising the disposal of radioactive waste. Nuclear power stations and other major nuclear sites which are subject to licensing under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 are regulated jointly by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Other sites which dispose of much smaller quantities of radioactive material are regulated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution alone.
      AWE is currently exempt from both Acts, although both HMIP and MAFF fulfil a quasi-regulatory role at AWE sites by administrative arrangement.
      Under the Bill as amended in Committee, AWE will remain exempt from the licensing provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act but will become subject to the Radioactive Substances Act. A consequence is that, although HMIP will acquire a statutory role in authorising disposals of radioactive waste at AWE, MAFF will not, as none of the AWE sites will be licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act.

      1137
      After discussion with MAFF, we have decided that it would be appropriate for MAFF to have a statutory role in authorising radioactive discharges at those AWE sites—Aldermaston and Burghfield—which would be subject to licensing under the Nuclear Installations Act were it not for the exemption provided in paragraph 5 of the schedule to this Bill. The amendment which we are now discussing has been drafted to achieve that purpose. Although it appears in the schedule, it does not confer any exemption upon the contractorised AWE; on the contrary, it imposes an extra layer of statutory regulation, and thus an extra environmental safetguard, by giving MAFF a role as well as HMIP. I urge the House to support the amendment.
      Mr. McWilliam: I thank the Minister for his explanation. We do not intend to oppose the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      7.7 pm
      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I am delighted to move the Third Reading of this Bill. We have spent some time taking the Bill through Committee and are now approaching a conclusion. I should like to explain the general purpose of the Bill, which is to meet the requirements of the Trident programme.
      We believe that the Bill will improve the operation of manufacturing at AWE, thereby guaranteeing as effectively as possible our independent nuclear deterrent. Hon. Members will recall that I have often said that our Trident programme is on time at AWE, but production targets are becoming tighter, and to meet those targets we believe that we must organise manufacturing at AWE as effectively as possible by introducing the expertise of the private sector.
      I also stress that we are not privatising AWE. All the property, assets and equipment will remain the property of the Secretary of State for Defence. What we are putting into private hands is AWE's organisation of manufacturing, which can best be carried out by people with the skill and experience that come from organising a manufacturing enterprise.
      This is not to cast slurs on the abilities of the people at AWE, for whose qualities we have the highest regard. They are among the most skilled in their sphere in the world, and they are dedicated to helping us to secure our deterrent. We believe, however, that efficient manufacturing is best achieved by those with experience of manufacturing in the private sector. Therefore, the best way forward for AWE is for the operation to be contractorised. The path is already familiar to the House because we took it with the royal dockyards. They, too, have excellent staff, with exceptional skills and knowledge. It is fair to recognise, none the less, that the talents of the AWE work force do not lie primarily in areas of manufacturing.
      Various serious concerns have been expressed by my hon. Friends who have constituency interests and by Opposition Members during many debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I am confident that the fears have been met.
      There have been fundamental fears, for example, about security. I have often said that the Secretary of State is the
      1138
      ultimate guarantor for security. He can ensure in a number of ways that there is proper security, and we went into those in detail on Report. If the Secretary of State is worried about security, his special shares in the employing company provide him with the ultimate sanction of cancelling the contract and taking back the employing company. We do not expect that to happen, because there are several steps that could be taken before the ultimate sanctions were employed. As I have said, the ultimate sanction rests with the Secretary of State in the interests of the state's security.
      The House has been greatly concerned with safety. The Government are obviously extremely concerned about safety and accept that it is of paramount importance. I think that I have satisfied the House that all the existing safeguards will remain. Again, the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for safety. Several extra safeguards have been introduced. Safety will be written deeply into the contract, and the contractor, will have an incentive to ensure that safety is of the highest level. He will suffer under the terms of the contract if he does not fulfil his obligations to ensure the proper level of safety.
      Sir Anthony Durant: I apologise for not being in my place when there was reference to the escape of tritium. There is no doubt that there is concern about it. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will talk to the establishment in advance of contractorisation to ensure that everything is secure? There are anxieties now, and I hope that my hon. Friend will go to the site and talk to those concerned about current safety.
      Mr. Carlisle: I know that my hon. Friend has been worried about a tiny leak of tritium. I can confirm that there was an extremely small leak on 19 February in an area where research was taking place that is not central to the existing operation by Hunting-BRAE, which is concentrated on manufacturing. The regulating authorities were informed. As I have said, the release was extremely minor. No member of the public would have received exposure of more than 1 microSievert. The House will know that members of the public receive every year, on average, more than 2,000 times as much radioactivity as that from natural and background sources.
      The leak has been investigated, and we are expecting a report soon. I shall be surprised if we do not accept all the recommendations that are contained in the report. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) and his constituents.
      As I have said, safety will be written into the contract. There will be support from the compliance office that we are setting up. As a last step—this course was not available when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was managing the manufacturing—the contractor could be taken to court.
      Some concern has been expressed about terms and conditions. These will be protected by the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. We have guaranteed that pensions will be as good as they are now, as will terms of redundancy. We do not expect any redundancies so long as we are true to the Trident programme. The order book stretches securely into the future.
      Our aim is to secure a nuclear deterrent and to ensure that the manufacturing effort is conducted on time and as efficiently as is possible. We have before us a sensible Bill

      1139
      that contains strong safeguards to protect national interests and AWE employees. I commend the Bill to the House.
      7.16 pm
      Mr. Rogers: For all the reasons that the Minister has advanced in support of the Bill, we shall vote against it. It is obvious that the measure was conceived out of the Government's incompetence and that their incompetence extended into the drafting of it. On many issues that we discussed on Second Reading and in Committee, we were extremely unhappy. Indeed, both Conservative and Opposition Members expressed reservations about some of the Bill's provisions. The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said on one occasion that he supported the Bill in principle, although he did not support some of the details. That seemed a daft approach.
      Many of the issues that have been raised this evening were debated in Committee. The more that we examined the Bill the more we were confirmed in our view that the Government are extremely bad at managing the procurement of nuclear warheads and weapons and of defence equipment in general. Our view was confirmed by the Select Committee on Defence. When examining the production of Trident, it became extremely concerned about extensive delays and overruns in cost and in time. It is beyond me to understand how the Minister can say that he is happy with the Trident nuclear programme.
      The Select Committee dealt with the Government's feeble attempt to redress the system that prevailed in Aldermaston before bringing in 22 managers at £25 million a year. The Select Committee took the view that the result was different levels of payments to different grades in different ways so as to cause division and dissension, even when more money had been paid. It seemed that employees asked to be returned to a lower grade where they could earn more money.
      The Government say that the management of Aldermaston was poor in their hands. I can understand that. Surely it is perverse for the Minister to use his incompetence to justify privatisation. It is because the Government are so poor at doing their job that they have introduced this privatisation measure. The Minister has told us that, if the Government are to meet their nuclear deterrent programme and provide a proper defence for the country, it is essential to privatise the manufacturing section.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, but he has been absent during today's proceedings until recently. It happens that he worked at Aldermaston. As he was part of the shambles that existed there, he should take some of the blame. Therefore, I shall not give way to him now.
      The Minister says that he is not privatising but contractorising. However, as can be seen from column 47 of the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, previously he said that the Government were privatising. It is privatisation, certainly of the intellectual aspects of the production of nuclear warheads and of the production itself. The fact that the Government are retaining the physical aspects of Aldermaston under their control simply means that they are acting as the landlord or the
      1140
      janitor. We are discussing the production of some of the most fearsome weapons known to mankind. We are concerned about the proliferation of those weapons and the fact that there is no real control over the penetration of the installations by people from other countries. The Bill contains no safeguards to prevent such penetration because the Government have removed civil service status from the people working at that establishment.
      I should have liked to talk about a number of aspects at length, but I shall desist because of the pressure of time. In particular, I should have liked to speak of the Government's appalling inefficiency and mismanagement in the construction of the A90 building. Time and again, we have alerted the Government to the problems with the building, not only in its roof, but in the stainless steel tanks that have welding problems and may allow the emission of toxic and radioactive gases into the atmosphere. The building was privately constructed and the work supposedly was carried out to British Nuclear Fuels specifications. Much of the work had to be redone because it was unsafe. Who picked up the bill for all that additional work? It was the taxpayer. That does not fill me with confidence about the Bill's proposals for the production, supervision, safety and ultimate delivery of the finished product.
      When I raised those matters in Committee, the Minister dismissed them and said that I was wrong and was scaremongering. He said:
      "the problems of the capital programme are now firmly in the past. The A90 construction work is now complete. Several hon. Members referred to the problems with the duct work, which was acknowledged to be unsatisfactory. It has now been replaced by suitable materials.… I have seen the A90 building…and it is a very good one.
      Installation of the equipment is largely complete and commissioning of the building and equipment are now under way. We shall be able to meet the requirements for production of Trident, and I am pleased to say that the Trident programme is on course to meet its in-service date by the mid-1990s."
      There is already two or three years' slippage in the programme. He continued:
      "An unsatisfactory situation has now been brought up to date through the various steps which we have taken. Work on the building is on time, it will meet the programme and it is safe."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F,19 February 1991; c. 242.]
      During the past week, we have seen just how safe it is. Answers from the Secretary of State have also shown that the work is not on time. Perhaps he could tell his Minister that.
      Many of the issues that we have not had the opportunity to discuss this evening relate to control, accountability, certain aspects of safety, security, financial control, the general efficiency of the establishment, and other options that have not been considered. I am sure that hon. Members who represented Aldermaston, Burghfield, Cardiff and Foulness would have supported our amendments had they had the opportunity to do so, but they had not because of the Government Whip. I am referring to such matters as funded redundancy to ensure that after, TUPE 1981 plus one day, the work force would have the security that the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West said that he wanted for his constituents. He did not have the gumption to vote for our amendment, but perhaps he will vote with us on Third Reading. At least some of his hon. Friends abstained because they recognised the fundamental flaws in the Bill.

      1141
      We need to derive into the issue of the contract. It is incredible that, at least two years after the proposition came to the fore, the Minister still cannot tell us what is likely to be in the final contract. For a year, some 22 people from a contractor have been operating under phase 1 of the contract, but we still have no information about the contract. Time and again in Committee, the Minister said that he could not tell us what would be in the contract because he did not know. That was an awful admission. After all this time, he still has no idea of what will be in the contract for the production of nuclear warheads. That is a sad and sorry admission, but it is in line with the clear fact that the Bill has arisen out of the Government's incompetence—an incompetence that has not stopped.
      7.26 pm
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I have already explained why I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate and in the Committee proceedings. I am glad that I have sat through the remaining stages and Third Reading. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has shown extraordinary patience despite being sorely provoked by many unreasonable arguments. He answered the points made extraordinary well and comprehensively. I thank him for his answers to my questions.
      I well remember going to see Mr. William Rodgers when he was a Minister at the Ministry of Defence. It was a year or two after I had become the Member of Parliament for Newbury. I asked whether I could be shown around what was then called the AWRE at Aldermaston. He was polite, but he said, "Michael, we do not allow Members of Parliament to go around the establishment because of the problem with security clearance. We do not want to get involved in that area, because we are not sure what might arise." Now, many Members of Parliament have been around that establishment, and I like to think that my representations made some difference to the thinking of the Ministry of Defence about opening the establishment to Members of Parliament and the Select Committee.
      The Bill is about the contractorisation of the four atomic weapons establishments. Perhaps it is because Aldermaston falls within my constituency that I think that it is the jewel in the crown. Ever since it was a wartime airfield, and then a leading establishment in the nuclear arms programme established by the first Labour Government after the war, it has played a leading role in the defence of our country. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister said about its work force. They have given marvellous service to this country. They are extremely skilled. I suspect that the expertise that Lord Penney assembled around him at Aldermaston was the envy of many other establishements throughout the world. Aldermaston has been responsible for Polaris, Chevaline, and now Trident. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that the Trident programme is on time and will meet the needs of our nation.
      I relate that history only to make the point that Aldermaston has existed for four decades. To argue that the management structure that was right in the beginning continues to be right—regardless of the changes in the
      1142
      nuclear arms industry—is to put one's head in the sand. Indeed, it is no longer called AWRE Aldermaston, but AWE Aldermaston.
      We must all be aware of the criticisms of the A90 project and the other difficulties that have arisen as Aldermaston has moved from being a research and development centre to a production centre like Burghfield. Therefore, I entirely endorse the contractorisation proposals in the Bill. The management structure that the Government have chosen is right, as will be shown—as my hon. Friend suggested in his statement—by the Trident programme.
      Different management skills are needed now from those that were in place when research and development were predominant. Moreover, despite the fact that some hon. Members found criticisms in the Select Committee's report, its ninth report, published last June, stated that the Atomic Weapons Establishment was suffering from serious problems that required effective remedies. The Select Committee supported the idea of outside management expertise and endorsed the Ministry of Defence's thinking. Bearing in mind the fact that it is an all-party the fact Committee, it made it difficult for the trade unions' wish to maintain the status quo. That seems to be the right approach to the new problems confronting the establishments.
      Such action logically leads to the Bill. I recognise that, at this stage of the proceedings, some will continue to be sceptical about the proposals and others who are concerned about future profits, job security, pensions and redundancies within the new structure. However, my hon. Friend the Minister will have reassured them tonight on those points.
      The unions are right to ask to be consulted, and I hope that no modern management would ignore their plea. The unions state that the continuing morale and confidence of the work force will be of the greatest importance to the success of the contractorisation, as it will be to future recruitment. I am sure that that is uppermost in the minds of contractors. I also agree with the unions about the need to demonstrate a commitment to the highest levels of safety. It was useful to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about the role of the compliance officer and his overview of general safety. It is good to know that parliamentary scrutiny will continue and that Ministers will still be accountable to Members of Parliament about safety at Aldermaston. It is also good to know that COMARE will continue to impose inspections when emission problems arise.
      The assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister, taken with the objectives of contractorisation, will ensure a new future for Aldermaston and Burghfield. Both establishments have served us well and have a greater chance to serve us even better in the future.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) about the apparent inexhaustible patience of the Minister. However, I regret to part company with him when he says that the Minister has been sorely provoked by unconscionable arguments. If there has been provocation, it has arisen because of the Bill, which the Minister has often properly described as very narrow terms. It has been drawn in narrow terms to ensure that the maximum power and responsibility rest with the Executive and that the legislature has little to do with the way in which the

      1143
      principal proposal in the Bill is implemented. That is a matter of great regret, as is the failure of the Government to accept the compelling argument that the position of the compliance officer and her responsibilities for Atomic Weapons Establishments should have been enshrined in legislation and in express and specific statutory duties.
      We are being invited to pass into law a Bill that depends on the Ministry of Defence's ability to negotiate a contract in effective terms. That will depend on the ability of the Ministry of Defence to enforce that contract, once it has been entered into, and, crucially, on the capacity of a private company to implement the terms and conditions of that contract. That is far too risky and flimsy a basis upon which to rest a matter as important as the nuclear weapons capability of the United Kingdom.
      The issues that were raised on Second Reading have not been dealt with properly by the Government. For that reason, the Bill deserves to be rejected.
      Mr. Brazier: I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) in commending my hon. Friend the Minister for his patience in Committee in the face of some very repetitive and often badly argued comments from the Opposition. I strongly support the Bill, and remind the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that Conservative Members believe that the private sector is better at managing manufacturing operations because we have the modesty to see that, on the whole, private business is better at it than Governments.
      I wish to raise just one of a number of points that my hon. Friend the Minister was good enough to discuss with me; indeed, it is the only issue that has not been fully resolved. It concerns research at Aldermaston. It is important to remember that, although there have been considerable problems about manufacturing, our research effort at Aldermaston remains world class. It is the envy of the Americans, for example, who never cease to be amazed at how the comparatively minute sums of money that we spend on research produce such great benefits. The Americans spend colossal sums in comparison. Nevertheless, our relationship with the large American facilities is important.
      The basic problem with bringing in a contractor to manage research as well as production and development is that contractors do very little work in pure research, at least in the physics environment. If we are to ensure that we get the best of both worlds—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is anxious to ensure that we do—and all the benefits of improvements in manufacturing that flow from the extension of contractorisation while keeping our world class reputation for research, we must safeguard the contract structure for our research facilities.
      I have in mind two safeguards drawn from the American analogy. In the United States, there is a considerable distinction between the contractorisation of the research side, which is held in the three main establishments by non-profit-making organisations. In two cases the contractor is the university of California and in the third it is a non-profit-making trust, which is a subsidiary of a profit-making company.
      The two safeguards that I propose are, first, that the contracts for research must be administered by the chief scientific adviser and not by the Procurement Executive. In America, we have seen how successfully the Department of
      1144
      Energy manages the research contracts. They do so on a long-term basis, with five-year contracts that are assessed in arrears as opposed to the short-term approach of the Pentagon's procurement staff, adopted with other defence research facilities. I suggest that the chief scientific adviser should manage the contracts.
      Secondly, the contract must be based on a system in which an outside body assesses the work at the end of a certain period when the bulk of the profit margin is awarded as a single sum so that the contractor does not, as so easily happens, find himself faced with large sums of money being spent on production and development work, on which their main attention is focused, and the small sums that are spent, perhaps on a cost-plus basis, on research get ignored. The talent can thus be sucked away from research into assisting development and production.
      That is the only major aspect of the Bill that continues to concern me, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider those matters. I do not expect him to comment on them in detail when he replies to the debate. I remain convinced that the Bill is correct because I firmly believe that the private sector will manage the development and manufacturing side better at Aldermaston than any Government could and that it will provide the opportunity for the staff there to improve further their performance.
      7.39 pm
      Mr. McWilliam: I should like to take this opportunity to correct one or two of the misapprehensions voiced by Conservative Members, particularly those of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson). First, the trade unions were extremely helpful to the Select Committee on Defence when we were considering the problems of Aldermaston. No Opposition Member has argued recently that there was nothing wrong. We know that there is something wrong. The Select Committee reported that there was something wrong, made that clear to the House and made recommendations about ways in which we could correct the matter.
      In the Bill, the Government have, as usual, gone too far. The trade unions made extremely helpful and forward-thinking suggestions, and have continued to do so. The view of the Select Committee, which was unanimous and which my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and I signed——
      Mr. Home Robertson: I was not a member at the time.
      Mr. McWilliam: I am sorry—my hon. Friend was not then a member. The report stated that there should be an injection of private expertise, but not privatisation.
      I should also remind the Minister that it was not the public sector that ripped off the British taxpayer over the construction of the A90 buildings, but the private sector. Therefore, let us have no illusions about whether there are good and bad people in the private sector—there are.
      The other factor that should concern Conservative Members, but does not seem to, is that the Americans managed to let the private sector destroy their atomic weapons production establishment at Rocky Flats because they were more interested in making money than in safety and making safe weapons. That establishment is now shut and cannot reopen where it was because it is no longer safe to be there. Private sector expertise did not help the Americans very much with that establishment.

      1145
      I should remind Conservative Members who were not privileged to serve on the Standing Committee that the Minister has always relied on what he can get into the contract. When the Opposition attempted to introduce a schedule to set out some principles that should be included in the contract, he resisted our proposals. Therefore, we can have no confidence that the basic safeguards for which we are asking will be in the contract because we shall not see it—at least, not right away. We shall see it soon when the next general election comes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) becomes the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. What is more, I am certain that, knowing my hon. Friend, he will take an early opportunity to make a statement to the House on the contract's shortcomings and how he intends to deal with them—but I am sure that he will deal with that issue in his own reply.
      The Bill is the last piece of privatisation legislation to receive its Third Reading in the House. It does not deserve that Third Reading. It is the dying gasp of an outmoded, doctrinaire Conservative philosophy, epitomised by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, which seems to have been set up. It will not have the effect that the Minister wants, and will not protect the nation in the way that our practical suggestion of a "next steps" agency would. We did not say, "Don't do anything." We have tried to be practical and to help all the way, but the Minister has been unwilling even to accept our sensible amendments about safety, health and foreign ownership. On that basis, the Bill does not deserve a Third Reading, and I intend to vote against it.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Morgan: It is not often that a Member for Cardiff rises in the Chamber twice in a week to oppose privatisation measures that affect his constituency. A few days ago, I opposed privatisation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and now I am opposing the privatisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The Cardiff, North constituency contains the third, or perhaps equal second, largest plant in the AWE empire.
      This is not a popular measure in the Cardiff district. Two specific allegations relating to safety have been put to me, and I think it is important for the Minister to hear about them and deal with them. If we transpose beryllium for tritium, one of the allegations about the Atomic Weapons Establishment bears an uncanny resemblance to the incident at Aldermaston that has emerged in the public domain. I have been told that the handling procedure at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Llanishen, in respect of beryllium powder when it is melted to make beryllium alloy, malfunctions from time to time.
      When that happens, it illustrates a classic case of the sort of choices that the private contractor would face—whether to abide by the safety regulations and contaminate his stock of argon gas or to contaminate the atmosphere which my constituents and those of Cardiff, North have to breathe.
      The beryllium alloy is melted inside a steel tube, which is pressurised to 18,000 lb per square inch in argon gas. When the steel tube bursts, as it inevitably does every five or 10 years, the argon gas should be vented back to the argon gas store and contaminates it. That is hard luck on the argon gas, as it must then be disposed of because it has
      1146
      beryllium in it, which is as toxic to the human chest as asbestos. In some ways, it is not as bad as radiation, but in other ways, its toxic effects can be worse in the shorter term. Unfortunately, the standard handling procedure for that very rare occurrence is to vent to atmosphere, rather than back to the argon store.
      The second allegation is even more tricky and sensitive, and involves how private contractors would deal with any incident within the plant. Often when maintenance procedures are being carried out, people have to wear protective clothing. I have been told that no personnel are to appear out of doors within the plant complex dressed in protective gear in case that alarms people on the buses that go past the plant on their way up to the Llanishen council estate, Caerphilly and Rhiwbina. We should remember that the Cardiff establishment, unlike the other AWE establishments, is in the middle of a densely populated residential district in a large city of 300,000.
      Such issues must be sorted out. We must determine the standard procedures that are to be used before the Bill becomes law and before it comes back to this House from the other place. I am not satisfied that the Minister has faced up to his responsibilities. He has not confronted the safety issues and the relationship of the establishment to the local community to enable me to act on behalf of my constituents and support the Government. As a result, I shall be in the No Lobby tonight.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 155.

      Division No. 126]

      [7.47 pm

      AYES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Amess, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Amos, Alan

      Couchman, James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cran, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Critchley, Julian

      Ashby, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Atkins, Robert

      Curry, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Baldry, Tony

      Day, Stephen

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Devlin, Tim

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bendall, Vivian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Dover, Den

      Benyon, W.

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dykes, Hugh

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evennett, David

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Favell, Tony

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bowis, John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Franks, Cecil

      Brazier, Julian

      Freeman, Roger

      Bright, Graham

      French, Douglas

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Fry, Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger

      Burt, Alistair

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Butterfill, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Carttiss, Michael

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Chope, Christopher

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Churchill, Mr

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcllfie)

      Gregory, Conal

      Colvin, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      1147

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hague, William

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Paice, James

      Hayward, Robert

      Patnick, Irvine

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Redwood, John

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Irvine, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jack, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jackson, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Key, Robert

      Squire, Robin

      Kilfedder, James

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Knapman, Roger

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Knowles, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Knox, David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Latham, Michael

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Thorne, Neil

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Thurnham, Peter

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Trotter, Neville

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Maclean, David

      Viggers, Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Walden, George

      Madel, David

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Waller, Gary

      Mans, Keith

      Ward, John

      Maples, John

      Watts, John

      Marland, Paul

      Wells, Bowen

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Whitney, Ray

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Wilkinson, John

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Wilshire, David

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Wood, Timothy

      Mills, lain

      Yeo, Tim

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Tim Boswell

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      NOES

      Adams Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Barron, Kevin

      Allen, Graham

      Battle, John

      Alton, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Anderson, Donald

      Bennett, A.F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Bradley, Keith

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      1148

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      McCartney, Ian

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      McKelvey, William

      Caborn, Richard

      McLeish, Henry

      Callaghan, Jim

      Maclennan, Robert

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      McWilliam, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Madden, Max

      Canavan, Dennis

      Marek, Dr John

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cartwright, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Clelland, David

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Martlew, Eric

      Cohen, Harry

      Maxton, John

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Meale, Alan

      Corbett, Robin

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Cousins, Jim

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Crowther, Stan

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Cryer, Bob

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Cummings, John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Mullin, Chris

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Murphy, Paul

      Darling, Alistair

      Nellist, Dave

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      O'Brien, William

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Dixon, Don

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Dobson, Frank

      Patched, Terry

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Pendry, Tom

      Eadie, Alexander

      Pike, Peter L.

      Eastham, Ken

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Prescott, John

      Faulds, Andrew

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Fearn, Ronald

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Radice, Giles

      Flannery, Martin

      Randall, Stuart

      Flynn, Paul

      Reid, Dr John

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Richardson, Jo

      Foster, Derek

      Rogers, Allan

      Foulkes, George

      Rooker, Jeff

      Fraser, John

      Rooney, Terence

      Fyfe, Maria

      Rowlands, Ted

      Galloway, George

      Ruddock, Joan

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Gordon, Mildred

      Short, Clare

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      Hain, Peter

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Snape, Peter

      Haynes, Frank

      Soley, Clive

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Spearing, Nigel

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Straw, Jack

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Home Robertson, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Turner, Dennis

      Howells, Geraint

      Wallace, James

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ingram, Adam

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Kennedy, Charles

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Lamond, James

      Wilson, Brian

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Winnick, David

      Livingstone, Ken

      Worthington, Tony

      Livsey, Richard

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Jimmy Dunachie

      Loyden, Eddie

      McAllion, John

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Broadcasting Licences
  8 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move,
  That the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.
  The order is made under the powers contained in schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990. Its purpose is to supplement the broadcasting ownership rules contained in schedule 2 by introducing certain additional provisions which, no doubt to the relief of the House, I shall summarise rather than rehearse in full.
  The provisions in the draft order that are, I suspect, of most immediate interest to the House are those relating to the circumstances in which two regional Channel 3 licences can be co-owned. The order provides, first, that two such licences may not be co-owned if they are both large. For these purposes, we have designated the top nine, in terms of advertising revenue, as large, and the remaining six as small.
  When the Government originally announced their decisions on the ownership of Channel 3 licences, we said that, in addition to ruling out co-ownership of two large licences, we planned also to prohibit co-ownership of two licences for adjacent areas. This became known somewhat inelegantly as the contiguity rule. At that stage, the Independent Television Commission had not set out the number or shape of Channel 3 regions that it was going to advertise. However, we were working on the basis that, if the ITC was minded to retain the existing ITV map—which it has now said that it intends to do—we would expect only the top six to be designated as large.
  In making general provision for one person to hold two Channel 3 licences, we recognised that in some cases such an arrangement could result in sensible economies of scale without threatening regional identity. We were, however, anxious to avoid circumstances in which licences covering an unacceptably large part of the country were held in common ownership. The proposed ban on contiguous ownership was intended to meet that concern.
  We decided, on further reflection, that to impose a contiguity rule of that kind for the full 10-year licence period might be counter-productive, in that it could prevent some combinations of ownership which offered scope for sensible economies of scale, and were therefore potentially attractive in commercial terms.
  Indeed, given the uncertainties of the broadcasting environment in the 1990s, I simply do not believe that it would have been practicable to rule out for all time the possibility of contiguous mergers which might, under some circumstances, be in the best interests of all concerned, especially the viewers.
  Simply to have dropped the contiguity rule, while retaining only six large areas would, however, have left the way open for combinations of ownership which could give an unhealthy dominance to a single company. We therefore decided that if, in the longer term, there was to be no separate contiguity rule, it was right to increase the number of regions to be designated as "large" from six to nine, and the draft order so provides.
  In response to strong representations that we received from various quarters on the contiguity issue, we have also accepted that we should offer some reassurance to the
  1150
  smaller companies that they will not risk being outbid by predatory neighbours before they have the opportunity to establish themselves. Therefore, we decided that a contiguity rule should apply during the bidding process for the new Channel 3 licences.
  The effect will be that a single person or company cannot win two licences for adjacent areas. This restriction will, however, be lifted as soon as the relevant licences have been granted, at the end of this year or early next. From then on, there will be no specific ban on contiguous takeovers, but takeovers of all kinds will, of course, be subject to the general moratorium on takeovers imposed by section 21 of the 1990 Act.
  Under that provision, takeovers can take place until the end of 1993 only with the consent of the ITC. The ITC is likely to give consent to takeover or merger proposals during that period in certain circumstances, such as where one of the licensees was in serious financial difficulties, or where a planned merger had the joint agreement of both parties. Hostile takeovers, on the other hand, would almost certainly be ruled out.
  I should emphasise that our decision on contiguity does not imply that, at the end of the moratorium period, any or all of the smaller regions will necessarily be co-owned by a company holding a larger region. Moreover, where one company holds two licences, it will still be obliged to meet in full the separate regional requirements for each of the two regions.
  The chairman of the ITC is in full agreement with our proposal, and considers that the ITC will have no difficulty in ensuring that where licence areas are co-owned, the licensee provides distinctive local programming for each region.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the separate requirements of individual regions have to be maintained—I understand that that is so as to maintain regional identity—how does the hon. Gentleman believe that there could be scope for the sort of economies of scale that might be the only justification for some sort of merger?
  Mr. Lloyd: There could be economies in the use of a sales force or in some of the administrative back-up. There are a number of ways in which that might be achieved. However, what could not be altered is the undertaking made and enshrined in the licence about the type of regional programmes that would be provided, the number of hours, the time and the ITC's requirement that 80 per cent. of regional programming must be produced in the region either by the licence or independents. Therefore, there is a strong safeguard as regards regional broadcasting, but there is plenty of scope for economies of scale.
  I believe that these provisions on co-ownership, while different in form from what we envisaged originally, are entirely consistent with the policy intentions that we announced during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill last Session. We continue to attach great importance to ensuring the preservation of the district regional identity of the Channel 3 licences and to the discharge by the licensees of their regional programming obligations, as I have just said.
  The ITC has, as I have said, confirmed that it will be able to ensure that regional commitments are fulfilled, even when there is joint ownership of two contiguous

  1151
  licence areas. I am not surprised that it should have come to that conclusion, as the Broadcasting Act contains some very substantial safeguards.
  For example, the Act requires that a sufficient amount of time should be given for regional programmes. That varies from licensee to licensee but generally it is more than has been the case in the arrangements to date. It follows that if, following the moratorium period, a single person were eventually to own two contiguous licence areas, he would not be permitted to treat them as one mega-region and transmit identical programmes in both areas. Neither could he, as some have feared, simply move the entirety of his programme production base to a single location and produce what purport to be separate regional programmes from there.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: The Minister mentioned programme production bases, but perhaps he would confirm that the Act does not stipulate that regional programmes must be made in the region.
  Mr. Lloyd: It is certainly stipulated in the requirements set by the ITC. To meet the quality threshold, a bidder must state that he will do that, and it will be written into his licence if he is successful. Therefore, we shall have a copper-bottomed undertaking.
  Mr. John Greenway: Does not the Bill strengthen the regional commitment of Channel 3 licensees by virtue of amendments passed in Committee? Those amendments will require licensees to demonstrate to the ITC what arrangements they are making for regional programmes, which must be made in the region.
  Mr. Lloyd: That is right but, if my memory serves me correctly, the Bill did not specify what the figure would be. The ITC has since specified that it is to be 80 per cent., and that figure will be written into the licence agreements. If there is a takeover, the new owner must observe the agreement.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The issue is where and how such programmes will be made. It is right that there should be a regional commitment. The strength of ITV is that it sets up regional centures of excellence in television production. They are there because of the federal system. Now, there will be nothing to require those centres to be maintained. Programmes could be farmed out to independents nominally in the regions, and those centres of excellence and skill could be disbanded and eliminated.
  Mr. Lloyd: Regional programmes will have to be made in the regions. That is not a nominal requirement. Eighty per cent. must be made there because, if not, a company would not be fulfilling the requirement laid down by the ITC, which will be included in the licence agreements.
  Mr. Corbett: I wish to clarify one point. It is true that the ITC has stipulated that 80 per cent. of regional programmes should be made in the regions. However, let us be clear that regional programmes—again I speak from memory—may involve as few as five or six hours a week, although the bigger London stations may make more. Nevertheless, the lion's share of the 80 per cent. requirement in the Bill will involve only local news and current affairs. Therefore, some regions could be left with little more than a news studio.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that there will be much greater variety under the new arrangements. There will certainly be greater use of independents. Rather than programme-producing companies, we shall see publishing companies but, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) knows, 25 per cent. of ITV output will have to be taken from independents. Where those independents are based will be for them to decide. They will choose wherever they find it most convenient to be located and that is something that we cannot determine, nor should we seek to do so.
  Although I understand the fear that the independents will inevitably gravitate to London, it will not necessarily prove to be soundly based. First, there are production facilities around the country. Secondly, other parts of the country are cheaper and thirdly, there is no doubt that a relationship with a regional licensee will be of interest to some independent contractors. Those factors will militate against the counter-attraction of London. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: the independents will locate themselves where, in business terms, they find it most sensible to be.
  I deal now with the provisions in the order relating to further concentrations of interest in Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences. The Broadcasting Act 1990 sets out the maximum number of such licences which any one person may hold. The order introduces some additional restrictions. It provides that, once a person has acquired the maximum ownership in two regional Channel 3 licences in accordance with the Act or with the rules contained in this order, he may have a maximum shareholding of 20 per cent. in one further regional Channel 3 licence, provided that that does not constitute a controlling interest, and thereafter, no more than a 5 per cent. shareholding in further such licences. Similar rules apply in relation to national Channel 3 licences and Channel 5 licences.
  The order also deals with newspapers shareholdings in broadcasting licences. It provides that national newspaper proprietors will not be permitted to have more than a 20 per cent. interest in any local radio licence, and that national or local newspaper proprietors will similarly be forbidden to hold more than 20 per cent. interest in a Channel 3, Channel 5 or domestic satellite service licence.
  During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill through both Houses, there was considerable debate as to whether this rule should be extended to cover non-domestic satellite services. We argued then, and I continue to argue now, that it is neither necessary nor desirable for it to do so. Our policy rests on the fact that non-domestic satellite services have developed under different ground rules from terrestrial or domestic satellite services.
  Domestic satellite services use broadcasting frequencies allocated by international agreement, of which only a small number—five at present—are available to the United Kingdom. In contrast, non-domestic satellite services like BSkyB face virtually open-ended scope for competition from a diversity of different channels in different hands transmitted from satellites such as Astra, which use telecommunications rather than broadcasting frequencies.
  The relative ease with which new non-domestic satellite services can be introduced means that there is little danger of such services being controlled by a few major interests which might represent a threat to plurality of information sources. For that reason, we see no case for limiting

  1153
  newspaper investment in them. Were we to do so, of course, we should risk ending the extension of choice already brought about by such channels and jeopardising the 1,000 or so jobs which they have created in this country.
  BSkyB does not have a monopoly on television services and we believe that competition among the terrestrial channels, BSkyB and other existing and future satellite televison services is sufficient to ensure editorial diversity.
  Under the order, no public telecommunications operator will be permitted to have a controlling interest in any Channel 3, Channel 5, national radio or domestic satellite licence. I believe that it will be generally accepted that it would be undesirable to permit major telecommunications operators like British Telecom to control those key broadcasting licences.
  Finally, the order makes provision for a points scheme to determine the maximum permitted ownership of local radio stations. All stations will be awarded points on the basis of their audience reach. It will be permissible to own stations which correspond to a maximum of 15 per cent. of the total number of points in the system, subject to the overall limit of 20 services contained in the Act.
  This arrangement, which was announced in the course of proceedings on the Broadcasting Bill, is intended to take account of the likely growth in the number of local radio stations over the next few years, and of the great variety of individual stations, from the major ones such as Capital Radio and other large metropolitan stations, to the smallest community or ethnic services transmitting to a local neighbourhood.
  These supplementary ownership rules, contained within the order, represent a reasonable and practical framework for regulatory control over the services which the ITC and Radio Authority will regulate. If the rules are approved by this House and in another place, we intend that they should come into effect as soon as possible. I commend the draft order to the House.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I congratulate the Minister belatedly—referring to the date of his arrival rather than my congratulations. I believe that I am right in saying that this is the first broadcasting debate which the Minister has taken without someone whom I shall describe in a kindly way as his Svengali friend, who has now gone off to labour in the bowels of the Treasury as a reward for some small assistance that he rendered the Prime Minister during some stormy days in November.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: He is lurking about.
  Mr. Corbett: I do not doubt that he is lurking about somewhere.
  I thank the Minister for outlining the principal effect of the order. I wish to put three points to him. Of course it is true that the Independent Television Commission is advertising the Channel 3 regional licences on the basis of the existing map. However, there is no guarantee that each of the areas will attract bids. I say that seriously. It would be invidious to name areas which might attract negative
  1154
  bids. What thought, if any, has the Minister or, indeed, the ITC given to that possibility? It touches on the changes that he has made in the rule on contiguity.
  I understand the protection which the Minister has put in place and which will remain until the bidding system is over. But the risk must remain—this was touched on in some of the interventions that the Minister was kind enough to take—as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, that, if ownership of a certain type prevails in adjacent areas, there will be pressure on those Channel 3 regional licence holders who are producing to make some economies in, for example, production and studio facilities. This is not guesswork. It has already happened in Birmingham and the west midlands with Central Television, which, by and large, has moved its major production facilities to an extensive site in Nottingham, which the Independent Broadcasting Authority encouraged it to build.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Quite rightly.
  Mr. Corbett: As my hon. Friend said, that was quite right, in the context in which the company took over the franchise. There must be a risk if a company has two sets of production facilities and one is used more than the other. I do not argue with the commitment to fulfil the 25 per cent. quota for the independents, but it also has ramifications.
  We have had experience, especially in the London area, of some of the television stations wanting to start to meet the 25 per cent. production quota. They talked to the independents about making programmes but used their muscle to insist that the independents use the production facilities of the commissioning company rather than their own facilities. So there are some risks.
  The other point that I wish to put to the Minister is about something that already happens and which may fit with what he has in mind with economies of scale. To my knowledge, at least three television companies share a joint advertising sales force. That is happening now, before any other alterations have come about. If one company ended up owning two Channel 3 regional licences, its advertising sales force would be one area which it would immediately look at. To that extent, I can see that it makes commercial sense. Is the Minister sure that that would not run foul of competition policy? Has the point been put to the Office of Fair Trading? If not, perhaps it might be, so that everyone might know where he is going.
  It is fair to say that in all our debates in the House on broadcasting during the past two or three years there has been general and cross-party agreement that democracy is at risk if too much media power is concentrated in too few hands. Indeed, we know that. In spring of 1989, 62 Conservative Members were among 87 Members of Parliament who signed an early-day motion calling for an extension of controls on ownership in the media.
  In January 1989, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), seemed to anticipate that demand, when he said:
  "We will propose extensive and effective rules to prevent concentration of broadcasting ownership and unhealthy cross-media ownership … It is crucially important that we should have such rules … Real choice would be undermined if British broadcasting were allowed to be dominated by a handful of tycoons or international conglomerates."
  If only the wish had been the father to the deed. But it was not, as we shall see.

  1155
  In November 1989, a Gallup survey of 141 Members of Parliament found that 112 of them—roughly eight out of 10—believed that it was wrong for the same proprietor simultaneously to control newspapers and television stations; and seven out of 10 believed that safeguards should be applied irrespective of the transmission method used. Again, what a pity that those voices were not listened to when it came to the ownership proposals in the Bill, and now in the order.
  Those opinions did no more than echo the claimed aspirations of the Government. In their White Paper of November 1988, right at the beginning of the process, they asserted their determination that ownership in the independent—that is, commercial—sector should remain widely spread and unhealthy concentrations of ownership and excessive cross-media ownership should be prevented. Again, those sentiments were widely accepted, although on this side of the House we question whether ownership is sufficiently widely spread now. However, this order, like the Broadcasting Act 1990, makes a small attempt to honour those ambitions.
  Under the order, a company making the highest bid for, and obtaining, a regional Channel 3 licence can end up buying a second franchise after the auction round. But that is not all, as the Minister explained. A Channel 3 licence holder with a non-controlling interest in a second Channel 3 company can go on to have a 20 per cent. holding in a third such company, provided that it is not a controlling interest, and, indeed, a 5 per cent. interest in a fourth company. Again, that underlines the possible danger that a company in that position will look to see what it can do on the basis of the Minister's economies of scale to rationalise the individual facilities within those four companies. The order will not ensure that ownership in the commercial sector is, as the Government's White Paper hoped, widely spread. Nor does it properly protect against unhealthy concentrations of ownership or excessive cross-media ownership.
  I believe that the Government looked at the fast changing media industry and the rapid growth of the media mammoths and decided that it was all too complicated. It is late enough as it is to introduce these orders to settle the position finally, just 21 days before the Channel 3 auction bids have to be lodged. We agree that matters of media ownership and cross ownership are complicated and that the commercial arguments for global empires which span print, video, film, television and sound recordings are at one level persuasive, especially in the cut-throat international market. But The Economist of 23 September 1989 had the answer to that. It said:
  "The media have moved beyond being mere providers of entertainment and information. They have become a forum that rivals Parliaments. A plurality of opinion in that forum is as essential to democracy as the ballot box."
  That language may be a little high-flown, but the sentiments are exactly right, and ones which Opposition Members certainly share.
  We have had experience, following newspaper takeovers, which should teach us that it would be quite wrong to accept the mere words of safeguards offered by either a powerful media owner or a transnational giant when it comes to the ownership of such a powerful, instant opinion-shaping medium as television, with its easy and quick access to every home in the land.
  We in this House have a duty to protect and promote our liberties, not to entrust them to hands that have no
  1156
  other motive than the use of them to generate personal and corporate wealth and power. We need ownership and cross-ownership rules that encourage the range of voices and opinions that our democracy needs to hear and listen to. I find it slightly ironic that, just as the formerly monolithic media monopolies of eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and elsewhere are being broken up, we are headed for a concentration of ownership that few other advanced democracies would countenance.
  I do not want to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), but I have to say that no discussion of media ownership would be complete without a mention of those who use the non-DBS satellite, first among them British Sky Broadcasting. It was bad enough that the Government, in schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Act, provided powers to bring the non-DBS satellite services into scope of ownership provisions but then declined to use these powers. That was bad enough when there were two competing satellite services—one controlled, the other not controlled. There was then the takeover of BSB by Sky, done with the reported knowledge of the then Prime Minister, who somehow forgot to tell the then Home Secretary. That deal was stitched together within 48 hours of the Broadcasting Act's getting the Royal Assent—the most noble snook that has ever been cocked at any legislation going through this House.
  As a consequence, British Sky Broadcasting now has a satellite monopoly. It is aiming for 1 million viewers, two to three years ahead, rivalling the audiences—indeed, exceeding the audiences—of most the Channel 3 stations. Yet it remains splendidly untrammelled by any of the ownership and cross-ownership restrictions that even this order provides.
  There are dangers to democracy here, as The Observer reported on 23 December 1990. That newspaper claimed that Mr. Rupert Murdoch—the person who owns newspapers that sell 35 out of every 100 bought each day in Britain, and half of British Sky Broadcasting—had been refused a knighthood in the resignation honours list of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) by the august honours scrutiny committee.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Ah!
  Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman may be interested in the reason that was put forward. That was said in the context of a report that Mr. Murdoch had given funds to an extreme right-wing magazine called British Briefing, which attempted to smear my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others at the time of the last election. Behind British Briefing was the right-wing loony David Hart, a former close aide of the former Prime Minister. That is why I say again to the Minister—and I hope that none of us will have reason to recall these words—that the medium of television, whatever the means of its delivery, is far too powerful and far too instant to be left, like those using the Astra satellite, outwith any meaningful ownership controls.
  Mr. Roger Gale: I waited deliberately before intervening, as I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would qualify or justify his statement that BSkyB has a monopoly. There are 16 channels on Astra, with another 16 to come, and with a further Astra satellite planned. On the Marco Polo satellite, five channels are available but are

  1157
  not used. In these circumstances, how can the hon. Gentleman possibly say that BSkyB has a monopoly in satellite broadcasting?
  Mr. Corbett: In reply to the hon. Gentleman I shall now say something that I would have said later. Were I an original BSB subscriber—and I believe that it launched some kind of founders' club—I should be mindful of the fact that in return for my subscription it had promised me five channels. From 15 April, BSB subscribers have had three channels. Nobody could pretend that that widens opportunity or choice.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: That does not make it a monopoly.
  Mr. Corbett: It makes a monopoly in one sense. For reasons that I understand, the ITC has required BSkyB to keep broadcasting on the Marco Polo satellite. That makes sense, but its net effect, in popular terms, is that, to all intents and purposes, there is now a monopoly.
  There is one consequence of the Sky takeover of BSB to which I want to draw the Minister's attention.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend has said that there are dangers in monopoly, in concentration of ownership in the press and television. If that is a danger to freedom, what are the measures to deal with the problem, if they too are not a danger to freedom? How does my hon. Friend propose to end that monopoly? Does he propose to shoot down the satellites? Does he propose to prevent people from having receivers in their homes? Does he propose that public money should be provided to support competition? How is the press situation to be dealt with when some of that power comes from continuing newspapers that were failing? The classic example is The Sun. Who gave The Sun to Rupert Murdoch? There is also the example of Today. How are we to solve those problems without restricting freedom?
  Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that little GCSE question. He tempts me to go a little wider than this debate. If he is patient for a couple of minutes, his questions may be answered. I have no ambition to send Corbett storm-troopers into any studio at any time for any purpose. Of course, there is no such thing as a Corbett storm-trooper.
  There is one consequence of the Sky takeover of BSB to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. The then Independent Broadcasting Authority, BSB and Sky reached agreement on 20 December 1990 that BSB's licence to broadcast would not be revoked until a suitable alternative user of the Marco Polo satellite could be found. There is some hope that that will happen. Many of us have been fairly surprised, but there are some very exciting ideas for the use of that satellite. However, the understanding was that there would be no material change in the BSB service for another two years.
  BSB's licence can be terminated as soon as June of this year, and will be terminated by the end of next year. Is the Minister in any position to require BSkyB, as the successor company, to undertake that all of the BSB equipment sold after 20 December—the date of the agreement—will be covered by a guarantee of exchange for Sky equipment when the change over is made? The Minister and the House will recall that, when that takeover happened, the
  1158
  immediate reaction of the new bosses of BSkyB was to give that assurance. But, unknown to many people, there was the cut-off date of 20 December.
  I am told that BSkyB had earlier tried to persuade retailers to offer the BSB equipment for sale, knowing that it would not be covered by any guarantee of automatic exchange. Quite rightly, both retailers and manufacturers rejected this as being against the best interest of consumers. I wonder whether the Minister is able to persuade BSkyB to give this assurance of automatic exchange to those who want it. As I said to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), it is bad enough that, from 15 April this year, the BSkyB schedules have been changed so that all channels will be transmitted on both Marco Polo and Astra satellites. The original BSB subscribers will be robbed of three of the five channels that they thought they had bought.
  Let me now reward the patience of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. There is nothing new in what I am about to suggest as we said it throughout the passage of the Broadcasting Act. What the Government should have done—they started with the Sadler inquiry, until they turned it into a BBC-bashing exercise—was to have used the time between the publication of the White Paper in November 1988 and now to ask the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to report on media and cross-media ownership. That embraces all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby.
  As I said earlier, it is an extremely complicated subject. One could take the purist view of one man, one newspaper and one television station, but that would be rather too simplistic. That is why the advice of a body such as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission could have helped the Government and the House.
  The Government did not take that chance, but the next Labour Government will consult the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and will legislate on the basis of its proposals well before the new Channel 3 regional and national licences become due for renewal. We shall insist that licences are bid for again in open competition with more stringent quality and regional programming commitments. Even before that date, we may have some proposals to protect and promote public service broadcasting to offer viewers and listeners.
  Our view is that the Government are taking a needless risk with our democracy because they declined to ask for the advice of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The order enables a dangerous concentration of television and radio ownership to grow, although it may not quite match that of the press. That is why we shall oppose it tonight.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I should like to pick up a couple of points that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made at the start of his speech. First, he referred to the need to protect the two-centre franchises. It may gratify the hon. Gentleman to know that I agree with him entirely and share his concern. I think particularly of two such franchises. Central Television has studios in Birmingham and Nottingham and, in my own area, TV South has studios in Southampton, and built very fine studios at Maidstone as part of the honouring of its franchise undertakings when it took over from Southern Television.

  1159
  It is a great sadness for those of us who live in Kent and Sussex that those studios are now lying idle. Although they produce an excellent nightly regional news and magazine service, the production capacity is largely wasted. There is real concern that, when the franchise comes up for renewal, is auctioned and perhaps taken over by an other company, or if TV South wins a renewal of its franchise, it might be economically attractive to close the studios altogether or to hive them off so that they become simply an independent production centre. Many of us who live in and represent that area feel that that would be a great shame.
  I was encouraged by the emphasis that my hon. Friend the Minister put on the provisions that have been laid down by the Independent Television Commission for local production. It is extremely important that the ITC insists that those undertakings are not simply given in franchise bids but are honoured in the realisation of the franchise. I hope that my hon. Friend and the ITC will keep a watchful eye on the amount of investment in local production once franchises have been awarded. I very much hope that they will insist that production centres such as those at Nottingham and at Maidstone are maintained and developed.
  My second point concerns provision for local radio, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred fleetingly in his opening remarks. The concerns expressed about the cross-media control of local radio when we were debating the Broadcasting Bill in Committee are academic.
  Since the Bill was enacted and since the award of wavelengths began, it has become apparent that there are far too few frequencies available for the comprehensive community radio service that many of us envisaged to become established, at least in the short term. The authority has advertised relatively few and will supplement them a little by the end of the year. More stations will certainly be established in the north of Engalnd than in the south.
  I am reliably informed today that, in the south-east, the scarcity of frequencies is such that there will be very few community radio stations. That means that stations such as Radio Cabin in Herne Bay in my constituency, which was mentioned frequently during the passage of the Bill, and Radio Woody, immortalised during our deliberations in Standing Committee, will remain a dream in the eyes and minds of programme directors.
  I therefore urge my hon. Friend to pay particular attention to the need to release the necessary frequencies as quickly as possible and to encourage those currently occupying them to move to other wavebands, so that the Radio Authority can get on and do the job that those of us who served on the Standing Committee believed that it would do and to enable the development of a genuine community radio service as widely as possible throughout the country.
  I now turn tothe main thrust of my brief speech—the development of satellite broadcasting. It always saddens me when the hon. Member for Erdington finds it necessary to indulge in the regular bout of Murdoch-bashing. It has become something of a blood sport among the Opposition and no doubt we shall hear more of it before the end of the debate. The hon. Gentleman did not answer the questions put to him by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and myself.
  No reasonable person could say that British Sky Broadcasting has a monopoly of satellite broadcasting in
  1160
  the European skies. The Astra satellite carries a number of channels and more will follow. During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill, I mentioned the fact that the Hughes Corporation of America has plans to launch in 1993 a digitally transmitting satellite carrying 104 televison channels. That will horrify many people, but it is planned.
  In that context, it is not realistic to say that Mr. Murdoch and his channel have a monopoly. Sky Television blazed a trail that would otherwise have been followed probably by Ted Turner and his company. Given the choice, I believe that the satellite viewer in the United Kingdom would prefer the offerings of Sky Television—a largely British company— to those broadcast by Ted Turner or any other American company. Sky Television, in its merger with BSB, has not killed off three channels of Marco Polo transmission, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but has rescued two which otherwise would have gone into the bin. There was no question of both those companies surviving. The merger was no part of a plot to jump on the back of the Broadcasting Act 1990 immediately it became law.
  About two years ago in this Chamber on a Friday morning, we had a brief debate on the future of broadcasting. I had the temerity to suggest that, unless those two companies got together, neither would survive. It gives me no pleasure to say that that is exactly what has happened. The choice, as in so many cases, was not between maintaining both channels or allowing one to take over the other. Those companies had to merge, or both would have gone under. If that had happened, we would have had no satellite television service on offer to the United Kingdom viewers. No satellite service would have been provided for the investors in squarials and the receiving equipment already referred to today. The failure of those companies would have meant that we had no satellite service to compete with those services already offered by our continental competitors and American companies.
  I find it sad that, in this Chamber and in Europe, we continually debate the control of television, when we should be debating the future development of television and satellite services.
  The development of digital transmission was debated in Committee on the Broadcasting Bill. The European Community has spent a great amount of time and wasted effort on pursuing high definition television with a MAC—multiplexed analogue components—transmission system. That system is already virtually obsolete; as obsolete as the Marco Polo satellite which relies upon that transmission system.
  It is an absolute certainty—recent demonstrations in America have proved this—that digital satellite and terrestrial transmission will be with us by about 1993. That is the television of the future. However, the Opposition are seeking to stultify that development by continually seeking to control.
  What those behind Sky Television, and now BSB, have done is to take a major step forward. Those same people have invested and lost vast sums of money on satellite technology, but they are still prepared to look one stage ahead. People in this country and in Europe should be prepared to take that step. In Europe, those who have invested heavily, with large pots of socialist money, in high definition television should be prepared to cut loose from that and invest in the development of digital picture transmission.

  1161
  Unless that happens, the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe will be left out in the cold as the Americans, who have already developed this technology, take the lead. That is the choice we face. That is why I believe that, for all its many faults, the role that Sky Broadcasting, and now BSB, are playing in the development of television towards the 21st century is so important.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the order carefully, and to consider one important fact. Under the order, BSB must divest itself of its broadcasting capacity on the Marco Polo satellite. Unless the House of Commons is mug enough to use that archaic form of technology to transmit the proceedings of the House to those non-existent people who will be able to watch it, the Marco Polo satellite will be a dustbin floating around the sky.
  If BSB is not allowed to continue to use Marco Polo because of tonight's order, that company, which has already invested huge sums of money in the development of satellite in the United Kingdom, will have to give to every owner of a squarial a receiver capable of receiving the Astra signal. That would be a complete waste of money, money that would be much better spent investing in the development of the technology of the 21st century. I urge my hon. Friend to reconsider the order.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I suppose that many people would share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) for the development of satellite television, which will widen consumer choice. I am not sure, however, that many would agree with the hon. Gentleman that those who took the decision to buy a squarial should have been the victims of the collapse of BSB two days after the enactment of the Broadcasting Act 1990. Although I share the view that it is not quite precise to describe BSkyB as a monopolistic entity, it has been exercising its market power in a rather unattractive way with respect to its obligations—moral, if not legal—towards those who had already acquired a squarial.
  I should like the Minister to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) who alleged that the company invited retailers to put BSB equipment back on the market so as to avoid having to pay compensation. That is quite a serious charge and it merits a response from the Minister. The Minister may say that he has no control over the situation, but that only demonstrates some of the weaknesses of the regulatory framework in protecting the consumer interest—a Government responsibility.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. As I understand it, the ITC has agreed with BSkyB that it will replace the squarials that were functioning before the merger took place at no cost to the customers.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Ministers do not have the power to require any business to compensate its customers in any particular way. It may have a moral obligation towards its customers, in which case that is a matter for the company. It may have a legal obligation, and that is a matter for the law. The hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that in this case, as with any other
  1162
  commercial undertaking, it is not a matter on which Ministers can rule. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be somewhat reassured, however, by the agreement that has been reached for BSB customers.
  Mr. Maclennan: I agree, but I think that that point was fairly widely known. The hon. Member for Erdington was making a new point, which was that BSB had apparently attempted to encourage retailers to continue marketing equipment for which the consumer would have no necessity, in order to avoid its undertaking to replace equipment acquired at an earlier date.
  I accept that Ministers have limited power, but if they look with a drooping and inauspicious eye on what important men of commerce do, the men of commerce will notice that. It is not a matter of leverage; it is just a matter of disapproval. If the allegations made by the hon. Member for Erdington are true, they are pretty disreputable.
  Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps I can say sufficient to enable the hon. Gentleman to move on to another point, even if it is not to his complete satisfaction. I listened to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said and I took due note of it. It is not a matter of which I have knowledge, but it is something with which I intend to acquaint myself. From the way he put it, it is certainly not a matter for me, whether I would like it to be or not.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) say that the old squarials are no use and that anybody who is foolish enough to buy one would be making a huge mistake. I hope that that will not be the case. If the hon. Gentleman had any of the optimism of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and looked ahead to the further development of satellite television, he might make a good bargain with what now looks like redundant equipment. It is for him as a customer to make his own judgment and to make up his mind.
  Mr. Maclennan: I have made the point. The Minister may be wise to encourage me to move on to another point, so I shall do so.
  The background against which the order is being debated is not quite the same commercial background as that which greeted the Broadcasting Bill in its infancy. It is fair to say that we are now in a more competitive situation than we were at that time. Advertising revenue is substantially reduced and those companies which are contemplating bidding for the franchises for Channel 3 are doing so in a cold climate. That makes the cross-ownership provisions that we are considering tonight perhaps more significant. There may be those who are less enthusiastic about bidding than they were. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Erdington is right in speculating about negative bidding—I hope not—but undoubtedly it is a cold climate.
  That moves me to ask the Minister about the outcome of the representations that were made to him and other Ministers on 8 April at a meeting with representatives of the Independent Television Association led, I believe, by Sir Brian Bailey, about the severity of the impact of the levy on the revenue of the company. It would be reasonable for the Government to make clear their conclusions on that point before the date of bidding. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate tonight to give some idea of the Government's

  1163
  thinking on that point. I understand that there have been discussions between his Department and the Treasury about it.
  I come now not just to the circumstances but to the terms of the order. It may be appropriate to begin by saying that I acknowledge, and with some satisfaction, the fact that the Home Secretary did in part reverse his position as a result of pressure put upon him not only by me but by a number of other hon. Members and companies in respect of the contiguity principle.
  It must be said that, when the Bill was enacted last year, it was without any expectation that its provisions, and the assurances that had been given during its passage through the House, would be so radically changed as they were by the present Home Secretary, almost as the first act of taking office in November.
  Those who participated in the protracted debates know that the importance of regional television dominated our discussions of Channel 3—who was to acquire the licences and what standards would be required of bidders. It was with those concerns in mind that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was then the Minister responsible for the Broadcasting Bill, gave a clear undertaking to the House that the contiguity rule—not a very elegant description, but it is clear—would be maintained. It was intended to prevent a process of consolidation in regional television production which would lead to the disappearance of the characteristic qualities of the 15 regions.
  The hon. Member for Thanet, North spoke about the problems of TVS and told us what was happening to the studios in Maidstone and Southampton—and in Nottingham too, with Central. Hon. Members of all parties were anxious that such pressures should be held at bay. We were all eager to maintain the regional basis of television, especially with Channel 3—that was really the sole justification for its separate existence. I am glad that the Minister found it possible at least to reach this compromise. It is an important step in the right direction and will give the companies in the bidding process the opportunity to establish themselves. It will prevent. them from being tested by hostile predatory bids before the end of the moratorium provided for under section 21 of the Broadcasting Act.
  It is likely that many of the companies, probably most of them, will put this period to good use by fortifying themselves against unwanted attention from predatory neighbours. However, it would have been wiser to have stuck to the Government's original position. It is hard to believe that that could not have been done by way of an amendable order. Then, if the feared adverse circumstances arose, and some of the farthings in the penny-farthing relationships got wobbly and might not be salvageable, the orders could be amended. I assume that this order could be withdrawn and a new order introduced if it were found unsuitable or inadequate, so I shall not press my point too hard, but it would have been sensible to have removed the uncertainties that the threat of acquisition by a hostile neighbour will still pose after 1993.
  The provisions concerning the sharing out of companies do not depart fundamentally from the measures that we debated at considerable length during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I expressed at the time our fears about the concentration of ownership. We said that we wanted diversity and plurality of ownership, and that the present
  1164
  arrangements allow too great a concentration of power. We would have welcomed a report from John Sadler or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, for example.
  I do not go along with the Opposition's Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Erdington, in believing that it would be sensible, following a general election, to set in train yet again the entire bidding process. That would run counter to the interests of television. We must be mindful of the upheaval that the companies face and the concentration of effort that goes into preparing the bids. It is an irresponsible undertaking of the Labour party to suggest that it would relaunch the process if, by some chance, it were to form the next Government.
  Mr. Corbett: There has been some misunderstanding. I did not say what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I said—this is what I meant to say or what I thought I said—that at the end of the licence period, on which we are just about starting, we would go through a bidding process again, and not as envisaged under the Act. The only things that would come under the Act would be via the stock exchange. That is all I said.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful for that clarification. If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's proposal, I readily withdraw. I am bound to say that I thought that he was talking—I think that others reached this understanding—about relaunching the bidding process on the basis of new ground rules as soon as he became the responsible Minister. That would clearly be adverse to the interests of television.
  If the arrangements for television cannot be entirely welcomed, the arrangements for radio seem to be considerably worse. It is clear that radio is operating within tight commercial constraints, with limited prospects of profits. The competition that we are witnessing makes the probability of concentration much greater for radio than for television. It is all too likely that the proposal that one company should be allowed to own up to 20 local stations, so that costs and programming will be shared, will be the pattern. I fear that we shall see the disappearance of the diversity of stations that has been held out to us, tantalisingly, as the object. It is not possible within the scope of the debate to deal with possible remedies for that. I merely note what is proposed in modification of the general principle in applying a point system for independent radio.
  I fear that the result of the proposals will be the loss of local services. Most stations will be bland and will offer the barest minimum of local news and stories. As soon as a station starts to attract listeners, one of the giants of local radio will seek to take it over.
  That is a pattern that we watched with dismay in France. I guess that we cannot prevent it occurring in the United Kingdom, but it is a reason for taking the view that the order is inappropriate to deal with the problem.
  It is deplorable and regrettable that community radio is likely to be the first in line for the chop. In the current climate, it is virtually impossible to set up new and specialised services that will attract advertising while audiences are accumulated. Again, if community radio breaks through, it is likely to be quickly swallowed up by one of its larger commercial rivals. We should have built-in protections for community radio, whose function is quite different from that of local radio.

  1165
  On previous occasions, I have said that the 20 per cent. limit was inappropriately large for television and radio stations, and that a smaller limit would be wiser in a pluralist society. We have missed an opportunity to make competition more effective by holding the reins in a different way. I am disappointed that thinking on that matter has not developed with the advent of the new Home Secretary.
  The issue of non-satellite broadcasting divided the House on a previous occasion. Only domestic satellites are mentioned in the order. Now that Mr. Murdoch has reduced his holding in BSkyB, perhaps the personal reasons for exempting him from the rule of law have disappeared. It might be appropriate to go back to the drawing board and consider introducing legislation consistent with that for other sectors, and so remove the special favours for non-domestic satellites that have shown the lack of power of the Independent Television Commission to protect consumers' interests within hours of the enactment of the Broadcasting Bill. I do not expect the Government to move instantly on that matter, but I should like them at least to think about it. It would make sense in the longer term and it would be in the consumer interest.
  The order does not reflect the sort of priorities that we believe should have been protected, and for that reason we shall not support the Government tonight.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I declare an interest as an adviser to Yorkshire Television.
  Our debates on the Broadcasting Bill over the past 18 months have been characterised by the shedding of more light on what the future broadcasting scene is likely to be. There was a good example of that a moment ago in the exchange of views between the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). There will be rejoicing throughout independent television, not least in the Independent Television Commission, that the hon. Member for Erdington has at least clarified his party's position on the allocation of licences—that in the unlikely event of a Labour victory at the next general election there will not be a wholesale reallocation of licences. That is of some relief to us.
  I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Erdington said about the risks facing Channel 3, and especially regional television. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) put his finger on the root of the problem when he referred to the position of newspapers. Certain national daily newspapers have survived only because of the entrepreneurial investment of certain so-called media tycoons. Whether it is commercial television, commercial radio or newspapers, there is no guarantee of commercial success.
  Throughout our deliberations on trying to set in place a proper framework for the future of Channel 3, the real difficulty was that we needed a structure that dealt with the most profitable regions such as Thames Television, TVS and London Weekend Television, but also provided a sensible framework for the future of Grampian Television and Border Television in Scotland. That was at the heart of concern over the future of the ownership of Channel 3
  1166
  licences and explains why we were unable fully to resolve those matters in Committee, on Report or even on Third Reading of the Broadcasting Bill. Therefore, there was a need for further reflection and consultation on the best framework.
  I hope not to appear modest when I suggest that the order, in relation to Channel 3, broadly reflects the compromise proposal that I put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shortly before Christmas. I remain disappointed that there was no agreement between the two adjoining licensees to allow mergers to take place even before the licences are reallocated—but that is history.
  Now the bids are about to be submitted. By the end of the year the licences will be allocated. In terms of future mergers or takeovers, the draft order provides a sensible compromise between the conflicting and competing commercial interests of different television stations and the crucial ingredient of protecting the regional commitment of whoever has that licence. That involves protecting not the commercial interests of a specific television station, but the regional arrangements and the regional map of Channel 3—there is a fundamental difference between those two.
  Mr. Maclennan indicated assent.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland nods in agreement because he knows that those matters largely affect his constituents. I am glad that he agrees with me on that.
  I take the point of the hon. Member for Erdington that the framework provided by the Bill leaves us with much meat to put on the bones. However, my reading of the Channel 3 licence applications suggests—I think that this is accepted throughout independent television—that those who will be granted licences in the allocation, whether existing Channel 3 licensees or new players, will have a stronger regional commitment to Channel 3 as a consequence of the Bill and the order than was the case under the old arrangement. That is largely to the credit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was responsible for guiding much of the legislation through the House. He responded well to our concerns in the regions about the future of regional television.
  We cannot emphasise too much the fact that Channel 3 will represent regional television in the future. I have grave doubts about whether it will be possible, in the greater competitive world of television in the next century, for the British Broadcasting Corporation to maintain the sort of regional television and local radio service that it has at present. I am not suggesting that it will not fight hard to maintain those services, but Channel 3 is the one television channel required, by statute, to provide a regional service. That is why it is important that we place in perspective the issue of who should in future own some of the smaller licences should the cold competitive world of the future mean that their viability is threatened. That is where I part company with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I cannot and never could see the logic of the distanced penny-farthing. I cannot see why Central Television should want to bail out Border Television should Border Television get into financial difficulties.
  I can see a considerable advantage, however, in suggesting that Granada Television may wish to bail out Border Television. The hon. Member for Erdington says

  1167
  that that threatens to undermine the regional service. It does not, because it is clear from the legislation arid what has been said about Channel 3 licence ownership that any company that takes over a neighbouring licence, or any other licence, would be required to honour all the licence obligations, including regional commitments. Those must include the arrangements which the Bill requires and which the Independent Television Commission has strengthened in its draft licences, for the licensees to demonstrate how they will meet the regional programme.
  Economies of scale can be beneficial, but there can also be commercial benefits and benefits to viewers. The whole of my constituency in north Yorkshire is one of the overlap areas. Neither Yorkshire Television nor Tyne Tees Television has universal coverage. As we all know from past arguments, that is because of transmission arrangements. However, where a larger licensee acquires the interests of a smaller neighbouring licensee, there can be considerable advantage for viewers in the strengthening of local and regional services. That must not be underestimated.
  It will be clear from my comments that I strongly support the order. I shall not mention all the matters with which it deals but will continue to confine my remarks to Channel 3 licensees. In that context, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the fact that everyone's attention is currently focused on the bid for Channel 3 licences? It is an historic moment for the future of independent television. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Erdington said, we are about to allocate the licences for a period of some 20 years and set the framework for the future of our main terrestrial commercial television channel.
  That is why we were right to spend so much time trying to get that framework right. In Committee and on the Floor of the House we argued about the need to maintain quality while not inhibiting commercial opportunity. I believe that we have got the framework right, but it rests on the exceptional circumstance arrangement in the scheme of bidding. None of us wants the highest bid to win at the expense of quality. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the exceptional circumstances provision is there to be used? The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, whose constituency is as far as anyone else's from London, will agree that the further one is from London, the more important is the regional concept of Channel 3 television. The provision deals with the quality of Channel 3 and its commitment to the regions. I believe that the regional commitment can be considered an exceptional circumstance in the scheme of bidding.
  On local radio, the ownership arrangements in the order are complex. I hope that my hon. Friend can confirm that he does not accept any argument that those ownership arrangements would hamper commercial investment in local radio because local radio will not be involved in big megabucks, money-spinning activity. Many people will have to put much effort into providing independent radio competition locally against the BBC structure. In rural areas there will not be large audiences and some people many well be investing almost on a wing and a prayer. We should not discourage that investment by ownership rules which are too complex.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I declare an interest, in that I present a programme for BSkyB. It is an excellent, high-quality programme of great intellectual rigour in which I speak for freedom, truth and justice and the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) dissents, when he can get a word in. That ends the commercial break.
  The order closes the stable doors after the horses have bolted all over the place. There is an incantation of magical formula of 5 per cent. of this and 20 per cent. of that being introduced, long after the brew has curdled and all the decisions have been taken. The Radio Authority and the ITC are both trying to catch up and cast a cloak of rationality over the undesirable situation that has developed in television and radio. They have been cogitating for months and now we have their recommendations.
  During that time—indeed, over the past couple of years—the whole position in radio and television has changed, in my view for the worse, as a result of commercial decisions. In order to accumulate war chests, the ITV companies have drastically reduced staff levels, and therefore their ability to produce high-quality programmes for their regions. As I argued in an intervention in the Minister's speech, the strength of ITV is that it took television production out of London and established centres of excellence in all the regions—in Manchester, in Leeds and in Tyne Tees, for example. The position of those centres has been undermined, and they are now threatened by the contract allocations.
  We want to maintain those centres. As far as I can see, there is no requirement in the regulations that the centres of excellence or the network of skills be maintained. The companies can simply become publishers, farming out programmes to independent companies as long as those independent companies produce in the regions. In a sense, that is wishful thinking in areas like Tyne Tees or Yorkshire, where there is not a vigorous network of independent companies to carry on the responsibility if it is not fulfilled by a strong production centre in Newcastle or in Leeds. Therefore, I see a real threat.
  I also see a farcical position developing because of the ludicrous system of bidding. If a regional company is not challenged and simply puts in a bid of a penny or a ha'penny, what will happen? If the Government's greedy aspirations cannot be fulfilled because there is not a challenge, what control will the Government or the ITC have? I should like to know, because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and I will almost certainly be putting in applications for licences.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: So long as the applications pass the quality threshold in the circumstances that he describes, the hon. Gentlemen will get a good bargain.
  Mr. Mitchell: They say that they are a Government of business and commercial rigour, but they have created a daft situation like that. A company that makes an excellent contribution to a region, has a good reputation is not challenged, because of the strength of its productions and what it has done for the region, can get away with making a bid of one penny. The Minister has told us that that is the case. If that is the eventuality, it is daft.
  Mr. Lloyd: If a company wanted to bid in that way, it would get a good bargain, but I do not believe that it would win if it bid only one penny.
  Mr. Mitchell: In some areas, it is difficult to get bids because expectations are low and the commercial reality is difficult. Money is tight at the moment. In that situation, if a competing bid is not put together, the company would get a bargain. It is folly on the part of the Government to provide them with that opportunity. However, I shall not grumble. If it puts more money back into television production, it benefits viewers in that region, it benefits television and therefore I welcome it.
  The second major deterioration that has taken place in the intervening period is in radio. I am saddened by what has happened in commercial, independent, local radio. Companies are gobbling each other up. They are forming bigger and bigger blocks, providing more and more programmes on a network basis, not for a locality or a community, but for an amorphous, much wider entity. Concentrations of shareholdings are taking over companies.
  That saddens me because, in 1975, I was involved in the foundation of Pennine Radio in Bradford, which started out as Bradford community radio. We fulfilled to the letter the IBA's then intentions, which were that there should be locally based radio stations, serving the community, with local shareholders, and with local figures taking an active part, providing a vigorous local news service and a talk opportunity for people in the locality. That is all going by the board.
  The regulatory authority has watched over the undermining of every one of the principles under which it insisted that people should bid in the first stage in the 1970s, when those stations were set up. The authority has seen the principles undermined, frustrated and overturned and has witnessed the creation of commercial blocks which are nothing more than juke boxes established in a series of localities, over a wider region. That frustrates the purpose of local radio, which is what it is all about, and we have watched it happen.
  These regulations are closing the stable door on that process. Indeed, they are closing the stable door in an incomprehensible fashion. I see that section 12 of the regulations entitled "limits", states:
  "Subject to the following paragraphs, a person shall not at any time hold licences to provide national, local or restricted radio services such that the total number of points applicable to such services, calculated in accordance with article 11, exceeds 15 per cent. of the total number of points so calculated applicable to all such services in respect of which licences have been granted and have not ceased to have effect."
  What does that mean? How is that an effective base on which to provide a genuine local radio service of the type that I and the people at Pennine Radio were so proud to establish in 1975, when—we struggled to fulfil the requirements that were then imposed by the IBA—we set up a local radio station serving a genuine community which was run by people from that community and had a shareholding in the community.
  The matter has become a joke, and it is not helped by a regulatory authority which we were told would be a light touch authority—in radio as in television—but which is now going in for more heavy-handed regulation than anything that preceded it.
  1170
  I have had a long brush with that authority over their regulations, which state that politicians shall not present their current affairs programmes. It seems to be all right for politicians to preside over radio authorities, but not for them to appear on a radio programme that it is nominally supervising.
  One expects a bureaucracy to justify its silly or irrational decisions. It is a civil servant's job to put "Not unwelcome" on the doormat and to phrase things to defend the status quo. However, in my correspondence about that decision, which seems to me to be an unnecessary interference with the freedom of radio stations, the authority has not even understood the point at issue. The intellectual level of the replies is very worrying. If that is the regulator, it is now in an impossible position because of the differentiations in the national radio stations that we are now setting up. If it is true that the authority has received no applications for the first national non-pop radio station and has had to extend the date for applications in the desperate hope of receiving some, how will that body be regulated if the authority has to beg for applicants to fulfil the intentions that the Government have foisted on it? How will it be regulated if the Government are desperate for bids?
  Mr. Corbett: Shall we spend another penny on a radio station?
  Mr. Mitchell: I am always happy to co-operate with my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington. Let us extend our talents not only to television but to radio stations.
  The Radio Authority's intervention in LBC is another classic example. LBC spent a small fortune splitting its frequencies and providing two radio stations. Then, along comes the Radio Authority, which is committed to diversity, to ask it to put them back together again. That is heavy-handed and elephantine regulation, when we were told that the touch would be light. Frankly, the intellectual level is depressing.
  We are dealing with regulations that try to freeze a mess, especially in local radio, where the only effective competition now comes from BBC local radio, which provides diversity and an alternative service. I am thinking especially of BBC Radio Humberside. It provides a magnificent service in the area where allocations by the BBC have been cut because it is kept on such a tight financial string. Local radio is therefore less able to serve its community, so competition is being undermined. The intentions of the system are being frustrated and will not be upheld by the regulations.
  The third change is the collapse of British Satellite Broadcasting, which was the biggest disaster after the poll tax. That was a tragedy and a folly, because we had an opportunity to get into the satellite market early with a high technical capability, which would have established us as leaders and provided a system that could have been expanded and sold in Europe. The Government's indecision, dithering and inability to decide who should run it meant that the launch was put back again and again. They considered different companies and danced a series of marital gavottes with different partners, all of which broke up.
  Engineers imposed standards that were technically too high and therefore, more expensive, thus reducing again the range of choice of those who could provide the service. The Government delayed and British capital, which is

  1171
  conventionally nervous in such a situation, was very slow, so the service came too late. It was launched years after it should have been launched, whereas it was vital to get into the market early. It lagged behind and staggered. It went in, even then, with expectations that were too grandiose and with a structure based on the BBC and run by people from the BBC who were used to overspending and to grandiose expectations. It was like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) hang-gliding. It was overstaffed, top-heavy and bound to crash because it paid no attention to commercial realities.
  BSB failed for two reasons. First, it spent too much money and was too grandiose. It had no idea about commercial realities. Secondly, Rupert Murdoch got in first and scooped the market. Who can blame him? Capitalism is all about taking a risk. Rupert Murdoch got in and did it—successfully. In those circumstances, BSB was bound to fail. It is silly to start complaining—as my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington did—as if Sky had taken over and strangled its opposition. That was not what happened. The shareholders of BSB, alarmed at the scale of their losses, took the baby out of the management's hands and dumped it on Rupert Murdoch's doorstep. That is literally what happened.
  How can we then—as my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington did—blame what happened on the man on whose doorstep the baby was dumped? He had taken the risk. About £1·5 billion has been spent so far on the satellite venture. That was enormous expenditure, to provide more choice and diversity for viewers in Britain. So why are we going in for this chorus of blame, praising with faint damns? We
  "assent with civil leer,
  And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer."
  That is our attitude.
  I should have preferred a fight—a conflict in which the viewers could have chosen. I should have preferred competition to provide better programmes. That is not what happened, but it is not realistic to blame Murdoch for a situation that was not of his making. The merger was cleared by the Office of Fair Trading, so it is churlish to carp. I do not come to praise Rupert Murdoch but I do not come to bury him either.
  The order is a fig leaf to conceal the Government's impotence in the Sky-BSB merger. Our position is intellectually disreputable. However desirable it might be, it is not possible to prevent concentrations of ownership in the media unless the freedom of the press is restricted and the Government close off people's opportunity to enter the market and require people to get out of the market. That is the problem. It is a problem which we must solve if we are to say that the market must be regulated. If we cannot do so, we should not imply that we would deal with the matter.
  I have never particularly liked The Sun, but I do not read The Sun. In the heart of every Labour Member of Parliament there is a C. P. Scott struggling to get out. The ethics of The Sun are a matter of taste, but that is not a justification for legislative intervention to expropriate newspapers. The Sun was handed to Rupert Murdoch by whom? We must take that into account. He saved it from closure. The same applies to Today. It is unrealistic to say that we will deal with the monopoly by taking papers away and allowing them to fail. That would be irrational.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington said that we would refer newspaper ownership to the Monopolies and
  1172
  Mergers Commission for investigation. That is the classic formula for any party that cannot decide what to do. It passes the matter on to a Royal Commission, to take minutes and waste years, or to the MMC. However, if we say that, it is irrational also to say that the 20 per cent. ceiling on, for example, Rupert Murdoch's participation would be enforced at the same time, even before the investigation was complete. What is magical about 20 per cent.?
  We have here a system that provides more choice and allows the viewer to choose. That is important. More diversity has been provided. Murdoch has taken a risk and I hope that he will succeed. It is churlish to carp and drag sulkily behind saying, "Naughty, naughty." That is not intellectually credible. In focusing on that issue, we have lost sight of the real issue, which is the undermining of the local roots of production in both radio and television. We are fiddling while the position deteriorates.
  I am terribly worried that the failure of the Government to provide in the legislation for local production in centres of excellence, which are the basis of ITV's federal system, will mean that the people bidding for contracts do not establish production centres but farm production out. They will farm that out and become publishers. It may be that they will farm it out to independents in the regions, but those people will not encourage the skills, or establish the centres of training and excellence, in the way that ITV has.
  I am particularly worried about the maintenance of centres at Border, Grampian and Tyne Tees, where they are important, and about the erosion of local bases in commercial local radio. Local television and radio have been the pride of our system. We are sabotaging the local basis of electronic communications, and this order will do nothing to stop that process.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: There is a perfectly respectable case for saying that we should have none of these regulations or controls, but leave it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to step in if competition is being stifled or undermined. However, I accept that, on balance, it is probably right that we should support this order to ensure that, from the word go, no such reduction in competition takes place. I see no justification whatsoever in the cross-media ownership controls relating to newspapers and satellites. They are wholly unnecessary.
  I am a little surprised that the Labour party should be making a fuss about Rupert Murdoch's ownership of a satellite television station. I am surprised to see them engaging in another round of Murdoch-bashing. The last time we discussed this issue—during the debate on the Broadcasting Act 1990—the Labour party clearly lost the argument. The speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), in which I think he was arguing that a Labour Government would force Mr. Murdoch to divest himself of either his satellite interests or his newspaper interests, was, to say the least, extremely unconvincing. I was astonished when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) appeared to suggest that he had some sympathy with the case being made by Labour Front-Bench Members.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) used the word "disreputable" to describe the approach of

  1173
  his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I shall be a little more rude, although it is not always easy to be less polite than the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. Clearly, there is one source of motivation for everything that Labour Members say about Rupert Murdoch and his interests. That motivation is spite—sheer spite. It was Rubert Murdoch who destroyed the stranglehold that the print unions—some of Labour's paymasters—had over the newspaper industry, and Labour wants to get even. It was Rupert Murdoch who got rid of the restrictive practices in newspapers, which were doing so much damage to the industry. A political party whose policy is based on spite does not deserve to be taken seriously.
  I am no longer surprised that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the shadow Home Secretary, for whom the hon. Member for Erdington has been acting as mouthpiece in this debate, should behave on the basis of spite. Last year, he said that he would never again write for the Murdoch newspapers. That was a spiteful decision, but one which, as a regular reader of The Times, and the Sunday Times, and, I confess, as an occasional reader of The Sun, I welcome entirely.
  Applying Labour's approach could be justified only if there were a monopoly. The hon. Member for Erdington tried this evening to argue that there was, but the truth is that there is no monopoly. Mr. Murdoch's newspapers operate in a highly competitive environment, a highly competitive marketplace. Each has robust competition, and nobody forces anybody to read any of them.
  It is quite clear that Mr. Murdoch's satellite investment is highly risky. Nobody forces people to watch those satellite television stations. The suggestion that Rupert Murdoch has a satellite monopoly is complete nonsense. Mr. Murdoch now owns only 40 per cent. of British Sky Broadcasting and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) pointed out, there is great choice on the Astra satellite system. There are already five English language channels on Astra. More importantly, British Sky Broadcasting is providing competition for the duopoly that has existed in Britain for so long in the BBC and ITV companies.
  The real power in broadcasting is not Mr. Murdoch but the BBC. Measured by revenue, the BBC is the largest media enterprise in Europe. It enjoys monopoly access to the licence fee; it has half the terrestrial broadcasting spectrum at its disposal; it has the lion's share of the radio frequencies; it employs 27,000 people and it is the second largest publisher of consumer magazines in Britain; yet Labour does not advocate dismantling the BBC. Apparently, Labour likes the BBC. I am not suggesting at this stage that we should dismantle the BBC.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition want to dismantle the Broadcasting Standards Council? They complain about the amount of sex and violence that appears on television, yet at the same time they want to abolish the very body that sets and controls those standards. It does not line up.
  Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party is very partial in its approach to these matters. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Labour party wishes to
  1174
  abolish the Broadcasting Standards Council. It would also reverse the impartiality clauses contained in the Broadcasting Act, which I hope will ensure greater impartiality in broadcasting in the months and years to come.
  Tonight we have seen an exercise in Labour hypocricy. The Opposition do not like Mr. Murdoch, and what they have been saying about him tonight is motivated purely by spite. The hon. Member for Erdington, who is no longer in his place, should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for that.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: I regret that I missed the opening Front Bench speeches in the short debate this evening. That was not because, as a television viewer, I detest repeats and it was quite clear that the Labour party would wheel out a repeat of an old show that had failed to improve its audience ratings before, but because the business came on a little earlier than we had expected.
  I should remind the House of my personal interest in these matters as a working television journalist employed by British Sky Broadcasting, and of course as the co-presenter of a programme with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). It is most agreeable to have got through three sentences in his presence without having been interrupted. As those who watch our programme will know, that is extremely rare—as rare as my letting him have his say without interrupting him.
  I share the concerns which have been expressed this evening about the possible growth of monopoly or dominance within the media, but I see it at a slightly different angle for some Opposition Members. The order does not relate to the printed media—the newspapers—although there is a clear connection because of the provisions relating to ownership. But for the activities of Mr. Murdoch and his company, aided and abetted by Mr. Maxwell—a former Labour Member of Parliament who is rumoured to be a Labour supporter to this day, and who has been almost as forthright in breaking the monopoly power of the trade unions in the print business—I very much doubt that we would see The Independent or several other titles today. It is possible that The Guardian would have gone under—a tragedy that I would have borne nobly and stoically, without too many tears, I must confess. None the less, one should provide a wide range of choice even for those who are obviously fundamentally unable to take advantage of it.
  Any suggestion that the activities of Mr. Murdoch in this country have been monopolistic are misplaced. I find it particularly odd that there should be a suggestion that there is any form of satellite television monopoly. There are plenty of channels available at the moment on satellite that could broadcast into this country. It is up to those bold enough to come forward.
  If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) could raise a couple more pennies— like him, I am, at times, overwhelmingly tempted to spend a penny on some of our broadcasters, to use his phrase—and some cash, he could have a channel on one of the satellites. Whether or not anyone would want to watch it is another matter.
  Mr. Corbett: Rather like Sky.
  Mr. Tebbit: Well, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would normally find a million or so viewers. I suspect that, if it came to it, his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby would have a lot more viewers than the hon. Gentleman. We might have a few more viewers for this debate if the two of them transposed their positions. As we all know, however, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby was sacked from his Front Bench position, for taking a job with British Sky Broadcasting. That was done, I presume, so that we should not have any censorship in the media. It does not matter if one writes for The Times. That is not an offence—well, not if one is senior enough; it is only if one is a junior, and when one works for Sky, that one gets fired from the Opposition Front Bench. The gainers from that encounter were ray hon. Friend—I mean the hon. Gentleman; I must remember the proprieties of these things—the Member for Great Grimsby, my co-presenter, and the viewers of Sky.
  By far the most dominant force in television today is not Mr. Murdoch, but the BBC. That poses the danger of a monopoly. It still has half the terrestrial channels, apart from its publishing activities. My hon. Friend the Minister should keep a close eye on how well the BBC is doing in the process that was set in train by my hon. Friend and others of contracting out more of its programmes to independent producers.
  If my hon. Friend considers what is happening, he will discover that many of those contracts are awarded on a sweetheart basis. Some of the restrictions that are placed on the tenderers for those contracts make it plain that it is the intention of the BBC that nothing shall change whatever, except that the cost of the productions shall increase because former BBC employees will be doing that production with an added fee. That was not the intention of placing a requirement on the BBC to contract out some of its work to independent producers. [Interruption]
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is muttering from a sedentary position. Perhaps he can tell me how the BBC has done in reducing its prices to the consumer, just as British Telecom has reduced its prices to the consumer. If the hon. Gentleman knows the answer, he might have something to say. Would he like to tell us what has been happening to the licence fee, as opposed to telephone charges?
  Mr. Tony Worthington: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how it is just that people all over Britain are having to pay 17·5 per cent. VAT on their telephone charges when that 17·5 per cent. VAT was not in existence from January to March this year?
  Mr. Tebbit: That is a little bit off the broad scope of the debate. I will only say briefly that, so far as it is possible to do, those consumers are not being charged that additional VAT unless it is proper and appropriate that they should be.
  Mr. Worthington: It sounds like a racket to me.
  Mr. Tebbit: 1 would be happy if my hon. Friend the Minister were able to tell us tonight that in future the BBC's licence fee would be linked to the retail prices index in the same way as British Telecom's prices—RPI minus 6·5 per cent. It would no doubt please everybody in the House to see prices coming down in that way— or would it? Perhaps not.
  1176
  But as I have said, the principal threat to competition in television is, first, the continuing dominance of the BBC and secondly, and more seriously perhaps in many ways, the threat to the independent sector which is coming from the present dearth of advertising revenues. That is the problem which may well force under some of the smaller independent companies, particularly those in radio.
  There has been a lot of talk this evening about the dangers of successful companies in television and radio being taken over in predatory bids. But in my experience, it is not successful companies that are taken over, but unsuccessful companies. If there is a danger at all at the moment, it lies first in the lack of advertising revenue, which springs from the considerable expansion in the number of stations spreading the revenue too thinly, and, secondly, in the recession reducing the amount of revenue available. That is where the danger lies, not from the activities of the strong, powerful and well-financed companies.
  I hope that my hon. Friend, when he looks at those matters, will be entirely firm and stick to what he has said about the manner in which the restrictions will be applied to cross-media ownership. There is no requirement to strengthen the regulations beyond those which he has proposed. If anything, in the longer term, we should be looking at reducing those restrictions.
  I do not find it acceptable to see that there is a monopoly because somebody is a significant operator in the printed press and the electronic media. Those are not the same areas, and I do not think that we should worry too much about it.
  10.8 pm
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: We began the debate earlier than we expected, so we have taken considerably more time to debate considerably more points than we might have expected to do. As a result, I have covered six or seven sides in closely written hieroglyphics which, if I tackled each one fully, would require a long speech. The House will be glad to hear that I can never read my own handwriting at this time in the evening, so I shall be brief and will refer only to the points that were directed at me which I can remember. My handwriting was rather better at the beginning of the debate when a number of points were put to me by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett).
  The hon. Gentleman asked what happens if there is no bid in one region. I am not as pessimistic as he is, but if that should happen the ITC would have to advertise again. As it would have allowed the region to continue only on the basis that it was a viable one, it would be a clear signal that here was an opportunity for the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to buy, if not for a penny, for a lower sum than he might have thought it would have cost him if he had made his bid in the first place.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is monstrous. The Minister is now changing what he said originally. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and I have begun to formulate our bid. Is the Minister saying that if the terms of the Act were fulfilled by a sole contender company putting in a bid of one penny that bid would be rejected?
  Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) had listened to his hon. Friend the Member for

  1177
  Erdington, let alone to me, he would have realised that his hon. Friend was talking about a region where there was no bid at all. What would happen then? I see that the hon. Member for Erdington is nodding in agreement. What I am saying now is on all fours with what I said before. If no second bid is made, if the hon. Member for Great Grimsby realises that he cannot manage something as complex as putting in a bid that would satisfy the quality threshold, the ITC would have to look to neighbouring licensees to run a temporary service until a satisfactory licensee could be found for the region.
  The hon. Member for Erdington was worried about production facilities in the regions not being used. There is bound to be less use of production facilities of contractors and licensees because of the 25 per cent. rule, which means that 25 per cent. of output must be provided by independents. Of course, the 80 per cent. for specific contracted regional broadcasting will have to be made in the appropriate region, but the price that one pays for having independents is that they be independent enough to choose where they can best make their programmes.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby deviated into sense when he talked about the real pressures on an organisation such as Sky, and the lack of realism shown by his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. However, he shared their inpracticality when he said that there should be a rule about where independents should produce programmes. The whole point about independents is that they are independent people who will produce programmes that they believe are wanted, and they need to produce them as competitively as possible. It must be up to them to decide where they should do so. I am less pessimistic than the hon. Gentleman about the possibility of their not doing so in the regions.
  Contrariwise, the hon. Member for Erdington was worried that the broadcasters would force independents to use facilities in the way that the broadcasters wanted them to. However, the order that we have just published on the definition of an independent—no doubt we shall debate it soon—makes it clear that such pressure must not be applied. If it were, that would be a matter for the regulatory authorities. Independents must be seen to be independent as well as actually being independent.
  Mr. Tebbit: If an independent must be seen to be independent, is it reasonable of the BBC to specify to independents which might contract with it who should present a programme, and to reserve the right to approve of the choice of editor, or even to appoint the editor? Is it right that the BBC should reserve the right to approve the panellists on a programme, or that it should insist that the existing music and graphics of a programme be used, and so on? That does not leave a lot of independence, does it?
  Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is extending an argument in particular directions that he was advancing generally in his speech. He has raised exactly the sort of matter that we shall consider when we debate the order that defines independents. As the evening grows late, even though we started to debate the order fairly early, I shall leave the matter until we debate the independents order, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me.
  The hon. Member for Erdington wondered what would happen if broadcasters made arrangements together to sell
  1178
  advertising. It was part of his generalised worry about concentration of power. That would become a matter of interest to the Office of Fair Trading. The OFT has a role to ensure that real competition exists, and that extends to advertising. When the hon. Gentleman says that he is worried about concentration of ownership of the press and of television licensees, I remind him that the rules provide categorically and clearly, as does the Act, I believe—having sat through the consideration of the Bill that became the Broadcasting Act 1990, he will probably know this better than most—that no British press proprietor may own more than 20 per cent. of the shareholding of any television company. If there is any suggestion that the 20 per cent. may be a controlling interest because of the make-up of the company, the percentage holding will have to be reduced. There is no question of a concentration of power in that respect.
  The hon. Member for Erdington wondered whether we would have to accept somebody's word. It is not a matter of accepting anyone's word, and that is why we are debating the order. The order stems from the Act and the rules are before us. The hon. Gentleman said that he felt that BSkyB had a monopoly of satellite broadcasting. It does not have a total monopoly because other satellite channels are available. When there is only one player in the field, that player is the monopoly. A succession of opportunities are available on Astra 1 and 2 and, it is mooted, Astra 3, for other players to move on to the field. That means that there is no monopoly in any accepted sense of that word. It is easy for competition to materialise if there is a willingness to invest resources. If that is done, the competition will find an audience.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: What would happen if there were a shareholder with a 20 per cent. holding, it was decided that there should be a rights issue and the other parties could not afford to take advantage of that issue? The holdings of the other parties would be diluted and the 20 per cent. holding would be worth more. What would the Government do in such circumstances?
  Mr. Lloyd: They would not do anything. The Independent Television Commission would ensure that the 20 per cent. which had risen to whatever level was reduced at least to the previous level of 20 per cent.
  Mr. Dickens: Would it buy?
  Mr. Lloyd: How it reduced the holding—by giving it away, selling it or whatever—would be a matter for the commission to decide. The major requirement is that the holding should be reduced, and that it would be.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Erdington accepted—my handwriting is still quite good quality—that it was sensible for the ITC to enable BSB viewers to continue to receive broadcasts. The arrangements are temporary and the commission has some imaginative proposals for securing more programming on the Marco Polo satellite. The success of what it intends to do will depend upon individuals willingly coming forward. I hope that they will. There is no monopoly in any reasonable sense of the word because we cannot separate satellites from the rest of broadcasting that is available. Satellite broadcasting represents an extremely small proportion of broadcasting as a whole.

  1179
  The hon. Member for Erdington thought that the Government should refer the BSB-Sky merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If the hon. Gentleman reflects upon the matter, he will recall that it was considered by the OFT, which found no basis whatever for a reference to the M MC. That is hardly surprising, as the combined satellite broadcasts account for far less than 10 per cent. of all broadcasting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) expressed similar concerns about the decreasing use of production facilities in the provinces. I hope that he accepts that the points that I made earlier apply very much to what he said. He is being too pessimistic. We must accept that the independents, as well as the licensees, should make those programmes where they think that they can best make them.
  My hon. Friend said that there was an insufficient number of radio frequencies. The Radio Authority intends to advertise 30 new franchises a year. That would be quite demanding of the skills and experience available in the industry. I doubt whether it would be practical or sensible to go very much further, but that is a matter for the authority. It is important, and will be in the coming years, that more frequencies are released. I have that very much in mind in my discussions with the BBC and my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry, who have responsibility for the distribution of wavelengths.
  My hon. Friend was right to say that Sky has extended, at great cost, the choice available to viewers and that further advances such as digital, which is on the horizon, will not be made if those willing to take that sort of risk did not have the freedom to do so. Many of the Labour party's suggestions for further restrictions would make such advances impossible. I noted what my hon. Friend said about the televising of proceedings in the House. That is a matter not for me but for the House.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and I have had a sufficient number of exchanges about BSB dishes for me now to pass over that point. He asked about the levy, but it would not be proper for me to comment on that at any length. I hope that Mr. Speaker will prove a light-handed regulator and will allow me to say that there is great concern in the television industry about the weight of the levy bearing down upon it at a time when advertising revenue has been reduced. I keep that matter in mind in discussions with Government colleagues. We have not yet reached a conclusion, but I hope that we will do so soon. The levy does not directly affect the new licences and the bidding for them. By the time that the new licences are on the air in 1993, the levy will be a thing of the past.
  I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman was pleased with the changes in the continuity rules, even if he would have preferred us to go further. I do not accept his fear that radio will be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Advertising on radio has been maintained at a rather better level than on television. He referred to the rule in the Act that no one should own more than 20 stations. I draw his attention to the rule that does not alow anyone to own stations that would give them more than 15 per cent. of the totality of points, which are calculated according to the reach of the stations that are operational, and which, as new stations come along, will tend to increase.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) spoke, as usual, knowledgeably and wisely. I am glad to have his support for our arrangements under
  1180
  the order. I confirm that the provision in the Act for exceptional circumstances is there to be used. The Independent Television Commission knows that, and will use it as it judges appropriate. It is not for Ministers to say when it should do so. However, I confirm that it is well aware that it has that power and a duty to use it whenever it considers it necessary.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby was excited and entertaining, and I enjoyed listening to him. Some of his remarks related to the order. All hon. Members, especially Opposition Members who expect to remain in opposition, have the failing of wanting everything both ways—or even three or four ways. The independents have been given the opportunity to make programmes and have been given a space in the BBC and ITV to make up to at least 25 per cent. of those companies' programmes. Inevitably, they will choose where and how to make the programmes. If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby feels that the Labour party should be more sensitive to the realities of the world of Sky Television, I suggest that he should be more sensitive to independent production.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: That was not the point that I was making. I asked what happens to the existing centres of production run by existing companies.
  Mr. Lloyd: Some will be sold and others will be used. Any superfluous assets will be dealt with by the owners in the best possible way. It is not for the Government to lay down prescriptions. Even if I had an idea about how they could best be used, I am sure that the companies would feel that they knew better, and I would not argue with them about that.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that the rules were extremely complicated. They are quite complicated and he should read them carefully. He would need to read them several times but, if he did so, he would find that they were quite clear. They would assure him that there was not the concentration of power in radio or television that Opposition Members fear. I have no such fears, not because I am in favour of concentration—I am emphatically against it—but because the rules will guard effectively against it. I therefore commend them to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 102.

  Division No.127]

  [10.27 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brazier, Julian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Amess, David

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Amos, Alan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Burns, Simon

  Ashby, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Butterfill, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Chope, Christopher

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Colvin, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bowis, John

  Couchman, James

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Cran, James

  1181

  Curry, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Day, Stephen

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mills, Iain

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Evennett, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fallon, Michael

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Favell, Tony

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Franks, Cecil

  Nelson, Anthony

  Freeman, Roger

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  French, Douglas

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gale, Roger

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Paice, James

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Patnick, Irvine

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hague, William

  Redwood, John

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Harris, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hayward, Robert

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Thorne, Neil

  Irvine, Michael

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Viggers, Peter

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Key, Robert

  Waller, Gary

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Ward, John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Watts, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Knowles, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Knox, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Latham, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Wilshire, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Wood, Timothy

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Yeo, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Maclean, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Madel, David

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Tim Boswell

  Mans, Keith

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  1182

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  McAllion, John

  Alton, David

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McLeish, Henry

  Battle, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Beggs, Roy

  McMaster, Gordon

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Madden, Max

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Marek, Dr John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Meale, Alan

  Caborn, Richard

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Corbett, Robin

  Mullin, Chris

  Cousins, Jim

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Crowther, Stan

  O'Brien, William

  Cryer, Bob

  O'Hara, Edward

  Cummings, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Darling, Alistair

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Dixon, Don

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Dobson, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  Doran, Frank

  Randall, Stuart

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Reid, Dr John

  Eastham, Ken

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Fearn, Ronald

  Rogers, Allan

  Flynn, Paul

  Rooker, Jeff

  Foster, Derek

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Foulkes, George

  Rowlands, Ted

  Galloway, George

  Ruddock, Joan

  George, Bruce

  Skinner, Dennis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Snape, Peter

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Soley, Clive

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Hain, Peter

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Haynes, Frank

  Vaz, Keith

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Wallace, James

  Home Robertson, John

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Howells, Geraint

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wilson, Brian

  Ingram, Adam

  Winnick, David

  Lamond, James

  Worthington, Tony

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Livsey, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie

  Loyden, Eddie

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.

  Broadcasting Licences
    PETITION

      Cosmetics (Animal Testing)
      10.34 pm
      Mr. Don Dixon: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to present a petition given to me by four pupils from Whitburn comprehensive school in my constituency, Louise Freeman, Marit Hudson, Angela Patterson and Rachel Green.
      They told me when they came to my office on Saturday that they were so appalled at the thousands of animals that suffer and die each year to test cosmetics, and toiletries such as lipstick that they went out each night after school and each weekend and collected more than 1,000 signatures from people in my constituency.
      Their petition tells of cruel tests involving rabbits having shampoo injected into their eyes, or guinea pigs having their skin shaved off and products applied to their raw flesh. The petition also asks for legislation to protect these animals and to make illegal the use of animals for the testing of cosmetics and other household products.
      I congratulate these girls on their endeavours, and I fully support the petition.
      To lie upon the Table.

  NHS Trust (Bradford)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  10.40 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: I am extremely pleased to introduce this short debate, for which I have applied for the past six weeks.
  The recently published Bradford health plan outlines a number of overall health priorities: mothers and the newborn; infants; toddlers and children; adolescents; people requiring acute services; people with chronic diseases; people requiring rehabilitation and stroke services; and, elderly people.
  About 80 women in every 1,000 of child-bearing age have a baby each year, which provides Bradford with one of the highest birth rates anywhere in the country. Projections show that there will be some 5,300 to 5,600 births each year, yet there has been a relative decline in expenditure in maternity care services, which has fallen from 10·5 to 10·1 per cent. of total expenditure, during the past five years.
  Bradford has the highest proportion of children under 16 years old anywhere in the country—23 per cent. of our total population—and by the year 2001, the five-to-14 age group will have increased by 10 per cent.
  The health plan says:
  "The health of children in Bradford is poor and presents a greater challenge than for most other health districts. Children between the ages of 0–14 years have a 42% increased risk of dying in Bradford than elsewhere in the country …
  Deaths in children under one year old are particularly high …
  The different levels and patterns of death amongst different ethnic groups is relevant to Bradford's multi-racial population. Death rates for babies of mothers of Pakistani origin for example, are 16·9 per 1,000 total births, compared with a rate of 9·4 for babies born to mothers of British origin …
  Serious congenital malformations are more common in Bradford than elsewhere in the UK."
  Yet expenditure has again fallen from 5·5 per cent. to 4 per cent. in the past five years.
  There are about 45,000 disabled adults in Bradford. Of those, 18,500 have severe disability and 9,000 very severe disabilities. Of all day hospital attendances, stroke is the most common condition. Deaths from stroke are about 20 per cent. higher in Bradford than should be expected. Heart disease is a major killer.
  The plan goes on to say:
  "Generally the population of Bradford is younger than the population of England and Wales. It is predicted that in Bradford the number of people aged 65 and over will reduce from 46,000 in 1985 to 44,600 by the end of the century. However, within this figure the number of people aged 85 and over will increase by 27% from 4,000 in 1985 to 5,100 by 2001."
  The Bradford hospitals trust became fully operational on 1 April, although it has clearly been in the driving seat for several months, having been formally established in mid-December. Its official aim is to provide
  "high quality health care, promptly and equitably for the people of Bradford."
  Sadly, public confidence in the Bradford trust achieving its aim has been seriously undermined. In January, constituents who wanted operations at Woodlands hospital were told that operations had been cancelled on the Government's instructions because of the Gulf war. It

  1185
  has since become clear that patients awaiting operations at the Bradford royal infirmary and at St. Luke's hospital were also refused admission on identical grounds.
  The trust cancelled all operations for which patients required a long stay for five days at the start of the Gulf war. In doing so, it acted without authority or instructions from the Government. I understand that Bradford health authority ordered the trust to reopen the list, yet it took a further six to nine days before operating lists were working normally again. Even by the middle of February, operations requiring long stays in surgical beds—especially for hip replacement operations—were still being refused.
  One constituent, outraged at being refused his double hip replacement operation in Bradford, thought that he had obtained his operation by going to Scotland. However, his consultant in Scotland wrote saying that he could not be admitted, as neither Bradford nor Tayside health authority was willing to pay for it. So much for patient choice and for the Government's claims that, under the new reforms, money will follow patients. Now, four months later, my constituent is in Bradford and I wish him a full and speedy recovery following the operation that he should and could have received in January. If he had not had the confidence to protest, I wonder whether he would now be having the operation that he badly needs.
  Over Easter, ward 16 of Bradford royal infirmary, which treats young people for ear, nose and throat illness, was closed for a fortnight. It is believed that the primary reason was that the four consultants responsible for the specialty chose to take their holidays simultaneously. Nurses were redeployed as a result of the closure, but those who could not be found alternative duties were forced to take unpaid leave. It is also clear that paediatric staff at St. Luke's hospital are now working under extraordinary pressure.
  In February, an internal memo was leaked. It is strongly believed to have been written by Dr. Mark Baker, chief executive of the trust and former district general manager for Bradford health authority. The memo, which is dated 25 January, stated that overspending on the budget was running at 2·5 per cent. to 3 per cent. and that there should be an immediate reduction of 6 per cent. in current expenditure and a reduction of 3·5 per cent. against budget. Strategy should be based on reduced staffing, reduced plant and overheads and marginal cost limitation.
  The memo stated that emergency action should include
  "total immediate recruitment freeze until further notice …except for junior medical staff …an absolute ban on use of nurse agencies"
  and
  "a ban on all purchases unless essential for emergency medical purposes."
  It went on to say that there should be planned restriction on the volume and range of activity, for example pathology, X-ray and surgery, help for sick staff to retire and honesty about redundancy. It states that that could result in a rise in the waiting list.
  The memo also said that there should be
  "an absolute freeze on development until further notice"
  and
  "no upgradings except for new jobs or as part of total reprofiling."
  It also stated that no promises should be made, and that
  1186
  "staff whose employment is to be terminated should be identified early and released at the beginning of the financial year. Situation is partly the result of HQ profligacy, partly due to creepage but also significantly due to loss of management control. Some directorates have taken positive action to reduce cost but we are now in a different scale of crisis altogether. For all directorates, getting a grip on spending now is the only relevant measure of performance.
  In addition to taking the action I have outlined, I want formal feedback by next Wednesday on what can be achieved and what the service implications are."
  I gave a copy of that memo to the Minister when I met him, together with colleagues, in March of this year.
  Dr. Baker, at the time of writing that memo, had been district general manager less than 12 months previously. He was also the senior manager and the architect of the budgets that he is now busily cutting. Paragraph 6 of that memo says:
  "If action leads to ward closures, manage them right—we will help. Use the crisis to achieve goals."
  On 30 January, staff on ward 6 at Bierley Hall hospital were told that their ward would close. I shall not pursue that matter, as I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), in whose constituency Bierley Hall is located, will deal with it later.
  It is clear that expenditure cuts will have several knock-on effects. Not least will be the blocking of acute beds, thereby defeating throughput, without which the trust cannot succeed. Dr. Baker admits that longer waiting lists will result. The Bradford health plan says that waiting lists are high on the political agenda.
  Then, in a delphic paragraph, the memo says that waiting lists are
  "as much about the way doctors work as they are about unmet need. It is clear that both the purchaser and the provider will need to discuss the management of waiting lists and targets set for different conditions, dependent on the availability of resources. The purchaser may well have to decide to limit activity. This will in practice either change the way services are provided or clarify the need for additional NHS funds."
  In late February, there were rumours that the special care baby unit at St. Luke's hospital in my constituency was to close. My opposition to the closure was dubbed "scaremongering" by leading local Conservatives. I wrote to Dr. Baker on 15 March. He replied:
  "The proposal to close the SCBU at St. Luke's hospital is still under consideration. The proposition was made by the consultants who run the unit, not by management. Should it be pursued, an operational policy would be developed which ensured that both outcomes would benefit not deteriorate.
  A small number of items of equipment, which were funded by public donation, would naturally be retained and used at the Bradford Royal Infirmary."
  By 10 April, the Bradford Telegraph and Argus was reporting:
  "A special care baby unit at Bradford's oldest hospital will definitely close it was revealed today.
  Health chiefs at the city's new Hospital Trust said a ten-cot ward at St. Luke's Hospital—which looks after premature and sick babies—will shut within four months."
  I pay tribute to a campaigning group called Baby Unit Regional Parents Society, which has done an excellent job in campaigning to keep this unit open. It fears that sick babies could be at risk if they have to be transferred across the city from St. Luke's to the special care baby unit at BRI. The intention, as the Minister will undoubtedly tell us later, is to centralise maternity services at BRI. I appeal to him not to allow the closure of the special care baby unit at St. Luke's until that centralisation has taken place. I understand that it could be two or even three years ahead.

  1187
  It would be wrong to put the life of any child at risk by transferring it when it was extremely sick across several miles of what is often a congested inner-city centre. It would be much better to keep the unit until centralization can take place, with proper and adequate accommodation at Bradford royal infirmary.
  Also in February came news of a £5 five-year trust hospital catering contract awarded to a company called Taylorplan Services of Chiswick in London. Catering staff at BRI and St. Luke's will be made redundant as a consequence of this contract. I sponsored three early-day motions—Nos. 544, 545 and 546—on the subject.
  The first of these reveals that, according to Taylorplan's latest accounts, the firm is technically insolvent. It has very large pre-tax losses, and its assets exceed its liabilities by a considerable amount. The other two motions refer to the company's extremely poor past performance, especially in cleaning contracts, not least at Airedale hospital, a neighbour of Bradford, where, in the first four months of the cleaning contract, there were 450 complaints; and to the company's low rates of pay and poor conditions of employment.
  Again I wrote to Dr. Baker on that matter. In a letter of 19 March, he replied as follows:
  "The catering service was tendered for in the usual way and Taylorplan Services Limited are on the approved list of contractors. They currently hold a large number of public sector contracts, including one in our Trust, and we have no concern over their work quality nor their corporate security.
  As you know, the pay rates for NHS ancillary staff are generally low and I understand that Taylorplan's basic wage rates are competitive.
  The new contract will save the NHS some money and most staff can expect to be reemployed by Taylorplan as well as receiving redundancy payments."
  Last month came news that mothers and toddlers using the child development centre at St. Luke's were to lose their own transport because the Spastics Society funding had ended and there was no money to secure independent transport. I am very grateful for the efforts of the current district general manager, who has been desperately trying to find the necessary funds to allow independent transport to continue.
  A friend of the centre described the importance of transport in the following way:
  "We need transport which has proved fundamental for getting children into the centre. They are heavy and it is difficult for mums to use local transport. Many of our mothers, especially the Asian community, have other children under school age. Bus stops are not always near home and adverse weather conditions can affect the health of the handicapped child. It is difficult to collapse a buggy when a handicapped toddler cannot stand or even sit on a pavement. We have come to the end of our money raised for transport and are now without any means of bringing children in."
  Incidentally, those people also need money for equipment and toys. Under the trust, no money was available, and they faced the prospect of losing their transport.
  It is now very clear that, given the financial crisis in Bradford, the establishment of the trust this year was a tragic blunder. 'The Government were advised by Bradford community health centre and others to defer the trust for at least a year to enable the financial situation to be clarified and experience of trusts in other parts of the country to be obtained. However, as the Government, for reasons of political dogma, were determined to see a trust established in Bradford this April, they owe it to my constituents and the constituents of other Bradford
  1188
  Members of Parliament to inject extra funds now to restore the services that have been cut already and to avoid other cuts that are threatened.
  Bradford needs about £5 million if those cuts are to be avoided. It was not given Government money that was available to cover deficits at 31 March last year. It has a deficit of about £1 million as at 31 March this year. In the past six years there has been no pattern of underlying deficit in Bradford, so why has Bradford been denied the Government funding which could and should have been provided? I hope that the Minister will say that that money will be forthcoming.
  My constituents should not be penalised by enduring diminished standards of health care. It does not matter how the present situation came about— whether it was by resources being switched wrongly from community health to acute services, by management losing control or by profligate spending. That is irrelevant to Bradford. It is essential that money is made available now to ensure that those cuts are not made and that the standards of health care in Bradford are maintained.
  A senior nurse wrote to me in early February:
  "The Health Service in Bradford is being dismantled and no one has the power to call a halt."
  I receive many reports showing that staff within the trust and throughout the national health service in Bradford are extremely demoralised. They do not believe that anyone cares or that any action is being taken to remedy the faults that they see around them. They are fearful for the future and they are afraid that they will be sacked if they stick their heads above the parapet. Even now, with the trust formally established on 1 April, there is no trade union recognition, or even a handbook on the terms and conditions of employment.
  The Government have the power to do something about the situation. If the present Government refuse properly to fund the new trust in Bradford, the people of Bradford have the power to vote in the next general election to return a new Labour Government who will end the Bradford trust and others, stopping the spread of a two-tier health service in Bradford and throughout the country, and the drift towards the privatisation of the national health service. By restoring proper funding, we shall create a new national health service dedicated to offering care free at the point of delivery. That is what the people of Bradford want and deserve. I very much hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that the money we pressed him for in March and which we shall continue to press him for will be made available.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and congratulate him on obtaining tonight's Adjournment debate. I should say as briefly as possible that the people of Bradford regard the Bradford national health service trust as the enemy within the national health service.
  My constituents are concerned that Bierley Hall hospital, which is being taken over by the trust, has faced two ward closures. One of those wards was refurbished at a cost of £100,000 to the national health service. Surely that is a waste of resources, as is the sacking of newly qualified nurses, trained by the national health service. Surely it is wrong that those skilled and caring staff are facing the dole queue.

  1189
  The Minister will have received a letter from me about Westwood hospital, which is not part of the trust but is proposed as a section for another trust. I ask the Minister carefully to consider the letter that I sent him and to ensure that Westwood hospital is not sold off for building development but that instead a village complex is built there for mentally handicapped people. The patients at that hospital, their relatives and the staff want such a concept to be applied to Westwood.
  I hope that, before a trust is established, the Minister will take positive action towards a village development at Westwood. Those representing the Labour party and the Conservative party in Bradford and elsewhere will very much welcome such a development.
  11.3 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): In response to the debate, I had hoped to enlarge upon the answers that I gave to the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in a recent Question Time. In the time left, however, I may have to précis those answers rather than enlarge upon them.
  When the hon. Member for Bradford, South came to see me, I undertook to consider what he had to say about Westwood. The proposal for a village development on the site of a mental handicap hospital is not unique to Westwood, but we are prepared to consider it for that hospital.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West presented us with a strange amalgam of a speech. When he started, I thought that, at last, the Government were winning. The hon. Gentleman couched the argument that he wanted the House to consider in terms of the public health outputs achieved by the NHS in Bradford. I should be more than happy to enter into a debate on that, as I believe that that is the way in which health debates should be run.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that there is an unusually high birth rate in Bradford and to the fact that health managers should address the problem of perinatal mortality and that associated with the incidence of congenital malformations. That is precisely why we have changed the way in which the health service is managed. That will ensure that Bradford health authority, the purchaser authority, is charged with the use of public money to achieve the public health objectives of the city. It is to that authority that the principal responsibility for commissioning and designing health care provision in the city falls.
  Although the management of hospitals is an important part of the responsibility of the health service managers, it is essentially a secondary function. Their primary responsibility is to use the resources available to the NHS to meet the kind of public health objectives that the hon. Member for Bradford, West defined. However, having started so well, it was sad that the hon. Gentleman then veered off into oldspeak and engaged in a prolonged discussion of the range of inputs into the health service. He then went on to give a party political broadcast about how all the problems would be solved with the election of a different Government. History does not bear out the claim that a change of Government from one party to another, either way, provides such a solution.
  1190
  The hon. Gentleman made an unfair attack on the management of the new trust for decisions that they were alleged to have taken in response to the outbreak of the Gulf war. It should not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that that trust started to operate on 1 April. That fact will not allow the hon. Gentleman to sustain an argument about decisions taken in January and February. The trust was established on 1 April 1991. The decisions taken were reached on the basis of the old health service structures, not on the basis of the trust and the distinct purchaser authority.
  I shall use the specific changes that are being made in Bradford to rebut absolutely the charge that there is a lack of interest in health care or that there is any reason for a decline in morale in the health service, if such a feeling exists.
  It is important to consider the changes in the revenue budget of the Bradford trust. I will repeat the explanation that I gave to the hon. Gentleman for Bradford, West when he came to see me, as it is important. By setting up the acute sector as an independent management unit of the trust, in Bradford, we have obliged managers in the trust to address the overspend that has gone for some time in that sector. The managers are committed to reducing that overspend by tackling overspending in the support service and administration costs. The trust intends to maintain the existing range of services and activity levels by focusing on improved efficiency and cost-effectiveness within the acute sector. It has no intention of cutting services.
  The greatest criticism of the traditional system of managing health care in Bradford is the fact that, for several years now, the acute sector has been allowed to raid the budget that was originally allocated to the community services, as the barons of the acute sector have been living over budget and the community services in the city have not had the level of spend that the health authority originally planned for them.
  If the new arrangements for health care in Bradford do no more than ensure that the acute sector effectively lives within the prioritised budget of the health authority and the resources that the authority plans to use for community services are in fact used for community services, that outcome alone in my book would justify the changes that we have introduced.
  However, that is not the only justification. Once again, the hon. Gentleman neglected to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Bradford trust has allocated to it the largest capital budget of any trust in this financial year. I listed the figures in the answer that I gave him on 16 April, in column 147 of Hansard. There is an investment budget in prospect for Bradford's hospitals in this decade of £110 million. That is not the outcome that one would have expected if the health service managers were not committed to the future of Bradford's health service.
  The new arrangements and the people in charge of them in Bradford intend in their plans to provide a new model of health care in Bradford which will be better attuned to the health needs which the hon. Gentleman rightly itemised at the beginning of his speech. I look forward to seeing the results of that flow through to the people of Bradford.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Evidence Acts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will examine the use of the law of evidence Act by local authorities, and give guidelines on the practice of not having officers present in the court on all occasions for which a formal application is made under the Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Evidence Act 1938 and the Civil Evidence Act 1968, to which I assume the hon. Gentleman refers, apply to local authorities in the same way as to everyone else. I am not therefore aware of any evidence of need for such an examination or such guidelines.

  Assault Cases
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he plans any changes in the procedures employed in preparing pbhzcution cases in incidents of assault where the victim or the only witness is mentally defective.

  The Attorney-General
  No. I am satisfied that the existing criteria contained in the code for Crown pbhzcutors, together with the internal procedures adopted by the Crown pbhzcution service in reviewing cases, are sufficient to promote considered and proper decisions.

  Judicial Review
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General if it is the normal practice for potential beneficiaries from the outcome of cases of judicial review to have to make concurrent applications.

  The Attorney-General
  Potential beneficiaries from the outcome of judicial review may make concurrent applications if they wish to do so. However, in cases involving a number of potential beneficiaries it is not unusual for one of their number to apply for judicial review in order to test the arguments to be advanced.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any studies have been undertaken by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department into the privatisation or contractorisation of any services within its responsibilities.

  The Attorney-General
  As required by the "next steps" initiative, the Lord Chancellor's Department considered the options of privatisation and contracting out in relation to the Land Registry and the Public Record Office when considering their suitability for executive agency status. In both cases the most appropriate way forward was found to be the granting of executive agency status. The Land 434
  Registry was established as an executive agency in July 1990 and the Public Record Office will follow in April 1992. The Lord Chancellor's Department has contracted out nearly all basic services such as cleaning and catering and, in addition, has contracted out the Registry of County Court Judgments and the investment manager function of the Public Trust Office.

  Like other Departments, the Lord Chancellor's Department keeps under review the options of privatisation and contractorisation in respect of a wide range of its functions.

ENVIRONMENT

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether, prior to the offer for sale, Property Services Agency services will be structured into two separate businesses;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress towards privatisation of Property Services Agency services.

  Sir George Young
  Property Services Agency services were restructured last autumn into two main businesses, one dealing with project management and design and the other with maintenance. This will make it possible for Property Service Agency services to be offered for sale in more than one part, but final decisions on sale have not yet been taken. The businesses continue to make progress in reducing staff and costs in order to become competitive.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the National Rivers Authority expects to publish the results of its 1990 national survey.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that the NRA intends to publish results this autumn for comparison with those from the 1985 river quality survey.

  Common Dog Whelk
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on why the common dog whelk has not re-established itself around the Isle of Wight since the banning of tributyl and the reasons for the differential between the island and other areas.

  Mr. Baldry
  The dog whelk is the most sensitive species to TBT contamination. Use of TBT-based paints on yachts until the ban in 1987 caused many populations to decline, especially in areas, such as the south coast, of intense yachting activity. Since the ban, there have been gradual improvements in water quality. However, the dog whelk has only limited ability to disperse and recolonise areas which were heavily impacted. Thus, it is likely to be some time before the Government's monitoring programme is able to demonstrate recovery of this species. There are surviving populations along the south coast of the Isle of Wight, but these have not contributed to any significant extent to the recolonisation of grossly affected areas. This is no different from the situation in other parts of the country where similar conditions prevail.

  Drinking Water Quality
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a comprehensive list of every agreement that has been made with a water company for relaxation of any of the standards in the EC drinking water directive, together with dates by which compliance is required.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has not entered into any agreements with water companies for the relaxation of standards. He has authorised relaxations of certain standards in certain circumstances under regulation 4 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989, which implements article 9 of the drinking water directive; and he has accepted undertakings from companies under section 20 of the Water Act 1989 where he was satisfied that the company was taking all appropriate action to secure or facilitate compliance with a particular standard.

  Details of all authorisations and undertakings are available on the public register maintained by water companies. Copies of them are included in the register maintained by the Director General of Water Services and are available in the Library. In most cases compliance must be achieved by not later than 1995.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish full information about compliance with drinking water quality standards in every water supply zone.

  Mr. Baldry
  Each water company maintains a public register which contains full information for each water supply zone about the results of analysis of all sampling carried out by the company under the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989. Individuals are able to obtain copies of register entries from the companies. The first annual report of the drinking water inspectorate, to be published later this year, will summarise the extent to which each water company has complied with the requirements of the regulations in its water supply zones.

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what facilities he is making available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department is in contact with the St. John Ambulance Brigade and will be giving publicity to the "Over to you, John" appeal through its in-house journal.

  Benzene
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to establish an air pollution monitoring network in the United Kingdom to include the monitoring of benzene levels and other hydrocarbons.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has been carrying out limited monitoring of United Kingdom levels of hydrocarbons, including benzene, for several years as part of a programme of research developing the technology for measuring these pollutants.
  436
  As announced in the environment White Paper, the Government aim to expand the existing urban monitoring networks. A first stage of this expansion is to be implemented early next year and will include two additional sites measuring benzene and other hydrocarbons.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of actual expenditure by Leeds development corporation on publicity and promotion in 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91, and the proposed level of expenditure in 1991–92; and if he will list the main elements of expenditure under the heading of publicity and promotion.

  Mr. Key
  Leeds development corporation's expenditure on publicity and promotion was £223,000 in 1988–89, £324,000 in 1989–90 and £480,000 in 1990–91. For 1991–92 the proposed level of expenditure is £500,000. The main elements of expenditure under the publicity and promotion heading are marketing of the urban development area and Leeds in general; the marketing of specific sites; publications; exhibitions; and community liaison.

  Audible Bird Scarers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish a revised code of practice relating to the use of audible bird scarers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  As soon as our work in responding to the recommendations of the noise review working party will allow. The recommendations include three on codes of practice.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department has taken to assess the impact of the mild winters on domestic water supplies this summer in Chelmsford; and whether his Department expects any disruption to the supply of water.

  Mr. Baldry
  Such assessments are primarily for the water companies to make in conjunction with the National Rivers Authority, but I understand that in areas affected by shortages, including Chelmsford, companies expect to maintain supplies with selective restrictions on less essential uses until rainfall brings a substantial recovery in resources.

  Standard Spending Assessment Handbook
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make available his Department's publication entitled "The Standard Spending Assessment Handbook 1991–92".

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has today placed copies of this document in the Library of the House. Copies have also been sent to every local authority in England and to the local authority associations.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the development of redundant hospital sites in green belt areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 23 April 1991]: My Department issued a consultation paper on this subject on 11 March. The closing date for responses is 13 May. To date, 25 responses have been received.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce a scheme for classifying green belt sites according to their environmental and amenity value.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 23 April 1991]: No. Such a scheme could imply that some parts of the green belt were less protected than others.

  Council House Sales, Harrogate
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of council houses sold to tenants of Harrogate borough council.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 23 April 1991]: A table showing the available information on total sales for each English local authority since 1979–80 was recently placed in the Library. In the case of Harrogate borough council, almost all the reported sales have been to sitting tenants.

  Industrial Sites (Noise)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the maximum level of decibel noise laid down as reasonable for a B1 and B2 classification of an industrial site.

  (2) what categories of industrial site are required to operate at a decibel level not exceeding 30 decibels.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 23 April 1991]: Industrial sites are not categorised by reference to decibel levels in planning, pollution control, or environmental protection legislation. Planning conditions may impose particular noise limits in individual cases.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Truancy
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will empower the governing bodies of schools as well as local education authorities to initiate prosecutions in cases of truancy.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so. Truancy needs to be tackled vigorously. Local education authorities have the power to prosecute the parents of truants, and it is important that they should use that power in appropriate cases.

  Foreign Teachers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by local education authority(a) the number of foreign teachers recruited from abroad who are teaching in schools for the latest date he has available and (b) the countries they come from.
  438
  Mr. Fallon
  The information required is not collected centrally. From records held, out of 397,200 teachers in full-time service in local authority-maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools—England and Wales, March 1988—1,300 were trained outside the United Kingdom. Details of the countries in which they were trained are not readily available. The country in which they were trained is not necessarily their country of origin.

  Insurance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of state for Education and Science what estimates he has on the total cost of insurance premiums and insurance claims made by the education authorities in England in relation to teacher absence for reasons of sickness in 1988, 1989 and 1990; and what information he has as regards the first quarter of 1991.

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not available centrally.

  School Library Books
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what average amount per pupil has been spent on school library books by Durham education authority each year since 1987.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information on school library books is not collected separately, but is contained within a figure for local education authority spending on text and library books. Figures returned by local education authorities for spending on books need to be treated with caution because of differing local authority practices in classifying spending between books and equipment. The table therefore shows, for each year for which information is available, spending figures for books and equipment together as well as for books separately.

  Durham—Expenditure per pupil

  Year

  Books and Equipment

  Of which Books

  £

  £

  1986–87

  30·68

  9·42

  1987–88

  33·92

  10·27

  1988–89

  44·87

  12·38

  St. Thomas More High School
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions there have been between Her Majesty's inspectorate, the Catholic church and Tameside metropolitan borough council about lack of space and facilities for the national curriculum at St. Thomas More high school, Denton.

  Mr. Fallon
  There has been no discussion between Her Majesty's inspectorate and the Salford Roman Catholic diocesan schools commission. There has been discussion between Her Majesty's inspectorate and the school and between the Department and the Salford Roman Catholic diocesan schools commission and Tameside metropolitan borough council.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out, by local education authority, the level of capital spending on school buildings in 1978–79 and 1984–85, and the latest available years.
  439
  Mr. Fallon
  The readily available information is shown in the table.

  Capital spending by LEAs on school buildings

  (£ million cash)

  LEA

  1978–79

  1984–85

  1988–89

  Barking

  ·5

  2·1

  1·3

  Barnet

  1·4

  ·9

  2·6

  Bexley

  1·3

  2·2

  3·2

  Brent

  1·3

  1·8

  ·6

  Bromley

  ·7

  2·4

  6·6

  Croydon

  ·8

  1·3

  5·0

  Ealing

  1·2

  ·7

  1·6

  Enfleld

  1·6

  ·7

  4·0

  Haringey

  ·9

  1·0

  3·3

  Harrow

  1·3

  ·9

  2·6

  Havering

  ·4

  ·9

  3·4

  Hillingdon

  2·1

  1·4

  7·8

  Hounslow

  2·0

  2·5

  5·5

  Kingston

  ·2

  ·4

  1·7

  Merton

  ·7

  ·9

  2·4

  Newham

  2·5

  4·5

  2·9

  Redbridge

  1·3

  1·8

  4·0

  Richmond

  ·7

  1·2

  ·8

  Sutton

  ·3

  1·3

  3·1

  Waltham Forrest

  1·5

  ·9

  6·4

  ILEA

  12·7

  10·4

  21·3

  Birmingham

  2·8

  8·3

  4·2

  Coventry

  2·3

  1·5

  8·2

  Dudley

  1·5

  4·0

  3·6

  Sandwell

  1·8

  1·3

  ·6

  Solihull

  1·2

  1·1

  2·1

  Walsall

  2·4

  2·1

  2·8

  Wolverhampton

  2·0

  1·0

  1·9

  Knowsley

  ·8

  1·3

  1·2

  Liverpool

  1·9

  1·6

  9·7

  St. Helens

  2·5

  1·4

  1·5

  Sefton

  1·4

  1·2

  1·7

  Wirral

  ·8

  2·2

  4·7

  Bolton

  1·0

  1·3

  2·2

  Bury

  1·8

  ·6

  1·0

  Manchester

  1·1

  5·3

  8·6

  Oldham

  1·0

  1·5

  2·2

  Rochdale

  2·0

  1·2

  2·5

  Salford

  1·9

  1·8

  3·3

  Stockport

  ·8

  ·9

  2·8

  Tameside

  1·2

  1·8

  2·4

  Trafford

  ·4

  ·6

  1·4

  Wigan

  2·4

  1·8

  3·7

  Barnsley

  2·0

  ·1

  1·7

  Doncaster

  1·5

  ·7

  ·8

  Rotherham

  1·6

  1·3

  2·2

  Sheffield

  1·6

  9·1

  9·0

  Bradford

  2·2

  11·2

  10·6

  Calderdale

  1·3

  1·5

  3·3

  Kirklees

  1·9

  4·0

  2·9

  Leeds

  3·9

  5·2

  15·1

  Wakefield

  2·3

  1·3

  5·6

  Gateshead

  1·1

  2·4

  3·0

  Newcastle

  1·4

  1·6

  4·4

  North Tyne

  1·2

  1·3

  2·8

  South Tyne

  1·4

  3·3

  2·5

  Sunderland

  1·4

  2·4

  4·9

  Isles of Scilly

  ·1

  0·0

  n/a

  Avon

  3·0

  4·3

  6·5

  Bedfordshire

  5·7

  2·3

  4·4

  Berkshire

  4·9

  9·0

  n/a

  Buckinghamshire

  4·1

  8·6

  6·3

  Cambridgeshire

  5·9

  6·8

  15·4

  Cheshire

  10·4

  8·3

  21·9

  Cleveland

  3·3

  3·5

  5·1

  Cornwall

  4·3

  3·3

  6·5

  Cumbria

  1·7

  4·0

  5·2

  Derbyshire

  6·1

  8·5

  11·5

  Devon

  4·0

  6·7

  11·3

  Dorset

  3·4

  3·2

  3·5

  Durham

  2·8

  3·2

  3·7

  East Sussex

  2·8

  6·3

  10·2

  Essex

  11·6

  7·1

  n/a

  440

  LEA

  1978–79

  1984–85

  1988–89

  Gloucestershire

  2·9

  4·2

  5·8

  Hampshire

  11·6

  16·1

  24·6

  Hereford and Worcester

  5·1

  2·9

  n/a

  Hertfordshire

  3·1

  8·0

  10·7

  Humberside

  7·7

  6·0

  11·1

  Isle of Wight

  1·2

  ·6

  1·8

  Kent

  9·2

  5·3

  11·4

  Lancashire

  6·1

  5·0

  10·6

  Leicestershire

  4·6

  4·9

  10·2

  Lincolnshire

  3·1

  5·2

  6·7

  Norfolk

  4·9

  4·6

  6·8

  North Yorkshire

  4·5

  8·5

  6·1

  Northamptonshire

  5·3

  4·4

  4·8

  Northumberland

  2·7

  1·3

  1·7

  Nottinghamshire

  5·9

  3·9

  n/a

  Oxfordshire

  1·4

  2·3

  6·1

  Shropshire

  3·5

  2·2

  4·2

  Somerset

  1·8

  2·5

  n/a

  Staffordshire

  8·4

  5·5

  7·7

  Suffolk

  5·1

  4·0

  10·1

  Surrey

  5·1

  9·1

  18·4

  Warwickshire

  2·5

  2·4

  3·3

  West Sussex

  2·2

  5·4

  7·2

  Wiltshire

  1·8

  5·5

  3·7

  Notes:

  1. n/a indicates data not available.

  2. Expenditure is given in cash terms, rounded to the nearest £0·1 million; it includes provision from within the Department of the Environment's urban programme, and covers nursery, primary, secondary and special education.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library instructions given by his Department in relation to proposed contracts entered into by local education authorities concerning the assets of further education colleges since his statement in March.

  Mr. Eggar
  After my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, an official of the Department wrote to all chief education officers. Copies of this letter have been placed in the Library today. Further guidance will be issued shortly, and will also be placed in the Library.

  Schools (Asbestos)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department will undertake a survey on the levels of asbestos in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Risk of exposure to asbestos in buildings, including schools and colleges, was reported to be low by a Government working party in 1987. It is for local education authorities and other responsible bodies to judge the need for surveys in schools. In 1986 the Department distributed updated guidance on asbestos in educational establishments, including advice about the circumstances under which a survey might be required.

  Haberdashers' Aske's CTC
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what specific mechanism has been incorporated in paragraph 8(ii) of the funding agreement for the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college for agreeing the value of the 99-year lease to be granted on the sites to be used for the purposes of the college.
  441
  Mr. Eggar
  Paragraph 8 provides for the value of the lease to be agreed in writing between the Secretary of State and the CTC. after reference to the district valuer, at the time it is granted. If agreement is not reached, the value is to be determined by an expert appointed by agreement between the two parties, or if such agreement is not reached, one appointed by the president of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the cost of this being borne equally between the two parties.

  Higher Education (Expenditure)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what the Government have spent(a) per student and (b) per graduate of higher education in each year since 1978–79 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms, indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: Estimated public funding per student is shown for those higher education students at universities in Great Britain and polytechnics and colleges in England. Data are given for the financial years 1980–81 through to 1988–89. Data on cost per graduate are available from 1981–82 and are for higher education students in universities and polytechnics only for academic years.

  Higher education: public funding per full-lime equivalent student

  Cash

  Real index

  (£)

  1980–81

  3,490

  100

  1981–82

  3,700

  97

  1982–83

  3,960

  97

  1983–84

  4,040

  94

  1984–85

  4,150

  92

  1985–86

  4,240

  89

  1986–87

  4,360

  89

  1987–88

  4,600

  89

  1988–89

  4,840

  87

  Higher education: cost per graduate (first degrees only)

  Cash

  Real index

  (£)

  1981–82

  9,900

  100

  1982–83

  10,300

  98

  1983–84

  11,000

  100

  1984–85

  11,500

  99

  1985–86

  12,100

  99

  1986–87

  12,800

  101

  1987–88

  13,600

  102

  1988–89

  13,800

  96

  The unit public funding figures are calculated by dividing estimated aggregate expenditure by financial year full-time equivalent student numbers.

  The cost per graduate estimates reflect both recurrent and equipment costs. They exclude research and superannuation costs. The figures are necessarily approximate. Account is taken of average course length and the costs associated with those who fail to complete their course successfully. The real-terms indices have been calculated using the gross domestic product deflator.

PRIME MINISTER

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by the Cabinet Office in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  The Prime Minister
  No expenditure has been incurred by the Cabinet Office on fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation since 1979–80 and none is planned for 1991–92.

  Senior Civil Servants (Degrees)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will numerate those Under Secretaries who have engineering, science or mathematics degrees; and what percentage that is of the total.

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 February 1991, c. 89]: Information now available records 110 Under Secretaries—22 per cent. of the total—with degrees in one or more of these subjects. Twenty-seven have engineering degrees, 70 have science degrees and 16 have mathematics degrees.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Escorts
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the costs and other consequences of police escorts for wide and heavily loaded vehicles; if he has considered whether this work can be taken over by public companies and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Association of Chief Police Officers has recently reviewed the current arrangements for providing police escorts for wide and heavily loaded vehicles. Its report is expected shortly and we shall consider any recommendations which the association may make.

  Marriage Guidance
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make available additional Government funding for Relate marriage guidance for the financial years 1992 to 1995.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  This is under consideration as part of the current public expenditure survey.

  Public Order Act
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) of 6 February,Official Report, column 141 and to the hon. Member for Teignbridge of 14 February, Official Report, column 547, and to his letter to the hon. Member for Teignbridge of 26 March, when he expects to announce the results of his review of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986.
  443
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We expect to announce our conclusions on section 39 very soon.

  Non-animal Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to promote non-animal tests for cosmetics.

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold
  Before any project licence is granted, the applicant must show that he or she has considered alternatives not using living animals for any of the procedures. In the particular case of cosmetics, licences are granted only for the safety testing of these substances, generally in order to satisfy national and international regulatory and legal requirements for the protection of the public.

  The Home Office, although not itself responsible for these regulations, will continue to support moves to encourage regulatory bodies to review their requirements so that they do not entail unnecessary testing on living animals.

  In addition, the Home Office funds research into ways of reducing, refining or replacing the use of living animals in scientific procedures. Since the research scheme was established, some 10 projects have been funded, one of which was concerned with refining eye irritancy testing. This project may have particular implications for the safety testing of substances used in cosmetics, as well as many other products.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those stations which the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority proposes to close and remove pump appliances from operational service.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  This is at present wholly a matter for the London fire and civil defence authority. It will not become one for Ministers unless the authority submits proposals for closures of fire stations or reductions in the number of operational firefighters or firefighting appliances in accordance with the terms of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will quantify the savings in mobilising time from fire stations in London that are currently being achieved by the CMC mobilising project in the London fire brigade.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The main objective of the London fire and civil defence authority's central mobilising project was to replace three centres and their outdated equipment with one which, with modern technology, would maintain high standards of emergency response throughout London. I am satisfied that this objective has been met.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal convictions there have been for offences against children where children were abused by a parent in Blyth Valley and Northumberland in the last two years.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Except in the case of homicides, no information is collected centrally on convictions of parents 444
  for offences against their children. I understand that for Northumberland police force area there were two homicides of children in 1988 and one in 1989 which resulted in convictions of their parents for manslaughter.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average weekly cost per case in report work for magistrates courts by the probation services in England and Wales, including local and central costs in the last year for which records are available;

  (2) what was the total cost to the probation service in England and Wales, including both local and central costs, of report work for magistrates courts in the last year for which records are available; and how many such cases were handled in that year by probation officers.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  No separate information is available on the cost of report work for magistrates courts. The estimated average cost per social inquiry report completed, which includes reports for magistrates courts, in 1988–89 was £210, which the average for other types of report was £860—"Probation Statistics, England and Wales 1989", table 12.3. In 1989, a total of 140,230 social inquiry reports were prepared for magistrates courts, 7,160 domestic inquiries about custody of and access to children, 1,990 conciliation cases and a number of other types of report—tables 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 of "Probation Statistics". The cost estimate was based on information collected in 1977 and will be updated when the results of the 1990 national probation survey are available.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average weekly cost per case in the provision of matrimonial supervision work by the probation service in England and Wales, including local and central costs, in the last year for which records are available.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The readily available information is the annual cost per domestic supervision case, which includes those cases resulting from matrimonial proceedings. In 1988–89 the average estimated cost per case was £610—"Probation Statistics, England and Wales, 1989" table 12.3. The estimate was based on information collected in 1977 and will be updated when the results of the 1990 national probation survey are available.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total cost to the probation service in England and Wales, including both local and central costs, of report work for divorce courts in the last year for which records are available; and how many such cases were handled in that year by probation officers;

  (2) what was the average weekly cost per case in the report work for divorce courts by the probation service in England and Wales, including local and central costs, in the last year for which records are available.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  No separate information is available centrally on the weekly or annual costs per case of report work for divorce courts. The costs are included in the estimated average cost per report for domestic reports, bail information means inquiries, inquiries for county courts and reports prepared on court appearance
  445
  for sentence after deferment. In the financial year 1988–89, the estimated cost per report completed was £860—table 12.3 of "Probation Statistics, England and Wales 1989". In 1989, the probation service dealt with 25,420 domestic inquiries concerning custody of and access to children—table 9.2. The cost estimate was based on information collected in 1977 and will be updated when the results of the 1990 national probation survey are available.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost to the probation service in England and Wales, including both local and central costs, of matrimonial supervision work in the last year for which records are available; and how many such cases were handled in that year by probation officers.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The available information is for the average cost per case receiving domestic supervision. In 1988–89 the estimated annual cost per case was £610; the number receiving domestic supervision following matrimonial proceedings was 3,240 in 1989—tables 1.2, 12.3 of "Probation Statistics, England and Wales, 1989". The cost estimate was based on information collected in 1977 and will be updated when the results of the 1990 national probation survey are available.

  Durham Prison
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects slopping out to be discontinued in Her Majesty's prison Elvet, Durham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold
  Slopping out is now planned to end at HM prison Durham late in 1994.

  Crime, Blyth Valley
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the percentage change in the number of crimes in the borough of Blyth Valley for 1990–91;

  (2) how many car thefts were reported in the borough of Blyth Valley in the last three years.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is not collated centrally for the borough of Blyth Valley.

  Deportation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many copies of form IM3A are distributed in each year by officers to persons stopped by them while on patrol and as to his policy on the issuing of each form to persons not guilty of any offence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that he is not aware of any instances of such forms being distributed to persons stopped by officers on patrol.

  Form IM3—notice as regards liability to deportation—and form IM3A—acknowledgement of receipt of form IM3—are normally served on persons who are not British citizens, at the police station and following charging with an imprisonable offence.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals from middle east 446
  countries issued with notices of intention to deport on national security grounds between November 1990 and January 1991 and who were removed from the United Kingdom following the making of a deportation order against them were so removed on or after 16 January.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  Burglaries, Leyton
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries there were in Leyton in each of the last three years; and what percentage those were of all reported crimes in the area.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information available centrally is for Waltham Forest and is given in the table. Tables giving numbers of offences recorded by the police in each borough of the Metropolitan police district are placed in the Library quarterly.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in the Waltham Forest district of the Metroplitan police district

  Year

  Number of offences of burglary

  Percentage of all recorded offences

  1988

  3,601

  20

  1989

  4,352

  22

  1990

  4,813

  23

  Bail
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a survey to determine the extent to which persons, who have been charged with an offence and subsequently released on bail, commit further offences prior to their cases being finalised by the courts.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  We have no plans to undertake a national survey of this kind. A number of police forces have made studies of crimes alleged to have been committed by people on bail.

  Drug-related Offences
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis outlining the standing policy of the Stoke Newington division in policing drug abuse and drug dealing in its area; and what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the policy.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the Stoke Newington division pursues an active multi-agency approach to drug abuse and drug dealing. The arrest of drug dealers was one of the main objectives for the division in 1990, and remains a priority for 1991. The division liaises with the local authority, commercial concerns and community groups.

  This approach has resulted in the arrest of 120 persons for dealing in drugs during 1990, and there are indications of a slow but steady reduction in the number of peopie to be seen dealing in drugs on the streets. There have also been many drug seizures, including a particularly significant seizure of 240 kg of cannabis.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies the Government have(a) made and (b) published concerning asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From time to time, and particularly in the context of their present review of asylum arrangements, the Government have made internal assessments of relevant issues. Published material on asylum seekers includes an annual Home Office statistical bulletin, most recently "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom, 1989", issue 22/90, published last July, and specific chapters in the annual reports of the immigration and nationality department.

  Mauritius
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department ( 1 ) how many(a) men and (b) women have been allowed entry into the United Kingdom from Mauritius in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many students from Mauritius have been allowed entry into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the table:

  Numbers of Mauritian citizens admitted to the United Kingdom, 1986 to 1990

  Year

  Total

  Students

  1986

  17,600

  350

  1987

  20,100

  440

  1988

  20,000

  510

  1989

  21,700

  570

  1990

  23,100

  690

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from the island of Mauritius have been allowed the right of residence in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of Mauritian citizens accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom between 1986 and 1990 is given in the table.

  Mauritian citizens accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom, 1986–90

  Year

  Numbers

  1986

  270

  1987

  300

  1988

  280

  1989

  220

  1990

  320

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to local authorities regarding the department in which the official with responsibility for animal welfare should be stationed; and what information he keeps on the number and location of those officials.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Local authorities have a number of officers with responsibilities for animal welfare who, in turn, have links with a number of Government 448
  Departments. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not issue guidance about how local authorities should allocate duties to their staff; nor is any central record held of the number or location of the staff concerned.

TRANSPORT

  European Community Transport Council
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of the meeting of the European Community Transport Council on 27 March.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I attended the Council which made useful progress and prepared the ground for decisions on a variety of issues at the forthcoming Council on June 20 and 21.

  On railways, Ministers reached broad agreement on greater autonomy from government for national railway undertakings, financial restructuring of those undertakings, public service obligations and the desirability of separate accounting for operations and for infrastructure. A range of views was also expressed on Commission proposals for access to railway networks by new operators for both domestic and international services. The presidency invited the committee of permanent representatives—COREPER—to consider the issues further in the light of the discussion with the aim of revised proposals being brought before the June Council.

  In aviation, the Council adopted a measure which will enable quick action to be taken against air carriers engaging in predatory activity. This safeguard is a vital complement to the liberalised single market being developed in the Community.

  In the course of a discussion about the effect of Gulf hostilities on air carriers, the Commission undertook to present to the Council a report on state aids. The Commission reported that negotiations on air services arrangements with Norway and Sweden had ended successfully and that a draft agreement would be presented to the Council shortly. The Council considered whether the air cargo regulation adopted at its previous meeting should be extended to additional carriers, and concluded that further work was needed.

  The negotiations on alpine transit being conducted by the Commission with third countries on behalf of member states were discussed at length and included a lunchtime session with the Swiss and Austrian Ministers. It was concluded that the talks should continue along the lines of the existing mandate. The Commission was given additional flexibility to pursue, with Austria, the possibility of a system which would limit total gaseous emissions from transit vehicles and, with Switzerland, the possibility of exemptions from the Swiss 28-tonne limit for HGVs.

  Turning to road safety, an agreement in principle emerged on roadworthiness testing for cars, but consideration was postponed until June. The Commission urged on member states the benefits to be gained from further safety measures, and stated that it would analyse the recently published Gerondeau report on road safety to see what scope there was for proposals to be made. Several member states stressed the importance of the Council giving careful consideration to the report. The presidency undertook to produce a draft resolution on the report for consideration in June. Talks on the Community driving

  449
  licence centred on the introduction of the new format in certain member states and provision for the testing of motor cyclists; the proposed second directive was referred back to COREPER for technical points to be further considered in preparation for a decision in June.

  Finally, on a general note, the Transport Commissioner, Mr. Van Miert, said that he intended to draw up a white paper, setting out the Commission's broad approach to future Community transport policy, for discussion at a forthcoming Council.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will set out the arguments on which Her Majesty's Government have based their view that article 75 of the treaty of Rome empowers the Council of Ministers to legislate on road safety matters;

  (2) when Her Majesty's Government came to the view that article 75 of the treaty of Rome empowered the Council of Ministers to legislate on road safety matters.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have always recognised that there is doubt whether a successful legal challenge could be brought against a Community measure on road safety based on article 75 of the treaty. The arguments on competence were most recently set out during the Standing Committee debate on 13 March 1991 in EC documents 9228/88 and 10333/90 on the compulsory use of seat belts.

  MV Polly Anna
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken in response to the complaint made to his Department by Mr. S. Norman in January concerning the infringement of safety standards relating to the MV Polly Anna; what information he has on the whereabouts of the MV Polly Anna; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Following the complaint in December 1990, my Department placed the Polly Anna, which is not a UK-registered vessel, on the watchlist for inspection if it returned to the UK. However, in Janauary the vessel was detained by the Gibraltar authorities because of its general condition, the condition of its equipment and its lack of proper certification.

  The vessel broke the detention order by sailing from Gibraltar on 26 January. She was immediately placed on the watchlists of all other administrations which are signatories of the memorandum of understanding on port state control. It is now understood that shortly after this the vessel was detained in Greece, and abandoned by its crew. My Department has sought further details from the Greek authorities.

  Stansted Airport Rail Link
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the projected rate of return on British Rail's Stansted airport link investment; and what is the rate of return(a) so far achieved and (b) estimated for the current year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The projected rate of return on investment when the Stansted express was approved was 7 per cent. The Stansted express has been operational for 450
  only one month so it is too early to comment on its performance so far or provide estimates for the current year.

  Speed Limiters
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to which foreign countries require speed limiters to be fitted to cars.

  Mr. Chope
  I am not aware of any country which requires speed limiters to be fitted to cars.

  A1, Northumberland
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any further plans for improvements to the Al in Northumberland.

  Mr. Chope
  Initial investigations by the joint A 1 steering group identified a number of low-cost safety schemes for the route in Northumberland which have now been included in the regional programme. Any further proposals must await the final report of the steering group.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when direct passenger trains will start to run through the channel tunnel(a) from London to Paris, (b) from Leeds to Paris and (c) from Edinburgh to Paris.

  Mr. Freeman
  Day services from London to Paris will commence when the tunnel opens. Negotiations are continuing between British Rail and the manufacturers to overcome technical difficulties relating to the day trains for direct services from cities north of London. No timetable for the delivery of these trains has yet been agreed, but they are unlikely to enter service before 1994. British Rail still plans to run night services both from London and direct from cities north of London when the tunnel opens.

  Chelmsford Roads
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is taking to tidy up litter along the Al2 Chelmsford bypass and other roads in the parliamentary constituency of Chelmsford which come under his Department's responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  As from 1 April 1991, the responsibility for clearance of litter from trunk roads was passed to the district and borough councils under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on the widening of the Al 2 Chelmsford bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  We hope to let a design commission this summer and announce our preferred option in 1993.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress on the building of the proposed M12 from the M25 to Chelmsford.

  Mr. Chope
  Design consultants were appointed at the end of 1990. The target for announcement of a preferred route is 1993.

  Smoke Hoods (Aircraft)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet reached a view on the mandatory provision of smoke hoods in aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The CAA is today publishing a report on "Improving Passenger Survivability in Aircraft Fires—a Review" (CAP 586). In that document it reports its view that after a prolonged investigation of this matter, it believes that the compulsory provision of smokehoods would on balance not be in the interests of safety.

  I have noted that the majority of expert opinion including the aviation safety authorities of other countries who have looked into this matter, share the CAA's conclusion. However, other views have been expressed and I welcome the CAA's assurance that it will keep under review all technological developments both in smoke-hoods and other survival techniques.

  Transpennine Road
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the consultant's report on the transpennine road crossing.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 23 April 1991]: We expect to receive the final report shortly. We shall make an announcement after assessing its findings and recommendations.

EMPLOYMENT

  Docks (Accidents)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of accidents and injuries reported to the Health and Safety Executive in each of the former national dock labour scheme ports in each year since 1979 by port.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria were used in training and enterprise councils making application for a share of the extra £120 million awarded to the employment training programme; what criteria were used by the Training, Enterprise and Education Directorate in distributing the funds; and whether any training and enterprise councils have complained to the regional director about the amount they have received.

  Mr. Jackson
  The additional £120 million for employment training in the current financial year was made available to allow ET to make the same contribution to assisting the long-term unemployed as had been expected when original budgets were allocated to training and enterprise councils in November 1990.

  Additions to ET budgets were agreed with TECs to help ensure that the Government's guarantee of an offer of an opportunity to 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed between six and 12 months and the Government's aim of an offer of an
  452
  opportunity to 18 to 49-year-olds unemployed for two years or longer were met. Additional resources were also allocated to enable TECs to assist other long-term unemployed people, especially those with special training needs. TECs have welcomed these additions to their ET budgets.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the extra funds awarded to the employment training programme has been specifically targeted by training and enterprise councils to enhance the unit price of training for people with disabilities and learning difficulties; and if he will give an analysis of where the £120 million was distributed by TECs.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is not possible to identify separately the proportion of the additional £120 millions made available for employment training in the current financial year which has been targeted by training and enterprise councils on provision for people with disabilities and learning difficulties. The extra money has been incorporated in TEC business plans which are commercially confidential.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he now proposes to take to promote arms control in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  We want to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles used to deliver them. We will work through the nuclear suppliers group, the Australia group and the missile technology control regime to choke off the supply of the materials, components and technology needed to manufacture such weapons.

  We will also pursue a more responsible approach internationally to conventional weapons transfers, including through a UN register of arms transfers to monitor the scale of arms build-up in any country.

  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent efforts by Her Majesty's Government to promote the peace process in the middle east.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government towards the convening of an international conference on the middle east.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made since the end of the Gulf war towards a comprehensive peace settlement in the middle east.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current stage of the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the end of the Gulf conflict the United States Secretary of State has launched a new
  453
  initiative aimed at starting peace negotiations between Israel and her neighbours, including the Palestinians. He has visited the area three times. We support his efforts to secure agreement from the parties to attend a regional conference, and are encouraging them to do so. Our European partners are in agreement with this approach. We still think it likely that an international conference under United Nations auspices will be needed at a later stage.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the authorities in Kuwait about the treatment of Palestinians in that country since the end of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Hurd
  I expressed concern to Kuwaiti Ministers, even before the liberation of Kuwait, that the rule of law should be re-established as quickly as possible after the Government's return. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence both raised the treatment of Palestinians during their visits to Kuwait soon after liberation. Our ambassador has reinforced this message. I expect to visit Kuwait myself very soon.

  British Hostages
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will indicate what recent action has been taken to obtain the return of the hostages in the Lebanon.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We continue to make every effort in our contacts with the Iranian authorities, who we believe to have a decisive influence, to secure the release of the hostages. We have also contacted other countries, and the EC troika, to reinforce the point in their own dealings with Iran.

  Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Minis ter for Overseas Development raised the matter with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 20 April.

  Moscow Human Rights Conference
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to attend the human rights conference in Moscow in September.

  Mr. Hurd
  We shall decide somewhat later.

  South Africa
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to meet the new South African ambassador.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit South Africa to discuss recent political developments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I met Mr. Kent Durr, the new South African ambassador, on 18 April. I hope to visit South Africa in the summer.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the implementation of the United Nations declaration on South Africa, adopted in December 1989.
  454
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure implementation of the United Nations declaration on South Africa, adopted by the 16th special session of the general assembly in December 1989.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure implementation of the United Nations declaration on South Africa adopted in December 1989.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We continue to encourage all sides in South Africa to maintain progress towards the aims set out in the United Nations declaration—the end of apartheid and the adoption of a non-racial democratic constitution arrived at by peaceful means through negotiation.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the implementation of the United Nations declaration on South Africa adopted at the 14th special session in December 1989.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We continue to encourage all sides in South Africa to maintain progress towards the aims set out in the United Nations declaration—the end of apartheid and the adoption of a non-racial democratic constitution arrived at by peaceful means through negotiation.

  Lithuania
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in connection with Lithuania.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We were encouraged by the news that negotiations took place between Lithuanian and Soviet authorities on 4 April. We shall continue to urge both sides to negotiate constructively to reach a solution acceptable to both sides.

  EC Legislative Competence
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the European Commission to make a declaration of the areas of legislative competence over which the EC will choose not to claim competence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Areas of Community competence are defined by the Community treaties, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice. The extent of Community competence is one of the questions under discussion in the intergovernmental conference on political union. But my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that Her Majesty's Government are not convinced of the need for any significant extension of Community competence.

  Poland
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to send medical aid to Poland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have already done so, together with European Community partners. The EC provided £2·8 million of medical aid in 1990. The United Kingdom
  455
  share was about 18 per cent. The EC has received no further requests for medical aid from the Polish Government.

  Our bilateral health co-operation agreement with Poland promotes wide-ranging medical contacts. We have also supported several medical training projects under the know-how fund.

  Vietnam and Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Vietnam or Cambodia with the American Secretary of State.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Cambodia with Mr. Baker in New York in September 1990 and the Vietnamese boat people issue in Washington on 28 February. Indo-China issues are regularly discussed with the Americans at senior official level.

  Syria
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Syria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since resumption of relations, the Syrian Foreign Minister visited London in February and last month I met President Assad in Damascus. Syria has an important role to play in regional security and the peace process.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on how many countries have made contributions in cash or in kind to the United Kingdom's military and logistical effort in the Gulf.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Cash contributions promised so far include about £660 million from Kuwait, £565 million from Saudi Arabia, £275 million from Germany, £250 million from UAE, £183 million from Japan, £15 million from Belgium, £15 million from Hong Kong and £8 million from Denmark. We have also received assistance in kind worth about £250 million from some 16 countries.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not yet visited Yugoslavia. I visited Belgrade and Zaghreb on 25 to 28 February.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reaction was given by the United Nations committee on human rights to the presentation of the United Kingdom's third periodic report on 1 and 2 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The human rights committee considered the United Kingdom's report at six public 456
  meetings on 1 to 3 April. There was a detailed and constructive dialogue. While individual members of the committee expressed a number of specific concerns, there was general satisfaction with the report and the manner in which the dialogue took place.

  Political Union
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom's proposed definition of subsidiarity in the context of the intergovernmental conference on political union.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We should like to see a clear definition of subsidiarity in the treaty, as a general provision covering all areas of Community activity. The definition would clarify the division of responsibilities between member states and the Community. It should make clear that action should be taken at the Community level only when the objective in question cannot be satisfactorily achieved at member state level.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Nicaragua.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I visited Nicaragua from 18 to 20 March, mainly to attend the seventh annual "San Jose" meeting between Foreign Ministers of the Twelve, central America, Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela. This was a successful meeting, which discussed a wide range of political and economic issues. I also had a brief bilateral programme in Nicaragua, including a meeting with the Foreign Minister and the signing of an agreement allowing the Commonwealth Development Corporation to operate in Nicaragua.

  Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the conventional forces in Europe treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our NATO partners are continuing to press the Soviet Union to ensure the full and early implementation of the conventional forces in Europe treaty.

  United States of America
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the United States and Secretary Baker to discuss United Kingdom/USA relations.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend is regularly in touch with Secretary Baker. He expects to meet him and President Bush again next month.

  Sudan
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to persuade the Sudanese Government to allow human rights and freedom of worship to prevail in Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We take every opportunity to impress on the present Government of Sudan the need for
  457
  all the people of Sudan to enjoy a full range of human rights. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development last did so on 18 April when she saw the country's Finance Minister. Regrettably, none of the representations made to the Sudanese authorities have so far borne fruit. Sudan's record on human rights remains deplorable.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 April, why at the meeting between General Schwarzkopf and the Iraqi military authorities no consideration was given to placing of limitations on the use of helicopters.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Iraqi use of helicopters was considered at the meeting between General Schwarzkopf and the Iraqi military authorities on 3 March on the suspension of hostilities. No limitation was placed on their use.

  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the meeting between Her Majesty's ambassador in Tunis and a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Mr. Hakam Balawi; and

  Closures of local authority homes for the elderly

  Authority

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Total

  Borders

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Central

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  Grampian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Highland

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Lothian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Strathclyde

  0

  0

  3

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  4

  12

  Tayside

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  1

  0

  4

  3

  1

  1

  4

  1

  3

  8

  26

  In addition 56 new local authority homes were opened, giving a net increase of 30.

  Underspends
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Departments under his responsibility will have an underspend of over £500,000 in the past finacial year.

  Mr. Lang
  Wholly reliable estimates of outturn for 1990–91 are not yet available. The best estimates currently available are published in the "Summary and Guide to the 1991–92 Supply Estimates"—Cm. 1454—and the estimates themselves.

  Provisional outturn for 1990–91 on cash-limited expenditure will be reported to Parliament through a White Paper as soon as possible. Details of outturn on non-cash limited voted expenditure will be available in the appropriation accounts in the normal way.
  458
  whether the ambassador conveyed to Mr. Balawi Her Majesty's Government's expressed concern at the support given to Saddam Hussein throughout the Gulf war by the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Tunis has frequent meetings with PLO officials, including Hakam Balawi, whom he last saw on 15 April. He has made quite clear to the PLO our strong disapproval of its equivocal policy on the Gulf crisis.

SCOTLAND

  Homes for the Elderly
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each local authority, the number of homes they run for the elderly which have(a) closed and (b) transferred out of the local authority sector, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in precisely the form requested is not held centrally. However, I am aware of one home which has transferred from local authority ownership and information on the closure of homes derived from a comparison of local authority returns is set out in the table.

  Departmental Service
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission a survey of customer satisfaction with the Scottish Office on the same basis as that recently conducted for East Lothian district council; and if he will make a statement on public perceptions of the quality of service provided by his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy for the storage of used fuel from nuclear installations in Scotland after 1993.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Questions about operational aspects of nuclear installations in Scotland, such as spent fuel storage, are a matter for the operators concerned. Scottish Nuclear Ltd. has recently put forward proposals for the long-term storage of spent fuel at both Hunterston and Torness; these proposals are currently being evaluated.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the sources of separate expenditures on renewable energy programmes in or for Scotland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Government support for programmes of research and development into renewable energy sources is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list his Department's current and planned renewable energy programmes in Scotland by type, cost, site location and capacity.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  These programmes are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

  Teachers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates or figures he has on the total cost of the insurance premiums paid and the claims made by education authorities in Scotland in relation to teacher absence through sickness in 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that no education authority in Scotland has taken out insurance for this purpose.

  Schools
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1980 the number of children in each local authority region in Scotland transferred from special schools to mainstream schools, expressing this(a) as a proportion of the special school population in each region and (b) as a proportion of children in each region.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many primary school boards within the Paisley, South constituency have communicated with him directly on the subject of national testing; how many indicated opposition to his proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Two school boards have written letters recounting parental concern expressed at public meetings.

  Unemployed Young People, Renfrew
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people under 18 years there are in Renfrew district who are not employed and have not had a youth training opportunity offered to them.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Sixty.

  Community Care
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to bring community care currently undertaken by social work departments within the scope of fund-holding general practitioner practices.
  460
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  General practitioners already play a major part in supporting community care services. I shall be giving further consideration in due course to how fund-holding practices in Scotland might be further involved.

  Trunk Roads
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress on trunk road schemes during 1990–91 and those proposed to start in 1991–92.

  Mr. Lang
  Details of major scheme starts in 1990–91 and expected scheme starts in 1991–92 are as follows:

  Schemes with an estimated cost of over £1 million started since 1 April 1990

  A74

  Upgrading Millbank—Nether Abington

  A74

  Upgrading Elvanfoot—Paddy's Rickle Bridge

  A74

  Upgrading Kirkpatrick Fleming—Gretna

  M74

  Maryville—West of Fullarton Road (Advance works)

  A96

  Nairn Railway Bridge Replacement

  A75

  Carrutherstown—Hetland

  A77

  Bennane Hill

  A1

  Tower—Dunglass

  These schemes have a total value of £122 million.

  Schemes with an estimated cost of over £1 million expected to start by 31 March 1992

  A74

  Upgrading Nether Abington—Elvanfoot

  M74

  Maryville—West of Fullarton Road

  M8

  St. James Interchange

  A96

  Bucksburn Diversion

  A9

  Greenloaning—Blackford

  A929

  Tarbrax—Forfar

  A94

  Brechin Bypass (Dualling)

  These schemes have a total value in excess of £130 million. I have made a further £4 million available in 1991–92 over the public expenditure provision I announced in November to accommodate the substantial programme.

  In addition, I expect good progress to be made with the route action plans being developed on the A96 Aberdeen-Inverness; the A85 Perth-Dundee; the A7 south of Hawick; and—jointly with the Department of Transport—on the A I Newcastle-Edinburgh routes. I expect to be able to give a more detailed account of the full extent of our proposals for Scottish roads in a policy document to be issued later this year.

  As to completions of major schemes, 10 were completed in 1990–91 and 11 are expected to be completed in 1991–92.

  Haemolytic Anaemia (Kuwait)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from WHO, UNICEF and the Red Cross about alleviating haemolytic anaemia in Kuwait.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 April 1991]: There have been no representations from these organisations to my right hon. Friend about haemolytic anaemia in Kuwait. If the hon. Member has a particular concern about this matter, he may wish to write to me about it.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis for the years 1966–67 to 1990–91, otherwise identical in format to table 2 of "Scottish Local Government Financial

  461
  Statistics: Summary Volume 1975–76 to 1987–88", of rate fund services revenue account but which distinguishes domestic rate revenue from non-domestic rate revenue.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 April 1991]: Table I gives figures for 1966–67 to 1974–75. Due to differences in the form of the data collected prior to 1975–76 the format of this table differs slightly from that published in "Scottish

  Table 1

  Summary analysis of rate fund revenue account 1966–67 to 1974–751

  1966–67

  1967–68

  1968–69

  1969–70

  1970–71

  1971–72

  1972–73

  1973–74

  1974–75

  Expenditure (£ million)

  General expenditure

  274

  298

  321

  350

  411

  477

  567

  681

  930

  Loans charges

  96

  107

  125

  152

  168

  177

  199

  256

  325

  Total expenditure

  370

  495

  446

  502

  579

  653

  766

  938

  1,254

  As a percentage of total expenditure (per cent.)

  General expenditure

  74

  74

  72

  70

  71

  73

  74

  73

  74

  Loans charges

  26

  26

  28

  30

  29

  27

  26

  27

  26

  Total expenditure

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Income (£ million)

  Rates2

  149

  151

  163

  177

  198

  227

  240

  267

  304

  of which domestic rates3

  72

  71

  75

  80

  87

  105

  110

  120

  131

  non-domestic rates3

  77

  80

  88

  98

  111

  122

  130

  147

  174

  Government grant RSG (a) Needs element4

  125

  114

  121

  138

  165

  192

  224

  287

  395

  (b) Resources element

  —

  38

  40

  46

  55

  64

  75

  96

  132

  (c) Domestic element

  —

  3

  6

  9

  13

  15

  17

  22

  26

  (d) Specific grants and subsidies

  49

  40

  41

  48

  58

  65

  86

  116

  160

  Total aggregate government grants (a)+(b)+(c)+(d)

  174

  196

  209

  242

  291

  336

  403

  520

  713

  Special domestic rate relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Rate rebate grants2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  10

  Fees and charges

  54

  59

  68

  81

  93

  104

  125

  160

  186

  Total income

  376

  406

  441

  501

  584

  669

  770

  950

  1,215

  Income less expenditure (£ million)

  6

  1

  –5

  –1

  5

  16

  4

  12

  –39

  As a percentage of total income (per cent.)

  Rates2

  39

  37

  37

  35

  34

  34

  31

  28

  25

  of which domestic rates3

  19

  18

  17

  16

  15

  16

  14

  13

  11

  non-domestic rates3

  20

  20

  20

  19

  19

  18

  17

  15

  14

  Government grant RSG (a) Needs element4

  33

  28

  28

  28

  28

  29

  29

  30

  33

  (b) Resources element

  —

  9

  9

  9

  9

  10

  10

  10

  11

  (c) Domestic element

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  (d) Specific grants and subsidies

  13

  10

  9

  10

  10

  10

  11

  12

  13

  Total aggregate government grants (a)+(b)+(c)+(d)

  46

  48

  47

  48

  50

  50

  52

  55

  59

  Special domestic rate relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Rate rebate grants2

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Fees and charges

  14

  15

  15

  16

  16

  16

  16

  17

  15

  Total income

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 Totals may not be exactly equal to the sum of their constituent parts due to rounding.

  2 Rates figures for 1966–67 and 1967–68 include rate rebate grant.

  3 The breakdown of rate income into domestic and non-domestic rate income is estimated pro-rata to rateable values.

  4 The RSG figure for 1966–67 comprises general grant, echequer equalisation and transitional grants.

  Table 2

  Rate income 1975–76 to 1987–881

  Year

  Total

  Domestic

  Non-domestic

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1975–76

  389

  165

  224

  1976–77

  448

  185

  263

  1977–78

  522

  213

  309

  1978–79

  589

  196

  393

  1979–80

  683

  222

  461

  1980–81

  930

  305

  625

  1981–82

  1,205

  395

  810

  1982–83

  1,387

  452

  935

  1983–84

  1,321

  380

  941

  1984–85

  1,361

  392

  969

  1985–86

  1,543

  458

  1,085

  1986–87

  1,653

  505

  1,148

  1987–88

  1,868

  580

  1,288

  462
  Local Government Financial Statistics: Summary Volume 1975–76 to 1987–88". Table 2 gives an estimated breakdown of rate income into domestic and non-domestic income for the years 1975–76 to 1987–88, consistent with the figures published in the summary volume. Table 3 gives figures for 1988–89. Figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are not yet available.

  1 The breakdown of rate income into domestic and non-domestic rate income is estimated pro-rata to rateable values.

  Table 3

  Summary analysis of rate fund revenue account: 1988–891

  1988–89

  Expenditure

  £ million

  Staff costs

  2,812

  Running expenses

  1,616

  Loans charges

  539

  Revenue contributions to capital

  12

  Rate fund contributions to housing and trading services2

  105

  Adjustment3

  –312

  Total expenditure

  4,772

  As a percentage of total expenditure

  Percentage

  Staff costs

  59

  463

  1988–89

  Running expenses

  34

  Loans charges

  11

  Revenue contributions to capital

  0

  Rate fund contributions to housing and trading services2

  2

  Adjustment3

  –7

  Total expenditure

  100

  Income

  £ million

  Rates4

  1,973

  of which domestic rates5

  669

  non-domestic rates5

  1,304

  Government grant RSG6

  (a) needs element

  1,690

  (b) resources element

  216

  (c) domestic element

  92

  (d) specific grants and subsidies7

  257

  Total aggregate government grants (a)+(b)+(c)+(d)

  2,255

  Rate rebate grants

  190

  Sales

  29

  Rents, fees and charges

  288

  Other income

  92

  Total income

  4,826

  Income less expenditure as a percentage of total income

  Percentage

  Rates4

  41

  of which domestic rates5

  14

  non-domestic rates5

  27

  Government grant RSG6

  (a) needs element

  35

  (b) resources element

  4

  (c) domestic element

  2

  (d) specific grants and subsidies7

  5

  Total aggregate government grants (a)+(b)+(c)+(d)

  47

  Rate rebate grants

  4

  Sales

  1

  Rents, fees and charges

  6

  Other income

  2

  Total income

  100

  1 Totals may not be exactly equal to the sum of their constituent parts due to rounding.

  2 Excluding contributions to transport undertakings.

  3 Inter-account and inter-authority transactions deducted.

  4 Excluding rate rebates and domestic element of rate support grant. Includes net cost of collection of rates.

  5 The breakdown of rate income into domestic and non-domestic rate income is estimated pro-rata to rateable values.

  6 Near final figures as prescribed in RSG (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1989.

  7 As defined in appendix C of the report on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1987 and as returned by local authorities.

  8 Includes rate rebates (DSS), disabled persons rebates, enterprise zones rebates and revaluation rebates.

THE ARTS

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what progress has been made in implementing the reforms in the structure of arts funding.

  Mr. Renton
  Good progress has been made since my statement to the House on 19 December,(Official Report, columns 300–01).

  The chairs of seven of the 10 new regional arts boards have now been appointed with my consent, and a good
  464
  start has been made in appointing other board members. All the new boards are on target to be in place and operational from 1 October.

  The Arts Council has also submitted the advice that I called for on the staffing structures for the new system, and on the initial stage of delegation of clients to the new boards from 1 April 1992. I have today written to the chairman of the Arts Council setting out my conclusions on these matters, and a copy of my letter has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I am confident that the process of reform on which my predecessors and I have embarked will produce a system which delivers a better service to the public through a clearer definition of responsibilities. I am anxious to ensure that one of the original aims of the reforms—that of securing administrative savings—is also achieved.

  I have therefore asked the chairman of the Arts Council to build on the work already done by the Arts Council and the regional bodies to ensure that this is realised. To assist in this process I have set as a guideline the achievement of a progress administrative saving of at least £1 million per annum in current terms by 1993–94, by which time the present reforms will have been substantially implemented. This represents around 10 per cent. of current staff costs. I have every confidence that the Arts Council and the regional bodies will be able to achieve a saving of this order. It is a challenging but attainable target. It is most important that the public throughout the country get the opportunity to see more performances of quality and that arts organisations get a greater share of the public subsidy.

  I have asked the Arts Council to ensure that the necessary further work is undertaken quickly to ensure that the new boards are fully operational from 1 October 1991 as planned.

  I have also approved an initial list of bodies for delegation from the Arts Council to the new regional arts boards on 1 April 1992. As I said in my earlier statement, further significant delegation from 1993 will need to await the outcome of work on the national arts strategy, due for completion in the middle of next year. The Arts Council has proposed that there should be some scope for further delegation in the meantime.

  I would see this happening on only a fairly limited scale, and where it is clear to all parties that this would be beneficial. The Arts Council has also proposed, and I have accepted, that the new boards should be involved now in the joint assessment of clients who in due course may be administered by them. This will be most important in building up the confidence of clients in the ability of the new boards.

  A great deal of work has also been done to improve still further present systems of planning, budgeting and control. I have asked the Arts Council to ensure that this work is translated into a clear statement of policy objectives for all parts of the system, and that management systems, including an appropriate range of performance indicators, are developed to ensure that these objectives are achieved. These indicators will also need to assess customer satisfaction. I shall expect to see the results of this work reflected in the Arts Council's corporate plan for 1992–93, and in the corresponding corporate plans for the new regional arts boards.

  I expect these decisions to lead to a better structured and leaner arts funding system which will be able to

  465
  manage the further delegation of clients with a corresponding benefit to the ultimate beneficiaries, the clients and the general public.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Uprated Benefits
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) widows and (b) recipients of income support, who are liable to pay an increase in their council rents from 1 April will not receive their uprated benefit until 9 and 15 April respectively.

  Miss Widdecombe
  People in receipt of housing benefit have their entitlement recalculated to take account of any rent increase from the date on which the increase takes effect. Those in receipt of income support are entitled to maximum housing benefit which can meet up to 100 per cent. of their eligible rent.

  The most recent information available shows that, in May 1989, there were 48,000 women in receipt of state widows' benefits and pensions, but not income support, who were also in receipt of housing benefit and living in local authority accommodation.

  In February 1990 there were 1,760,000 people in receipt of income support who were also living in local authority accommodation.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money is saved by the Government as a result of the arrangements for payment in arrears of widow's benefit and income support to those whose council rents were raised on 1 April.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Injury
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of compensation for industrial injury have been discounted under the 14 per cent. rule in each year from 1986 to 1990.

  Mr. Scott
  Available information for such disallowances is as follows:

  Period

  Claims disallowed

  December 1986 to March 1987

  12,348

  April 1987 to March 1988

  47,234

  April 1988 to March 1989

  41,755

  April 1989 to March 1990

  41,741

  April 1990 to February 1991 (latest date available)

  36,213

  Adjudication Regulations
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total amount awarded by his Department under regulation 72 of the Adjudication Regulations for each year since 1987; and what was the average and median amount awarded in each case for each year, adjusted for 1991 prices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available.
  466
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases regulation 72 of the Adjudication Regulations has been used in each year since April 1987 for each(a) type of benefit and (b) claimant category.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available.

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what facilities he has made available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have not made any special arrangements for staff to contribute to this appeal. However, it is possible for staff to contribute to St. John Ambulance under our arrangements for payroll giving to charities.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many people in England and Wales lost their entitlement to the reduced community charge rate of 20 per cent. as a result of receiving an award of criminal injuries compensation during 1990–91;

  (2) in how many cases his Department was notified by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board of a compensation award to an individual receiving social security benefits;

  (3) in the last year for which figures are available, how many claimants of social security benefits ceased to receive benefits, or had their benefits reduced, as a result of receiving an award of criminal injuries compensation.

  Mr. Scott
  Reduction in benefits resulting from an award of criminal injuries compensation is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. I understand from him that the information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of income support claimants in Leicestershire are repaying social fund loans; and how much money is outstanding.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of income support and the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. and learned Member with such information as is available as soon as possible and copies will be placed in the Library and the public information office.

  Pensions (European Community)
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the Government have received a reply from the European Commission to the letter of 9 October 1989 from the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Communities seeking its views on the position of bridging pensions in the context of directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment in occupational social security systems.
  467
  Miss Widdecombe
  A reply was received from the head of directorate general 5 of the European Commission on 17 April 1991. I am arranging for copies of his reply to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and to be sent to those organisations and individuals who have expressed an interest in the issue.

  Low Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he makes, on the best available evidence, of the numbers of persons, and the percentage of the total population, who were living on incomes less than 60 per cent. of the national average in 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1990, or in those years nearest to these dates where the relevant information is available.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 6 December 1990]: Information in precisely the form requested is available only for the years for which "Households Below Average Income"—HBAI—has been published. Other information is available for earlier years, but the methodologies and

  Source

  HBAI

  RoI

  RoI

  FES Report

  Equivalised household

  Income measure

  disposable

  Household disposable

  Household final

  Household gross

  Unit analysed

  Persons

  Households

  Households

  Households

  Coverage

  Great Britain

  United Kingdom

  United Kingdom

  United Kingdom

  Percentage with less than 60 per cent, of mean income

  1987 (13·8 million people)

  25·5

  —

  —

  —

  1985 (10·9 million people)

  20·1

  34

  —

  —

  1980 (9·4 million people)

  17·81

  30

  —

  —

  1975

  —

  28

  27

  —

  1970

  —

  —

  28

  28

  1965–66

  —

  —

  —

  26

  1960–61

  —

  —

  —

  26

  1 Average of figures for 1979 and 1981

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Late Payment Charges
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the revenue coming to the Exchequer from charges and penalties for late payment of(a) VAT, (b) income tax, (c) national insurance and (d) corporation tax in each financial year since 1979; and what was the number of individuals and companies paying such penalties in each year.

  Mr. Maude
  Information is not available on the total numbers paying penalties or charges for late payment of tax, nor on receipts for all the years requested. The available information is:

  Receipts from interest charges and penalties for late payment

  (£ million)

  Year

  VAT1

  Income tax2 3

  Corporation tax2

  1983–84

  —

  77·8

  43·0

  1984–85

  —

  86·9

  50·6

  1985–86

  —

  100·5

  53·7

  1986–87

  —

  117·6

  64·7

  1987–88

  24·8

  133·8

  77·4

  1988–89

  71·2

  156·7

  92·8

  1989–90

  82·1

  187·1

  131·1

  1990–91

  83·2

  —

  —

  468
  definitions used differ substantially and it is therefore not appropriate to make direct comparisons throughout the whole period.

  It is also important to remember that real personal disposable income per head in the United Kingdom has risen substantially during this period. The percentage of the population who were living on incomes below any constant threshold has fallen. Thus, for example, the numbers of people living below 60 per cent. of the 1979 national average equivalised income, before housing costs, fell from 9 million in 1979 to 6·9 million in 1987.

  Sources are the CSO's annual redistribution of income—ROI—articles and the published family expenditure survey—FES—reports; the estimates listed in the table are made from the most appropriate published source for each year. All the pre-HBAI analyses are in terms of numbers of households rather than population, and none of them used equivalisation to adjust for differing household sizes and compositions. Various different definitions of income have been used, and the one from the FES reports in 1960–61 and 1965–66 is a pre-tax gross income measure.

  All the figures are derived from the family expenditure survey and thus cover only the household population.

  1 No charges or penalties for late payment of VAT prior to introduction of VAT default surcharge from 1 October 1986; negligible receipts in 1986–87.

  2 Information for 1990–91 is not yet available.

  3Includes small sums in respect of class 4 (self-employed) national insurance contributions. Penalties generally for late payment of NICs were introduced in the Social Security Act 1990, with effect from 1990–91.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing the balance of trade(a) in manufactures and (b) in manufactures, less erratics, with the EC at current prices on a balance of payments basis in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on trade in manufactures with the EC on a balance of payments basis is available on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed through the Library of the House. The information requested for manufactures less erratics is not available on a balance of payments basis.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing the balance of trade in manufactures, less erratics, on a balance of payments basis for each year since 1970 in terms of 1990 prices together with the corresponding figures for imports and exports.
  469
  Mr. Mellor
  Information from which trade in manufactures less erratics at 1990 prices may be derived is available on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing the balance of trade in finished manufactures, less erratics, on a balance of payments basis for each year since 1970 in terms of 1990 prices, together with the corresponding figures for imports and exports.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information from which trade in finished manufactures less erratics at 1990 prices may be derived is available on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing the balance of trade in manufactures, less erratics, with the EEC Twelve on a balance of payments basis for each year since 1970 in terms of 1990 prices, together with the corresponding figures for imports and exports.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on trade with the EC is not available at constant prices.

  Pensions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the national income was spent on retirement pensions in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Mellor
  Retirement pensions paid out by the national insurance fund, together with pensions and other benefits paid by public and private sector occupational pension schemes are estimated to have amounted to the following percentages of national income:—

  Per cent.

  1975

  10·9

  1976

  11·1

  1977

  11·3

  1978

  11·3

  1979

  11·4

  1980

  12·2

  1981

  13·7

  1982

  14·1

  1983

  14·2

  1984

  14·2

  1985

  14·4

  1986

  15·2

  1987

  15·2

  1988

  14·2

  1989

  14·2

  Consumer Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing consumption of consumer goods other than food and fuel as a percentage of gross domestic product in each year since 1961 together with his estimate of the proportion supplied by imports.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information requested for the first part of the question can be derived from data on the CSO's database, which may be accessed through the Library. The database identifiers are:

  GDP at market prices (CAOB)
  470
  Consumers' expenditure on goods other than food and energy products

  Sum of:

  Durable goods (AIIL)

  Alcohol and tobacco (CDFH)

  Clothing and footwear (CDDE)

  Other goods (CCED)

  In respect of the final part of the question, information on the proportion supplied by imports is not available. Such information as is available on the import content of demand is given in CSO's periodic input-output tables, for example, tables 2 and 3 of the 1984 tables. Information on import penetration has also been provided in "Business Monitor" MQ12.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing the gross output of manufacturing industry, excluding inter-industry transfers, in 1970, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1988, 1989, and a forecast for 1990.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information on gross output for manufacturing is published annually at current prices in "Business Monitor `PA1002' Report on the Census of Production" summary volume. Copies of this volume up to 1988 are available from the Library. Transfers of goods produced by a business to departments not covered by the census, including other businesses in the same enterprise group, are treated within output as sales, valued as if sold to an independent buyer. Forecasts of gross output are not available.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by the Central Office of Information in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  No fees have been paid by the Central Office of Information in the furtherance of privatisation. However, the COI has been involved in privatisation publicity campaigns. Details for years 1979–80 to 1989–90 were given at column 167 on 13 March 1990. Details for the year 1990–91 are as follows:

  December 1990

  Electricity: Distribution companies

  March 1991

  Electricity: Generators

  The costs of these campaigns have been included in answers provided by the Government Department concerned.

  Current Account
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing, for each year from 1970 to 1990, inclusive, together with the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" forecast for 1991, the current account payment surplus or deficit expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information requested is as follows:
  471

  United Kingdom current account balance as a percentage of money

  GDP

  Per cent.

  1970

  1·6

  1971

  1·9

  1972

  0·3

  1973

  –1·3

  1974

  –3·8

  1975

  –1·4

  1976

  –0·6

  1977

  —

  1978

  0·7

  1979

  –0·2

  1980

  1·2

  1981

  2·6

  1982

  1·7

  1983

  1·2

  1984

  0·6

  1985

  0·8

  1986

  —

  1987

  –1·0

  1988

  –3·3

  1989

  –3·9

  1990

  –2·4

  11991

  –1·0

  1FSBR forecast.

  British Telecommunications (Government Shareholding)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to sell the Government's residual shareholding in British Telecommunications plc.

  Mr. Maude
  As my right hon. Friend announced in his Budget speech on 19 March, the Government intend to sell part of their residual shareholding in BT in the coming year. No decisions have been taken about the precise timing and the number of shares to be sold. We have, however, begun to appoint advisers to certain of the key roles.

  Preliminary and main expenses incurred in connection with the sale of shares will be met from receipts from the sale. Parliamentary approval of the expenditure will be sought in a token new estimate in the summer supplementary estimate round. Expenses incurred in advance of the sale will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Once the sale is complete and the final costs are known, a supplementary estimate will be presented to provide substantive provision for the main sale expenses of the sale and a compensating increase in appropriations-in-aid. The balance of the receipts will be paid into the consolidated fund.

  Crown Property (Rates)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have for the payment of contributions in lieu of rates on property occupied by the Crown; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  My right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister announced on 15 December 1989 at column 834 that responsibility for the valuation of the Government's estates for rating purposes would be transferred to the Inland Revenue valuation office from April 1991. The Government have since decided that, for reasons of efficiency and economy, the other responsibilities of the Rating of Government Property Department should also
  472
  be transferred to the valuation office. The valuation office is, in consequence, responsible for the payment of contributions in lieu of rates on Government property and recovery from occupying Departments. It is also responsible for payment of rates and diplomatic property as well as for recovery of a portion of the community charge and rates from foreign missions and international organisations.

  Taxes
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proportion of total central Government revenue is raised by corporation tax in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany;

  what proportion of total central Government revenue is raised by income tax in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: Figures for tax revenues disaggregated by tax for the United Kingdom, France and Germany on a comparable basis are published in "Revenue Statistics of OECD Member Countries" which can be found in the Library.

  Food and Drink
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the United Kingdom's trade in(a) food and (b) drink is forecast to be in deficit in 1991.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: The Treasury does not forecast trade balances in food and drink. The Budget forecast is for the overall visible trade deficit to fall from £18 billion in 1990 to £12 billion in 1991.

HEALTH

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the incidence of decayed, missing or filled teeth among 12-year-olds in the South and East Cumbria health authorities' areas; which of the Northern region's 16 authorities had a higher figure; and if he will estimate the reduction which might ensue if South and East Cumbria's whole population received water at optimum fluoride levels, if the response was similar to that over the United Kingdom as a whole where water supplies had been brought to the World Health Organisation's optimum level.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The most recent survey of caries prevalence conducted for the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry in 1988–89 showed the following results in the 16 health districts in the northern region:

  District

  Decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth

  South Cumbria

  1·82

  South Tees

  1·80

  North Tees

  1·64

  Northumberland

  1·55

  East Cumbria

  1·53

  Darlington

  1·39

  South Tyneside

  1·38

  473

  District

  Decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth

  Durham

  1·38

  South West Durham

  1·36

  West Cumbria

  1·32

  North West Durham

  1·32

  Sunderland

  1·30

  North Tyneside

  1·25

  Newcastle

  1·22

  Gateshead

  0·91

  Hartlepool

  0·71

  In the north-west Durham, Newcastle, Gateshead and Hartlepool districts all 12-year-old schoolchildren are likely to have received fluoridated water at a level of 0·7 parts per million and over since birth. The incidence of decayed, missing or filled teeth in those districts which are similar to other districts where water fluoridation has been introduced at the World Health Organisation optimum level, is an indication how the dental health of schoolchildren in south and east Cumbria could be improved. Hartlepool has the best record in England and Wales.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the results of the public health laboratory service survey for salmonella in eggs carried out on samples collected from high street outlets during February.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The public health laboratory service's survey involves the testing of some 43,000 United Kingdom-produced eggs that will be purchased from various retail outlets. It is intended that 15 PHLS laboratories will each test eggs in four seperate months spaced throughout the year, the last being in November. The survey has been structured to include investigation of any seasonal variations that might exist. When the investigation is completed at the end of 1991, the data will be collated and analysed.

  Smoking
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the yearly mortality in the United Kingdom attributable to(a) heavy passive smoking and (b) average active smoking.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The independent scientific committee on smoking and health has concluded that the number of deaths from lung cancer among non-smokers associated with a lifetime's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke might amount to several hundred in the United Kingdom each year. The number of deaths caused by active smoking is estimated at around 110,000 in the United Kingdom each year. This figure represents the death toll for all smokers, but the vast majority of deaths occur among regular smokers with a long-standing history of tobacco use.

  Renal Services
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the coverage and delivery of renal services.
  474
  Mr. Dorrell
  The planning and provision of renal services is a matter for health authorities to decide, taking into account local needs and priorities.

  Cholesterol Testing
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will establish a national campaign to encourage medical practitioners to test all patients who have high blood pressure for blood cholesterol levels.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19 April at columns 282–83. Decisions about cholesterol testing will be taken in the light of the outcome of consultations on the Standing Medical Advisory Committee's report.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by the Health Education Authority/Health Education Council in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Donald Maitland, the chairman of the Health Education Authority, for details.

  Policy Objectives
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he is yet in a position to announce his Department's policy objectives for 1991–92.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have agreed a statement of the mission, goals and priorities for my Department for 1991–92 and the following three years. It identifies specific aims for the different areas of the Department's business. The NHS policy board has agreed a separate statement of the strategic goals for the NHS management executive for 1991–92, which flow from those departmental aims. Copies of both statements have been placed in the Library.

  Research and Development (NHS)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for research and development in the NHS following the White Paper "Priorities in Medical Research" and the appointment of his Department's first director of research and development.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am pleased to announce a major initiative for research and development. A new R and D strategy and programme for the NHS will be introduced to provide a firm scientific basis for improving health. It will focus on the introduction of improved methods of health care arising from research and on the cost-effective use of resources.

  Because of the importance I attach to the development of a research base for the health service I believe it is important to move towards the use of up to 1·5 per cent. of NHS expenditure to be used for research and development.

  The key principles of the R and D strategy are:

  1. That research and development is a prerequisite for achieving a cost effective service responsive to changes in health needs and innovation;

  475

  2. Accordingly, the NHS should invest at an appropriate level to achieve a coherent R and D Programme;

  3. Responsibility for R and D needs to be devolved as far as possible to regional and local level with accountability for performance;

  4. A mechanism is required to achieve overall balance and coherence;

  5. R and D priorities which merit national rather than purely regional attention need to be set;

  6. NHS—university collaboration needs to be ensured as well as close links with the Medical Research Council, charities and industry.

  The R and D strategy will have the following main elements:

  i. a planned and managed approach by the NHS to health research to provide a scienfic basis for action to improve health;

  ii. a new countrywide R and D programme to be carried out by regional health authorities within a national framework;

  iii. the setting of national R and D priorities;

  iv. the setting up of a Central Research and Development Committee chaired by the Director of Research and Development;

  v. a requirement of regional health authorities to prepare, publish, resource, and implement (and be held to account for) research and development plans;

  vi. information systems on research outcomes for purchasers and providers of health care, for health policy and planning;

  vii. emphasis on practical developments arising from research, the prompt introduction of cost-effective developments into the NHS;

  viii. challenging but manageable national and regional expenditure targets;

  ix. collaboration with other research funding bodies to address issues of agreed national priority.

  An announcement giving further details, including preliminary information about the subject matter and the management arrangements for the programme will be made towards the end of 1991.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mr. Gerard Clarke
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement in respect of Gerard Clarke, a prisoner in Crumlin Road gaol as to what reason he gave for going on hunger strike at the end of March; and if it is still continuing.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Gerard Clarke has been refusing prison food since 27 March and continues to do so. He is protesting about his removal from association with other prisoners under prison rule 25 (Northern Ireland) 1982.

  Northern Ireland Electricity
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the PJR report on Northern Ireland Electricity; and what was the purpose of the report.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: The PJR report cost £52,225. PJR's remit was to examine the appropriateness of management structure of Northern Ireland Electricity in the light of its proposed privatisation.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how long it usually takes for information to be made publicly available as to whether a driver had taken alcohol before driving and being killed.
  476
  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information as to whether a driver had taken alcohol before driving and being killed is made publicly available on the hearing of a coroner's inquest. The time taken to release this information varies and no records are kept.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Regulation and Codification
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from farmers regarding the increase in regulation and codification of agriculture; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Curry
  I have received no recent representations from farmers regarding the increase in regulation.

  Milk
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to support the maintenance of the EC safety net intervention for beef cattle in order to help mitigate the effects of further cuts in milk quotas.

  Mr. Curry
  We recognise that any cut in milk quotas will increase the volume of beef coming on to the market in the short term. However, we do not believe that it is sensible to turn a high-value product like beef into a low-value product by freezing it for intervention and to build up large stocks which then overhang the market. It is not justifiable to continue provisions which permit uncontrolled access to intervention at prices considerably in excess of the market price. In the negotiations currently in progress we are arguing that dependence on intervention must be reduced, and that strict controls are needed both on the quantity purchased and on the prices paid for it.

  Abbatoirs
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many abattoirs in England have gone out of business in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Maclean
  All abattoirs in England and Wales operate under licences granted by local authorities. With the exception of abattoirs approved for intra-Community trade, records are not routinely maintained on the operational status of individual abattoirs. However, annual statistics derived from state veterinary service visits indicate that numbers of non-export abattoirs in England and Wales dropped from some 720 to around 640 in 1990. Of the abattoirs approved for EC exports, two have ceased trading in the last 12 months. We do not have information on the reasons for closure.

  Livestock Production
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the National Cattle Breeders Association code of practice for livestock production.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are aware that the association has prepared a code of practice which it is discussing with
  477
  other farming organisations. We understand that the details have not yet been finalised, but in principle we welcome initiatives by the industry to improve the marketing of British produce.

  Livestock Diseases
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has made for the continuation of diagnostic analysis for bovine spongiform encephalopthy and other livestock diseases currently being carried out at the veterinary investigation centres he is proposing to close.

  Mr. Maclean
  The his topathological diagnosis of BSE by the veterinary investigation service is currently organised on a national basis and will not be adversely affected by the closure of veterinary investigation centres. As indicated in the announcement of the outcome of the review, where centres are to be closed diagnostic and other work will be transferred to one of the remaining centres.

  Common Agricultural Policy Budget
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek an increase in the CAP budget ceiling to allow for the impact on the common agricultural policy of the costs related to eastern Germany.

  Mr. Curry
  The amended 1991 budget for the common agricultural policy already includes 1,315 mecu—£920 million—to cover increased market support costs arising from German unification and all member states agreed last October that this amount could be accommodated within the guideline. Other factors are now leading to higher than predicted levels of CAP expenditure, but it remains Government policy to seek an agreement on the Commission's 1991 agricultural price proposals that is fully compatible with the guideline.

  Growth Promoters
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ban imports of beef from those countries where testing indicates that the use of hormones and other illegal growth promoters is widespread.

  Mr. Maclean
  The use of growth-promoting hormones in beef production in the European Community is illegal. All imports of beef from third countries must be accompanied by suitable guarantees to the effect that hormones have not been used in their production.

  All beef-exporting countries are required to establish a residue testing programme approved by the EC standing veterinary committee and their meat plants are subject to inspection by Commission officials. Testing programme results are then subject to further scrutiny at Community level to ensure that compliance with EC standards is maintained.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to increase the proportion of imported beef which his Department tests for hormones and other illegal growth promoters.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Ministry already has a very extensive programme of surveillance for veterinary drug residues,478
  including the banned hormones and other illegal growth promoters, and both home-produced and imported meats are covered. None the less, the surveillance programmes are under continuing review and if there is evidence of a particular problem we will of course consider whether the level of monitoring in that area should be increased.

  Baby Milk
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the new European directive on baby milk to be adopted; if he will take steps to ensure the retention of the United Kingdom's existing voluntary agreements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Publication of the infant formulae and follow-on formulae directive agreed in Brussels on 15 March 1991 is expected to appear in the Official Journal of the European Communities shortly. The Government will aim to maintain existing arrangements when considering implementation of the directive in United Kingdom law.

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what facilities have been made available for staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Curry
  No special facilities have been set up for single donations to the St. John Ambulance Brigade appeal, but anyone who wishes to contribute regularly may do so by using the departmental facilities for payroll giving to charities.

  Calf Imports
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek limitations by the European Commission on the number of calves being imported into the European Community from eastern Europe.

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission has already made it clear to the Agriculture Council that it intends to limit the import of calves in 1991 to 425,000 head, the average of the three years 1987–89. Negotiations to this end are in progress with third countries.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects bovine somatotropin to be licensed for commercial use in the United Kingdom; and if he has assessed there to be a socio-economic appraisal of the consequences of the drug's approval.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the provisions of Community law, no BST product may be licensed in any member state, before 1 January 1992. No product will be licensed in the United Kingdom thereafter unless our independent scientific advisers tell us that it fully meets all the criteria set down in the Medicines Act and Community legislation. I cannot say when or whether that will happen. The Commission is examining the socio-economic implications of licensing BST and should present a report before October.

  Wildlife Poisoning
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of his pesticide safety division report into the use of strychnine for the poisoning of wildlife in April 1990 on the Fermor-Hesketh estate.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 11 April 1990 a dead fox was found at Kirby farm, Pury End, Northants, together with the remains of pigeons and rabbits. As is normal in such incidents, a post mortem examination was carried out by this Department. Laboratory analysis of the stomach contents revealed the presence of a residue of strychnine. Despite detailed inquiries by a departmental investigation officer it has not proved possible to identify who was responsible. The pesticides safety division has not produced a report on the incident.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 22 and 23 April.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting together with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), Parliamentary Secretary in my Department.

  Discussion concentrated on the Commission's proposals for 1991–92 farm prices. I reiterated the United Kingdom position on the lines that I recently explained to the House. Discussion is currently scheduled to resume on 21 May.

WALES

  Community Care
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans for the introduction of improved arrangements for community care.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The phased programme of implementing the reforms of community care in Wales from 1 April 1991 to 1 April 1993 will continue as planned with managing of social services the responsibility of local government.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Houses
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any proposals to provide compensation for public house tenants displaced as a result of brewers conforming to the 1989 Tied Estate Orders; what representations he has received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer, the Government introduced the Landlord and Tenant Act 1990 in response to concerns about security of tenure for pub tenants. The Act extends to pub tenants the same protection as other business tenants and for the first time requires brewers to 480
  pay statutory compensation to tenants whose pubs are taken back into management. Tenancies entered into after 10 July 1989 are already protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act while those entered into before that date will be protected by July 1992 at the latest. The Government are naturally concerned about current threats by certain national brewers to issue "notices to quit" to tenants who are not yet protected by the Act. We understand that most of these notices will be issued for the purpose of renegotiating the terms of tenancy agreements and will not ultimately lead to evictions.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the total number of public houses which are owned by the regional brewers.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest information we have is the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer published in March 1989 which found that regional brewers owned just over 7,000 public houses. As a result of the measures introduced in response to that report, in particular the requirement that national brewers should free from ties half their pubs in excess of 2,000, the total number of pubs owned by regional brewers is likely to change. The Director General of Fair Trading will be looking at the number of pubs owned by regional brewers when he conducts his review of the effectiveness of the measures introduced in response to that report in 1993–94.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has of the number of public houses which are currently being put on the market for sale by the major brewers in order to comply with the 1989 Supply of Beer Orders; what representations he has received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order which was introduced in response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer requires the national brewers to release from ties half of the pubs they own in excess of 2,000 by November 1992. As a result, approximately 11,000 pubs will be freed on an industrywide basis. There are a number of ways in which national brewers can do this including leasing free of ties, selling to another brewer or selling to a sitting tenant. The steps so far taken by the national brewers suggest that they are using a mixture of these options to meet the requirement in the order. It is up to each brewer to decide how many premises to sell and how many to lease free of ties and we do not have figures for the total number of pubs which the national brewers currently have on the market. However, the Director General of Fair Trading will be looking at the number of pubs sold by national brewers when he conducts his review of the effectiveness of the measures introduced in response to the MMC report in 1993–94.

  Marinas
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to extend the fair trading and monopolies legislation to marinas.

  Mr. Redwood
  Under the Fair Trading Act 1973 it may in certain circumstances be possible to make a monopoly reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of
  481
  services provided by marina owners. I have no plans at present to amend the Fair Trading Act to include special provisions relating to marinas.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish a table showing the volume of manufactured exports, less erratics, each year since 1970, and for each quarter since 1 January 1986, relative to the increase in the volume of manufactured exports in Germany, France, Italy, the United States of America and Japan.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A series showing the United Kingdom's volume of exports of manufactured goods, less erratics, is published in table B8 of the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", which is held in the House of Commons Library. Comparable figures for other countries are not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of trade-weighted index of competitiveness of United Kingdom exports on 8 October 1990 relative to that of West Germany.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Between 1985 and the second half of 1990 the United Kingdom's trade-weighted index of unit labour costs had increased by 5 per cent. compared with a 28 per cent. increase in Germany. Data for trade-weighted unit labour costs are calculated quarterly and are therefore not available for 8 October 1990.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the base year used to get the trade-weighted average index of United Kingdom export competitiveness for manufacturers in the Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics; what is the corresponding International Monetary Fund figure; and whether the International Monetary Fund figure for the United Kindom is based on the weight for the United Kingdom trade with the other 15 countries or the weight of those countries globally.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The base year used in the trade-weighted index of unit labour costs, as published in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" is 1985. This series is produced by the IMF and hence the base year for the IMF series is the same. The trade weights used to construct the United Kingdom's index of relative unit labour costs are based on the exports, in 1980, to the United Kingdom from the other 16 countries covered.

  Paint Exports
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of British paint exports for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for 1986 and 1981.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is available in "Overseas Trade Statistics", which is available in the House of Commons Library. Trade in paints is recorded under SITC 533.41–43.

  Security Interests
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is in a position to make a statement on his response to part II of the report of Professor A. L. Diamond reviewing the law on security interests in property other than land.

  Mr. Lilley
  Yes. Professor Diamond's report was published in January 1989. Part II recommended a radical reform of the law on security interests. The recommendations were numerous and covered complex issues where changes to the law could have significant implications for the raising of business finance. We therefore allowed an extended period of public consultation.

  A clear majority of those representing interests governed by English law argued against major reform. Reform would be complex and, in view of the proposed registration arrangements, potentially costly to the Government and business. It could be contemplated only if there was a strong commercial justification. That did not emerge from the consultation and I have therefore decided not to accept the recommendations in part II of the report for England and Wales. However, the report served a useful purpose in airing these important issues.

  Some of those responding to the consultation supported some limited changes to the law relating to security interests and the acquiring of title to goods and I am giving these suggestions further consideration.

  There was, on the other hand, a call for action to facilitate the granting of security interests in Scotland. Scots security law differs from English law in that it is impossible, except in limited circumstances, to create an adequate and workable security over moveable property without the creditor taking possession. Respondees to the consultation argued that this puts Scottish business at a severe disadvantage. This is clearly an issue which needs to be explored further. The Department's Scottish solicitors will therefore prepare a draft of a Bill introducing new forms of security over moveables into Scots law which will form the basis of further public consultation. The draft should be ready for consultation in about 12 months' time.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Facsimile Communications
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, further to his answer of 19 February to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg),Official Report, column 120, what proposals he has for better arrangements for the transmission of facsimile communications for members of the United Kingdom delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Following the agreement of the House of Commons Commission on 25 March, free direct dialling from the Palace of Westminster to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union is now possible. Guidance issued to Members by the Serjeant at Arms includes details of the transmission of facsimile messages under these new arrangements.

DEFENCE

  The Gulf
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current level of additional allowances paid to RAF personnel at Dhahran;

  (2) what changes have occurred to the additional allowances paid to RAF personnel at Dhahran in the last six months;

  (3) if he will provide details of all the additional allowances that are currently being paid to service personnel in the Gulf region; and what changes have occurred to those allowances in the last six months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the total cost arising from British military involvement in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The latest estimate for the additional defence costs, to be spread over several years, is that they are expected to be of the order of £2·5 billion.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide his latest estimate of the cost of military equipment lost and damaged during the Gulf crisis.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The value of major equipments lost and munitions consumed in the conflict and in associated training is currently assessed as approaching £450 million.

  Air Electronic Operators
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether new tasks arising from the deployment of new apparatus will be taken into account in revaluating the jobs of air electronic operators;

  (2) when the next job evaluation of air electronic operators is to take place;

  (3) whether independent scrutiny will be carried out in any future evaluation of the jobs of air electronic operators.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A job evaluation of air electronic operators, involving an independent consultant, is taking place and will take account of all apparatus used in their peacetime role.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air electronic operators were down-banded arising from the regrading exercise carried out by the joint services job evaluation team in 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 354.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the factor scoring plan in accounting for the operational supervisory roles of air electronic operators; and if he has any plans to revise it.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The factor plan used for all RAF trade groups is considered to be flexible enough to meet the supervisory responsibilities of air electronic operators. It is kept under regular review.

  Iraq (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's current assessment as to when Iraq will be able to produce nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 12 December 1990,Official Report, column 430.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department has as to the movement of Iraqi safeguarded material out of the nuclear facilities prior to them being attacked by allied forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We do not know whether the Iraqis moved safeguarded material out of the Tuwaitha nuclear research centre near Baghdad prior to the attack by allied forces. The material was inspected by the IAEA in November 1990 and was reportedly all accounted for. Inspections of Iraq's nuclear facilities to be carried out in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution 687 adopted on 3 April should provide an opportunity to determine the location of the safeguarded material.

  Battle Stress
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of service men suffering battle stress; and what contribution his Department is making to deal with this problem.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Casualty figures, our own research and medical reports and information from other sources indicate that the level of battle stress among participants in Operation Granby is modest and manageable. This can be largely attributed to the education programme, the provision of a network of psychiatric support particularly in operational areas and the targeting of extra support to personnel who have been exposed to exceptional stress.

  Birmingham Arms Fair
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is taking part in any way in the forthcoming Birmingham arms fair; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Representatives from my Department will be participating in the defence components and equipment exhibition to be held in Birmingham next month.

  Unix Computers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the uses to which the Unix computers, supplied under the contract recently won by ICL, will be put.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  These machines will be used for a wide range of non-operational, administrative support functions.

  Soviet Union (Information Exchange)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times in the last two years personnel serving in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy have met their Soviet counterparts to exchange information.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are regular meetings, in both bilateral and multilateral fora, between the United Kingdom armed forces arid representatives of the Soviet armed forces, involving all three services. A considerable number of such contacts have already taken place and others are planned. We do not maintain a central record of the number of times members of the three services have met their Soviet counterparts.

  Services Accommodation
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist for the provision of accommodation for those service personnel and their families who will leave the services as a result of "Options for Change".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are continuing to examine ways of meeting the housing needs of service personnel in the light of changing circumstances.

  Environmental Improvements (Germany)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to carry out environmental improvements to the land and buildings currently being used by the British Army of the Rhine and RAF Germany.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is a continuing programme of improvement works and maintenance on the sites occupied by British forces in Germany. This programme takes into account commitments entered into with the German authorities and Her Majesty's Government's own environmental initiatives.

  Service Personnel (Training)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist for the provision of training for those service personnel who will leave the services as a result of "Options for Change".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 June 1990 at columns 142–43 and to that which I gave the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on 28 March 1991, at columns 568–69.

  Direct Fire Weapons Effect System
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current status of the planned procurement of a direct fire weapons effect system for the British Army;

  (2) what companies have expressed an interest in supplying the British Army with a direct fire weapons effect system;

  (3) what effect the "Options for Change" study has had upon the planned procurement of a direct fire weapons effect system;

  (4) what is the approximate quantity of direct fire weapons effect systems that the British Army will require.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Several companies have submitted tenders for the direct fire weapons effect system. These are 486
  still being considered. It is not our normal practice to reveal the names of the companies concerned at this stage in a competition. Actual numbers of equipment to be procured are classified, but quantities have been adjusted to take account of "Options for Change".

  US Forces
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart regarding the withdrawal of United States forces from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has had a number of discussions with the United States Secretary of Defense on the future of United States forces in this country.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the "Options for Change" study has had on the defence procurement budget to date.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am not in a position to add to my answer to the hon. Gentleman of 19 December last year, at column 212.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which budget vote sub-headings have been affected by the "Options for Change" process; and by what amount.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The effect of "Options for Change" on vote sub-heads will depend on decisions on the final size and shape of the armed forces, which have yet to be taken. Even when decisions are taken, it will not be possible to identify the effects on individual sub-heads without disproportionate effort.

  Military Budget
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library copies of information on the British military budget to be provided as part of the agreement reached on the Vienna confidence and security-building measures document.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom budget information, in the format specified by the Vienna document, will be placed in the Library when it is released in Vienna.

  Weapons (Exchange of Information)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the North Atlantic Assembly's resolution to consider the exchange of information on the production of weapons and equipment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  All the resolutions adopted by the North Atlantic Assembly during 1990 have been discussed in the North Atlantic Council and, following normal practice, comments on them forwarded by the NATO Secretary-General to the secretary-general of the assembly.

  Tanks
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the suitability of the British Challenger II tank as a replacement for Chieftain tanks.
  487
  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department is making a full assessment of the suitability of Challenger II as equipment for our future main battle tank fleet.

  India (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of arms sales by British companies to India during 1990.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to provide such information as it relates to specific countries.

  CFE Treaty
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received from his United States counterpart regarding concerns over Soviet compliance with the conventional forces in Europe treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  We continue to be in close touch with the United States and with other allies about our mutual concerns over Soviet compliance with the provisions of the CFE treaty. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised these issues personally with Mr. Gorbachev in March. NATO is agreed that it is for the Soviet Union to resolve these concerns.

  Military Equipment (Exports)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts regarding a possible increase in the export of military equipment resulting from the CFE treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  During the negotiations, NATO secured agreement to provisions in the CFE treaty that require any equipment of types limited by the treaty in excess of the treaty limits to be destroyed or converted to non-military use according to internationally agreed procedures.

  Conflict Prevention Centre
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what resources he is planning to make available to the conflict prevention centre to be established by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on 15 April at column 105.

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

The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury
George Leonard, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Cyprus
2.44 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to promote a negotiated settlement of the Cyprus problem.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we shall continue to give active support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the intercommunal dispute in Cyprus
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Does he accept that with the ceasefire. in the Gulf and the new-found enthusiasm for United Nations resolutions, attention is now turning back to finding solutions to long-standing issues such as the Cyprus problem? Will he enlarge a little further on what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking at the United Nations to resurrect the intercommunal talks between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot leadership? Will he indicate whether Her Majesty's Government will, as a matter of urgency, raise the Cyprus issue at the next EC meeting of Foreign Ministers?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the way forward is clearly laid out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 649 of March 1990 which both sides accepted and which was unanimously adopted by the Security Council. The United Nations Secretary-General's representative is currently pursuing further discussions with the parties to the dispute. The Secretary-General proposes to report again to the Security Council in July. We shall continue our regular high level contacts with those most closely involved in order to help the United Nations find a way forward.
The European Community has made clear its support for the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts. However, we do not believe that a European Community initiative is appropriate. We believe that it would only cut across United Nations efforts.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on the point raised by the noble Lord about the Community, is it not the case that as recently as December the European Community proposed that a conference should he convened with representatives from Greece,
262
Turkey and the Community to discuss the current difficulties and to seek to make at least some start towards a solution? Has that proposal now been dropped or is it being followed up?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not have details of any such proposal by the European Community. However, we believe that the initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General offers the best hope of progress. We believe that it provides the necessary impartiality and authority to encourage the two communities to reach a mutually acceptable and lasting solution.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, will the noble Lord ensure that the Secretary-General of the United Nations is given the information about the large numbers of Turks who are being granted Cypriot nationality by Mr. Denktas, thus changing the balance in the proportion between the two peoples in the occupied part of Cyprus?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it would not be helpful for me to express a view on the merits of the case. Our policy is to be even-handed in our dealings with both sides within the limits set by our recognition policy. We believe that that is the best way to preserve our influence with both parties.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, may I impress upon the noble Lord the urgency of the matter? It is now 17 years since the invasion. Is it not time that the United Kingdom, with its responsibility as joint chairman, injected some further urgency into the business? That is why I asked for the matter to be raised on the agenda at the next meeting of the EC Foreign Ministers.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Secretary-General proposes to continue the recent discussions with a view to reaching an outline settlement by July on the basis of which direct negotiations between the leaders of the two communities could resume. We believe that a settlement is possible given good will on both sides. We share the Secretary-General's hope that real progress can be made by the summer.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there has been some contact and correspondence between the Greek and Turkish authorities over the ghost town of Famagusta and that they may be coming together on that issue?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is referring to Varosha. We would warmly welcome the release of Varosha to the United Nations administration, as called for in United Nations Resolution 550. However, we believe that that issue is unlikely to be resolved except as part of a comprehensive settlement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, am I right in thinking that in his reply to me the noble Lord said that the Community had no role to play in this matter? I think the whole House understands that from the start the Community has played a role in this unhappy situation. It has sought to take initiatives. The initiative of last December to which I referred is

263
important. The Community may well be able to take a successful initiative as a preliminary to further action by the United Nations. Will the Minister try to find out whether an initiative was proposed in December and what followed?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am happy to assure the noble Lord that I shall look into that matter. I said that we do not believe a European Community initiative is appropriate because it would cut across the United Nations efforts.

Community Care: Responsibilities
2.50 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their proposals for the reform of local government structure and finance will affect in any way the implementation of plans for community care in April 1993.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, nothing in the new proposals changes the responsibility of local authorities for managing social services, including the phased introduction of community care between 1991 and 1993. Local authorities implemented phase one on 1st April this year and are currently preparing plans as required for the implementation of phase two on 1st April next year.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that the proposed reform of local government structure means that councils are being asked to plan community care services without knowing whether they will exist a year after the plans have been implemented? Can she confirm that no consideration is being given at ministerial or official level to the possible deferment of the transfer of community care responsibilities beyond 1993 or the removal from local authorities of their existing responsibilities for community care?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on 12th February my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that the Government's policy on community care remained as set out in the White Paper Caring for People, and in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. On 28th March my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health said that responsibility for managing social services, including the phased introduction of community care, will continue to rest with local government. Paragraph 18 of the Green Paper on local government structure published yesterday records local government's increased responsibility for community and child care. It contains no proposals to alter local government involvement in those responsibilities.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, will my noble friend say when the community care Act is likely to be implemented?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I assume that my noble friend is referring to the community care
264
elements of the 1990 Act. The first phase of the implementation took place on 1st April this year when local authorities introduced a complaints procedure and inspection units. That phase has already been completed. From April 1991 we have also had available the mental illness specific grant and the specific grant for drug and alcohol services. Development work is continuing on all fronts. By 1st April 1992 the community care plans will be in place. The final phasing-in of the transfer of resources will take place on 1st April 1993.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that previously it has been the practice of some local authorities to say that they will do many things providing that the Government find the money or do not stop them from doing so because of cutbacks. Will the Minister assure the House that no such excuse can be put forward in respect of community care?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, from 1978–79 to-date there has been an increase in personal social services expenditure of up to 53 per cent. in real terms. Therefore local authorities are moving in the right direction. The Government remain committed to providing adequate resources for community care plans taking into account demographic pressure and new responsibilities within the framework of the phased-in timetable. Allowance has been made for the implementation of phase one within the context of the local authority settlement for this year. The cost of implementing phases two and three will be considered in the appropriate financial years.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the past decade a new problem has arisen in community care? It relates to old people who are left alone because their children have moved away to other parts of the country or the world. Magnificent work is being done for them by home-helps. However, I understand that the pressure now put on home-helps is becoming heavy. Old people rely on them. Therefore can the department consider what help it can give?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are examining in considerable detail the whole range of services required as a result of the demographic pressures to which I have referred. We remain committed to providing adequate resources.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the decision to pay£140 to reduce the headline poll tax charge but to postpone the bulk of the community care provisions for two years for the sake of£15 per head per year shows the low priority that the Government are now giving to community care? Does the Minister appreciate that the uncertainty about the future of local government created as a result of yesterday's statement and by the two years' postponement, leads to uncertainty in local authorities, in voluntary organisations which are expected to implement the community care provisions, and in the needy people?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government's proposals for the phasing-in of community care show great consideration for the needs in that area and for

265
the importance of them to be effectively implemented. The change in funding referred to by the noble Lord should have no effect. The fact that standard spending assessments will continue means that discussions with local authorities about the way in which resources will be transferred from the Department of Social Security will be easier as a result. I do not accept the statement that there is any uncertainty.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that if local authorities allocate their spending priorities sensibly, operate efficiently and do not waste their money on irrelevant items, they should have plenty to spare for the important items that we all wish to see?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I happily agree with my noble friend. In addition to the increased spending on personal social services, the department is issuing guidance to health authorities in the implementation of community care. It will also produce practice material on contracting and purchasing and other materials to aid and encourage them.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the answer she gave to my noble friend Lord Mellish was misleading? The figures that she quoted have nothing to do with community care, but they show the gradual inflation increases in social security department spending. The question was about the new responsibility now being placed on local authorities. Are the Government prepared to find new money for local authorities so that they can adequately carry out that function?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already answered the noble Lord's question by saying that the new local authority settlements allow for the phasing-in and implementation of the community care plans.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Minister take more seriously the point made by my noble friend Lord Molloy? I know of a number of old people who have had visits from home-helps reduced from weekly to fortnightly. As home-helps often shop for old people, that reduction causes great hardship. Will the Minister consider that specific matter, because the situation exists everywhere in the country?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, nothing in my reply suggested that we are not considering that specific matter.

Alleged War Criminals
2.58 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
What decisions were taken by the Cabinet and by departmental Ministers in the years 1945 to 1948 inclusive relating to suspected war criminals who might be residing in the United Kingdom.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to raise an objection to the Question before it is answered. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, knows that next Tuesday there will be an extensive
266
debate on this subject. I fear that to ask such a Question at this time could lead our discussions to degenerate into a debate about what will then be discussed. I question whether there is a procedure whereby a noble Lord may put forward an objection when another noble Lord begs leave to ask a Question. I may be wrong and shall be happy to listen to advice and guidance from the Front Bench.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I have no reason to believe that the Question is in any way out of order. I do not believe that it would be appropriate in those circumstances to take any action which would prevent the noble Lord from asking his Question and my noble friend from replying.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we are not aware that any consideration was given at that time to the possibility of action against alleged war criminals who might have been resident in the United Kingdom. There was no reason to believe that war criminals had come to this country, and the question therefore did not arise.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in 1945 the Cabinet discussed how best to handle the problem of suspects discovered in this country? Is he aware that parliamentary Questions were asked and answered on that subject? Is he aware that Hansard records that on 1st December 1947 I, as a junior Minister, answered a Question about a suspect who had been arrested in this country and that that case was considered also by the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Chancellor? In that case, how can Ministers maintain that those responsible were unaware of the possibility of war criminals being in this country? Why do Ministers try to maintain that that unawareness was the reason that we did not legislate to try such people in this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have had an opportunity to see the record of the Cabinet decision to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, refers. A proposal was being discussed to surrender from the British zone in Germany to the United States' authorities five German industrialists whom the Americans wished to put on trial in the United States'zone. The papers also recorded the Cabinet's view that we should:
"in general …advocate a policy of discontinuing trials for war crimes".
The discussion was about trials in continental Europe. It was not thought that any war criminals could have entered this country. Therefore, the Cabinet could not have been considering war crimes trials here. That is my information. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was an involved and interested party at that time. However, the decision to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred was a Cabinet decision. At that time it was not considered that any war criminals were in this country.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while there was no evidence at that time that war criminals were in this country, will my noble friend confirm that thousands of refugees were admitted here from the Baltic States, Poland and the Soviet Union with very little

267
screening? Will he also confirm that in 1948 no law existed in this country under which proceedings could have been started?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The immediate post-war years saw a large influx of immigrants from Europe to Britain from a wide variety of sources. There were displaced persons who were recruited to combat the chronic labour shortage in Britain, others were members of the Polish armed forces who did not wish to return to live under a Communist regime and others were former prisoners of war who were allowed to stay here. The situation in Europe at that time was fairly chaotic. There was a screening process. However, although that was considered to be effective, it has now been shown that that screening process may not have been so effective.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm as a result of his inquiries that at the time nobody believed that there were war criminals in the United Kingdom—people guilty of war crimes? Secondly, is there any evidence at all that either the government during the war or the Labour Government of 1945–50 ever dreamt of making the United Kingdom a safe haven for Nazi war criminals?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, is quite correct. At that time it was not thought that there were any war criminals within the United Kingdom. If there were such criminals, it was certainly not considered that the United Kingdom should be a safe haven for them.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I ask this question out of ignorance and not from any desire to catch the noble Lord out. The Minister said that he has seen the Cabinet papers relating to this issue. Are they public? It is outside the 30-year rule. Can those papers be consulted in the Public Records Office or are they hidden?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as far as I know I am not privy to private documents of the Cabinet. Thirty years have elapsed and as far as I know the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is entitled—as I am—to look at those papers.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is it possible to place a copy of those Cabinet papers in the Library before 30th April?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall look into that. I am not aware that there are any constraints. If there are, I shall write to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. If there are not, I shall place a copy of the papers in the Library.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am relying not on my memory or on my opinion but on the records at the time? Is he aware that the Cabinet meeting to which he refers concerned itself with the deportation of suspected war criminals held in this country? What about the other records to which I have made reference and other records which I hope to be able to explain to the House next week?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only give the same answer that I gave previously. The records which the noble Lord mentioned referred to a policy of discontinuing trials for war crimes. That discussion was about trials in continental Europe. I deferred to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, because he was there at the time and although he was not in the Cabinet, he was a distinguished Minister at the Foreign Office and may know more about it than I do. However, at that time it was not considered that war criminals were in this country. Therefore, the decision which the Cabinet reached related to war criminals in Europe.

Alleged War Criminals: Trials
3.7 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the British Government recommended to Commonwealth Governments in 1948 that no fresh trials of suspected war criminals should be started after 31st August of that year; and whether that recommendation was observed by all Commonwealth Governments, including the British.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Governments of Australia, Canada, Ceylon, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and South Africa were consulted in July 1948 about a British recommendation that in general no new war crimes trials should be started in British military courts in Germany. Available records suggest that the governments concerned concurred with this proposal. An exception was made by the British Government in the case of Field Marshal von Manstein and those involved in the Stalag Luft III murders.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the government decision to end trials and to wind up the process of retribution applied to all suspects in British and British-controlled territories? Therefore, is he aware that the War Crimes Bill is a direct reversal of the government decision in 1948?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it identified the British belief that war crimes trials in continental Europe should come to an end. I can only give to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, the indication which I gave as regards the last Question; namely, that at that time there was no possibility of war criminals being in this country. It was believed that there were no war criminals here. That was the decision taken then. We are talking about some 45 years ago. Even if that were proven to be wrong, there is no particular reason why, later on, a government should not take a different decision from that taken in 1948.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, far from bringing the war crimes trials to an end, did not the United Kingdom Government in 1948 hand over the process in the British zone of Germany to the new emerging West German Government who have since then from time to time brought war criminals to trial?
As regards retribution, that applied to the Nuremberg quadripartite tribunal where for three

269
years the leading Nazis and accomplices of Hitler—those who had not committed suicide—were tried. By that time, the trials had come to an end.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may well be so. I believe there was general agreement at that time—the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, may remember it—that there had been sufficient prosecutions of those who were involved in war crimes in Germany. It was decided that that should come to an end and on that point there is no disagreement. However, the premise upon which the noble Lord asks the Question is slightly different. At that time it was not anticipated that war criminals in this country would be involved.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm my own recollection, that the trials under the Nuremberg strategy were not, as my noble friend indicated, confined to the leading Nazis but went a great way down the line?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to become involved in an argument between two of my noble friends, one of whom is noble and learned. However, I should like to investigate to ascertain who is right and, even more interestingly, who is wrong.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I too would be nervous, to cross swords with the noble and learned former Lord Chancellor. However, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was no more a member of the Cabinet than I was. If my memory is correct—I know that old men forget—he was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. That puts the matter in perspective. Is it not the case that the Commonwealth agreed with the prosecutions in Germany, but that since then the Commonwealth has had prosecutions both in Australia and Canada on this subject?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Viscount says quite rightly that old men forget. I find that sometimes young men find it difficult to remember. The noble Viscount is correct in that there were four cases investigated in Canada. In Australia, one case was begun under their legislation but the trial was suspended due to the accused's ill health.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is it not the case that in regard to the case to which my noble friend referred—that of Field Marshal von Manstein—many people, including the late Lord Paget and many other peers in this House, were later not convinced that his conviction brought further justice to the world?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that must be a matter for individual choice and conscience.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that between 1947 and 1948 I was working in the Foreign Office on European affairs and had the agreeable duty of briefing and advising the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary? Indeed, because the other place was meeting in this Chamber, I was in the box in this
270
House when the noble Lord was on the Front Bench. Is the Minister aware that my memory appears to be serving me rather better than the noble Lord's?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is dangerous territory for a Minister to enter. Either the advice of my noble friend Lord Campbell was so bad that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, did not take it, or his advice was so good that the consideration of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was not up to the advice that he was given. It is clearly not proper for me to comment any further.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me but we have an absolute time limit for Questions of 30 minutes. It is right that I now make the business statement.
With the leave of the House I should like to say a word about this afternoon's debates standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, this means that in the case of the three-hour debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes. In the two-hour debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of eight minutes.

Unemployment
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to call attention to the continued growth in unemployment, particularly in regions which hitherto have been relatively prosperous; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I welcome the opportunity to open the debate this afternoon on the subject of unemployment although no one can welcome the fact that the choice of subject is so timely and so apposite.
As everyone knows, the employment situation is far from good, and there are no signs of improvement. As the Minister confirmed in answer to Questions in this House last Thursday, there are now over 2 million people unemployed. In March unemployment in Britain rose by 112,900; that is the biggest monthly increase since current records began. There are prognostications that the figure will rise to 3 million over the next 12 months.
One feature of the new growth in unemployment to which the terms of the Motion refer is that it is now happening in areas which have hitherto been relatively prosperous; for example, in the South East. There is also a growth in unemployment in the North West and the Midlands. While we continue to lose jobs in manufacturing, which has been a feature of the past decade, we are now losing jobs in financial services, in banking, in the service industries generally and in public services such as local government. Today the

271
Evening Standard indicates that London is being ravaged by the recession. In the South West heavy redundancies threaten the aerospace industry.
We all welcome the peace dividend, but the fact remains that unless there is diversification unemployment will threaten many thousands of highly trained people working in the defence industries. Employment in those industries, already reduced from 765,000 in 1980 to 618,000 in 1990 is expected further to reduce to around 495,000 by 1995. Where is the Government initiative to transform those industries and utilise the highly trained personnel through a diversification programme? All that is happening is that they are likely to be added to the figures of those already without employment. We are seeing real life situations such as that in Vickers in Barrow, where my own union tells me that between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs are to be lost. That is an absolute catastrophe for that town.
As we all know, unemployment is always a personal disaster. It brings in its train an immediate lowering of living standards. If it continues it results in real poverty, not only for the individual, but also for the family and dependants. It is a threat to health. It plays a role in marriage break-up. It undermines the individual's sense of self-worth and respect. In a society in which we largely define each other by what we do, not to have an occupation and to be on benefit is seen as indicative of a lack of worth. That is particularly true in the case of the long-term unemployed, many of whom are older people who may have had skills which are no longer recognised as relevant. Some industries have been particularly hard hit.
I wonder how many noble Lords saw a recent television programme about, of all places, Bournemouth. It now faces unprecedentedly high levels of unemployment. A former site manager working in construction was interviewed. He had been in three jobs in less than two years. Each time the company for which he had been working had closed down. The construction industry has been particularly badly hit. I am told by the Federation of Master Builders that the greatest reduction in employment in the industry is 10.7 per cent. in London. However, it says that a quarter of all firms are making redundancies. The federation says that to achieve any relief for the industry further reductions in interest rates are urgently needed.
Another problem which undoubtedly arises when there is widespread unemployment is that of people who cannot meet mortgage repayments. That has scarcely been addressed by the small reduction in building society rates that we have seen recently. People were encouraged by the Government to embark on house purchase. There have been few homes to rent at reasonable cost; local authority programmes have been cut back and, whether people like it or not, they have been forced on to the housing market. As the former Prime Minister said, it may very well be true that house purchase is a good, long-term investment. But that is of very little help to
272
someone with a young family to support and who is now facing an immediate drop in living standards and income.
What is the Government's response to all this? I credit the Government with caring about unemployment since it would be electoral suicide to give the impression that they were indifferent to it or that it was in any way part of a deliberate policy. Indeed, I understand that Conservative constituencies now have rising levels of redundancies. However, at the beginning of the decade there was a great deal of talk, notably from the previous Prime Minister, about the need to shake out surplus labour to produce a leaner, trimmer and fitter industry more able to compete internationally.
We have had the shake out, as many unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, can testify. But we are apparently no more competitive than before—if anything, rather less—since we now have an enormous balance of payment deficit. Furthermore, manufacturing output is down sharply. In the three months to February it fell by 2.1 per cent. compared with the previous quarter, and it was down 4.6 per cent. against a year ago. One line of approach adopted by the Government has been to support total deregulation. We have seen a series of legislative moves in the past decade designed to remove whatever employee protection existed previously. The employment legislation has been based on the assumption that the employee needed protection from his or her union rather than from exploitive employers. So we have seen the repeal of the fair wages resolution, and sections of the employment protection legislation allowing for arbitration and providing machinery for union recognition have been expunged. The powers of wages' councils have been eroded. There was some talk of doing away with them altogether. It is now much more difficult to take cases to industrial tribunals.
The Government have consistently opposed the idea of a social dimension and continue to oppose the European social charter. One of the reasons for their opposition is that it would allegedly inhibit job creation. But we now have what must be the most deregulated and unprotected labour market in Western Europe and yet we have growing unemployment. It is surely the case that unemployment arises from general economic factors and has little to do with regulations about employee protection.
The Government have also pointed to high wages as a reason for unemployment. I am sure that the Minister will repeat that this afternoon. Plainly that cannot be so because in the United Kingdom it is acknowledged that we actually have a low wage, low productivity economy. Certain sections of the workforce—that is to say, those possessing certain important and needed skills—are sometimes in a position to make high wage demands and sometimes get them satisfied. Presumably that also applies to the senior directors who have been awarding themselves 22.7 per cent. salary increases. But a very large part of our workforce works for low wages. Indeed, the Government's social policies actually subsidise low

273
wages through the provision of benefits like family credit. Almost 1 million people rely on means-tested benefits to top up low wages.
No doubt the Minister will attempt to scoff, as he has done previously, at the Labour Party's commitment to minimum wage legislation. Yet we do have a form of minimum wage here already—but instead of employers paying for it, public funds do so via the social security system—and at low levels. On the social security side, it has been government policy to encourage people to take up low-paid employment rather than to remain on benefit. Yet despite all that we still have growing unemployment.
There is a cost involved in keeping people unemployed rather than in productive employment. According to figures that I have been provided with, it costs£8,082 per year to keep one person unemployed. That includes the cost of benefits, tax revenue foregone, and so on. Thus the cost to the Exchequer, if we have 2 million people unemployed for a year, is£16 billion; and if we have the projected 3 million unemployed, the cost will be£24 billion. That is a very substantial sum indeed.
Although this is not a debate specifically about training, one can hardly discuss unemployment without referring to it. Everyone appears to agree, including the Government, that training ought to have priority. Conventional wisdom is that one of the reasons why we are now in recession is that over the years we have neglected training, yet, compared with our competitors, we are spending less on it. The Government are presiding over cuts in the training budget for 1991–92 even after the recent decision to restore£120 million to employment training. Committed people—that is to say, people who give up time to serve on TECs—are becoming increasingly frustrated about the lack, as they see it, of adequate resources.
I still believe that, as regards training, the Government's commitment to the employer-led voluntary approach is not the right one. I still regret the demise of the Engineering Industry Training Board as a statutory body although I naturally hope that the successor body will be able to accomplish the heavy task laid on it. We have to think about economic policy when considering unemployment, particularly at its present levels. I believe that the present Government's record is one of failure. We have failed over the years to give sufficient support to manufacturing industry. Our service industries ride on top of our ability to manufacture and will themselves be adversely affected once that ability is drastically impaired.
The Government have not developed a long-term policy for industry. Investment in manufacturing is no higher now than it was 11 years ago. We have lost more manufacturing output than our European neighbours. Yet all this time we have had a bonus of revenue from North Sea oil. These are revenues that should have gone to upgrading manufacturing and providing training and research capabilities.
The Motion refers to the impact of unemployment in regions formerly regarded as relatively prosperous. I have already made some reference to these—that is
274
to say, to the South East and the South West, London, and the formerly prosperous areas of the Midlands, and to industries such as the service industries where employment is now threatened. That all serves to underline the fact that we are now deeper into recession. That has wider implications than the recession that occurred in the early 1980s. It is beginning to affect all areas and most occupations.
There is a need for short-term measures to deal with the present situation. Smaller firms facing the daunting prospect of possible closure urgently need help. We need temporary employment programmes to assist the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed. We must put more money into training. In particular, we need to accept as a society that full employment is not a hopeless, unattainable and out-of-date goal. Labour and Conservative governments after the war accepted full employment as a social objective and as a priority of social policy. Policies were developed with that in view. That generation had had enough of unemployment and recession in the 1930s and was determined that there should be no return to those days. We may be getting perilously close to a return to them.
Yet it does not have to be so. There is no reason why full employment should not once again be regarded as a legitimate social objective, remembering that it costs society heavily to maintain people in enforced idleness as well as creating a social blight and social problems of which we are all too well aware. Unemployment is an avoidable catastrophe. Given the political will it can be overcome. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Jeffreys: My Lords, it falls not to me to enter into a soliloquy into the causes of employment or, should I say, the lack of it. There are many here better versed than I in this subject. Anyway, I rather suspect that this may be too contentious a subject for a maiden speaker in your Lordships' House. Unemployment has become an established feature of our society. It has been here for many years and, sadly, it may well be here for many years to come. I prefer the saying, when talking about unemployment, that perhaps,
"from all evil some good doth come".
In that regard I specifically wish to refer to the very good work being done at the moment by the employment services and, more particularly, the work being done in the job club programme and by the TECs—the Training and Enterprise Councils. Before doing so I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the effects on the family of being out of work. Apart from the obvious loss of income and all that that entails there is the loss of self-esteem, the loss of morale and the general lack of motivation that an individual placed in that situation may feel. It is in that light that I shall discuss further the job club programme.
The job club programme was set up in 1984 after a very successful period of work in the United States. It is worth reflecting that during a recession for many people it may be the first time they have been unemployed, while for others it may be 20 years since

275
they left school. It is for those people that the job club programme was set up. The programme is specifically involved in the practicalities of the situation; how to look for work and where to look for work and bettering the self-projection of the individual concerned, both in interview situations and in the writing of letters for job applications. The programme helps to teach self-discipline to the individual both in his search for employment and in the management of his personal financial responsibilities when his income has ceased. Much credit for this work must go to the staff employed in the programmes. They live in the realms of where anything is possible. Just because someone is unemployed does not necessarily mean that he is unemployable.
Perhaps I may give an illustration. Nationally, in the year 1990–91 140,000 people entered the job club programme. Of those, 65,000 were employed as a direct result of the programme and a further 21,000 were indirectly employed shortly after leaving the programme. That represents a 61 per cent. success rate and at a time when unemployment trends are rising. That is a record which we can all be very proud of. In my own area of Nottingham, and more specifically in Nottingham itself, there are are 22 job club programmes which can boast a 74 per cent. return to work. Better still, there was an 86 per cent. return to work on the one existing management job programme. I suspect that there are many reasons for that success, but I should like to illustrate just one. It is the boldness and motivation to go and seek out the 50 per cent. of jobs which are never advertised, be it in the national press or the job centres.
Perhaps I may make a small observation about being unemployed. Over the years being unemployed in this country has been almost a dirty word. People who have been unemployed have been spoken about in hushed tones. In the worst instances it has been suggested that people have been sponging off the state, that they do nothing and make no attempt to find work. There has been a stigma about drawing unemployment benefit. Perhaps more damning than all, statistically industry has been far less likely to employ someone who has been six months or more out of work than someone who has been unemployed for only a short time.
All those things could not be less true. I venture to say that unemployed men or women are likely to be far more motivated to do a good job for any company willing to employ them. The experience of being unemployed is so unpleasant that they can have no other choice than to follow this course. However, times are changing. Significantly, more funds have recently been introduced and industry is now looking to the job clubs as a source of motivated labour.
In speaking of the job clubs it is right to draw attention to the linkage that exists between them and the Training and Enterprise Councils. It has been recognised, after a long period, that there is a need within industry, and within the country as a whole, for a labour force having better qualifications and skills: more specifically, having skills that are actually required and not necessarily those skills that are
276
presumed to be required just because we have always had them. In the same way that there is a linkage between unemployment and training so there should be one between government and industry. Government alone cannot be expected to pick up the tab for funding training throughout the country. It should be a joint effort between industry and government. In addition, on the government's part it is important to illustrate to industry as a whole the availability of skilled labour and unskilled labour and, from industry's point of view, to indicate the skills required from the training agencies.
Great challenges face us in the next few years; not only from Europe, where competition is fierce, but obviously from the rest of the world. I should like to believe that the illness has been diagnosed, the surgeon has operated and recovery is underway. If we can get the training right then the unemployment problem will begin to sort itself out and, who knows, perhaps even the job clubs will become redundant. Great things have been done. Let us help to keep up the momentum.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, it falls to me on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, on his maiden speech. He has spoken with sympathy of the effect of unemployment on the individual and with conviction about some of the practical steps that are being taken to alleviate unemployment. We hope that, having chosen this crucial subject of unemployment on which to address us for the first time, the noble Lord will speak to us again on many future occasions. I hope I may now be allowed to take another minute for my speech if that should be needed.
In preparing for this debate I have looked back to the report published in 1982 of your Lordships' Select Committee on Unemployment, of which I was privileged to be a member under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Seear. I have been struck by the way in which many of the long term remedies for unemployment that were then put forward still appear valid. First, the committee did not shirk the vital issue of how this country could achieve and maintain realistic pay levels if we are to regain competitiveness. It considered that the route lay in the willingness of the workforce to relate earnings to added value and the capacity of managements to maximise that value. We hoped that understanding of these facts would lead to realistic pay settlements. The committee also expressed the view that governments would find it necessary to prevent inflationary settlements by introducing what we called flexible and comprehensive incomes policies of indefinite duration. Our fear was that otherwise the impact of pay on inflation and competitiveness would result in indefinite prolongation of unemployment in the hope that those without work would, in the end, price themselves into jobs.
Today the economic background is different in a number of respects. In particular, entry into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism is bound eventually to force our rate of inflation more closely into line with the level of our competitors. But the

277
transition could well be painful, involving increases in unemployment that we must strive hard to avoid. To that end there is in my view a strong case for the Government to enter into discussions with representatives of employers and trade unions aimed at obtaining wide understanding and, if possible, acceptance of the overall increase in incomes which at periodic intervals the country can afford.
In our best run companies managements profit from consulting employees and their representatives before taking decisions affecting those employees' interests. In that way they find it easier to gain agreement and commitment to the decisions which, ultimately, only management can take. I do not see why government—any government—should shrink from doing the same, particularly when decisions affecting the relationship between pay, prices, investment and employment are taken not only by government but also by employers and trade unions.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not advocating a return to discredited notions of corporatism and statutory incomes policies. I am suggesting that as a matter of good management—in this case of the national economy—there should as far as possible be consultation with representatives of the relevant interests before decisions are taken. In my view it is only on the basis of consent that in a democracy like ours the often disagreeable policies required to achieve and sustain economic recovery and alleviate unemployment can be made to stick.
Another proposal, much canvassed lately, is that pay bargaining should be co-ordinated in such a way that negotiations in both public and private sectors take place within a set period. I recall this idea being put forward by Sir John Methven, when he was director-general of the CBI in the days of the last Labour Government, as a means of eliminating leapfrogging claims which even then were proving so damaging to our competitiveness. I once had the good fortune to work with John Methven and always thought: he had ideas ahead of his time. No doubt that was why he failed at that time to carry with him the general body of employers, never mind trade unions. I see r o reason why this concept should not be included as one of the items on the agenda for the process of consultation that I have been advocating. But that, too, can only come to fruition with the consent of employers and trade unions; and I include government as an employer.
Incidentally—here I must disagree sharply with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner—it would in my view be madness to contemplate the introduction of a statutory minimum wage. I say that because of the inflationary consequences that would inevitably ensue from the need to preserve skills differentials.
In its 1982 report the Select Committee recommended that education or training should be the norm for 16 and 17 year-olds; that at that age young people who left school should be regarded as trainees and that for those who went straight into work on leaving school at 16 employers should be obliged to offer release far further education or on-the-job training for a minim um of 20 per cent. of their working time. I believe that those are sound principles which should
278
apply today and, indeed, be extended. It is in fact the policy of my party that there should be a statutory requirement for employers to train all their 16 to 18 year-olds for an average of at least two days a week. Employers could choose whether the training should be "in house" or on a recognised course and it could be done either in blocks of several weeks at a time or on two days every week.
That would, of course, involve the Government in additional expenditure in providing for the expansion of tertiary and technical colleges to deal with the increased demand for courses resulting from such a requirement. But on these Benches we have been for years advocating that expenditure on education and trainin—and for that matter on transport and the infrastructure—should be regarded as an essential investment for the future. Indeed, I believe we are alone in having said that we are prepared if necessary to increase taxation in order to finance additional expenditure on education.
All that is for the long term. More immediately, the predicted growth in unemployment is such that there is need in my view for the Government to reintroduce special measures in the form of temporary work schemes on the lines of the old community programme to alleviate the plight particularly of young people and the long-term unemployed. In 1982 the Select Committee on Unemployment advocated that what was then called the community enterprise programme should be expanded to accommodate 100,000 places annually. We said that the aim should be to offer a place to every 18 to 24 year-old who had been unemployed for six months and that remaining places should be made available to the long-term unemployed aged 25 and over. At the time of the committee's report just over 3 million were registered as unemployed and actively seeking work. We said then that unemployment of that proportion required immediate as well as long-term policy reaction. Allowing for the changes which have occurred since that time in compiling unemployment statistics, it looks as though we shall soon find ourselves in a very similar position.
I have put this question to the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, on two or three occasions recently. His reply has been to the effect that the Government already have a large training programme for those who have been out of work for some time and for young people. He has also said that training is not always the right answer and has referred to what is being done through extra places at job clubs to deal with the problem. However, I am not talking of existing training schemes and job clubs. I understand that the Department of Employment has been for some time considering the introduction of additional measures to lessen the increasingly severe effects of unemployment. I do hope that when the noble Viscount replies to the debate he will on this occasion be able to respond positively to my question.
That brings me to the one case of a regional nature to which I wish to refer. I live in mid-Cheshire, where there is a training centre catering particularly for those with special needs; for example, to improve literacy and numeracy and for rehabilitation following a

279
period in prison. To my personal knowledge that centre has, during the past five years, performed admirably for the local community in providing training and obtaining employment for both young people and adults. The manager has now been told that his employment training contract will be terminated next month and will not be renewed for the ensuing 12 months. Already there have been redundancies among the trainers. That is simply because of a government-induced cut in the centre's budget which will have the effect of limiting adult training to those best able to benefit from it in securing qualifications and jobs. This comes at a time when, as your Lordships will know, government policy is said to be to reduce the prison population by expanding community punishments. What a time at which to reduce job training in the community for ex-offenders!
That is not something peculiar to mid-Cheshire. We read that according to an internal report by G10—the group of chairmen of training and enterprise councils who act as a mouthpiece for TECs with the Government—rising unemployment is causing TEC boards generally to doubt whether they can satisfy government guarantees of training to the unemployed.
I want to end on this note, for ultimately in my view it boils down to a question of how society determines its values. I have always felt that inflation must be regarded as Public Enemy No. 1. But the work ethic is still sufficiently strong within me to make me feel that at the same time as we battle against inflation we must somehow do more to provide opportunities for training and employment to those who are at the very bottom of the pile.
3.49 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this debate on unemployment with particular reference to areas of relative prosperity. I should like also to add my personal congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, on his maiden speech in which he kept before us with such effect the human realities of unemployment.
I come from a part of the country which until recently has not experienced the scourge of unemployment. However, in recent months we have begun to feel its lash. It cannot be claimed that unemployment in Surrey is as serious, as persistent or as socially damaging as it is in other parts of the country. Although unemployment is growing faster in the South East than in any other region, the numbers in absolute terms are still comparatively small. Therefore, there is little cumulative effect on the local economy. Nonetheless, the individual human misery of the unemployed is heavy.
It is possible that unemployment, at any rate in the South East, may prove to be only a passing phenomenon; nonetheless, where it hits, it hits hard. People in the South East are that much more likely to have high mortgages, and unemployment very often therefore means rapid loss of a job and of a home. Some people in the repossession sections of the building societies in our region are now having to
280
work on Saturday mornings in order to keep pace with the repossessions. Moreover, the loss of a home as well as a job can do lasting damage to family relationships: young people can become the innocent victims of economic forces and they can find their whole pattern of life rapidly dislocated. In our determination to master inflation—proper though that is—I wonder whether we are always sensitive to the human and social damage caused by economic policies.
One of the particular human and social problems which we experience in the leafy parts of the South East is that here, perhaps more than anywhere else in the country, the local culture is geared towards success and, in large measure, that is measured in terms of economic success. Therefore, when people fail—as it appears to them—through being declared redundant or, for that matter, through other ways, it is so alien to the whole local culture in which they are being nurtured that they often try to conceal their anxiety. They find it much more difficult to seek the help and assistance which they urgently need at that stage. There is nothing more tragic than to find someone who is apparently successful being declared redundant and trying to conceal that fact from his friends and associates, and even from his own family. That is tragedy indeed. It is the by-product not just of unemployment, but of unemployment and a culture which has been too readily encouraged to think that life is to be assessed in terms of economic success.
Young people are at risk not just because their parents' homes may be repossessed, but because there is no employment for the young within easy reach of home. To start one's working life with no work can be a spur to determination and enterprise. But equally it can be the beginning of disillusionment with society and, in particular, with the older generation who have produced such circumstances.
The Surrey Career Service reports that there has been a 60 per cent. drop this year in job vacancies. It is having to advise young people to consider other alternatives. Those alternatives—for example, youth training and further education—are good in themselves; but embarking on them for negative reasons, because there is no work alternative, is not the most promising approach.
Our hope in the South East is that unemployment will be only a passing phenomenon. For that, if it proves to be the case, we shall be grateful. But there are dangers: it could delude those of us who live in the South East in the more secure part of the country to think that, once our ills are cured, the nation as a whole is through the worst of unemployment. However, that will probably not be the case. As a whole nation, we need to be aware of the human and social damage which can be caused by continuing high unemployment across the country.
As has been said, those who are particularly vulnerable are the long-term unemployed. Moreover, despite the fact that our society has in recent years been taking far more seriously the problems of the disabled and the handicapped and indeed those of the ethnic minorities, it is precisely those people, of whose

281
needs we are increasingly aware, who are likely to be among the first to suffer during any period of unemployment.
Therefore, alongside our policies of trying to overcome inflation, I hope that we shall be able to put equal energy and resources, and increasing energy and resources, into training people in computer and numeracy skills so they can take up employment as and w -ten it becomes available to them. I appreciate that a great deal is now being done in this connection, but surely equipping people for the jobs that will probably become available is every bit as important as overcoming the scourge of inflation.
Finally, in speaking of unemployment we are talking not so much about a social and economic phenomenon, but about people. We are talking about people who feel discarded by society. It is that human reality that we must keep continually before us.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, on his maiden speech, I think I can say with conviction that most of us agreed with a great deal of what he said—although not quite everything.
Some people seem to have been surprised during the past week to discover that unemployment rose last month by the all-time record figure of 113,000 and that manufacturing output in the United Kingdom is now running at an annual rate of about 9 per cent. below what it was a year ago. Some of us were of course treated as alarmists when we warned the Government last autumn that if they continued with their extreme deflationary policies—that is, exceedingly high interest rates and a grossly overvalued exchange rate in the ERM—unemployment would rise by 50,000 or 70,000 a month during this year.
I am not being wise after the event. I warned the Government in the debate which took place in this Chamber on 14th November, after we joined the ERM at an overvalued rate, that on present policies unemployment may well reach 2.5 million before the end of..991. An overvalued exchange rate deflates the economy in three highly effective ways at the same time. First, it acts as a subsidy to imports, which are now increasing; secondly, it acts as a tax on exports; and, thirdly, by enforcing excessive interest rates, it deflates demand. In those circumstances, not surprisingly, output, employment and productivity (through short-time working) rapidly fall.
Our Own 45 years' post-war experience shows that the UK economy works best when the exchange rate is at an economic level. The recovery in 1987-88—which we were told was a miracle at the time—was in fact, as one can see now, clearly due to the fall in the sterling rate in 1985-86. Let us not forget that from 1945 to 1970, a period of 25 years, unemployment was held at 3 per cent. or less and real growth was achieved in almost every year. But now, according to the Government's Red Book, real GDP is forecast to fall by 2 per cent. this year and fixed investment by 9.75 per cent.
However, the most spectacular and forbidding example of the effects of an overvalued exchange rate
282
has come from East Germany during the past year. A year ago, the real value of the East German mark was really about one quarter of the West German mark. But Chancellor Kohl—as if the job of swapping communism for a free market in 12 months was not bad enough—chose for political reasons to set the exchange rate at one for one. As a result, almost every enterprise in East Germany was rendered uneconomic at the stroke of a pen, and East German unemployment now stands at about 30 per cent. of the total labour force and is expected by many to reach 50 per cent. by the end of the year.
It seems to me that the conclusive objection to deflating our economy—in addition to all the human evils about which we have just heard and all know about—to the present glaring under-use of productive capacity is the appalling economic waste that it involves. It means in plain English that we pay 2 million people to do nothing instead of paying them to do something useful.
If we allow for short-time working, as well as unemployment at present, we are now leaving idle at least 10 per cent. of our real productive capacity and probably much more. As our money GDP is now running at about£600 billion a year we are needlessly throwing away about£60 billion a year of real income. That£60 billion is nearly one-third of our total budget expenditure. It is equal to the whole of our social security and defence spending put together.
The truth is that in a modern economy, if the Government are too lazy or too cowardly to organise an incomes policy—the present Government and the City between them have made one impossible by the levels of the top salaries which we now see prevailing—we have to choose between high unemployment and a gradually rising prices level. If we are forced to make that choice, it is surely better to choose a gradually rising prices level, because that means higher real output of goods and services from the economy as a whole. Surely the chief aim of economic policy—in the medium or the long term—must be the highest output of goods and services which people want to consume, and not the maintenance of some particular value of money which, in any case, has been plucked out of the air.
One secondary aim must be to moderate the rise in the prices level, but the various objectives of economic policy—there are more than one—must surely be kept in balance and not all sacrificed to the one near obsession which the Government now call fighting inflation. Money, after all, is supposed to be a means of exchange, but if one pushes one's obsession with the value of money to the point where, as now, the national real output of wealth is falling, one is guilty of the absurdity of using what is supposed to be a means of exchange to prevent exchange taking place. We should be keeping 2 million people and their families out of the process of exchange because they would be unable to sell their services. Apart from the huge economic waste involved, it is a doubly unfair policy because it forces the excluded millions to accept, in real terms, a smaller share of a smaller total. Nor is it true that a rising prices level, as we are so

283
often told, hits the poorest families worst. There are extraordinarily few people nowadays living wholly on a small fixed income.
By joining the ERM at an untenable rate the Government have locked us into an economic cul-de-sac. Now admitted daily in the financial press—it is not all wrong—is what some of us predicted six months ago: the ERM prevents us from cutting interest rates. Even that instrument has been lost. We now have not so much a "one-club" Government as a "no-club" Government. Indeed, they dare not even call a general election.
The correct national policy, as I see it now—indeed almost the only practical policy left—is to bring down interest rates substantially now, and let the exchange rate find its natural economic level. If instead we persist yet again, as we did for years after 1925, when we faced a similar situation, in sacrificing everything to the fetish of fighting inflation at all costs, we shall weaken this country even further, at home and abroad, economically and politically, and end up as before by having to admit defeat.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will forgive me if I do not follow him in that economic debate. There are many points with which I hope I might have the opportunity to take issue with him on some future occasion. Perhaps I may join with other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Jeffreys on his most excellent maiden speech. It was sympathetic and lucid. I am sure that speeches of similar quality will be repeated on future occasions.
My noble friend referred, as have all noble Lords so far, to the problems of the unemployed and especially to the problems of the families of the unemployed. That is something about which we all feel passionately. The wife and children of an unemployed man often feel most bitter or most hurt by the impact of that unemployment upon him. It is not just a question of the financial consequences, although as I shall say in a moment they vary considerably from one type of unemployment to another; the majority of people, despite what is often said by some, want a job. They prefer to work. They do not want to live off the state.
I shall refer to the financial consequences of unemployment which fall into three categories. First, there are the low-paid who find that unemployment benefit does not fall far short of what they were earning in their jobs, and for whom the financial consequences are less severe. Secondly, there are the top executives who, by reason of service contracts and the like, sometimes seem to be well sheltered from the full impact of unemployment. Thirdly, there is the enormous band in between of the middle earners for whom the financial consequences can be acute and can lead to the loss of their homes and the selling of many things. Those are circumstances which call for considerable sympathy.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, some of the recent increases in unemployment have happened
284
in areas which in the past have been sheltered from it, and where the impact is perhaps more severe and felt more severely. The total number of unemployed—the figure used by the noble Baroness—is always a good stick with which to beat the Government, but I am not sure that it gets us very far. We can achieve 100 per cent. employment. It was secured in East Germany, Russia and some other countries, but at what price? If we want to ensure that everyone is employed, we must accept that the standard of living will be appalling—something which I am sure none of us wishes to have. It can be secured in a command economy at the risk of virtual starvation.
I should like to try to distinguish between the present rising unemployment and that which happened in previous years—the rising unemployment which occurred when the Government took office in 1979, 1980 and so on. At that time there was some slimming down of overmanning—to which the noble Baroness has referred—and the closure of plant and mines which had continued beyond their economic life. Some of that had happened previously. It happened during the early 1970s. It happened during the Labour Administration when the noble Lord, Lord Robens, closed more mines than any other government. That caused large blocks of unemployment in some areas. The unemployment was concentrated in small areas—the Consetts and Corbys and so on. Such areas called for special treatment— dedicated aid—and for financial incentives to persuade people to invest.
It has been a remarkable success story. If we take, for example, Consett, one steelworks was closed in 1980 causing 5,000 unemployed. Today there are over 200 separate smaller businesses employing between 3,000 and 4,000 people. That shows that the transition has been made, but it is slow and painful. It needs concentration of government effort, together with private enterprise, to bring it about.
Today's unemployment is a different variety, a different brand. It is not concentrated in small areas. It does not affect large numbers of people from one firm or organisation—steel, coal or whatever it is; it affects a few people from many separate firms. It covers a wide range of experience, not just great blocks of former miners and steelworkers but, as the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate said, people with a mixture of skills. They come particularly from the construction industry which has been hit at the moment more severely than most, but they also include clerical workers, retail staff, engineers and similar people. They are today's casualties of the world recession. They call for quite different treatment from that given when there were concentrated blocks of unemployment due to the closure of a basic industry.
We may ask how this came about. I shall not enter into the economic argument with the noble Lord, Lord Jay. We are in good company—or perhaps it is bad company—in that the total unemployment in this country remains below the average for the Community. However, that is of no comfort to the unemployed individuals; we all know that for them it is 100 per cent. The unemployed person of today can

285
receive tremendous encouragement from the schemes and opportunities available to him as regards training and help directed towards getting him back to work as soon as possible. I shall not go through the list; my noble friend will no doubt have much to say on the matter. There are a great many schemes into which money is quite rightly being directed.
Noble Lords have referred to their particular interest in one scheme and perhaps I may be permitted to do the same. It is a private scheme established by His Royal Highness, Prince Charles, and it is called the Prince's Youth Business Trust. It exists to make loans and bursaries to disadvantaged young people between the ages of 18 and 25 and the disabled up to the age of 30. In addition to providing the loans and bursaries, it does absolutely essential work in providing them with continuing advice and a shoulder on which to lean. They can obtain help from the trust which 1- as been and is a tremendous success. Private sources have provided over£40 million and the Government have matched that amount. It is carrying out great work in easing unemployment in that most important and yet most vulnerable section of our society. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, is not in his place. It is no doubt known to many noble Lords here that he has been a great help in his native Yorkshire.
Perhaps I may make one further comment. One reads of companies and businesses which have given substantial wage or salary increases and shortly afterwards the same company or business has made a number of people redundant in order to reduce its costs. These industries are not in permanent decline, they are just suffering the short-term downturn in the present world recession. Surely it would be more sensible if everyone in that business—in which include management just as much as the people on the shop floor—accepted a cut in pay during the short-term recession. In that way they would be able to remain in employment and the surplus that may be thrown up could be used in further training until the recession is over and they will once again be wanted.
Cuts in pay are becoming acceptable in some industries and I should like to see far more use made of them in a wider field. If that is not done, if wage increases are given across the board, then jobs will go. Noble Lords may have seen in yesterday'sFinancial Times figures of pay costs per unit of output amounting to an increase of 11 per cent. per annum here, whereas in Germany it is 2 per cent. per annum. If that pattern is continued, it is plain that jobs will go.
Finally, I have resisted the temptation to comment on the Labour Party's policy document Opportunity Britain. Suffice it to say that on this subject in my view it would inevitably lead to large increases in unemployment. It is not just on the point about minimum wages to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred; almost every part of it adds to the burden of unemployment. It is a sad compromise, a patchwork of slogans which would make matters much worse—not better. I shall say no more on it.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the recession which contributes to unemployment did not arrive from outer space. It is a direct result of economic mismanagement by this Tory Government. For the second time in a decade, the Conservative Government have thrown the economy into a deep and damaging recession.
What did we see on our television screens last night? The director-general of that bastion of Tory support, the Institute of Directors, said plainly for thousands to see that the Government were guilty of mismanagement of economic policies. That came from one of their friends. They do not need enemies when they have friends like that.
As my noble friend Lady Turner said, the previous recession was supposed to shed all our surplus fat. That was a nice way of saying to people "Well, you're no use any more because you are surplus to requirements". Now there is a repetition. We had a leaner force after the first recession, now we are going through the next exercise and are not only creating more unemployment but are closing down factories. They will never re-open. It is the same with pits, shipyards—you name it. I see that the noble Viscount smiles. He has not had much to do with unemployed people. Perhaps he does not meet them on the doorsteps or in the shopping areas. Perhaps he does not meet them in the job clubs about which the noble Lord spoke. He may not see the misery and sadness. To me, unemployment is no laughing matter.
I shall concentrate on the West Midlands. With the East Midlands, it is supposed to be the industrial manufacturing centre of the country. The West Midlands has nearly 200,000 jobless; company collapses are at record levels. Comments from the CBI, industry and chambers of commerce are that prospects for 1991 are bleak. In the West Midlands region we see that the key industries are in engineering. They are suffering from falling sales and worsening cash problems caused by high interest rates. Thus the demand for machinery, components and sales of motor vehicles is falling by the wayside.
The inactivity even spreads to the building industry. Builders blame the situation on their competitiveness in international markets being affected by the high value of sterling. At present if we take the ratio of unemployment to vacancies, in the West Midlands it is 25.4 against a figure for the rest of Great Britain of 15.8. Therefore in what is called the industrial heartland of the country there is a serious problem.
The last count held in April showed that nearly 200,000 people in the West Midlands were unemployed—that is 7.6 per cent. of the region's workforce. That represents the largest increase in 10 years and the largest percentage increase in the country. Many surveys are being conducted on unemployment. I have asked for details from chambers of commerce and other organisations which could supply me with information. I was quite surprised to learn that over the past 12 months manufacturing industry has constantly brought reports to the attention of interested organisations.

287
I had no difficulty in obtaining information on this subject. The Warwick Business School, the Wolverhampton Business School and Price Waterhouse have stated that we are in a deep and serious recession. Those bodies issue a quarterly report which contains all kinds of statistics which prove conclusively that manufacturing industry in the West Midlands is in a serious decline. One wonders whether the Government have these figures and whether they are sent statistics from chambers of commerce and from the CBI. Do the Government digest this information and ask themselves what they are going to do about the situation, or do they just sit twiddling their thumbs, wondering what to do about the poll tax to get more votes at the next election?
We must make sure that manufacturing output increases. Since the 1960s it has fallen at a rate of 9 per cent. a year. In the late 1950s nearly 8 million people were employed in manufacturing industry. That figure is now fewer than 5 million. That is a frightening illustration of the speed with which economic activity has declined and is still declining. As has been said, manufacturing is a dirty word to some people. However, it is manufacturing industry and the exports it produces that keep the economy of the country on an even keel.
The Government have a long way to go if they are to prove that they care about the unemployed. It is not a matter of talking about the problem but of doing something. I sympathise with the unemployed as much as anyone else. When I was first married I suffered from unemployment because my husband worked at what was then the Austin Motor Company. At that time one only ever worked for six months out of 12 in the car industry. Therefore I know what unemployment means, and I am sincerely sympathetic towards the people who are experiencing unemployment now.
During the past 12 years there have been 12 Secretaries of State at the Department of Trade and Industry. I do not believe that that shows much consistency on the Government's part as regards industrial policy. I would point out to the Government that defeating inflation will not on its own bring an end to the depressing cycle of events which have afflicted our economy over the past decade. Britain's economy must be nursed back to health. That will mean placing emphasis on policies which increase industrial investment, strengthen manufacturing, improve education and training, promote research and development and modernise the national infrastructure.
Last week an article appeared in the press concerning a Tory MP who was asked what he thought his party's chances were of winning the next election. The remarks were not attributed to any particular MP. The article stated:
"We have ditched Mrs. Thatcher and abolished the poll tax, but we are still presiding over a deep recession after 12 years of having the run of the country. The voters will have to decide whether we deserve another chance".
I believe that the grief and the despair of those who are unemployed will convince them of the need never to vote Tory again.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I wish to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, on his maiden speech. It is extraordinary that a Conservative Back-Bencher should choose to speak on unemployment of all subjects. It shows the noble Lord has courage. I hope that when the Minister comes to his usual platitudes about maiden speeches, he will remember that his party has gained a young Conservative who at least has the guts to talk about unemployment in a compassionate way. I congratulate the noble Lord.
I have great sympathy for the Minister who is to reply to the debate. He has a brief, but this is a rotten subject to speak on. I hope that he will not try to defend the figure of 2 million unemployed people as it is an impossibility. He will have to try to excuse the figure and also attempt to explain where the Government go from here in endeavouring to reduce it.
I do not speak tonight with authority; however, I have some knowledge of the construction and building industry. I have been associated with the industry in one form or another all my life. The Labour government gave me the privilege in 1964 of becoming the Minister responsible for public building and works. Therefore I became involved in the construction industry from a political point of view. When I say that I talk to reputable builders, I must make it abundantly clear that no one is more aware than I that the building industry contains many cowboys. About 50 per cent. of building firms are not worth talking about. However, the other 50 per cent of firms are reputable. They earn their living from building; they would almost die for the industry. Those people really matter. I have asked such firms how their businesses are progressing. I have been told that the present recession in the building industry is the worst that has occurred in the past 40 years. That is the view not just of individual firms but also of the highly respected president of the Building Employers' Confederation, Sir Clifford Chetwood, who cannot be accused of being a friend of this side of the House. Sir Clifford has said that the recession is the worst he has experienced in 40 years' association with the industry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, spoke with great authority of the situation in the West Midlands. I shall not attempt to match that authority, but I know a little about the situation in London. I wish to put on record the fact that 56 per cent. of all new architectural commissions in London during 1990 were abandoned or postponed. They were abandoned because the recession hit the building industry hard and the developers concerned decided to withdraw from their commissions. I doubt very much whether any other sector of public industry has been affected so badly. The situation in London may not represent the whole story, but it is the area that I know best. Over the country as a whole estimates of the decline in workload this year vary between 4 per cent. and 8 per cent. There is no guarantee that things will pick up in 1992, and even if they do it will be far too late for many firms.

289
In the first quarter of this year new orders were 21 per cent. down over the corresponding period of 1990. There is no sign of an upturn in any sector. The DTI is, I hope, an impartial body. It has reported that in the first half of 1990 insolvencies in the industry were 40 per cent. higher than in the first half of 1989. I wish to place on record, although I do not expect the Minister to reply to the point tonight, my belief that the last straw leading to the insolvencies was the decision of banks to pull in loans, thereby forcing people to pay capital they did not have. The result is that many famous names in this country have been made insolvent and the receivers have been called in. Many firms have been lost in that way.
Responsible estimates indicate that by the end of this year 100,000 jobs will have been lost. That figure could IA ell increase to 150,000—and I speak only of London. I know nothing of the problems of the Midlands or anywhere else although there must be heartache there as we have heard. The worst aspect is that many skilled and key people will be lost to the industry.
Many suggestions have been made as to what can be done Some concern fiscal and monetary measures. The recent Budget, which was awaited with great interest, did not help the industry at all. The increase in value added tax is a deterrent to carrying out repairs and improvements and the retention of stamp duty was a disaster. Therefore, the Budget to which people in the industry looked forward was a disaster from their point of view. They are not Labour people but ordinary employers in the building trade. The Government's present attitude in preventing local authorities—I am not talking about Lambeth and all that rubbish but about real local authorities—spending their own money on essential repairs is hurting the construction and building industry very badly. I beg the Government to look at the matter.
I was involved in Docklands. We have made some progress towards rebuilding what was a pretty run-dow.1 area, the worst of its kind in Europe. I remember going round the area with the chairman on the first day, 6th July 1981. I came back in tears. It was an area hat I knew very well. In 15 years the local authorities in charge had not even built a ruddy toilet. Going around Docklands I saw the dereliction. The Government gave us some inspiration, money and certain planning powers. However, I understand that Docklands has now run into the sand. It has run out of cash. I t has to be helped by the Government and by others.
In the few minutes that I have left, I should like to refer to the Government's own proposals. Government figures estimate that£23 million needs to be spent on public and private housing to bring it up to date. The Department of Health reckons that at least£1 billion has to be spent on hospital repairs and maintenance. The Department of Education says that£3 billion is required to restore schools to a certain standard. I beg the Minister to give a lead because we are talking about tomorrow.
I understand that the Government have been fighting against inflation in recent years. I understand that there is no worse enemy than inflation. However,
290
does the Minister understand what the Government have done? In fighting inflation they have created a recession, and that is a disaster. I say to him now, frankly and firmly, that he has to give the lead and open the door to schools, hospitals and housing. The Government have to find the money which is required, according to their own figures. I accept that it is a vast amount of money but if that were to happen it would provide an incentive for every other part of industry to act on the basis that the Government are now prepared to have a go and do something.
Surprising though it may seem, I am trying hard to make a non-party political speech. I beg the Minister to understand that I am in the House of Lords not at the request of the Labour Party—if the Labour Party had its way, I would not be here—but as an independent. However, I believe sincerely, as a realist, that the problems that face this country have been caused mainly by the Government and have been reopened by the Government. I beg the Minister to talk of tomorrow and say what is going to be done.
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, my noble friend is to be congratulated on the timeliness of her debate. The figure of 2 million unemployed announced last week is horrific. We are being asked to live with that total for far too long. Even yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to the Institute of Directors that unemployment would have to rise even further, even as we move out of recession. Those figures are based on the new method of counting, which means that it is a conservative estimate in both senses of the word.
As we have heard, fear of unemployment is no stranger to many parts of the United Kingdom, especially to the North-East of England and, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Fisher, to the West Midlands, to Scotland and to South Wales. Now it is even stalking the leafy streets of the prosperous South-East. In all those comfortable, true-blue Tory seats voters must be asking themselves why, after faithfully ensuring that their government would go on for 12 years, their reward should be the sack.
Despite the kind words of my noble friend Lady Turner it seems to me that the Government's utterances contain no hint of understanding of the human tragedies behind the statistics. My noble friend Lady Fisher made that point and I agree with her. Unemployment is treated as just another economic indicator and a tool to manipulate and intimidate the remaining workforce.
Many speakers have referred to the point that I shall now make. In a society in which human beings are primarily identified by what they do, millions—we are told 2 million but I suspect that the figure is nearer 4 million—are now suffering the indignity not only of material loss but also of the loss of their identity within their communities. The noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, spoke very movingly about the effect on the family. I congratulate him on his maiden speech, which was brave and all the more welcome since it came almost unsupported from the other side of the House. The frustration of the provider who can no

291
longer provide is equalled by the humiliation of the loss of status which comes with the loss of work and the desolation of an insecure future.
The effect on family life is devastating, even in the short term. However, when many months pass without a return to work, when household items wear out and cannot be replaced and when eventually even the home itself is threatened it is an unusual and fortunate family which can survive. Last year 45,000 homes were lost as a result of inability to maintain mortgage repayments and 250,000 more are presently at risk. I ask your Lordships to consider what that means in terms of the impact on the family and in sheer human suffering.
Unemployment is a cancer destroying our society. It gnaws at the very roots of all our lives and it endangers all those institutions which allow us to call ourselves civilised. It must be defeated before it defeats us. It should be a top priority for all of us. We have long since passed the stage of "shaking out overmanning" and making industries "leaner and more competitive". What is happening now is the result of recession and high interest rates. Many of the companies which are now going to the wall are efficient and competitive. There is nothing more they can do. They are the victims of circumstances over which they have little or no control.
The disappointment expressed yesterday at the Institute of Directors' convention revealed support for that point of view. The members obviously expect a more proactive approach from the Government. The most constructive way to tackle the majority of the 2 million admitted jobless is to offer training and retraining. That advice has come from all sides of the House today. The Government know that. Successive Ministers have paid lip service to the theory and various schemes are afoot.
Despite the continuing rise in the monthly figures and against the background of what the Chancellor said yesterday that employment will continue to rise, we see that this spring£245 million is to be cut from the training budget. Labour is determined to reverse that trend. If we are to survive, let alone prosper in Europe, we must address the task of bringing the skills of our people up to at least those of France and Germany. We in the Labour Party have published a detailed and realistic programme to achieve that. The physical, moral and economic health of the United Kingdom depends on getting our unemployed millions back to work: work which they can be proud to do and which will restore their self-respect. We are wasting our most precious asset—the skills of our people—and in so doing are undermining the basic human dignity which is essential to a healthy society. I support the Motion.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Minister has already heard repetition from a number of speeches. He will hear more from me and I have no doubt that he will hear further from subsequent speakers, but I hope he will take that in the right spirit. As has been said, these are absolutely unique
292
problems which the Government ought to be considering and on which they should be taking prompt action. When Members on this side of the House express concern about the number of unemployed, Ministers give the same replies which to many of us seem highly irrelevant. I wish to examine in some detail the content of some of those replies.
It has to be said at the outset that to have 2 million unemployed after 12 years of unassailable power must in itself be a complete condemnation of the Government's economic policies. It is interesting that at yesterday's meeting of the Institute of Directors the president made the same comment but in a slightly different context. The reasons or excuses which for some time the Government have been producing do not now apply, particularly over the past 12 months or so when the jobless total has significantly increased. I give some examples. For a long time the Government have been telling the country that the militancy and power of the trade unions has been the cause of the trouble. One of the great boasts of the Government has been that they have curbed that power. That being the case, the unions cannot have been responsible (if they ever were) for the problems that have given rise to 2 million unemployed. It is also interesting that the Government are now blaming the unions for irresponsible wage claims when no such claims have been made over the period when unemployment has been increasing. We have heard precious little from the Government about massive pay increases given to chairmen and chief and senior executives, particularly those of big companies, over the past 18 months. Sometimes we are told that these people have earned the increases because of their companies' increased profits. If that is the case, why do we not hear of decreases in payments when profits decline? There have been plenty of examples recently. The Government know full well the effect of such obscene increases on the shop floor worker but have chosen to turn a blind eye to the matter. Last month's survey by Hay Management Consultants, commissioned by the CBI, found that employers had been awarding themselves increases of 14 per cent. a year while at the same time they were lecturing employees about having 9.25 per cent. increases.
Another excuse used by the Government has been the effect of inflation brought about not by their own policies but by importing inflation. That was certainly true some time ago but it has not been valid for a long time. Almost all of our trading partners have a lower rate of inflation than this country—certainly that refers to European countries—so that cannot be blamed for adding to the present sorry mess. The average rate of inflation of our European partners is half that for this country.
Against those and other aspects Ministers keep referring to the position in other countries, particularly those in the European Community, the implication being that the same factors are at work in all countries and we are dealing with those problems at least as effectively as other nations. I dispute both propositions. According to figures published by the European Commission, Britain has had a 14 per cent. rise in unemployment in the year from January 1990.

293
The next highest increases were 3 per cent. for Denmark and Ireland. In Spain, Italy, Portugal and Germany the totals fell. Across the EC as a whole there was a decrease of 1 per cent.
The problems here have been of our own making, caused especially by the expansion of our economy against a much reduced manufacturing base. When I refer to the expansion of the economy I am referring to those two disastrous mistakes of the Government: the error in calculating the amount of consumer spending and the incredible underestimation of the effects of financial deregulation. Those factors gave rise to high inflation, high interest rates and then high unemployment. One of the standard answers we receive from Ministers in dealing with unemployment is that we must reduce inflation. Their vital unspoken words are "at all costs". The evidence is that the Government will allow unemployment to increase to any level in order to reduce inflation. My noble friend Lord Jay made what I regard as some very pertinent remarks on that aspect of the matter.
In paying a massive price to reduce inflation and the rate of interest by a tiny fraction the Government take great pride in what they regard as a substantial achievement. Such a situation reminds me of a recent comment by a professor of applied economics who said:
"This is like jumping off a cliff and then congratulating yourself on having climbed back to the top".
That summarises the point admirably. There are 650 firms going bankrupt every week and 2,000 people joining the jobless queue every day. Employers' organisations are saying that on the evidence sent to them by their members the position will get worse.
When comparing our position favourably with that of other countries Ministers fail to admit that our rate of increase in unemployment is faster than that of any other industrial nation. I give some other figures to illustrate that disturbing fact. In April 1990 the increase was 400; in July, 13,000; in October, 34,000; in January 1991, 49,000; in February, 88,000; and in March there was a record increase of 112,000. That rate of increase appears to frighten everyone except the Government. Last month the CBI revised its forecast. Last autumn the CBI said that there would be 1.9 million unemployed in 1991 and 2.1 million in 1992. It now expects the figures to be 2.3 million this year and 2.7 million in 1992. Other independent organisations are forecasting similar figures. Those figures come from friends of the Government, not this side of the House. The rate of increase and its consistency do not compare with any other European country.
Another story we hear regularly from the Government is that there are now more people at work in this country than at any other time. That may well be true, but in view of the doubt cast upon government statistics in recent months I should like to see the evidence for it. My noble friend Lord Donoughue recently made a brilliant speech on the inaccuracy of government statistics. Even if the government are correct, is it much to boast about when after 12 years in power there are still more than 2 million people out of work? Not much has been said
294
about the increase in the number of long term unemployed, which is at least as important. If the Government were to reduce unemployment to the level when the Labour Government left office in 1979—that is, 1,141,000—it would be nothing to boast about after all this time, but at least it would represent a significant difference from having over 2 million unemployed.
There is one more aspect of the present situation which has been mentioned and no doubt will be repeated. It is so significant that we include it in the terms of our Motion. The depth of the recession is so great that all parts of the country are affected. Much has been said about the South East. In the past it appears to have been immune from high unemployment but it is now one of the principal areas affected. As the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, mentioned, the effects cut across the whole range of employment—services, manufacturing and so on. This has serious implications for the Government about which I am not unduly worried. I am, however, worried that attention may be diverted from those areas which for years have suffered high unemployment when other regions have not had any job problem. I remind the Government yet again that my region—the North—continues to have the highest rate of unemployment in the country outside Northern Ireland. That has been the position for a long time. If the Government's policies are as successful as Ministers claim, one would have thought that their 12 years of continuous power would have removed the region from its unenviable position at the top of the unemployment league in mainland Britain.
We hear nothing from the Government about the cost of unemployment. Had I the time, I would go into the matter in more detail. We frequently hear from the Government about the 1979 winter of discontent. The strikes of that period are small change in economic terms compared with what is happening now and what will happen with from 2 million to 3 million people unemployed.
The tragedy of the situation, shocking though it is, is that it will get worse. We know about some effects of unemployment. A number of noble Lords from both sides of the House have spoken about poverty, ill health—physical, mental and emotional—and the strain on family life and loss of self-respect. Other problems of which we are not yet aware may well come to light.
The personal and financial problems and the economic effects do not appear to weigh too heavily with the Government. One can only hope that the near certainty of 2.5 million and the possibility of 3 million jobless will prove so traumatic that it will lead even this Government to change their policies.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Brookes: My Lords, I join other speakers in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for having introduced this debate. It loses nothing by its repetitive appearance in this Chamber. There is no subject that should be nearer to the heart of every Member of Your Lordships' House and indeed every member of our society.

295
At this stage of the debate one is bound to be repetitive about the many faceted aspects of unemployment. None of them shines like diamonds. Of the many, three of the most disastrous aspects have already been mentioned by other speakers. I do not hesitate to reaffirm and re-emphasise them.
The first aspect is economic. I believe that many board rooms in Britain have lost sight of the fact that the most vital asset on the balance sheet is human resources. There should be no credit given to companies or management for the efficiencies of redundancies. Redundancies are not efficient. Blameworthy or innocent they are a reflection of a measure of leadership failure, management failure and maybe employee failure. They are nothing of which to be proud. They are nothing to claim or mark as expressing or reflecting efficiency. Very much to the contrary. That is the worst of the economic effects; namely, the appalling and unforgiveable waste of human resources.
The second aspect which has also been mentioned by other people is the emotional one. There is the impact and the indecency of the effects of unemployment upon human dignity and on a man's pride and belief in himself. There is the gradual inner diminution of those beliefs. There is the loss of self-respect and the feeling that even the respect of his family, wife and children around his table is lost, and even if that is not in doubt, he feels that it might be so. There is the loss of respect and standing among his friends. Unemployment is not merely an economic shortcoming: it is a social crime; it is a political failure; it is a business failure. In different measure we are each and all responsible for it. We have allowed it to happen.
The third aspect is the social structure. The impact of unemployment upon family life results all too often in family break-up and further impairment of a society which is already threatened upon so many counts. We have sown dragon's teeth. We are reaping a bitter harvest.
In the 1960s and 1970s we all—unions, management, men and capital—allowed our industry to become a battleground and a free-for-all. We squandered opportunity right, left and centre. It is not a matter for blame. Each and all were to blame. In the 1980s our board rooms were preoccupied with the threat from the predator—the unknown predator standing in the wings ready to make a fast buck out of a takeover. When it happened, all too often there were thousands of redundancies. But the question mark must always be over whether there was there any real gain in efficiency. Or did the bankers and institutions (I do not criticise them since they are there to fulfil that service) find that there was a fortune to be made on the way to destruction of vital assets? Those then are the dragon's teeth that we have sown.
How will we put the situation right? I respect but suspect many of the training programmes. They have to be good enough to train for something meaningful and purposeful. There has to be something on the horizon for which to be trained. I suspect some of the employment figures because I do not regard as
296
employment jobs in confetti service industries which are shortlived and not lasting. One cannot run a great nation on takeaways or the people who clean up the mess outside them. There is no alternative. We have to regenerate our industrial base. We have to stop being rude about the so-called smoke-stack industries.
A gleaming motor car is a reflection of many smoke-stacks, of mining minerals and processing metals, of plastics and glass. Consider it. That gleaming motor car is a whole hive of human endeavour expressed as it shines. I shall refer again briefly to the motor industry. But we must stop being rude about smoke-stacks. In fact, we must get more smoke going up chimneys even when it is clean.
I must rack my memory for the date, but on 5th December 1985, speaking in your Lordships' House, I made detailed reference to the motor industry. Based upon a report from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the PEDA Report (the association which researched the industry and its employment characteristics), I demonstrated, and was never challenged, that 500,000 motor cars directly and indirectly meant 500,000 jobs. That figure was not criticised. We have not done much about it. The much maligned motor industry is the whipping boy of successive governments for all kinds of tax impositions and interventions. Even more recently a doubtless well intentioned Government have imposed a further impost upon an industry whose survival is a miracle against all the prejudice, hurt and injury that has been inflicted upon it. The tax on a motor car today—I refer not to the tax that one pays to drive it away but that against the manufacturer's intended retail outlets price—has been increased on a cumulative compound basis to 27.3 per cent. Why is there a tax of 27.3 per cent. on a motor vehicle which creates jobs when other appliances escape (if one can call it that) with 17.5 per cent. I ask why.
However, when making such a speech one ought to advance some possible solutions. The thought occurs to me that if we have selectively taxed the motor industry adversely, why cannot we, and why should not we, have the brains, the intelligence, the means, and flexibility of mind selectively to plan and tax our industries and activities, in relation to their contribution to the common wealth, the common good and those factors which really matter rather than the cosmetic, confetti-type of businesses to which I referred earlier.
In short, I believe that there are enough brains in your Lordships' House, and good enough existing committees from which sub-committees can be formed, at least to put to Her Majesty's Government a coherent plan for the selective, differential taxation of industries, commerce and activities, in relation to their national worth.
It is not an original idea. I am well aware that Ministers, and those who are noting the speech outside this Chamber, will provide comments and answers. The moment that one puts forward a solution one puts up an Aunt Sally for a kindly Minister to knock down. I have set it up. I do not mind it being knocked down. But if we are anxious about GATT, and the European Community, let us have the

297
ability, dexterity and panache to display the same ballerina-like characteristics in tip-toeing through the tulips and protecting one's own kith and kin as the French and the Italians so successfully and repetitively demonstrate. I thank noble Lords.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, on his courageous maiden speech. Unemployment is perhaps the most emotive subject which concerns my noble friends on this side of the House. I do not say that noble Lords on other Benches do not care about unemployment. I am certain that all do, although only two Conservative Back-Benchers joined the maiden speaker in bothering to participate today.
Politically and collectively as parties, the different sides o1 the House have different priorities. Several of my noble friends, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and, from the Independent Benches most impressively the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, have spoken about the human dimension of unemployment. That is ultimately the most important aspect of the problem. My earliest childhood memories as a young boy in the 1930s are of my father talking bitterly about his years of unemployment. That may explain why for the first half of my career I sought the safe havens of job security in the public sector; and I believe that that applied to many of my generation.
However, I should like to approach the problem less emotionally, and—as did my noble friend Lord Dormand in his outstanding speech—more analytically. To begin with it is necessary to state in a non-partisan way that unemployment is of course a global problem. It is not confined to the United Kingdom. In a global recession there will be unemployment in most countries. That will be true, regardless of the colour and labels of their governments. However, levels of unemployment vary and governments with different priorities, philosophies and policies can produce lower unemployment within the broad range that interdependent global economies and different domestic demand pressures dictate.
Such differences already exist in Europe. Perhaps I may say in anticipation that it is not impressive when Ministers tell us that British unemployment is slightly less than the EC average; and that it is lower in the United Kingdom than in Ireland, Italy, Belgium and so on. In fact British unemployment is rising faster than in any of those countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, generously mentioned, it is no consolation to tell the long-term unemployed in London or Sunderland that they would be even worse off in Cork or Naples.
The present Government have a clear responsibility for the present plight and the dismal future prospects of Britain's unemployed. Historically, their conduct of monetary policy was so promiscuous in the year before and after the 1987 election that the credit boom and disaster that followed was bound to happen. The length and strength of the economic squeeze over the
298
past two years, with interest rates at record "highs" for record lengths of time was made inevitable by the folly of that credit explosion.
The depth of the present recession, and the scale of unemployment deemed necessary to cure that credit disaster and lance the inflation boil, is the price being paid by the most vulnerable in our society—the unemployed—for the follies of this Government's economic failures in 1986–88.
The future prospects are equally bleak. The economic forecasters of the ITEM Club, writing in the Sunday Times on 24th March forecast unemployment at 2.75 million by the end of this year and 3 million in 1992. Other prestigious City houses do not dissent from that view.
Before the noble Viscount is tempted when replying to dismiss those views as speculation, perhaps I may remind him that when last year at Question Time I quoted Goldman Sachs as forecasting 2 million unemployed by now in 1991, he dismissed it as "speculation". For Britain's unemployed the near future is not speculation. It is certain to be a harsh reality.
The latest national increase in March was the largest in a single month since 1971, the earliest year for which comparable figures are calculated. That takes me back to the delicate question of the calculation of unemployment figures. I have already had courteous exchanges on the subject twice this year with the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh and the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. They were well and defensively briefed. The fact is that however much the Government claim in very carefully worded phrases that the present unemployment figures are statistically comparable to the figures in the 1970s, the calculations are not the same. Were one to use the same criteria and categories as in 1979, today's official unemployment figures would be much higher. The Government have introduced some 30 changes to the official measurement of unemployment since 1979. They are not all "statistically significant" claimed the noble Viscount at Question Time. But they probably all made a statistical difference.
Why make such change? Certainly the change to measuring only those claiming benefit made a big difference. It excludes many married women and former part-time workers who are now unemployed but do not have sufficient national insurance contributions to be eligible to claim benefits. The present system of calculating the monthly unemployment figures is not a reliable and realistic measure of the balance of labour supply. It is excessively sensitive to changes in the administrative rules governing benefit rather than to changes in labour supply and demand.
According to the prestigious and independent Employment Institute, the true level of unemployment today—that is, how many people are out of work, available for work and seeking work regardless of benefit eligibility—is more than 500,000 higher than the official level. In other words, there are now more than 2.5 million unemployed people and that figure will rise to above 3 million by December.

299
Within that huge total is a large core of three-quarters of a million long-term unemployed people. They are not the unskilled, work-shy people often depicted in the right-wing press—although some are, as in all societies. Research carried out by Professor McCormick of Southampton University, a leading economist, shows that during the 1980s many long-term unemployed people were not "no hopers". Previously they had been successful employees and were desperately keen to acquire new skills and new jobs. During the passage of time the long-term unemployed become demoralised. They suffer from above average poverty, family problems and ill health. It should be an absolute priority of our wealthy society to provide the financial help, work training and personal counselling which the victims of failed economic policies need and deserve.
The Government's approach to unemployment is to treat it as merely an unfortunate side effect of the policies to control inflation. That is not good enough. We all appreciate the need to control inflation but it is unnecessary to rely solely on narrow, deflationary policies in respect of which the unemployed carry the whole burden. There must be another way and I believe that there is. We need a broader range of policies; credit controls as well as interest rates; and greater emphasis and expenditure on the training and education necessary to produce a more highly skilled and therefore more employable workforce. We also need a modernised physical infrastructure in this country, especially in respect of transportation, to assist the efficiency of our industry. We need greater investment in manufacturing and the involvement of all sides of industry to build a consensus on how to achieve what we must have; that is, a low inflation, low unemployment society.
It will not be easy for any government to resolve what is a difficult trade-off between inflation and unemployment. But if we do not achieve it then within the ERM, at the present exchange rate, the future will offer even lower growth and even higher unemployment. That is not a prospect that we or the unemployed should accept.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot be analytical and that I must be emotional because that is the way I feel about this subject. I congratulate my noble friend on her splendid introduction to the debate for which she has fought so long. It has come at a time when everyone will be istening—that is everybody except Members of the Conservative Party. Noble Lords opposite promptly walked out of the Chamber when the debate started. Had we been talking about race-horses, salmon fishing, shotguns, or forestry, they would have been present. However, they could not care less about a subject such as this, and let us not kid ourselves.
Every day we hear casual announcements made on the radio; for instance, that the BBC is to lose 500 employees. It could be throwing out anything, even old bits of wood. British Rail is getting rid of people and in consequence there are far more accidents. I may
300
be a Luddite, but I believe that no machine has yet been invented like the human being with two ears, two eyes, two hands and, it is to be hoped, a brain. I sometimes wonder about the latter but not in respect of the people working in the front line.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been quite glib about the matter. On several occasions we have heard Mr. Lamont saying that in order to reduce inflation, we must have unemployment. It is all right for him; he has a good, well-paid job. If we can believe the Sunday newspapers, he also has property with strange tenants, although I do not know whether that is correct. Let us say that he is not on his beam ends! I was interested to hear my noble friend mention 12 Secretaries of State. I suppose that is one way of helping unemployment on the other side of the House—Members are changed around and they get a new job.
Certainly there is employment for some people; for instance, the people who have to feed computers. However, one must find something to put in the wretched computers. We have never had so many surveys and forms to fill in. On many recent occasions I have had to fill in a form stating who I am, my status in life, how much money I have if any, and so forth. These forms and surveys are churned out by the dozen. Most are totally useless because one contradicts another. Perhaps in common with me noble Lords receive a vast amount of junk mail through the post every morning. I am sorry to say that a great deal comes from universities which is the only way that they can earn money. Each survey contradicts another.
That is one way of obtaining money but the important base is manufacturing. Let us not delude ourselves about that. Some noble Lords will have heard me mention the articulated lorry that was stuck outside my house. The driver had come all the way from Sweden bringing tiles to a building site. What kind of situation is that? It is bad enough to have to suffer those terrible Golden Delicious apples instead of ours. They should be investigated under the Trade Descriptions Act because they are neither golden nor delicious. Constantly we import goods that we can make far better. For some curious reason we undersell ourselves in the world and I shall never understand the reason why. The manufacturing base must be restored.
What is redundancy like? I must now be personal and the person about whom I shall speak will never forgive me; that is my son. He is a Cambridge graduate and a clever and distinguished man. He is also a lovely man but I suppose that all mothers say that about their sons—but speaking impartially it is true. He had the misfortune to be employed for 23 years as a head of department in a school in Westminster. The fact that it was a Catholic school did not improve the situation and in my view made it even worse. My son saw the head teacher on Maundy Thursday. Your Lordships will understand that the story of the Passion is so typical; there are those who deny that they have ever seen you before, those who wash their hands of the affair, and those who cheer you on Sunday and crucify you on Friday. They all

301
still exist. The head teacher chose Maundy Thursday to inform four heads of department that they were to be made redundant.
Why was that? What had they done? Each of them had more than 20 years' service so they could not have been so bad. However, they were employed by a borough which must keep down the poll tax. The company with which Lady Porter is connected is more generous. Its chairman earns£4,000 a day. Just imagine! That is as much as some hospital cleaners earn in a whole year—and I have checked that fact. They a -e doing a job which is a darn sight more useful than his. However, Westminster council must keep down its poll tax. It has been praised by the Government for doing so—it is marvellous! How has the council done that? It has made people redundant, that is low. What in that is there to be proud of and what solution does it offer? Professional people are suffering appallingly. Redundancy brings demoralisation. I (now people in the medical profession and in the Civil Service who see that spectre in front of them. If any one believes that he can obtain better service from people who have the threat of unemployment hanging over their heads, he cannot have employed anyone. People give of their best and are loyal when they know that they are part of a concern.
Unemployment is an obscenity. That is the only word I can use for it. I recommend a solution; that is, to elect a Labour Government. I hope that a Labour Govern rent will put this matter at the head of their priorities. This Motion does not ask for a solution but merely calls attention to the problem, in case the Conservative Party has not noticed that. We have called attention to it. The Institute of Directors, which one can hardly say is revolutionary, has called attention to the problem. Even then, it had to be snobbish and say, "We do not want a return to beer and sandwiches at No. 10 Downing Street." Therefore, that is not asking for a Labour Government.
We do not want human beings to be flung on the scrap heap with a loss of dignity and a feeling that they are unnecessary. Human beings must come before anything, else. Money is meant to be a means of exchange. It is not a commodity. It is no good appealing to this Government, but I contend that I have called attention to this problem.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, quite rightly said that we are a low wage, low productivity economy. We have been that for a very long time under both Labour and Conservative Governments. Therefore, I do not know whether a return to a Labour Government would necessarily achieve the improvements which we desire. However, I do not propose to join in the pre-election campaigning which seems to have been going on during the past hour or two.
As long as we remain a low productivity country, we shall continue to be a low wage country. Unless we find a solution to that, even if we spend money now, as I believe we should, in order to deal with current unemployment, that situation will return again and
302
again. Our basic problem is that we are not competitive. We have not made ourselves competitive for many reasons, some of which have been referred to today and some of which I shall take up in more detail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that wage claims have nothing to do with this. She pointed out that very high payments are being made at the highest levels of industry which certainly do not set an example. However, that is why this party has always said—and I believe that it is now more widely accepted—that it is only possible to achieve a high wage, high productivity country when there is far more collaboration at company level and when wage claims are related more closely to the success of the company. However, that is not the primary point which I wish to make this afternoon.
As many noble Lords have said, the level of unemployment in this country is intolerable. The only way to solve that problem is for the Government to be prepared to spend money in the right way and to spend it in a way which will not only help to deal with the immediate unemployment problem, which needs to be dealt with, but in a way which will make it less likely that we shall run into the same difficulties in the future. Money must be spent in order to build a high productivity country rather than a low productivity country.
There are a number of important steps which the Government could take immediately which would help considerably. For example, in the recent Budget the Chancellor could have cut back on the uniform business rate. Everybody knows that small businesses are collapsing all over the country. One reason for that is that they simply cannot carry the uniform business rate. It would not take time for the Government to do that but it would mean a loss of money. However, when the Government found that they had to do something about the poll tax, they managed to find£140 per person. And yet, they have done nothing about the uniform business rate. In terms of unemployment, which is the problem we are discussing today, the uniform business rate is more important than the poll tax. The Government could take that step on Monday if they wished to do so.
When I say that the Government should spend money, I mean that they should spend money on investment. I often believe that this Government have lost the understanding of what used to be called below the line as distinct from above the line expenditure. Money paid out for unemployment benefit is merely for current consumption which does no good. That is no help at all in building the high productivity economy which we need.
A number of investments could be made at this moment which would bring a real pay-off in the short term and also in the long term. It is the burden of my theme that we must deal with the immediate problem while also building for a future in which we shall not return to high unemployment.
I am glad to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish—although I do not always agree with him—when he said that we should put more money into housing. We should allow the local authorities to spend that money which they have not been allowed to

303
spend on housing. We all agree that the housing situation and the cardboard society is an absolute disgrace. To have people unemployed on the one hand, and people sleeping in cardboard boxes on the other, is a combination which everybody must condemn. Therefore, money should be released to build houses and to start to revive the construction industry. Revival of the construction industry has a multiplier effect which comes from that. Once money is spent on that, one begins to see expenditure elsewhere.
Money should be spent not only on houses but on schools and on the infrastructure otherwise we shall not obtain the maximum benefit from our membership of the European Community. I could not disagree more with almost every word which the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said but in my 10 minutes I cannot deal with that. However, as we are a member we must obtain the maximum benefit from our membership. We need a good infrastructure in order to do that. Why cannot the Government put money into the infrastructure now and thus benefit from the effect of that as regards unemployment? Of course, benefit would be gained because it would not be necessary to spend as much money on unemployment benefits. I believe that the figure quoted is£8,000 per person. When there are 2 million unemployed, that would create quite a large sum which could be used for investment purposes.
There are other aspects. We can make a start now on changes in education which we need to make. We know that we should keep more 16 to 18 year-olds at school or in employment with real training. One reason that young people do not stay on at school is that there is an economic advantage if they go to work. Why do we not grasp the fact that we must pay people who stay on at school after the age of 18 an allowance which makes it worth while for them to stay on so that they are not at a disadvantage compared to those who choose not to stay on at school? The Government should encourage a great deal more training for young people aged 16 to 18 who are in employment. Some of that should be paid for by employers, but probably not all of it.
It is extraordinary at this time to cut money going into the TECs. A time of unemployment should be a time when we put money into training, to train the people that the country will need as soon as it moves out of the recession. In my over-long life I have seen again and again that in a period of unemployment a lot of money is spent on unemployment benefits, the country begins to come out of the recession and industry is then screaming out—north, south, east and west—because there are insufficient skilled people to take advantage of the reviving economy. It always starts with the construction industry. As soon as a recession departs, that industry is always short of skilled workers. Why do we not invest money now? Why do we not give back to the TECs the money taken from them so that they can get on with the necessary training?
The same applies to employers. There are many people in employment who need to be sent on training
304
schemes in order to keep up to date. Instead of getting rid of people, the Government should encourage employers to send workers on training courses so that there will not be a shortage of the necessary skilled workers when they are needed.
I said that the Government should spend money. I shall be told that if they spend money, that will enhance inflation.
I am in absolute agreement with the Government when they say that we must defeat inflation. But the way in which they are doing it is not the only way. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Jay, we on these Benches feel that far from being wrong to be in the ERM, we should be in a tighter band in the ERM, because then we would not have to keep interest rates so high. They are kept high because people do not believe in the strength of our currency. If we show that we have confidence in it we could begin to reduce interest rates further. That is what industry throughout the country is crying out for.
That is one thing we could do. There are other things. When I spoke a few weeks ago I raised an issue which I know is a political hot potato; that is, the money going into mortgage interest relief. Everybody now realises that that£8 billion which is being spent on mortgage interest relief in many ways has produced an economic disaster. It has increased the price of houses; it has allowed too much consumer expenditure; it has had a great deal to do with inflation. When one talks to politicians they admit that that is true.
Only yesterday in another room in this building I was engaged in a debate with—noble Lords may be surprised to hear—the director of Shelter. She was crying out to get rid of mortgage interest relief. She said that it has done the greatest harm to housing. It has also done great harm to the economy.
I must continually remind the House that I speak for myself and not for my party. I realise that one cannot get rid of it overnight. However, surely there could be a consensus, an all-party discussion, on what to do about it. The figure is£8 billion and is increasing inflation. Until we do something about that it is humbug to say that we can do nothing about inflation except keep interest rates high.
5.32 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we must thank my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden for initiating the debate. In all the speeches we have so far heard—the Minister is yet to speak—it is remarkable that we have had no straight bat defending the Government's policy. Perhaps I may join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, on his maiden speech. He showed a real understanding and sympathy for the plight of the long-term unemployed.
People on the other side of the House have spoken about the problems of unemployment and about the social and economic consequences.
They mentioned the forms of unemployment and the reasons for it. So far nobody has set out to deny the essential thrust of the Motion; that is, the

305
continued growth in unemployment, particularly in regions which hitherto have been relatively prosperous.
Nobody has sought to rebut the arguments coming from the nine speakers on this side of the House who spoke in broad terms largely addressing two other questions; one, the weakness of the Government's policies for dealing with unemployment—they are significantly weaker than they were in the last recession—and the other, the fact that there are alternative policies. Many such policies have been put forward from this side of the House. I add only that some of the policies available at the moment are policies that the Government used in the early 1980s and which, for reasons I do not understand, they refuse to use now.
In regard to the first issue there can be no denial that there is a rising and threatening rate of unemployment. The question is how long and to what extent the trend will continue. I should like to ask the Government whether they see it as being worse than, the same as, or better than, it was in the early 1980s. One recalls three years of escalation, four years of stagnation, when the level of unemployment was around 10 per cent. to 11 per cent., four years of decline and another year of escalation. Is that how the Government see the position?
I ask the Government whether we are to undergo another year or so in which unemployment will escalate. If it escalates at the present rate, that means it will rise above 3.4 million within 12 months. Is it likely to be a shorter period of escalation? Much more importantly, what about the years of stagnation? It took four years to significantly reduce unemployment last time. What will it take now? Will it be one, two, three or four years?
The Government may say that it will not take so long although I am not sure that they will say how long. The Chancellor has said that the recession is bottoming out. He has said that unemployment will continue to rise for some time but that it is bottoming out. The critical figures come from those aspects of economic measurement which directly indicate what is likely to happen to unemployment over the next 12 months I say to the Government that those aspects are very bad indeed. Production is falling; overtime is falling; vacancies are at the lowest level since 1983; stocks are high; and short time is still rising. All the indexes of labour demand are going down. That suggests at least another year of what is now happening and then a couple of years of stagnation.
The Government may say that inflation is not so serious a problem as it was the last time. I accept that. The inflation problem last time was very much a worldwide problem. This time it is nowhere near that. Peter Morgan, the director general of the Institute of Directors, said yesterday that this awful recession was due to the failure of the Government's economic policy. The Government may say that that is right; that there have been a series of own goals; and that there is no need for inflation to be so high and that it will soon come down. When it comes down they may say that they will reflate the economy and we shall not have four years of stagnation.
306
But the problem was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. Last time, inflation fell in the way that it did because we had a high exchange rate. We were a petrol currency. The sterling index continually rose in 1979 and 1980. That largely cured inflation. However, nobody believes that the pound will accumulate in the way that it did in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The most for which the Government can hope is to keep the exchange rate where it is. If the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is right, and the Government are wrong and are forced into a devaluation, they will not necessarily say, "Inflation allows us to reflate the economy."
Those are the good points: it may be that the situation is not quite as bad as it was last time. Let us look at some of the bad points. Last time the recession improved partly because it hit only the North and was largely confined to manufacturing. As several speakers on this side of the House have said, non-manufacturing is in some ways now being hit even worse than manufacturing. In the early 1980s the recession began to decline because in the end the Government were able to claim that 1.2 billion jobs were claimed by the services. Is that what the Government think is happening now? Do they believe that we shall have 600,000 new jobs in the service industries in the South over the next 18 months to two years? That is extremely unlikely.
Perhaps the main reason I am worried that we may be entering an even longer period of stagnation is that this time the Government are doing virtually nothing about special employment measures. The total absence of special employment measures, given the present rate of increase in unemployment, is nothing short of fantastic. In 1983 the special employment measures, which to some extent the Government inherited from their predecessors, were worth around 300,000 jobs. In overall terms by 1987 they were worth 800,000 jobs. We argued whether they were really worth 500,000 or 600,000 jobs. But it was very significant. Had it not been for those special employment measures the level of unemployment in those bad, early years of the 1980s would have been significantly higher. They would have been about a third higher than they were.
Where are those special employment measures now? They do not exist. The trouble is that as soon as the level of employment began to decline the Government scrapped the more effective and efficient of the special employment measures and went for the cheaper ET. They abandoned the community programme, which was providing very considerable relief for the long-term unemployed but at£7,000 a head, in favour of the benefit plus£10—less than half cost—ET.
The Government did not even expand ET in the way that it had been done in the previous period of rising unemployment. As has been said on this side of the House, they cut the budget to the ET as the recession became worse. They have given reasons for that and to some extent I accept the validity of those reasons. The Government say that surveys which they have carried out in Bristol and elsewhere show that they were wrong and that not all the long-term unemployed need training. We told them that. They

307
say that the long-term unemployed need motivation and that they do not try to get work. The Government believe that if only they would try to get work and reduce their expectations at work, there would be more people in work and fewer unemployed.
So we have seen what is called in the trade "the deficit model" of the employment service. That exhibits four unsavoury features. One is constant counselling; another is diversion into job clubs and into restarts and restart, restart restarts. There are more restarts than in an old Ford Anglia! Worse still is the practice of placing workers—particularly the long-term unemployed who are sufficiently non-cooperative—on what is called "on notice". The effect of all that has been that three times the number of workers have been disallowed benefits since 1985. That has been partly induced because the Government have discovered another bad occurrence which has been taking place. It has been mentioned by noble Lords on this side of the House. They must have almost reached the end of what is called "creative accounting" in the area of unemployment and in the unemployment returns.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, mentioned some of these matters. We all have our favourites. They include not counting the over 60s, which was a good one. Others were counting second jobs as first jobs; counting part-time as full-time; and including the self-employed, especially when one can escalate the numbers of the self-employed. But the measure which has always been my favourite is adding in the Army. That was a masterpiece. So the Government now find that they are virtually at the end of creative accounting. Therefore, the only way of levering down the level of unemployment is by massage in terms of the deficit model—that is to say, taking people off the employment register.
We say that that is not sufficient. Above all, we say that in the short term the Government need a new version of the temporary community work programme which they cut off in 1988. A model for that, which I commend to the Government and about which I hope the Minister can give us news now, was advanced by the Campaign for Work the other day. It would involve two days' work at basic rates, one day training and one day looking for work. It is quite clear that in the 1990s it will cost rather more than the community programme which cost about£7,000 a job. The Government must remember that, as has been said by speakers on this side of the House, each person on the dole is a Treasury loss of at least£8,000 a year. That comprises£4,000 a year paid in benefits and£4,000 a year in lost tax revenue.
We do not pretend, and have never pretended, that a substantial temporary work programme will solve the problem of unemployment. It would now take a long time to get it off the ground. It might take 18 months before a brand new temporary work programme took 200,000 or 250,000 people off the register.
I conclude by asking the Government this central question which I asked when I began. Given the fact that unemployment is escalating, and that if it
308
escalates at last month's level it will be at 3.3 million in 12 months' time, do the Government believe that there will be another three years of stagnation? If there is at least another year of stagnation, can the Government say what is wrong with a temporary work programme?
5.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I have listened carefully to the many points made by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Jeffreys made a very well-measured and sensitive maiden speech, drawing on his experiences in Nottinghamshire. I congratulate him on a good speech and look forward to his contributions to your Lordships' debates in future.
The Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was to call attention to the continued growth in unemployment, particularly in regions which hitherto have been relatively prosperous. All rises in unemployment, regardless of region, are regrettable, but I should point out, as I have before, that even after the recent increases, the United Kingdom unemployment rate remains lower than the EC average. I hope in the course of my contribution to be able to reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are not complacent. I shall also set out how the Government are tackling this problem, both in terms of the economy as a whole and in helping people return to work. I shall also try to respond to the many points made during the debate. I shall write to noble Lords if time does not allow me to answer all the points raised.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor, in another place, has acknowledged that unemployment is likely to go on rising for a while yet, even after the economic recovery has started. Lower inflation is crucial to ensure a return to sustainable increases in output and improved employment prospects and to improve business and consumer confidence. The Government are determined that inflation is going to come down and stay down. Our decision to join the ERM last October was a clear signal of our overriding commitment to conquer inflation.
But there is no painless way to beat inflation. The good news is that we are clearly winning the battle against inflation, which has been falling now for some months. The fall in inflation is set to continue. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, that the forecast published with the Budget is for inflation to fall to 3.75 per cent. by the middle of 1992. In his Budget statement, my right honourable friend the Chancellor said that there are good reasons to expect that the economic recovery will begin around the middle of this year. In recent months we have seen a fall of three percentage points in interest rates.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked whether the recession is 1980–81 all over again. Far from it. The current recession is likely to be both shorter and shallower than in 1980–81. The Government's supply side reforms have helped to make the economy much stronger and much more competitive. The level of inflation that needs to be squeezed out of the system

309
is lower and the gap between our inflation and the rest of the EC is smaller. Finally, though the world economy is weak, it has not had to face an oil price shock on the same scale as in the early 1980s. These factors should combine to ensure that the economy starts growing again quite soon and probably around the middle of 1991.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for those facts. I particularly want to know what the Government think will happen to the level of unemployment. In a previous recession, once the level stopped rising, it stopped where it was for 3½ years. Will it stop at the same point for 3½ years now?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I will deal with the point that the noble Lord makes when I deal with the help available to the unemployed. The foundations, as I say, are thus being laid for falling unemployment and a resumption in the jobs growth that was such a remarkable feature of the mid to late 1980s when the workforce grew by over 3 million in seven years to the benefit of all regions in the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested at least three ideas for stimulating the economy: cutting UBR; more expenditure on investment in infrastructure; and methods to deal with the homeless. However, the Government have considered all these points and believe that they are on course for the recovery, as I suggested. For instance, there are now more small businesses in this country than ever before. By the end of 1989 there was a staggering 373,000 more businesses registered for VAT than in 1979. That means a n average of over 100 extra businesses on the VAT register every day since 1979. All the evidence shows that growth continued in 1990. That is the way to future prosperity and not in a command economy to ensure full employment, as my noble friend Lord Boardman warned us.
Many noble Lords spoke about the fall in manufacturing. However, the United Kingdom has had an impressive record of output growth in the 1980s, faster than Germany, France and Italy. In the 1960s arid 1970s we were at the bottom of that league.
Job prospects will improve following a resumption of economic growth, but the extent to which new jobs are created and unemployment comes down depends crucially on the speed with which pay settlements come down. The current upward trend in unemployment will be more difficult to reverse if wage settlements continue at unrealistically high levels. There has indeed been a small fall in the year-on-year rise in average earnings. The CBI and other commentators are also reporting a clear, though modest, fall in the average level of wage deals.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does that include directors?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the point about directory is that they have had deals which have indicated that they would be paid where there is productivity. In that it falls in a year when the productivity comes down is a completely different matter.
310
The CBI and other commentators are also reporting a clear though modest fall in the average level of wage deals, although there remains a wide spread in the level of individual settlements. Some firms have deferred pay settlements or agreed pay pauses in response to business conditions. But there is a need for much greater realism in wage bargaining generally. The sooner this is accepted, the sooner we will be able to reverse the trend in unemployment.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that ERM membership reinforces the need for realistic wage demands comparable to those of our EC partners. There is now no escape through devaluation as the noble Lord suggested should be allowed. If industry and employees working together are not able to contain unit wage costs by realistic pay settlements and improved efficiency, then both will have to bear the consequences of their short-sighted actions.
Lord Jay: My Lords, when the noble Viscount keeps mentioning wages, does he include salaries? If so, why does he not say so?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am talking about pay increases. It is in that context that we must judge the proposals to introduce a national statutory minimum wage. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, suggested that I might want to return to this point and she is right.
Last week, the Labour Party committed itself once again to introduce legislation requiring such a minimum wage—to be introduced at an initial level of half average male earnings, rising over time to a level of two thirds average male earnings.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State pointed out earlier this week that, even if only half the previous levels of differentials were restored, such a policy would destroy three-quarters of a million jobs immediately, and one and a quarter million as the minimum wage was raised.
But we know from the firm words of Mr. Bill Jordan, leader of the AEU, on Monday that differentials would be eroded by the introduction of a minimum wage only "over his dead body". And if the unions succeeded in restoring differentials in full, then Labour's minimum wage policy would destroy one and a quarter million jobs immediately, and no fewer than two million as the level of the minimum was raised. It is not necessary to take the word of this Government for that conclusion.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister forgive me for interrupting? Will he arrange to have the figures on which he bases these assertions placed in the Library? All we have heard is the assertion that 3.25 million jobs would go.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps I can illustrate the point more vividly by calling attention to the words of the Labour predecessor of the noble Baroness—Mrs. Barbara Castle, now the noble Baroness, Lady Castle—who published a White Paper in 1969 which ruled out a national minimum wage because:

311
"there is little present evidence that higher paid workers would not take advantage for their own purposes of the attempt to help the low paid through the establishment by law of a national minimum".
She also published a report that year which pointed out that when the federal minimum wage was raised in the United States
"employment declined in nearly all industries concerned, the decline ranging from 3.2 per cent. to more than 15 per cent."
No policy could be more damaging to employment prospects than such a minimum wage. That is why successive governments of both parties have rejected it.
The Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, refers to the rise in unemployment in regions which hitherto have been relatively prosperous. This suggests a wide variance in unemployment across the country. No one denies that there are regional variations in levels of unemployment. However, these differentials should not be exaggerated. The latest labour market figures show that the lowest regional rate of unemployment in March was 5.3 per cent. in East Anglia; and, leaving aside Northern Ireland, the highest was 9.6 per cent. in the northern region. While this difference is by no means insignificant, it is hardly as startling as those who see Great Britain in stark North-South terms might have us believe.
There are moreover marked unemployment variations between different localities in the same region. Those regions with unemployment above the UK average often contain prosperous areas with lower than average unemployment. For example, Aberdeen has an unemployment rate of under 3 per cent. and Harrogate in Yorkshire has an unemployment rate of 3.5 per cent., one of the lowest in the country. The converse also applies, with generally affluent regions containing pockets of deprivation and higher unemployment, such as Thanet, in the South East, which has an unemployment rate of 11.5 per cent.
Many areas of higher than average unemployment were in the past dominated by large heavy industries, such as coal, steel and shipbuilding. These industries have had to adjust to more competitive world markets, reduce staffing levels and increase their productivity. Some of the communities affected are still grappling—often with great energy and determination—with the challenge of adjusting to a more service and high-tech-orientated economy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, asked whether the Government cared for the regions, and she mentioned the West Midlands. The Government recognise that some areas need additional help to benefit fully from our economic success. This help takes many forms and several government departments are involved. For example, the Department of Trade and Industry's regional enterprise grants, selective regional assistance grants and consultancy initiative which target funding and advice where they can do most good in terms of encouraging enterprise and jobs growth. The Department of the Environment's urban programme and other inner city initiatives are also highly relevant, being aimed at encouraging economic regeneration and individual
312
enterprise in inner city areas in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors. We should also not overlook the assistance for rural areas channelled through the Rural Development Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, drew attention to the problems facing the construction industry. It does indeed face problems. However, I was in Docklands this week and I was very impressed both with what has been achieved in 10 years by the development corporation and with its plans for the future.
My noble friend Lord Boardman drew our attention—
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say something more? Docklands is one aspect of the matter. Can he give some hope to the construction industry for the future?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am trying to demonstrate what the Government are doing in order to stimulate the economy and to improve the jobs position in all industries.
My noble friend Lord Boardman drew our attention to Consett and the North East, an area of high unemployment, where new service and light manufacturing industries are replacing old heavy industries such as steel-making and shipbuilding. Following the success of Nissan in Washington, considerable inward investment is being attracted to the area. Nevertheless, what I have said about relative levels of unemployment is little comfort to someone finding himself unemployed. In this respect I must agree to some extent with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brookes. None of us under-estimates the anxiety and uncertainty of unemployed people at the present time—particularly about how long they will be unemployed and how quickly they can get back to work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, chided me for not understanding as if only those on the other side of the Chamber can understand. The help which my department is providing is designed to ensure that everyone has the best possible chance of getting back to work. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that even now, at a time of rising unemployment, some 400,000 jobs are available in the economy. It is also very encouraging to note that 275,000 unemployed people leave unemployment every month and more than 50 per cent. of people unfortunate enough to lose their jobs leave unemployment within three months of becoming unemployed.
The Government are determined to ensure that those people who are unemployed have the best possible advice and support to put them on the road back to work and special help when they need it. We already have in place throughout the country a comprehensive package of counselling and job search advice geared to the specific needs of individuals. In order to help people find the assistance most suited to them we have produced a new guide Employment and Training Services for You. This informs unemployed people about the whole range of employment and training measures which is available and how they can obtain access to them.

313
Last month my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced in another place the provision of£55 million extra resources for the employment service for 1991-92. These additional funds will ensure that its standard of customer services are maintained and, where possible, enhanced and will enable the employment service to provide more help for those who do not find work in the firs t few weeks of unemployment.
In future, for the first time, every person who has no job to start will, after 13 weeks of unemployment, have a guaranteed offer of an interview—a chance to review his back to work plan and to assess further options for returning to work. New job teams will be set up to search out jobs which are suitable for those who have marketable skills and to match individuals to jobs.
Job search seminars will be run to provide extra advice on job search for those who are not seeking work i a the most effective way.
My noble friend Lord Jeffreys complimented the employment service on the working of the job clubs. More than 520,000 people have been through the programme and more than half have gone into jobs. A further 80,000 have gone into training, full-time further education, self-employment or a place on the former community programme. More job club places will be provided for those with more intensive problems and needs who are already eligible to enter job clubs after 13 weeks of unemployment. We are also increasing the help available to those who have been unemployed for six months or more. In the course of the next financial year the employment service will be providing up to 100,000 extra opportunities mainly through job clubs and the new job interview guarantee.
My department keeps under review the whole range of its help to the unemployed, in the light of developments in the labour market. I can tell the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord McCarthy, that that is the position now as it has been on previous occasions when I have answered the noble Lords' questions.
The current measures are clearly succeeding. Sixty-six per cent. of those leaving job clubs go into work or into training or further education. The job interview guarantee is quickly proving to be a very effective way of helping the long-term unemployed back into work. In the year to February 1991, more than 2,500 people were placed in jobs. In addition, up to around a quarter of a million unemployed people this year will be able to upgrade current skills or learn new ones to improve their chances of getting a job through employment training.
This represents the most comprehensive range of help and advice ever made available to unemployed people. We are providing assistance to unemployed people when they need it most. My department now offers same 650,000 opportunities to people to get back to work. These are included in a wide range of options, so that individuals can find the help which most satisfies their individual needs.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is spending
314
a good deal of time, understandably, explaining what can be done about the large number of unemployed people. Will he spend a minute or two explaining how we came to have 2 million unemployed?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have traded with the noble Lord on many occasions the reason for jobs being lost in the economy; namely, the scourge of inflation. What is required now is to get inflation down. I have told the noble Lord that on many occasions.
The job clubs and the job interview scheme are particularly successful in helping people with searching for jobs and securing interviews. Nevertheless, I am sure we all agree that it is of particular importance at a time of economic down-turn that we do everything possible to sustain both employer and individual investment in training. Only thus can we be confident that the country has a ready supply of skilled people to fill those jobs which are available.
The foundations have already been laid for a significant improvement in the skills of the workforce. There are many positive signs that skill levels are increasing, and that employers and individuals are becoming increasingly aware of the importance—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. If that is true, why on earth have the Government cut the money available to the TECs?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall go on in a minute or two to say that the money available to the TECs is broadly the same as they spent last year. The idea of cuts is exaggerated.
There are many positive signs that skill levels are increasing, and that employers and individuals are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of education and training to our future economic well being. Training has never been higher on the business agenda. We too are playing our part. In February of this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced in another place an extra£120 million for TECs to ensure that ET can continue to play its full part in helping unemployed people to enhance their skills or learn new ones and get back to work. We are actually planning to spend broadly the same amount this year as we spent last year and there is extra provision over previous plans for youth training including training credits, which has been increased by about£38 million, and other measures such as career development loans and TVEI.
My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford is that all young people under 18 not in full-time education or employment are guaranteed the offer of a suitable training place. Expenditure by my department in this area is two-and-a-half times as much in real terms as was spent in 1978–79.
Training and enterprise councils, and the local enterprise companies in Scotland, are the means of developing and building on this investment in training. All 82 training and enterprise councils and 22 local enterprise companies are now in place. Over 1,200 of the country's senior business leaders have

315
now committed themselves to providing the leadership required to develop the skills which industry will need in the 1990s. My noble friend Lord Jeffreys welcomed the establishment of the TECs. How right he was. That leadership has been built not by regulation and compulsion, but through voluntary commitment and willing participation.
As well as securing commitment from employers, individuals have a growing interest in taking greater responsibility for their own training needs. We welcome this trend and the Government have already taken a number of steps to increase individuals' say in their own development. For example, up to 45,000 young people have the opportunity of participating in a pilot exercise of training credits which are giving them, at the outset of their careers, real purchasing power to choose the training and development most appropriate to them. Career development loans are also giving valuable help to individuals who are paying for their own training.
I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, wishes to intervene. I am happy for her to do so.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am most grateful. The noble Viscount has talked only about the opportunities in training for young people. But what about the 50 year-old highly trained professionals who are being made redundant?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I tried to indicate—indeed, other people have commented on this—that such training is not necessarily what those highly-skilled professional people are looking for. The job clubs and the job interview guarantees are much more suitable for getting those people back to work.
The new training tax relief which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced in another place will provide another important incentive for individuals to acquire national vocational qualifications—SVQs in Scotland. That latter measure removes barriers in the tax system which stood in the way of people who wished to improve their marketable skills and has been warmly welcomed by the training and enterprise councils and the business community. Non-taxpayers will benefit equally as the tax will be deducted at source from the cost of the course. That will be of particular help to women returning to work.
Those measures will allow individuals to have real control over their career training and development and provide a powerful stimulus to those who wish to train but are deterred by the cost. The Government are playing their part to create an economic climate conducive to growth and enterprise, but employers and pay negotiators must play their part in keeping wage settlements down if they are not to destroy the prospects for jobs.
I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, as regards the way he talked about jobs in the service industry. I believe that he called it the "confetti industry". In my view he is wrong. The people in that industry are proud of their jobs and they are worthy of more consideration from the noble Lord.
316
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked me a question which he has put to me before. He asked about the unemployment figures and the comparison. Using comparables from the data of the Statistical Office of the European Community (SOEC), the rates for the United Kingdom indicate that the change in percentage points between 1979 and 1990—that is, using the SOEC data and the consistent claimant data which I have already explained to the noble Lord—are very similar. The former showing a rise of 1.7 percentage points and the latter a rise of 1.8 percentage points. We could continue a debate about statistics for the rest of the evening. However, I should point out to the noble Lord that I believe he is barking up the wrong tree.
Job creation would not be assisted by immediate implementation of the European Commission's social action programme which would add£3 billion to the cost of British employers. Yet that is the policy of the Labour Party. Job creation would not be assisted by the introduction of a tax on the payroll of companies so that they could lower their tax bill by sacking workers. However, that is Labour Party policy. Further, more jobs would not be created if legislation were introduced which would make strikes easier and weaken the power of the courts to punish trade unions which break the laws. Yet, that too, is part of Labour Party policy.
It is more important than ever to assess all policies in the light of their effect upon job creation. The Government will continue to give top priority to the creation of a climate in which enterprise can flourish and jobs can grow.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It was indeed extremely interesting. I should especially like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, for his contribution. I am most flattered that he chose this debate in which to make his maiden speech. He made a maiden speech of great compassion and humanity on a subject which I am sure is very dear to the heart of every one in this Chamber.
I wish I could say that I was very happy with the Minister's reply. He will not be surprised to hear that I found his response extremely disappointing. Many issues were raised by speakers on this side of the House to which I believe we have received very inadequate replies, to put it mildly. The noble Viscount set out inflation as being the main cause of unemployment and the main dragon to be slain.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed. In the circumstances, does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw her Motion.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes, my Lords; I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
6.16 p.m.

Chilidren and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be Printed.
Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Football (Offences) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Sport and Active Recreation
6.17 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to call attention to the role of the Government in promoting sport and active recreation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I start the debate, I am sure that Members of the House will understand if I refer to the fact that my former city of Manchester was today successful in becoming the nominee for Great Britain in our next bid for hosting the Olympic Games. I know that all noble Lords will want to express—as they have done in the past to whoever received the nomination for this country—their full support for this nomination. I am sure that establishments like your Lordships' House will wish Mr. Bob Scott and his team every success in their attempt to clear the next hurdle.
I begin by briefly referring to the biggest spectator sport which we have in this country at present. I refer, of course, to soccer. It is no secret that there are some serious disagreements between the Football Association, which is the premier controlling body, and the Football League. My only wish is that they will come together and produce a result from their deliberations which will not be damaging to the sport. I say that because I believe that the sport, after having been severely criticised over the past few years as regards violence and so on, has done an excellent job in that it has managed to rid itself of the "violence" tag to the extent that we shall now be allowed back into Europe. I hope that any changes brought forward by foodball's legislators are decided on an agreed basis and that they will not be damaging to the sport which so many of us like to follow.
However, the debate is not only about football and those issues but about sport and physical education in general. One has to say that there has never been a time in history when sport played as important a role in society as it does today. In the United Kingdom, 22
318
million people—about 40 per cent. of the population—are actively engaged in sport or recreational activities of some kind. Those figures are recorded in Hansard. In addition, millions more are avid followers of sport as spectators at live events or as listeners and viewers of broadcast sport. Sport is a major industry. It does not merely employ professional sportsmen and women; 370,000 people are employed in associated activities such as the provision of clothing and footwear, publicity, ground and club maintenance, and so forth. More people are employed than in the motor car industry. We are not just talking about sport, we are talking about the fact that it provides a reasonable standard of living for over 300,000 people.
Sport is a great channel for physical and emotional energy. It breaks down divisions of class and race. It encourages each individual, if desired, to achieve his or her potential. It is the most immediately accessible and measurable form of individual and group expression. It can be enjoyed at the lowest and highest degrees of ability. At one level it can be the simple pleasure that is derived merely from recreation. At another it can be the demanding pursuit of excellence. If any of your Lordships have not done so, I recommend that you read In Search of Adventure, an excellent report by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It is well worth reading.
What is worrying is that there are areas in sport where instead of advancing, facilities are decreasing. We are having a debate later on a Bill relating to swimming so I shall not say a great deal about that. There will be plenty of time later to talk about swimming. However, the number of swimming pools is decreasing. The number of playing fields is decreasing because they are being sold by schools. Facilities are decreasing at an alarming rate. I asked a Question in January and the Answer showed that the number of deaths of schoolchildren through drowning had doubled in about two years. That cannot be right and cannot be dismissed on the basis that many of the swimmers die because they get into difficulties.
I am happy because I have two grandchildren—one of nine and one of seven—who are both swimmers. That is the best qualification anyone can have to start life. If they cannot swim they may get into some difficulty and be unable to sit for any other educational qualification! Swimming should be part of the national curriculum.
One of the main issues is: what do we do about funding our sport? Compared with our competitors in Europe, we do not come out very well in terms of what the Government return to sport. I have a letter from Mr. Hook of the Central Council of Physical Recreation. He asked the Customs and Excise how—I shall not call them our opponents—our friends in Europe tax sport. The reply states:
"Belgium—Services supplied by operators of institutions for sports or physical education on a non-profit making basis are exempt.
Denmark—Sports activities are exempt with the exception of motor races and arrangements in which professionals participate.
France—Entrance fees for sporting events are exempt as are the services supplied by legally constituted non-profit making sporting organisations to their members.

319
Federal Republic of Germany—Sports events conducted by institutions serving charitable purposes, and if revenues are used predominantly to cover expenditure, are exempt.
Ireland—The promotion of and admission to sporting events and the provision of sporting facilities by non-profit making organisations to their members are exempt".
The letter continues.
We are the only country in Europe where the Government take their full share of tax from non-profit making sporting institutions. One of the saddest factors is the Government's uniform business rate. Now that its full effects are being felt, it may drive out of existence hundreds of sporting clubs, including tennis clubs—not golf clubs because they are different—badminton clubs and many others. They are charitable organisations and keep to a strict budget, but they are finding that last year's local government financial legislation has placed an enormous burden on them. Overnight they have had to find two, three or four times what they paid previously. They are in serious financial difficulty and going out of existence.
The 1985 figures—the last time the figures were collated centrally by the Henley Centre for Forecasting—show that£2.4 billion was collected from sport. VAT amounted to£770 million, the betting levy£540 million, income tax£950 million and corporation tax£160 million. Those were 1985 figures, and one can only assume that considerably more than£2.4 billion is now collected. Yet the Government refuse to heed the appeal that they should put more money back into sport to allow the organisations to continue the work that the people want.
The Government support the development of sport and recreation in the country at large as well as contributing to local government funding of sport. A total of£55 million is contributed to the Sports Councils of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. No one denies that the Government give assistance. If we want to stop the sale of sports fields—they will never return—action must be taken now. Only the Government can take such action.
It is a sad fact that in schools now teachers are not enthusiastic about teaching sporting activities. They were often taught in addition to their normal duties. Teachers would stay behind to look after the soccer team and the cricket team and the girls' netball team. I do not want to politicise the debate, but teachers are disenchanted. They do not want to do anything extra because of the terrible deal that they have had from the Government over the years with their refusal to consult. We are not talking about training children to be Olympic athletes, but if they can have a start in sport with a playing field attached to the school and a gymnasium adequately equipped, teachers might be encouraged to take an increased role once again.
Many schools that wish to provide sporting facilities have to raise the funds themselves. It is a pity that a so-called advanced nation has reached that state. My view, with which I do not believe many people would disagree, is that if a school has the will and desire to give its children—we are talking about the bottom of the pyramid mainly—an opportunity to start out on physical education and sport and wants to give it a high priority, the Government should
320
consider funding that provision as a special need, and not merely lump it in with what we called the rate support grant or what has now taken its place. If schools have to choose between lowering their standard of education, selling equipment or the playing-fields or closing down swimming pools, they will naturally try to prevent all that at the expense of further development. I know the Minister has a review under way and I believe that he is due to report later this year. I hope that he will consider the point very earnestly because it would be well received.
There is another point. In my opening remarks I referred to the bid for the Olympic Games. That is not a public participation sport, it is not for the lads and the girls to achieve that level of excellence. Nevertheless, as a nation I believe we want boys and girls in this country to be able to compete on level terms with the same type of equipment, the same treatment and training facilities as our rivals from abroad. We give full commendation for our successes in the past but in other countries there is a high rate of success because of the money poured into their sports. What do we do over here? We tax the money raised by the fund-raisers for the British Olympics. Money is taken from them which people have given for a specific purpose. To me, that is nonsense, if we are talking about achieving the results we want.
I do not wish to say much about swimming but if£5 million extra were made available it would provide for every child to be trained to swim by the age of 11. Can anyone think of a better investment than that? We read sad reports of children drowning immediately they get out of their depth.
I have managed to find the figures for tax taken from the British Olympic appeal fund. The Government took?¾ million in tax out of the£5 million raised. Is that an incentive to firms or people to contribute to the worthwhile effort which we want to see succeed?
There is much that I wish to cover on the subject but noble Lords will understand that I must sit down, otherwise I shall take up the time allotted to other people. I know that colleagues all round the House have specific points to raise and I believe that this debate is worthwhile. I beg to move for Papers.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when we discuss sport and recreation I find myself launching into a huge subject covering every aspect of modern life. I link it primarily with the problems of the education system that we have inherited. We find increasingly that we must be taught to get the best out of physical activities and sport. In a world where competition or even taking part in most activities depends on technical skills, a certain type of education is required. We are effectively talking about basic coaching and instruction in physical education.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean, who opened the debate for raising such an important subject. He drew attention to such necessities as playing fields, for without the proper facilities none of these sports can take place. Any form of football—association, league or union—is impossible unless there is a grass surface

321
or something close to it. The same is true of competing in athletics, particularly the running events, with the possible exception of the marathon. Unless there is a proper dirt track—not the old cinder track and certainly not a small amount of lime dragged across the grass—we can no longer perform at a competitive level on such surfaces.
I return to coaching and the initial instruction stage. We find increasingly that pupils in schools are not given the right amount of time for the necessary level o -instruction. An important point which must be stressed is that the people giving instruction are not well qualified. I made this point in a previous debate. Someone who played football for a side in the 1950s is not necessarily qualified to coach today: the boots are different, the ball is different, there have been rule changes in the game. The same is true of all the other major participation sports. There is increasing emphasis on qualified and professional coaches. When we tall: about physical training and activity I believe that the trend towards professionalism is important. As we discover more about the human body, we must spend more time studying and keeping up to date with the changes. The training methods of 20 years ago are just not good enough and in some cases have even proved to be harmful. We must keep ourselves up to date.
People say, "What about those who merely want to take part in a sport at a social level?". The Sports Council has a list of levels of sporting involvement; they are foundation skills which we hope will only be necessary for schoolchildren. I hope that everyone will be taught how to catch a ball, how to balance properly and how to run in a straight line. Then there is participation, which probably covers what many people think of as having a good time with a small team kicking a ball about on a Sunday, or what is called the coarse rugby team in which I played on my way up. I shall probably play rugby again in it on my way down. Then there are the performance people who try to enhance their position in a sport and achieve greater success. At the top of this pyramid of sporting activity there is excellence.
All these levels require a high degree of coaching. They may not necessarily be high in the pyramid on performance—the structure may be there, but teaching is not dependent on that. It is often easier to teach someone who has the foundation skills to participate at a performance level than to give him the foundation skills in the first place. People should be taught how to teach and then people can be taught the skills. This approach is often missed by many people. They think, "Why do we need coaches? Why do they have to be so highly skilled?". We must teach people how to take part before they can consider actually doing so. We must let them appreciate that there is something from which they can benefit.
Modern attitudes make people want to participate. A survey by the University of Aberdeen—it is nice, for once, to be able to mention my old university without referring to the cuts—stated that about 96 per cent. of males and 95 per cent. of females thought that sport was a good reason for keeping oneself healthy. However, that involved sport as opposed to physical
322
education. I assume that the two are strongly connected, but it does not always follow. There is the person who likes to go to aerobics once a week or jogging or to lift a few weights. That fits a person to be part of physical education and people should be trained how to do that as well. The number of injuries from training probably matches the numbers involved in any participation sport.
Then there are activities like keeping mentally fit and alert. There is an attitude, which I am glad to say is declining, that only the "thicko" takes up sport. I have come to the conclusion that there are no very stupid professional sportsmen. If a person takes part in any sport, he must be able to a certain extent to understand what is going on and the structures and flows of the sport. If we work with a partner in a team we must be instructed how to relate. We must accept the instructions of the coach. The same is true of the coach who has to give instructions. A trainer may get away with shouting in a loud voice that everyone must do more work and more press-ups, and they still do that. However, there is usually a coach in the background in any sporting structure of any real use telling people when to stop some activity.
A noble Lord, who unfortunately is not present tonight, told me that racehorses are now trained in short bursts of activity and then allowed to rest. It is interesting to note that most athletes are now trained by that method as opposed to being worked flat out the whole time. As regards sporting methods, we must know what we are doing. Ultimately my comments are leading me towards a plea for more funding. However, the Minister may already have hardened his heart to such a plea. I see a slight smile on his face. That may mean we shall receive some good news, but on the other hand we may not.
We must ensure that better training is given and more funding is made available. That is a must for our schools and colleges as we must ensure that young people who participate in sport and become coaches later receive as good a grounding as possible in their early years. We must also be able to top up skills as knowledge increases. We must make sports medicine and information on dietary matters available. As someone remarked to me, if one buys a Rolls Royce, one has to run it on petrol. Those who participate in sport must obtain the right balance of proteins and vitamins from their diets if they are to take their sporting activities seriously. We must ensure that people can add to their training base. Funding must be made available to enable that to occur.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, referred to the grave matter of the Government's policy of heavy taxation. Most sporting establishments that I have come into contact with—mainly rugby clubs—have found it difficult in the past few years to maintain their existing premises and meet the demands of banks as a result of the high interest rates that have been charged. I am the vice-president of a small rugby club in Norfolk. That club has experienced great difficulty in paying back the debt that it incurred when it set up its new grounds and facilities. A reduction in its tax bill would have been a great help.

323
I have slightly overrun my time and therefore I shall finish with one simple comment. If participation in sport is considered beneficial to people's health and mental well-being, the Government would do themselves and the nation a good turn by making more funds available for sport and by ensuring that the right attitudes prevail in schools.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on introducing this subject. I apologise in advance for the fact that I shall have to leave before the end of the debate. I did not realise the debate would start so late and I have duties to perform tonight that I cannot easily avoid. I wish to echo warmly the good wishes that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, conveyed to Bob Scott and his team in Manchester. I am pleased about the good news concerning Manchester. I thought the team made a magnificent and imaginative stab at the selection process on the previous occasion and I deeply hope that this time Manchester is selected to host the Olympic Games.
I was slightly dismayed to read a leader in The Times a few days ago which suggested that only glamorous capital cities had any real chance of being selected to host the Olympic Games. I do not agree with that suggestion. It is, of course, no part of your Lordships' duties to instruct the International Olympic Committee on how it should make its decisions. I repeat that I do not believe that only glamorous capital cities should be candidates for hosting the Olympic Games. The leader I have referred to suggested that Berlin and Moscow were obvious candidates for the Olympics as they are both centres of reconciliation. Berlin certainly is a centre of reconciliation and I pray most devoutly that Moscow will become such a centre. However, I cannot believe that that should be a factor in choosing where the games should be staged.
Manchester is exactly the kind of exciting and gutsy city which should stage the Olympic Games. A decision to stage the games there would be of enormous value to Manchester as it would acquire all the facilities that accompany the staging of the games. Those facilities would remain long after the games were over. The neighbouring areas involved in the bid for the games would also gain. That is one of the big factors in an Olympic bid. I realise that it is the International Olympic Committee which assumes responsibility for these matters, but I cannot believe that the support of the Government for the bid is not more or less essential to its success. I urge the Government to support the bid to the limit of their capabilities.
It is recognised that an event such as the Olympic Games necessitates large capital sums being invested in facilities that are needed for the games. Investment is required in the infrastructure and in the sporting facilities themselves. It is not only exciting and occasional events such as the Olympic Games which require large capital sums. We have already been told today of various forms of activity which require such
324
sums. The other day I read some interesting statistics on indoor tennis in Europe. The press is forever complaining that British tennis players no longer reach the finals at Wimbledon and that the Australians, the Americans, the Germans and the Swedes are the ones who manage that feat. I suspect that one of the reasons for that is that Britain has poor coaching facilities. If all our courts are situated outdoors, our players will only manage to play for about three weeks of the year due to the British weather.
France, Italy and Spain have thousands of indoor tennis courts. In England the figure is in the hundreds. I believe that I am right in saying that there are only about 250 indoor tennis courts in England. It is perfectly clear that building indoor tennis centres is an expensive game, but those statistics could be echoed for dozens of different sports. Noble Lords may ask where the money will come from to build such facilities. I have no hesitation in riding my perpetual hobby horse when I say that the capital funding for sport, as for the arts, and indeed for all kinds of environmental schemes, could very well come from a national lottery.
I read with great interest the suggestion in the Budget that if the Government and the football pools' authorities co-operated, sums of£40 million,£60 million, or even£80 million could be raised for the benefit of the arts and sport. That suggestion is to be welcomed but a national lottery comes into a different dimension. We need to look at the concept of a national lottery in a different way. All the evidence I have suggests that a national lottery run on a charitable basis for the benefit of the arts, the environment and sport, could eventually raise something in the region of£1 billion a year. That sum of money would enable the funding of major institutions to be undertaken without pain. At the moment there is no capital funding for such activities. There is no central capital funding to which the arts or sporting bodies can look.
I cannot believe that a well established and well run national lottery would not provide the answer to many of the questions that will be asked tonight. As I said, I shall not be able to stay to hear all the remaining speeches, but I am prepared to wager that if one totted up the capital sums that will be asked for, suggested, prayed for, and dreamed of tonight, they would run into many millions of pounds. I believe that my national lottery idea is the solution to this matter.
6.48 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to support the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and the gist of his powerful speech. The noble Lord has referred to this matter before, but I was nevertheless horrified to hear that there are fewer swimming pools and playing fields now than was the case some years ago. It is almost incredible that that could have happened in our country which like other Western countries is becoming richer and richer and where, as we all know, there is tremendous interest in sport. However, I shall leave the broader aspects of this matter to the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I shall

325
touch on one or two more secondary subjects, although perhaps "secondary" is not the right word to use.
I wish to make a strong plea for encouraging more womer to take up sport. In preparing for this debate I discussed sporting issues with some of the leading sporting figures in the country. There is a very strong desire to see more encouragement given to women. I see that the lights of the Chamber have gone out: I thought that that was a gesture of distaste on someone's part but that has now been corrected. I am sorry to see that my noble friend Lady Phillips who is to follow me has had to leave the Chamber. However, we have my noble friend Lady Hollis to wind up the debate. I hope that in this House in future more than one noble Baroness will take part in these debates.
In my preparations I found that Mr. Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie, the famous county cricket captain, argued strongly that women should be allowed to become members of the MCC. It is extraordinary that they cannot. They can become members at the Oval, where the Prime Minister is a very welcome and frequent visitor. I understand that he has now joined the MCC and I hope that more pressure will be exerted. I spoke to Mr. Denis Compton on the subject. My noble friend Lord Dean tells me that he once saw Mr. Denis Compton, who is best known as the most brilliant batsman we have had in this country since the war, take part in a soccer international in which eight goals were scored. Since my noble friend tells me that we must accept it as true, and therefore we can regard Mr. Compton as possibly the best all-round athlete in this country since the war. When I asked him about the admission of women to Lords he said that he agreed provided a bar was reserved for the gentlemen. I am not sure what the motive was for that. Mr. Denis Compton has, like Mr. Ingleby-Mackenzie, been an honoured guest in this House but he has not been admitted to the Bishop's Bar where he would have found that women are the life and soul. Therefore, we must ignore that particular proviso and demand the inclusion of women as members of the MCC.
I want to stress one simple point, but it needs careful thought. I find among sporting leaders a demand that there should be a Minister for Sport in the Cabinet. We have had Ministers for Sport for some time. One of them, Mr. Denis Howell, did great work from outside the Cabinet. Nevertheless, there is a great deal to be said for the idea that there should be a Minister in the Cabinet with specific responsibility for sport. I do not argue that there should be a Minister in the Cabinet with responsibility solely for sport. lie could be made Minister for sport and leisure. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, was a successful Minister for the Arts, when he was Leader of the House of Commons and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was Minister for Science when he was Leader of this House. Therefore, it could be combined with some other role. However, I find a very strong demand in sporting circles that specific responsibility for sport should be placed on a member of the Cabinet.
326
I should like to mention one other point before I sit down. Mr. Denis Compton urged me to draw the attention of the House to the need to maintain the competitive element in sport. That is a delicate subject which could be discussed at length. I submit, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who brought us so thoroughly up to date with sporting matters will agree, that the competitive element in sport can and should go hand in hand with the team spirit. The two are not contradictory but complementary. I have been president of a village cricket team for, it seems to me, a hundred years. In a village team everyone wants to make more runs and in that sense cricket is an individual sport. However, there is also a very keen and passionate desire to beat the neighbouring village. The two elements can and should be combined.
I raised with Mr. Compton the question of those who are not much good at ball games. He agreed that in that case they should be offered facilities for, let us say, mountaineering. I do not wish to insult great mountaineers by suggesting that they are not good at ball games. I am sure that they are excellent at games. We have a world class mountaineer on the staff here, among the doorkeepers. Nevertheless, a great many people are not good at ball games and find cricket a nightmare. At Eton they were allowed to be what we called "wet bobs". That was regarded with great contempt in my house, which was dominated by cricketers and led by the great G.O. Allen who captained England and was visited repeatedly by Pelham Warner from Datchet. At any rate, there were these wet bobs. No one really knew what they did on the river but it was a way of getting exercise. There ought to be alternatives, whether it is rowing, mountaineering or something that does not involve being any good at ball games.
With those few thoughts I should like to support the demand for more funding. I am sure that other speakers will echo the strong plea made by my noble friend Lord Dean and other speakers.
6.55 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening in this most important debate. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Dean, who has been a long-time campaigner for the improvement of sport, recreation and physical education facilities, this is my first innings on this important subject.
As one who was educated in South Africa, where physical education and sport play a major part in the school curriculum, I have been astonished by the recent statistics, many of which have been mentioned today, which show how little time is dedicated to PE and sport in schools in Britain.
In my allotted eight minutes I should like to focus in the main on sport and physical education—which I shall refer to as PE—in state schools, for surely we need to concentrate at grass-root level in our endeavours to promote sport. I welcome the Government's decision ensuring that PE remains a compulsory subject in the national curriculum.

327
Over the past week I have had the opportunity to interview several members of the PE profession. They made it quite clear that one needs to distinguish between the objectives of sport and PE, stressing that sport is just one aspect of PE. The objectives of physical education training appear to be to provide pupils with a physical, social, mental, emotional and creative training. To that end I warmly support the findings and the recommendations of the interim report of the national curriculum working group on the future of physical education and sport in state schools. Their objective is to draw up a balanced programme of physical education which is relevant to the abilities and needs of all pupils.
One of my main concerns is a point which was made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, relating to the training of PE and sports teachers, including in-service training. I note the concern of the recent report of Her Majesty's inspectorate highlighting the lack of specialist trained teachers in primary schools. The Central Council for Physical Recreation recently reported that there has been a dramatic drop in the training of PE teachers over the past few years. The inspectors found that while three-quarters of primary school games gave sufficient emphasis to PE, they were nevertheless inferior lessons, often reflecting the lack of teacher expertise. In addition there was insufficient time and a failure to monitor pupils' progress. The report also highlighted the need to improve the conditions under which PE is taught.
In that regard I welcome the joint initiative by the national governing bodies of sport, the British Council of Physical Education and the National Coaching Foundation who are currently developing a resource pack—similar to one that I have with me from the LTA entitled Tennis for Teachers—aimed at providing primary school teachers with innovative and up-to-date teaching techniques.
There is, however, a major Achilles' heel to those initiatives in that subsequent to the new education Act, which effectively delegates school budgets to schoolteachers—a point which has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean—in many cases, as a result of the restraint on budgets, teachers have been unable to up-date their knowledge by attending in-service courses. To put that into perspective, I understand that it costs schools in the region of£70 to£90 per day to cover for each member of staff released to attend such courses. Although I note that the Sports Minister has recently granted£1 million to the Sports Council to provide extra curricula coaching for children, have the Government earmarked any additional funds to cater for those much-needed in-service courses?
As I have said, the LTA has produced a tennis handbook for teachers which is a companion to a seven-hour course aimed at updating and refreshing teachers' knowledge of the coaching of tennis. I recall the issue of Hansard which reported the last debate on this subject introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. In that debate the noble Earl, Lord Longford, lamented that we no longer had the likes of Fred Perry. A point also raised by my noble friend Lord
328
Birkett is that gone are the glorious days of the tennis heroes. I understand that in the English team we do not have even one member who is in the top 100. I fully support the idea of a national lottery, but I believe that we need to improve the teaching of the game at grass roots level—that is, school level. I also note that the National Cricket Association is qualifying up to 1,000 new coaches every year. A former England wicket keeper, Keith Andrews, was recently quoted as saying:
"If you gain a child's interest before 11 years of age, you will keep it".
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, touched on the subject of the sale of school playing fields. Again, I note from a recent survey that up to 1,000 acres of playing fields are being sold per month, which is a staggering figure. The Government have commissioned the Sports Council to draw up a playing fields register. Perhaps the Minister could outline what other measures are being taken to halt what some commentators have referred to as "the sale of the century". I am asking not for a blanket ban on the sale of all pitches, but for greater regulation of sales. There are several encouraging cases where school land has been swapped for other land with sufficient additional funds to erect new sporting facilities.
Several debates both in this House and the other place have drawn attention to the need for more access to be gained by local communities to expensive specialist sports facilities which are available to so many of our state schools. We have all read of the protective attitudes of many education establishments to the dual use of schools, often referred to as the "grass in the goalmouth" syndrome. I am aware that the Government encourage dual use of facilities in schools which creates closer ties with parents and the local community, but I would hope that more schools would initiate a business approach to hiring out such facilities, obviously at reasonable rates, to local clubs and community groups.
Clearly, sport is a preventive medicine. As much as I enjoy watching sport on television, I cannot help but feel that the advent of central heating, satellite television, personal computers and stereos are contributing to many people in this country becoming lounge lizards and couch potatoes. I should hope that increasingly head teachers will appreciate the need to increase and not decrease the amount of time spent on PE and sport in school curricular. I commend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science on his initiatives, but I believe we still have a long way to go.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for initiating the debate. I am sure that we are all grateful for the opportunity to give this topical subject a further hearing. Indeed, one of my last speeches in the other place in March 1987 was about the availability and preservation of sports grounds. I am glad to have a further chance to take part. I will not weary the House by parading my meagre qualifications in this

329
field because they are on record in Hansard in both Houses. I do not advise any noble Lord present to look in the index to pursue it.
When the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was speaking about fitness and training I recalled some of the problems I faced in pairing Members after the opening of the gymnasium at the other end of this building, particularly those who had crocked or otherwise incapacitated themselves while allegedly trying to get fit. I hope to take a rather more constructive attitude during the remainder of my remarks. I welcome the move by the Government to shift the Sports Minister from the Department of the Environment to Education. I think it is a good move and it is in the spirit in which the whole subject of sport should be approached. I am happy to say that I know tie present Minister and have played cricket with him. I know that the job is in good hands, and his enthusiasm is extremely welcome. I do not wish to sound too sycophantic, but I am also extremely grateful that we have a Prime Minister who takes cricket so seriously. Early in his prime ministership I particularly welcomed his encouragement of the new movement, Cricket 2000, which is trying to encourage the teaching and playing of cricket in our schools, the need for an improvement in which at national level hardly needs any stressing on my part.
The Prime Minister has also spoken about a classless society. I would like to take up one point taken up by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, about women in sport. In the meagre amount of research that I (lid before the debate it was drawn to my attention that very little publicity and media coverage was given to sports played solely by women. The example given to me was that of netball. While there has been some growth in coverage by Channel 4 of events such as the World Tournament, it is still regarded very much as a minority sport. World championships are to be held in Australia in June of this year and I doubt very much whether the coverage given to them will be anything like the coverage of, say, an ashes cricket series. That is a pity. The sport of netball is played in many Commonwealth countries. Apart from the fact that men are now taking up the game, especially in the antipodes, we ought to try and get away from the substantial bias towards the coverage of sports which are played mainly by men or are men-orientated.
The next question to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is the provision of sports grounds Although I am no longer a Member of Parliament, I still live in the area which I had the honour to represent. From time to time I am approached by young people who are most anxious to get a borne ground where perhaps their local hockey or football club can play regularly. It is extremely difficult to do it. The area has never been overblessed with facilities, and when I was a Member I was constantly fighting undesirable developments. I give the House one example. The county council has recently received a consultants' report on the provision of gypsy sites. Lo! and behold, it is not suggested that the middle and upper-class areas of Bristol Mould have any sites at all, but in the
330
working-class areas of east and south Bristol several sites are suggested for serious consideration. One site is near my old constituency on ground which at present is used for informal recreation. The other is the resurrection of a site which was rejected after a public inquiry in 1980 to which I gave evidence. It is time we had a change of emphasis. It seems to me that areas which have had the dirty end of the stick over the years are always the first targets for any development such as a gypsy site which, regardless of what the civil liberties lobby will say, most people regard as a highly undesirable development to have anywhere near their residential accommodation.
Most debates hinge on asking the Government for more funding. I shall not do that. I ask the Government to continue to urge local authorities and others to make better use of the resources which are already available. Let us have the maximum participation by the local community in the very large acreages which are locked up in our educational establishments.
I certainly support what the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said about this matter. A lot more can still be done. We talk about local schools, but there is a very large acreage locked up in the sports grounds of higher and further education establishments. Our universities, polytechnics and colleges have access to grounds, even if they themselves do not possess them. The students enjoy substantial vacations, which we used to be told were absolutely necessary for academic study for their courses but which we are now told are absolutely essential for working in order to supplement the grants that they receive. I do not know which is the answer. The fact remains that there are substantial opportunities for those grounds to be used while the students are not there.
Certainly so far as concerns Bristol there is a very large ground at Coombe Dingle on the north side of the city. I am sure that greater use could be made of it by local people enjoying facilities which are at present used by the privileged few. In fact, if I were to be naughty, I might even suggest that a gypsy site might be tucked away into this very upper and middle class suburb of Bristol without anybody noticing it.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean for suggesting and opening a debate on this subject. I speak more as a doctor than as a sportsman, although I indulge in a lot of outdoor activities and enjoy them. I should declare an interest in that I am the vice-chairman of the National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Prevention. I shall concentrate on the role of exercise in the prevention of heart disease.
Until the 1940s coronary heart disease in the United Kingdom was comparatively rare and concentrated in better-off people who ate well and did not have to use physical labour in their work. But since the second world war, coronary heart disease has spread down the social scale, reaching a peak in the late 'sixties and early 'seventies and in fact becoming a mass disease—truly an epidemic, from the Greek words epi and demos which mean "upon the people".

331
It is now a major cause of premature death. In the past decade we have seen a slight decline, but those in skilled and semi-skilled occupations and their wives now bear the brunt of heart disease. The position has been reversed. That is especially true in the north of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords may ask: what has that to do with exercise and sport? There is a connection. Since the 1930s more and more manual processes involving physical labour have been replaced by electric, petrol or diesel driven motors. People walk less often and less far to work. Their homes are warmer. As a result, they burn up fewer calories. However, their consumption of calories has gone down less rapidly. The result is that for the past 30 years or so there has been a gradual increase in obesity. More people are overweight although I do not think we have yet reached the average waist size of the citizens of the United States.
With increased body weight comes a tendency to higher blood pressure and higher blood cholesterol, which are both risk factors for coronary heart disease. In the days when we needed plenty of calories we could burn up any fat in our diet. In fact fat is a highly efficient energy source. But when it is not burnt up, fat, and particularly saturated fat, causes raised blood cholesterol levels and contributes to coronary heart disease. The problem is that many fatty foods are highly palatable—for example, cheese, cream, butter, pork crackling and bacon—and, as I said, calorie intake has not decreased as rapidly as energy expenditure.
As well as encouraging sensible eating, an important task is to help people burn up more energy through physical activity. There is plenty of good evidence to show that in western (northern) societies, lack of exercise is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease. The benefits of exercise for the heart were reviewed last year by a working group convened by the British Heart Foundation, which I attended. The report of that working group has now been published. We heard that more than 40 epidemiological studies have compared the risk of coronary heart disease in physically active and inactive men. The more rigorous the study, the more clearly the risk of inactivity was demonstrated.
Inactivity has been shown to be as important as smoking, raised blood pressure or raised blood cholesterol which are all scientifically established as risk factors for coronary heart disease. I quote from the working group's report:
"As the number of physically demanding occupations diminished it was recognised that if physical activity was to make any contribution to the prevention of coronary heart disease it would increasingly have to be through exercise in leisure time".
An important point is that everybody should be physically more active. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, said that 40 per cent. of the population are engaged in some form of sport or physical activity. But the working group examined the data and found that only 20 per cent. of the population indulged in the kind of exercise that they need in order to benefit their cardiovascular system. Unfortunately, although
332
women now undertake more physical activity than they used to do and the gap is closing, what is not closing is the social class gap. Semi-skilled and unskilled men and women continue to show particularly low rates of participation, which is precisely not what is wanted when one considers the epidemiological data with regard to where most coronary heart disease now occurs.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. Would he agree that that might be due to the fact that the working class (to use an old fashioned word) lead more strenuous physical lives on the whole—both men and women—and therefore do not need sport or feel that they need it quite so much?
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am quite sure that that used to be the case. But many jobs which were carried out manually now make use of electric tools, drills and lifting machines. Much of the labour has gone out of the more physically demanding jobs. To an extent what the noble Earl says is true—I do not want to enter into a long discussion because we are limited for time—but it is less true than it used to be.
I do not believe that spectator sport is the answer. Quite clearly, it is not. I am sure that part of the reason for the spate of football hooliganism over the last decade or so is that crowds become very excited with the adrenalin flowing and want to indulge in physical activity but the only outlet available is to get drunk or beat up the other team's supporters and anyone else who happens to get in the way.
I paraphrase now from the British Heart Foundation report. A wide range of structured activities should be made available to all individuals. Such provision must primarily come from the public domain because the voluntary sector may lack continuity and be socially selective. Commercial provision is also selective by ability to pay—a phrase which we seem to have heard recently in connection with another current political controversy. I might add that the working group was completely apolitical. In fact if anything I should have thought that its outlook was rather conservative.
Multi-purpose sports centres where lots of activities can take place are vital. Walking and cycling are widely acceptable but unfortunately cycling is becoming more dangerous. There is urgent need to improve safety through better provision for cyclists and an increasing awareness by other road users of the legitimacy of cycling.
As other noble Lords have said, schools have a vital role to play. I quote from a report by the Sports Council of three years ago. It states:
"The present physical education curriculum is narrow, overly skill oriented and for many children constitutes aversion therapy."
Exercise needs to be enjoyable if it is to become part of daily living. For many people, simple activities such as walking or cycling will be the most easily attainable. Perhaps as those methods are more used as a means of getting about, those concerned with transport at local and national level will consider more seriously the needs of pedestrians and cyclists when formulating policy.

333
My own organisation, the National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, made a submission in February to the Department of Education and Science on sports and active recreation policy. It was warmly received by the department. I hope that it is now being studied in detail. It makes specific recommendations to the DES and to other departments. In order to increase physical recreation for all people in the country, there needs to be joint activity and participation by more than one department, in particular those of health and environment, as well as education and science.
One recommendation of the report echoes the remark of the British Heart Foundation report. It states that there should be monitoring of privatisation of local sport and recreation facilities to ensure that all groups can continue to participate.
In conclusion, to be effective, there must be collaboration between several ministries. I hope that the noble Lord recognises how serious is the situation and will act upon it.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dean on choosing this important subject although it is obviously not a sport that attracts the mass participation of the ranks opposite. I apologise to noble Lords for speaking in both debates today and burdening the House twice. I have an excuse. I can point to a link between the two subjects. The Government's unemployment policies are certainly creating enforced leisure for a large section of the population. Perhaps the least that the Government can do is to encourage the provision of adequate leisure facilities to occupy the time of the unemployed.
I speak not only as a general lover of sport and a life long practitioner of various sports at very low levels—including playing football for the House of Commons and, barring the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, one cannot get much lower than that—but also, with the then Lord Porchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, as one of the original members of the Sports Council. That was set up by Denis Howell as Minister for Sport in 1965. I was sacked, I believe on political grounds, immediately the Conservatives took office in 1970. Therefore, I am sure that no one will accuse me of introducing politics into sport. I was also a member of the Chester Commission on Association Football.
The history of Government intervention in the nation's sporting life since 1965 has been mixed. However, on balance I believe that the experience has been positive. Government intervention as regards sport his undoubtedly been a good thing. The successes; have been considerable. Information and statistics on sports participation, which used to be very thin, have been collected and analysed. They are necessary for all decision making and for planning regional and local facilities. We need to know the demand and the supply. Interesting information emerged. For example, I had not realised that more people participated in fishing than in playing football. Without numbers one can lose a sense of proportion.
334
I refer to what my noble friend Lord Rea said. Development of medical research for sport has been greatly encouraged by Government intervention. We learned about sport injuries and health. We should note that sporting fitness is not the same as good health. Coaching at all levels was expanded and improved with Government encouragement and co-ordination. There is still much more to do. The sport of tennis is obviously a major problem.
The regional dimension of sport was encouraged and strengthened by the Regional Sports Council. Perhaps most important was the focusing of local authorities on sport and recreation as a central policy responsibility, not just a side aspect of planning. Many valuable sports facilities were built by local authorities between 1965 and 1985 for use by the community. The Sports Council and relevant Whitehall departments Responsibility— moves periodically from education to environment—gave valuable advice on recommended designs for facilities, efficient construction, optimum dimensions and distribution of facilities across authorities to enable pooling.
Some progress was also made in the related important, but very difficult task, already mentioned, of persuading local education authorities to open up school sports facilities for community use. That battle was being hard fought 25 years ago. It is rather like facing the tide of the sea that is eternally coming in. My impression is that much of the momentum has been lost. Shortage of money has stifled many promising developments. Sport has been an innocent victim in the Government's battle with local authorities to cut back local expenditure because it is easier to close a swimming pool or defer the building of a multi-purpose sports centre than to cut expenditure on staff, and so on.
Instead of schools opening up their facilities to the community—for which we have been battling for a quarter of a century—they are now forced to sell those facilities. That really is selling more family silver. It will never again be possible, especially in the inner cities, to regain those facilities for the school or community.
I was at Brighton racecourse on Monday doing applied research for this debate, as noble Lords will understand! It is municipally owned and offers good scope for leisure development. The younger councillors have good ideas and ambitions, but again they lack the funds. Perhaps joint ventures with private capital is the only solution that remains for municipal racecourses. Racecourses are ideal settings for multipurpose sport and recreation use. More could be done in that respect by the racing authorities, as I know that the Minister appreciates.
However one approaches the issue it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that more resources must be devoted to sport. Above all, we must not lose sight of what I believe should be the ultimate objective and philosophy of Government policy towards sport. As the Sports Council report of 1969 stated, the objective is,
"to enable everyone to pursue his personal sporting and recreational interest to find a sense of satisfaction and challenge in his own life".

335
That is a community policy. It should not be geared to or judged by success at the top of professional sport—although we shall all remember that under Denis Howell, our first Labour Sports Minister, in 1966 Britain won the World Cup. However, the main aims should be community objectives. The Government should be active and play a positive role in encouraging and enabling sports bodies and local authorities to provide new sports facilities and to open up existing facilities necessary for maximum sporting participation by the whole community. I regret that we saw too little of that in the latter part of the 1980s. It is to be hoped that the government, now and after the election, will do more to meet the challenge.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for giving the House the opportunity to debate a subject upon which many of us have spent most of our lives. I am delighted to have the opportunity of talking about sport in your Lordships' House. I am often told by my friends and by my wife that I seldom talk about anything else. However, it is difficult to squeeze a lifetime's interest into eight minutes. It is appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, should introduce the subject on the day on which his city and mine, Manchester, has been chosen to represent Great Britain in its bid to stage the Olympic Games. I join other noble Lords in congratulating Bob Scott, Brian Redhead and others who have worked indefatigably to bring that about. If the Olympic Games take place in Manchester an advantage will be gained not only by what will then occur but by what will be left behind. I refer to the additional facilities and opportunities for the people who live in that great city.
On the other hand, it is regrettable that the debate should be held on a day when before it has finished the second leg of the semi-final of the European Cupwinners Cup will be broadcast on television live from Old Trafford. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, may have left to watch the match. No, he gave a different reason for his absence but that suspicion entered my mind. Those of us who wish to see some of the match have a clear incentive to make short speeches.
The noble Lord's Motion falls into two parts: the Government's role in promoting sport and also active recreation. The noble Lord defined "active recreation" as being open air, informal recreational activity. I wish to deal with the subject in two parts, taking the latter first. Some years ago I had the honour to hold the post of chairman of the Countryside Commission. The commission's job was in part to promote access to the countryside for informal countryside recreations. We carried out a survey which revealed that if they had the opportunity, two-thirds of the population would out of choice spend at least one day per month in the countryside engaged in some form of informal countryside recreation. They referred to short walks, long walks, picnicking, travelling to the coast, visiting a historic house and so forth.
336
We live in an age of increasing leisure time—not merely the compulsory leisure time due to unemployment but also the leisure time brought about by changing work patterns. It is vital that we should do everything that we can to provide opportunities for the constructive and fulfilling use of leisure in ways that are not consumptive of scarce resources and not destructive of a fragile environment. Countryside land is a resource which is in short supply in Great Britain. The Government have a duty to continue to safeguard national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. They must safeguard the long distance routes such as the Pennine Way, the coast-to-coast path from St. Bees Head to Robin Hood's Bay, Offa's Dyke and other walks together with the Nature Conservancy Council's sites of special scientific interest. Such places are under intense pressure and the Government must do what they can to influence the whole planning mechanism and local and planning authorities. They must make sure that those areas of land which people enjoy so much for informal, open air recreation are preserved and protected from the kind of development that will destroy them. Once lost they are lost for ever.
I take great pride in being involved in the foundation of the Groundwork movement which was set up to tackle urban fringe decay and restore the enjoyable countryside to the urban fringes of our cities. We were providing opportunities for countryside recreation close to the homes of millions of people who now seek it. The Government are giving a great deal of support to the Groundwork movement. I hope that it will continue and will increase so that we shall see more such Groundwork ventures in different parts of the country.
I turn to the other part of the Motion; that is, sport. I do not want to get into the numbers game and give figures, but the Government must assist sport because it needs public money, as do the arts. The arts should have more money, as should sport. I wish to comment on the purposes to which that money should be put. I believe that Government financial support should not be used in the fruitless pursuit of excellence. I am as sorry as anyone that we have such a rotten Test cricket team—and honestly it is a rotten team—but excellence does not matter. What matters is providing opportunities for people to play games, even to play them badly. I should like to see more public money being spent not on promoting excellence but on helping young people to play games badly. By doing so we shall solve the problem of excellence. I do not believe that you create George Bests by setting up coaching schemes; Harold Larwood was not produced by a coaching scheme. He was the finest fast bowler who I ever saw or batted against.
How did Harold Larwood emerge? He emerged because there was somewhere to play cricket at the colliery where he worked near Nottingham. During their time off miners and pit boys used to play cricket. A member for Nottinghamshire county cricket club saw Larwood bowling extremely fast with a beautiful action. He got out of his car and spoke to the boy. Within a fortnight Larwood was on the Notts. groundstaff. By the end of the season he was playing for Notts. The following season he was playing for

337
England. If you provide enough opportunities for enough people to play games of all kinds, excellence will look after itself.
I am sure that we need other facilities. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, mentioned indoor tennis courts. I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, that I have always regarded tennis as being a game for people who are no good at cricket. However, many indoor net wickets are now available for practice throughout the winter. That is an immense advantage to young people. Perhaps I may examine the countries which are successful at cricket, in particular the West Indies. It has an endless queue of excellent fast bowlers. If two are injured and three are ill there are four or five more in the queue. Why is there always someone available? It is because all strong, young boys in the West Indies play cricket. Not only do they have good weather but they have the opportunity to play on the beaches and on the fields.
When I travel in city areas such as London, Merseyside, Manchester, Leeds or Bradford I see scores of fit young men, some black and some white, many of whom would make wonderful fast bowlers. However, I suspect that many have never set eyes on a cricket ball, let alone tried to bowl one. It is a pity that they do not have an opportunity to play. In our cities all we see are notices stating "Keep off the grass". I should rather see people playing cricket there—that is what it is for. The Government must provide more places for people to have a go. Some will make it, but many will not.
I have been a Member of your Lordships' House and the other place for long enough to have become used to the fact that my advice is not always followed. However, I have never ceased to regret the fact that my advice was not followed on a particular sporting occasion. Many years ago I saw a young fast bowler who was 15 and still at school. At the time I had connections with Old Trafford. I rang up the then coach, Stan Worthington, who played for Derbyshire and later for England and said, "Look, Stan, this fellow is a splendid fast bowler. Let me bring him along". Stan agreed and when I took the boy along he watched him bowl. He bowled at Geoff Edrich, Alan Wharton and others. The coach then took me on one side and said, "I am sorry but he is not strong enough to be a fast bowler". The boy's name was Frank Tyson. Two years later the Australians found that he was more than strong enough to be a fast bowler. I wish that my advice had been followed on that occasion because Lancashire would have had Brian Statham and Frank Tyson opening for it and the team would not have been as low down in the championship as it was during some of those years.
I conclude by saying that there should be more and more help but it should not be used in the fruitless pursuit of excellence. It should be used to provide more and more opportunities for more and more people to play whatever game they want to play. If the Government do that, excellence will look after itself.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this debate has called attention to the Government's role in promoting sport and active recreation. In a significant contribution my noble friend Lord Donoughue recorded governments' interventions over past years.
Government priorities, as stated by themselves, are: first, to improve the nation's health, and on that we heard the important remarks of my noble friend Lord Rea; secondly, to alleviate social deprivation; and, thirdly, to promote excellence, although the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, challenged the foundation of that concept.
It is clear from this very interesting debate that two further themes should have Government priority. The first theme is cash. My noble friend Lord Dean and the noble Lords, Lord Birkett and Lord Addington, referred to issues raised by the increase in VAT, corporation tax carried by sporting organisations, the need for a national lottery and pressures on local government finance. The second theme is access. The noble Lord, Lord St. John, referred to the problems of children and playing fields. I hope the Minister will comment on the startling statistic that 1,000 acres per month of school playing fields are being lost permanently as green and open spaces. Perhaps I may add some figures of my own. Labour Party research has suggested that under pressure from the national curriculum 30 per cent. of all schools have cut their PE provision and another 30 per cent. expect to do so. I hope the Minister will comment on that.
As well as access for children, my noble friends Lord Longford and Lord Cocks referred to access to sport by women and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred to access to the countryside. Your Lordships will forgive me if I also seek to explore the themes of cash and access. As the Sports Council has continually noted, certain groups are consistently under-represented in sport—school leavers, rural communities, the elderly, certain ethnic minorities, the disabled and women. I shall focus on the disabled and women.
As regards the disabled, your Lordships may know that whereas 30 per cent. of Europeans practice sport only 3 per cent. of disabled people do so. Few local authorities have positive policies towards sport for the disabled; though I pay tribute to my own city—Norwich—which has been cited by the Sports Council as a model in that sphere.
The disabled are as much entitled to the pleasures of sport—the sociability, the challenge and physical sense of well being—as are any of us. Almost any sport, including skiing, rock climbing or gliding, can be undertaken by the disabled and in some spheres such as archery, their standards are at least as high as those of the able-bodied. Yet they are handicapped a second time, beyond their disabilities, by low income. For example, a sports wheelchair will cost 10 times that of an ordinary wheelchair. The disabled face additional costs for transport, equipment and facilities. There are also the disadvantages of building design but if a sports facility is built suitable for wheelchairs it will also be suitable for parents with prams. If noise vibration is reduced for the hard of

339
hearing, or lighting improved for lip reading, that is splendid news for spectators. If colour-contrasted surfaces and better signing are provided for the visually impaired, that too benefits all users. In other words, sport, almost more than any other sphere, can permit the integration of the disabled into wider society to the benefit and education of all parties.
The other group which is consistently underrepresented in the world of sport, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is that of women. Baron Pierre de Coubertin—the founder of modern Olympics—fought all his life to exclude women from sport. I understand that Mrs. Pankhurst threatened to disrupt the 1908 London Olympics in the same inimitable and intimidating fashion in which she was interrupting the political meetings of Lloyd George and Churchill in order to get women admitted to the sports of tennis, archery and skating in those Olympics. By 1988 in Seoul one-third of the competitors were women but they are still excluded from the triple jump, judo, the pentathlon and the pole vault; yet women have climbed Mount Everest and regularly beat men in marathon races.
Sport, and especially English sport, remains one of the most distinctively male of all social institutions, as many other of your Lordships have mentioned. It is played more by men, watched more by men and controlled almost entirely by men. Fifty-seven per cent. of men but only 37 per cent. of women participate in sport. I am sorry to say that that gap is much wider in the North than in the South. In the areas of participation, sponsorship, access to facilities, prestige, and media coverage, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cocks, sport is perceived as a male activity.
However, women perform as well as or better than men in some endurance events such as long-distance sea swimming, cycling or riding. In events where there is a premium on speed and strength, women are narrowing the gap. In swimming, the women gold medal winners of 1979 in freestyle and butterfly would have taken the men's gold medals just 10 years before. In track athletics, too, women are improving at a very fast rate. In 1948 there was about a 30 second difference between the times of men and women in the 800 metres. That is now barely 11 seconds.
What is the reason for that? As Doctor Liz Ferris, herself an Olympic medallist and specialist in sports medicine, has shown, when trained, women's stamina and aerobic capacity can surpass that of untrained men with no harmful physical effect. As the Sports Council regularly reminds us, there is a greater performance difference within the sexes than between them.
Therefore, if women's participation and performance are not really a matter of biology I suggest to your Lordships that it is a matter of sociology. Women rule themselves out of what they perceive as an essentially male activity. They face practical problems; that is, problems of child care, transport, fears of going out after dark and lack of money because for two-thirds of women interviewed the cost of sport was a problem. However, women also face
340
problems of cultural perception. Many women share the view that leisure is a reward for paid work to which only male partners are really entitled. That is a view often taken by women who are not in paid work. They feel guilty about spending money on leisure. It is also a lack of physical self-confidence. The growth in health and fitness to which your Lordships have referred is to be welcomed but that is available privately only for the relatively affluent.
That brings me to the subject of cash. As the Audit Commission noted last year, and as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, sports provision is supply-led particularly for children, the disabled and women. All those groups are dependent on the local authority as an enabler and provider of sport because they have few physical or financial resources of their own. They are dependent for facilities, subsidised prices and for activity promoters.
However, sports facilities are financially risky. Their future use is hard to predict. They are also expensive. According to the Audit Commission, indoor facilities recover less than half their costs. Apart from private golf courses, outdoor facilities recover less than 25 per cent. of their costs. They need and receive subsidies. Because of compulsory, competitive tendering local authorities are severely restricted in their ability to provide new facilities or to refurbish old ones such as swimming pools; otherwise they make themselves non-competitive.
One must add to that the local management of schools. Many schools are being encouraged to sell their playing fields. Schools are encouraged to cut back on maintenance and safety equipment or on out-of-grounds activities such as swimming. Schools are also encouraged to introduce charging, which again will limit access for pupils. All that is taking place now. Added to that are capital controls on local authority spending and charge capping. We can predict that local authorities will increasingly withdraw from non-statutory activities such as sport which, so far, is one of their most substantial enterprises.
One further and final indignity is that under the Local Government and Housing Act 1990 it appears that even where there is private investment in dual-use facilities such as school fields, the Government sets it against the local authority capital allocation. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
If what I have been suggesting to your Lordships is correct, the record of this Government has been not only that of failing properly to fund sport at national level—for example, cutting in real terms the grants to the Sports Council—not only increasingly crippling the ability of local authorities to provide sports' facilities, particularly for the disadvantaged, the disabled, children and women, but it appears also to be undermining the very enabling partnership role that they are urging local authorities to adopt.
If the Government and your Lordships mean sport is for all, I suggest that the Government must allow local authorities to enable sport to be available for all.
7.50 p m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, first I join other noble Lords in congratulating Manchester on being selected in the bid for the forthcoming Olympics, and add my best wishes. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this constructive debate. I hope that I can do justice in my reply to the widespread wisdom and interest that has been shown.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for this opportunity to demonstrate how much [his Government have done and are doing to promote sport and active recreation. It will be helpful if I explain what is being achieved through the three main channels of public expenditure in this area—the Sports Council, local authorities and schools.
Direct government financial support for sport is channelled through the Sports Council. The increase in real terms of 30 per cent. in the value of this funding since 1979–80 demonstrates admirably this Government's commitment to increasing participation and performance levels in sport. The council's grant in 1991–92 will be£46.7 million compared to a figure of£15.6 million in 1979–80. During the same period it has increased its income from receipts from£2.7 million to just under£10 million, and that figure is expected to increase to£11.5 million by 1993–94.
In addition, an increasing amount of private sector finance is attracted through the council's incentive funding programme operated in the regions. In 1989-90 about£5.4 million of private sector investment in sport was generated in that way.
The Sports Council has used a significant part of that finance in recent years to concentrate on four main priorities at the national level. First, to assist the wide range of organisations that contribute to British sports to do so as effectively as possible; the Sports Council provides that assistance through, for example, financial support and guidance on improved planning and management skills. Secondly, to increase participation among specific target groups. Thirdly, to provide support services for sport at competitive level and, finally, to improve access to facilities for sports at every level of performance.
Through the Sports Council's regional structure much has also been achieved at that level. The main tools have been the provision of advice and grant assistance and, above all perhaps, through the stimulation of better co-ordination between the agencies involved at the local level and in the drive for increased participation and opportunity through, for example, the grant-aiding of sports development officers.
That activity by the Sports Council together with greater awareness of healthy lifestyles—so much a feature of the debate—has contributed in no small measure to the large increase in participation levels during the eighties. Between 1977 and 1986—the period for which we have most comprehensive statistics—the number of adults regularly taking part in sport rose by over 3 million in England to 17 million and by 1 million to 21 million in Great Britain as a whole. Noble Lords will be interested to hear that participation by women rose by 8 per cent. while participation by men increased by 5.8 per cent. That
342
makes a combined increase of just under 7 per cent. of the adult population regularly taking part in sport and active recreation.
Before turning to the role of local authorities as basic providers and enablers of sport and recreation, I should also mention that one of the pools promoters has recently come forward with a proposal to establish a foundation for sport and the arts. That should increase the total level of resources available for sport. The Government have given their support to the proposal in the announcement in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor, that there will be a cut in pool betting duty from 40 per cent. to 37.5 per cent. for a period of four years. That is provided the revenue foregone—some£20 million a year—is given by the pools promoters to the foundation.
The proposal is that the pools promoters would make a sum of£40 million a year available to set up the foundation. Together with the revenue foregone from the reduction in pool betting duty that will amount to an additional£60 million a year for sport and the arts. The only exclusions would be league football and racing which benefit from other schemes. Discussions are in hand to decide how these proposals might best be taken forward.
I turn now to the role of local authorities, since they have traditionally been the major providers of sports facilities open to the general public. They spend around£600 million a year on sport. Authorities can fund such expenditure in a number of ways; from borrowing; from capital receipts; from revenue contributions—subject to the discipline of the community charge—and via contributions from third parties such as the Sports Council and charitable organisations. There is no restriction on the use of third party contributions and they confer 100 per cent. additional spending power.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would give way. Is the Minister aware, when he speaks of the way that local authorities can raise funds, that there is distinct evidence that in some of the more deprived areas swimming pools have had to close? Local authorities have had to increase their charges above what the local mums and dads can afford to pay for their children to learn to swim. That is one of the key areas the Government should review.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot comment too deeply on anecdotal evidence. I respect entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Dean, says. If he will supply me with evidence, I shall be pleased to look into it.
As a result of that expenditure by local authorities—with some grant-aid from the Sports Council—over the past 10 years there has been a significant growth in the number and range of sport and recreation facilities provided. For example, the number of sports halls and leisure centres rose from 770 in 1981 to some 1,130 by 1990; the number of ice rinks doubled from 23 in 1981 to 46 in 1990, and the number of public swimming pools has risen—which may surprise some noble Lords—from just over 1,000 in the early 1980s to nearly 1,200 now. There has also been a major growth in facilities such as artificial pitches and synthetic

343
running tracks which were new innovations in the early 'eighties. Along with all this there has been a continuing programme of replacement and refurbishment of older facilities.
While acknowledging that local authorities perform an invaluable task in sports provision it should also be noted that a recent Audit Commission report said that local authorities have not always been clear about who they were aiming to attract to their facilities or the service that they were hoping to provide. That is one of the reasons the Government introduced competitive tendering for the management of local authority facilities. Competition will encourage managers to think more carefully about what their customers require. They will need to think again about such basic things as their hours of opening and the range and standard of the facilities they provide, which is perhaps what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, was referring to in part.
It is encouraging that the public sector also is increasingly recognising its role in enabling provision by working in partnership with the private sector to provide modern multi-purpose sports facilities and in some areas the private sector is already going it alone. The private sector already owns and manages more than 500 major facilities such as golf courses and swimming pools and countless smaller facilities in the form of gyms and fitness clubs. As people find that they have more time to devote to recreation, the private sector will respond by providing an ever wider range of facilities. The Government welcome these developments and we shall continue to encourage such partnerships in the future.
I come now to the very important role of schools in sports provision. Sport is schools is without doubt the foundation for continued sporting activity by millions of young people in adult life. It is also the basis of excellence in sporting achievement. The vast majority of those who excel at particular sports have begun to develop their skills and enthusiasms while at school. We cannot underestimate therefore the importance of providing young people with as many sporting opportunities as possible during their time at school. It is the linchpin on which depends the development of healthy lifestyles by the population as a whole, and which determines in large part the success or failure of our international sportsmen and women.
As I said during the debate on physical education and sports in schools on 28th January, the move of the Minister for Sport to the Department of Education and Science demonstrated very clearly the importance the Government attach to sport in schools. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for acknowledging that. But transfer of responsibilities alone is meaningless without the policies and actions to back this up. I believe that we already have in hand a raft of initiatives and policies designed to encourage and develop sport in general and school sport in particular. Perhaps the most important limb of our policy on school sport is the inclusion of physical education in the national curriculum. PE is now a compulsory subject for all pupils in maintained schools between the ages of 5 and 16. This is the first
344
time that it has been a statutory requirement. The Government have resisted pressures to make the subject optional, particularly at Key Stage 4 of the national curriculum.
It might also be opportune at this moment to remind noble Lords of the distinction to be made between what we mean by physical education in the curriculum, and the overall place of sport in schools. There is no doubt that physical education should include a significant amount of sport, including competitive team games as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I was therefore very glad to see the recognition of this in the interim report of the PE working group which stated that,
"We regard competitive games, both individual and team, as an essential part of physical education"
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, mentioned that matter. I accept that team competition is now very broadly accepted over all political areas. We look forward to receiving the final recommendations of the working group in due course. They are to be submitted to the Secretary of State by the end of June. The interim report has been issued for consultation and has generated comments from a wide range of interests. I am sure that the eventual outcome will be to raise significantly the standard of physical education, including sport, provided in our schools. While provision in some schools is already of a high standard, there is no doubt that the quantity and quality overall is not at the level that we would wish. The introduction of the national curriculum is all about raising standards in all schools to those of the best, and I am sure that this will be achieved for physical education in the same way as for other subjects.
I now turn to a few specific points raised by noble Lords in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, spoke about the sale of playing fields, as did the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. Local education authorities are under a duty to provide playing fields at maintained schools in accordance with standards laid down in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. Where they find that they have surplus land available, LEAs are free to decide to dispose of it in order to raise capital that can be put to good use in meeting other priority needs. I am not clear about the acreage which has been mentioned. It sounded rather alarming. If the acreage is genuinely surplus to needs, then that is something we encourage. There is no evidence to suggest that there has been an overall net decline in the number of school playing fields as a result of LEAs selling land that is surplus to requirements. However, on 16th October the Government issued a draft planning policy guidance note which asked local authorities to review the long-term educational and community needs for such facilities before deciding on their disposal. The Government are currently considering the responses to that consultation exercise.
A number of noble Lords brought up the subject of tax and exemption for sporting bodies. Ministers consider that many other non-sporting bodies would have a stronger case for exemption. It would not be possible to cover all such bodies. Certain sporting

345
bodies which have charitable status such as the British Sports Association for the Disabled and the British Paralympic Association, are exempt from corporation tax. In his Budget speech my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced changes in the structure of corporation tax which will benefit the BOA and other sporting organisations. These were a reduction in the rate at which tax is levied and an increase in the level of profits liable to taxation. It could result in significant savings to the BOA but the precise figures are not available at the moment.
In principle sports clubs are liable to corporation tax on any profits and capital gains they make in the same way as any other mutual association or company. In practice, even large professional clubs may pay little or no tax. For example, only a handful of league football clubs paid any tax in 1988–89. Many sports clubs are set up as members' clubs. In principle, such clubs are still subject to corporation tax. If a members' club restricts its activities to its membership and does not operate on a commercial basis, it is not regarded as carrying on a trade for corporation tax. Therefore none of its income which arises internally, such as subscriptions and fund-raising among its members, is taxable. The members' clubs may still pay tax on any income from investment and on profits made from non-members.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise t lat in effect he is saying that we should restrict membership for all sports to certain groups? Would not that be counter to the general spirit that sports should be open and available to all?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government have pursued a policy of trying to simplify tax. When we make exceptions, we run into difficulties. I am pointing out that there are ways of minimising tax. Some organisations are not always aware of that. Sometimes sports bodies set up separate charitable trusts which have the same special tax privileges as other charities. Most of their income gains are free of tax provided that they are used for charitable purposes. They can receive tax-relieved donations under the various charitable giving schemes such as covenants, pay-roll giving, gift aid and the rest. To achieve charitable status the trusts have to be set up only for purposes which are charitable; for example, to provide physical education for young people or to work with the physically handicapped.
Mention was also made of the uniform business rate. For the first time authorities are able to offset the cost of discretionary rate relief against their payments to a non-domestic pool. The Government considered mandatory rate relief for non-profit making bodies such as sports clubs. They decided that local authorities are best placed to assess the benefit that local communities derive from sports clubs. The department has published guidelines to help authorities in considering that.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke very forcefully' about coaching. I welcome the publication of Coaching Matters. The review group has been asked to consider a wide range of issues in relation to coaching and coaching education. Coaches have an
346
important role to play in the provision of extra-curricular sporting activities for young people. We shall be considering very carefully the report' conclusions. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is not in his place. I have taken note of his suggestion of a lottery although I believe that the suggestions that I made earlier are of greater interest immediately.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked for a Minister of sport and leisure to be in the Cabinet. I shall pass on that view to my right honourable friend. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, asked whether the Government had earmarked money for in-service training. The answer is no. It is not for the Government to do that. I point out to the noble Lord that£76 million has been allocated to teacher training in the current year. It is up to the LEAs to decide their priorities. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, that better use should be made of existing facilities. I believe that competitive tendering will lead to greater efficiency and better use of facilities. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, also asked about other aspects of teacher training. I can tell him that the Government's criteria for the approval for initial training courses provide that all primary courses should prepare students so that with suitable support and guidance from more experienced colleagues they can plan individual lessons within general schemes of work in physical education, teach to the level required by the national curriculum and assess the achievement of pupils in all foundation subjects.
The reduction of PE teachers was mentioned. I can say that the reduction in funded places in 1990 for secondary initial teacher training courses having PE as a main subject for specialism was based on the department's projections of teacher demand and supply. This forecasts a continuing surplus of secondary trained PE teachers well into the 1990s. The department's projections are updated in the light of new data as it becomes available. This is taking into account setting allocations for funded places in future years. The House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for alerting us to the benefits of exercise and to the dangers of not taking it. May I tell him that the Government are keenly aware of this and the issue is being addressed in the current review of sports policy.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for acknowledging the Government's attitude to sport. I take note of his criticisms of shortage of cash. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, spoke of access to and preservation of the countryside. I congratulate him on his work with the Groundwork Trust for which I have the most enormous admiration. He made the point that if it is worth doing something it is worth doing it badly! I see that if everyone has the opportunity that excellence will follow of its own accord. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, highlighted a number of categories. She spoke of the wrong attitude towards women in sport. I regret that I do not have any information on that. I suggest it is a question of attitudes. Changing attitudes does not rest with the legislators. I deplore it when women do not get a fair share of influence in any sphere of life. I was not aware of the problem and I shall certainly be

347
interested to follow it up. The noble Baroness was interested in other categories, including sport for people with disabilities. The Sports Council is in the lead on the implementation of building on ability. The Sports Council has given national grants of£75,000 to the British Paralympic Association,£111,000 to the British Sports Association for the Disabled, and£65,000 to the United Kingdom Sports Association for people with mental handicap. Of this new money,£100,000 is on top of the grants being given to sports for the disabled by the Sports Council's regional offices. The Council has also prepared draft guidelines for governing bodies and how they might increase their involvement in this area and is now preparing an overall position statement as a basis for a Sports Council document and action plan.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the unemployed and the ethnic minorities. Publication of the departmental review, Sport and Active Recreation Provision in the Inner Cities, December 1989, on funding for inner city projects, states that the Sports Council expects to have spent about£4.7 million in 1990–1991 on grants by their regions to inner-city projects. In addition, the council's grants to organisations such as governing bodies on sport are directed towards target groups such as the young, the unemployed and ethnic minorities.
On the matter of new initiatives, in addition to the proposed foundation I should like to end by referring to the announcement made by my honourable friend the Minister for Sport last month for an extra?1 million grant-in-aid to the Sports Council. Of this, some£700,000 will be used to provide extra curricular coaching for young people in about 10 sports. The remaining£300,000 is to be spent on assisting in the improvement of extra curricular sporting opportunities for disabled children and the integration in sport for able-bodied and disabled people. We are determined both to reverse the recent decline in extra curricular sport and to widen the opportunity to participate in sport for all young people, including those with disabilities. As my honourable friend made clear these initiatives are only a beginning. The£700,000 for coaching will be used to fund a series of regional pilot schemes which we hope will provide models for good practice for wider applications. What better way in this year of sport to demonstrate the Government's commitment to sport.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in the short time that is left I must express my gratitude to those who have taken part in this interesting debate for their wide-ranging contributions. I was glad to hear from the Minister that the report he called for will be in his hands by June. Perhaps that will give us an opportunity, through the usual channels, to debate this sport once again when more time will be available.
The Minister spoke about local authorities. Perhaps he will be aware that the AMA has written to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Sport offering to assist in any way it can in expanding sport.
348
We cannot close without referring to what has happened at the top of the scale. It is pleasing to see at last how golf can now compete on an international scale and how we are beating the Americans at their own game. Golf has become an expanding sport and is reaching out to many people. That is most acceptable. I understand that one of the agricultural colleges—Merrist Wood Agricultural College in Surrey—now runs special courses training youngsters in golf course management. That must be good. Having said those few words I once again thank all those who have taken part and also the Minister for his very detailed answer. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Education (Swimming and Water Safety) Bill [H.L.]
8.17 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is high time the old adage, "Good swimmers are those most often drowned" was itself firmly sunk. The truth is that most accidents in water occur when someone has found him or herself there unexpectedly and many such accidents could be prevented if more people knew how to swim.
It is a sobering fact that in the past three years almost 200 children under the age of 15 have died by drowning. More dreadful still is the fact that over 80 per cent. of those children could not swim. I am sure that some of the tragedies could not have been averted in any way but, self-evident as it may seem, it must be stressed that the ability to swim is a critical factor in reducing the risk of drowning.
Research undertaken by the Royal Life Saving Society UK and the Amateur Swimming Association has shown that throughout all age groups the risk of drowning is more significant for non-swimmers, and in the 10-24 age group non-swimmers are three and a half times more at risk than swimmers.
Every parent wants his or her child to be able to swim. Swimming is a superb recreational activity—it is Britain's most popular active participation sport—and one which can be accessible and attractive to every child, including the unathletic and the disabled. And of course swimming is a lifesaver. Not surprisingly, children who cannot swim are more at risk of drowning than adults in the same position. It makes sense to teach life saving skills to the young in exactly the same way as they are taught road safety. Research has shown that children who do not receive the opportunity to learn to swim at primary school become the non-swimming adults of the future.
With the growth in water-related sports such as canoeing, sailing and wind surfing, it is more important than ever not just that every child learns to swim to a minimum standard but also that every child has an understanding of water safety.
The Royal Life Saving Society UK defines a knowledge of water safety as being aware of the hazards, knowing the swimming pool users' safety code, which includes, for instance, advice against

349
swimming after meals, and knowing about safer swimming in open water. It is because of the undoubted link between safety and swimming ability that there is a growing belief that swimming should be accepted as an educational activity. Yet many schools and educational authorities have no requirement at all for their schools to provide swimming lessons—and the level of provision is declining.
The three national governing bodies of swimming—the Royal Life Saving Society UK, the Amateur Swimming Association and the English Schools Swimming Association—became so alarmed about the trend that they formed the Swim for Life Campaign with the aim of securing the teaching of swimming by all schools. In 1988 the campaign surveyed local authorities and schools and found to its dismay i hat more than half had no clear policy for the teaching of swimming while more than 80 per cent. of local authorities in the UK could not meet the basic standards for the provision of swimming lessons.
A more recent survey by the Secondary Heads Association confirms the trend and shows a further reduction in the provision of swimming lessons, with fewer than half of 11 to 15 year-olds having any curricular swimming. Quite apart from the safety implications of the decline, it is clear that the disparity of provision is unfairly placing millions of school children and their parents at a disadvantage by forcing them to make their own provision.
The inequality of swimming provision cannot simply be ascribed to resources or indeed to the political complexion of the local authorities. High and low spending councils have been cutting back on swimming lessons. I am sorry that my own county of Berkshire has just cut out entirely the£82,000 budget which each year enabled 48,000 school children in the county to have swimming lessons. This has produced a public outcry—a petition with 4,700 signatures was delivered to the council—and a saving to the poll tax payer of paltry 40p. I was particularly struck by the comments of Newbury swimming teacher Mrs. Hilary Gough, who is now to be made redundant as a consequence. She said:
"I am just amazed that they could do this. It is a sad day for the schools in Berkshire and for the children. The children get so much from it. It is to save lives. That is why we do the job".
The Government have recognised the importance of physical education in schools and have, quite rightly, placed it on the national curriculum as a foundation subject. So we have the means to ensure that every child receives proper tuition in swimming and water safety and not just those who have more enlightened local authorities. The Government have set up a working group to advise on the form which PE should take on the national curriculum. I am delighted that, in its interim report, the group recommended that all young children should learn to swim by the age of 11. The chairman of the group, Mr. Ian Beer, who is headmaster of Harrow School, explicitly recognised the resource implications of the recommendations, but told the Secretary of State that,
"after very careful consideration we concluded that these …elements of physical education were too important to leave to chance and they should be an entitlement for all young people under the National Curriculum".
350
However, the Government are concerned about resources and have firmly told the working group to make recommendations which can be,
"realistically related to the general level of funding which can reasonably be expected to be available".
I am glad that the Minister for Sport, Mr. Robert Atkins, took the trouble last week at a conference organised by the Swim for Life Campaign to clarify the Government's position. He said that the Government needed,
"no persuading of the value of swimming tuition",
which is extremely welcome, but went on to say that,
"we simply cannot impose a duty on schools which they are unable to deliver".
That seems fair to me. We need to look more closely at the implication of a fixed educational requirement that every child must be taught to swim. The Swim for Life Campaign addressed this very issue at its conference. A facilities consultant of the Amateur Swimming Association presented an assessment of the cost of teaching every 10 year-old to swim. He placed the cost at£4.8 million.
This approach is particularly sensible as it recognises that resources must be allocated more evenly if there is to be a minimum swimming requirement. It is clearly wrong that some children receive extensive swimming tuition and recreational swimming while others receive nothing at all. The sum of£4.8 million seems a small price to pay when measured against the cost of hundreds of children's lives. It is a tiny part of the multi-billion pound national education budget.
The ASA assessment went on to highlight the cost of not teaching children to swim. We know from surveys that every child who learns to swim then visits public pools, which gain revenue from the visits. Conversely, pools will lose revenue if swimming lessons continue to decline. If every 10 year-old were taught to swim, the trend would indicate a potential revenue gain of something in the region of£138.5 million—far in excess of the cost of the lessons.
My purpose in introducing a Bill to require all school children to be taught swimming and water safety is to promote the implementation of the working group's interim recommendation and to ensure that the Government's concern about resources can be met. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to set programmes of study and attainment targets for swimming and water safety for all pupils in maintained schools as part of the foundation subject of PE on the national curriculum. That goes beyond the existing requirements of the Education Reform Act, which leaves it to the Secretary of State's discretion as to whether swimming and water safety should be specified as part of PE on the curriculum.
More importantly, my Bill would require the Secretary of State to conduct a survey of the swimming facilities available to schools and would give him the power—for a transition period of five years—to exempt a school or local education authority from the swimming tuition requirement if satisfied, on the evidence of the survey, that lack of swimming facilities would place an "unreasonable burden" on them. So if there are rural schools whose children cannot easily reach pools, they may be

351
exempted. But the Bill specifically states that every child must still be taught the principles of water safety, and such schools may only be exempted for the transition period of five years.
The Bill would therefore ensure that the teaching of swimming generally would not be stalled because of the resource problems of a minority of schools and would also ensure that the Government must address those problems by making facilities available after five years. That seems to me a reasonable period in which to provide any necessary increase in resources for swimming tuition, so fulfilling the plea of the Secretary of State for Education for realistic proposals.
The life saving features of swimming make it essential that children should be taught to swim to minimum standards. It would be for the Secretary of State to prescribe targets. The Swim for Life Campaign has welcomed the working group's recommendation that pupils should be able to swim a minimum distance of 25 metres, possess water safety skills and have a sound knowledge of water safety by the age of 11. Those are the modest requirements we seek to implement. The campaign is also concerned that up to a third of swimming teachers employed by local authorities are insufficiently qualified. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools should review the necessary qualifications and set minimum criteria.
This is a small Bill with a big aim. I believe that it will be enormously popular up and down the country. In fact I and the Swim for Life Campaign have received tremendous support from parents and teachers and I have had a great number of letters from Members of your Lordships' House. This is a Bill which will save children's lives and bring pleasure to millions more who are denied the swimming tuition which only the lucky receive. It may require some modest increase in resources but allows its provisions to be phased in so that the burden can be met.
The Government's endorsement of the principle of swimming tuition for all children is most welcome. The Bill will give them the opportunity to translate words into action. I ask the House to agree with the working group on PE that the provision of swimming lessons for our children is too important to leave to chance. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Norrie.)
8.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the aim of this Bill is very simple and very laudable. I believe that everyone should be taught to swim for the simple reason that everyone has the capacity to drown. It is as simple as that. In this country where we are surrounded by quite a lot of water—indeed, there is hardly a city that does not have at least some free flowing water going through it or a large lake into which people could fall—we should all have the capacity to be able to scramble to the edge of the waterside if we happen to fall in.
Swimming is also a part of our physical education. Although it is something of an overspill from the last
352
debate, it is worth pointing out that many leisure activities relating to any form of water sport are virtually impossible to undertake unless one can swim. Indeed, it would certainly be most unwise to take part in any form of boating or sailing activity if one could not swim. On those grounds, I suggest that not only is the Bill very reasonable, but also that it is rather sad that we should have to introduce such legislation.
The Sports Council estimates that 56 per cent. of pupils are being taught how to swim at the age of 11; in other words, 44 per cent. are not. It also estimates that only 41 per cent. of pupils are being given swimming tuition at the age of 14, and 46 per cent. at the age of 15. If we consider that something like half of the pupils across that age group are not being taught to swim, or given any swimming instruction, I suggest that those pupils could become the subject of accident statistics in the near future.
The idea of ensuring that everyone can swim a minimum distance of 25 metres is a very basic requirement. Some people say that that is far too short a distance and that there are certain situations where that level of swimming expertise will not be sufficient to get one out of trouble. However, I believe that we should have that minimum requirement.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, spoke thoroughly on the Bill. Therefore, I shall curtail my remarks and emphasise once again the fact that if people are beside water and everyone has the capacity to drown, then everyone should at least have the opportunity to learn to swim. It could save lives.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I fully support the Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on his clear and comprehensive explanation of the legislation and why it is necessary. I shall shortly home in, not surprisingly, on its importance for children with special educational needs. However, I should like first to endorse the fact that swimming is very important for all of us. It is a life saver and a life enhancer and, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, it is the key to all water-related sports. Swimming is an activity in which you can participate on your own; there is no need to find a partner, an opponent or a team. It is also something that you can do throughout your life. Indeed, local authorities run regular swimming classes for senior citizens.
I should like to quote from the comments made by Terry Barnett to the Southern Region Sports Council on the national curriculum PE working group's interim report. He is chairman of the Southern Sports Federation and vice-chairman of the southern region of the British Sports Association for the Disabled. However, his comments relate to all children. He said:
"Like learning to read, learning to swim should be seen as a life skill since it opens up so many other opportunities, and for education to deny children the chance to become `aquatically literate' verges on the criminal".
Those are strong words. But, on reflection, Mr. Barnett has a good point. I say that because failure to teach a child a basic means of survival must be wrong. "Aquatic literacy" is critical for all children. But for children with a disability or a learning difficulty it is especially important. They need to develop any skills

353
to the maximum in order to compete on an equal footing with their able-bodied peers through all stages of life.
Swimming has always been a valuable and popular sport for disabled people. It is a great confidence booster because it is something that you can do completely without aids; in other words, you leave your crutches or your wheelchair behind you. That increases self-esteem. Water is also the great leveller. The disabled child gets on to a more equal basis with his able-bodied contemporaries and therefore he rises in their esteem.
From the integration aspect, swimming is a sport in which you can participate with able-bodied friends. Members of a disabled family can swim together, or indeed with other families. We should remember what Alf Morris said over 20 years ago: when one member of a family becomes disabled the whole family in effect become disabled and somewhat cut off.
From the beginning swimming has been a very important sport for the disabled sports movement. Pupils from some special schools have achieved tremendously high standards at national and international level. While the move towards the integration of children with special educational needs into mainstream schools is very welcome, teaching PE can present problems. Swimming is probably one of the least difficult sports in which to include children with special educational needs. There is a great need to make young teachers aware of the problems involved.
I should like now to mention the British Sports Association for the Disabled. It has prepared a teaching pack which advises teachers in mainstream education on how to adapt PE activities. It teaches disability awareness. The association has found that lack of communication is really the biggest problem. The pack is at present in the consultation stages and is being considered by the Department of Education and Science. If the Bill is enacted the inclusion of swimming in the national curriculum will not present a problem in relation to teaching children with special educational needs, as for many years there has been an ASA recognised certificate for teachers of swimmers with disabilities.
I very much hope that the Bill will become law. I hope that Clause 1(4) is a sufficient safeguard to ensure that this will become a reality. It is vital to ensure that all children become aquatically literate and also to enable children with special educational needs to become confident, competent and integrated people who can compete on a more equal basis with their able-bodied peers and, ultimately, in the able-bodied adult world. I wish the Bill a safe and speedy passage.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware that among those noble Lords who are taking part in the debate this evening there are some who are expert swimmers. I must admit that I am of a lesser species; I am an aqua funk. I do not relish total immersion unless the water is piping hot and laced with bath oils.
354
However, despite my own inadequacy, I strongly support the Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Norrie for introducing it.
Ever since my youngest son had a close encounter with a duck pond, I have held the belief that all children should be taught to swim. I was delighted that the school to which my three sons went at the age of eight guaranteed that every child would be able to swim by the first half of the summer term, and that was in an unheated pool. I believe that the aim which is embodied in the Bill—that every child should be able to swim unassisted by the age of 11—is not an impossibility.
One of my children has never enjoyed being in the water. However, I know that if he found himself in a potentially dangerous situation, his ability to swim would improve his chance of survival—unlike the 80 per cent. of the 200 children who have drowned in the past three years, a figure referred to by my noble friend Lord Norrie. That was an appalling loss of life. Moreover, what a terrible toll of grief, suffering, misery and anguish it must have been to those families involved.
I know that there is a belief abroad that swimmers are actually more at risk of drowning and that a person who has had inadequate swimming instruction develops a false sense of confidence and could be in greater danger than someone who cannot swim. That is why some people, like me, avoid the water completely. However, there is evidence which points to the contrary. The ability to swim is a critical factor in reducing the risk of drowning.
A market research survey which was commissioned by the Royal Life Saving Society and the Amateur Swimming Association showed that non-swimmers in the 10–14 and 15–24 year-old age groups are over three-and-a-half times more at risk than swimmers. It also showed that only in the over-35 age group could the drowning risk be broadly comparable. But even then the risk was still more significant for non-swimmers.
Of course, learning to swim is not a cast iron guarantee and, as we all know, swimmers have drowned. Sometimes they drown very close to the edge of the water. Therefore, water safety skills need to be taught at the same time as, or even before, traditional swimming skills. That is why I welcome the fact that the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the report of the PE working group to which he referred include a requirement to teach all children an understanding of water safety alongside swimming tuition. My noble friend said, and I agree, that water safety, like road safety, is something that all children should be taught. It does not require any increase in the number of swimming pools or teachers.
I also welcome the Bill's stipulation that there should be national standards of swimming, appropriate to the child's age. At the moment we do not have a common method of assessment, or a uniform definition of the ability to swim—a fact recognised by the working group—and I support that group's determination to reach a common definition. It is important to know at what we are aiming.

355
A combination of water safety tuition and the provision of minimum standards will curb the phenomenon of the over-confident, weak swimmer being caught out of his or her depth. Other countries do better. A 14 year-old English schoolchild going to school in Australia for the first time was assessed as having a reasonable standard of education but in need of remedial swimming. They clearly take swimming seriously. Nearer to home, the French have not only a programme of building hundreds of 25 metre pools, they have also introduced comprehensive swimming instruction which is already showing dividends in improved standards. In West Germany, every child leaving school can swim. In the Netherlands swimming lessons are given to children aged 7 and over, and there are standard tests to determine their ability. It is reasonable to aim for all British children to achieve at least minimal swimming standards by the time that they leave primary school.
On the issue of resources, I know that finding the resources is a real problem. It is often made worse by the fact that there is so little information as to existing facilities. We do not know the size of the problem. We do not know how many schools have pools or how many pools there are within a reasonable distance of schools. The Bill proposes a survey to find that out. That is a good start. If the Amateur Swimming Association's figures, to which my noble friend Lord Norrie referred, are correct, and, targeted properly, the cost is about£4.8 million, then I believe that that is a price worth paying. In terms of the DES budget of£17 billion, it is the loose change. However, if a national survey reveals that the cost is much greater—there is a reasonable assumption that that may be so—the Bill's provisions designed to phase introduction over a fixed period are reasonable and would receive acceptance from parents, teachers, schools, pressure groups and, I hope, the Government.
I know that the Government are compassionate and believe in the cause. Addressing the Swimming in Schools conference, my noble friend the Minister said that there was no doubt that the ability to swim saved lives, and that the provision of swimming tuition at school could be justified on that ground alone. I hope that the Government follow up such statements by accepting the recommendations of the PE working group. I warmly support the Bill. I hope that the support it receives from all sides of the House will help to convince the Government of the need to provide for swimming in the national curriculum.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I fear that I caused unnecessary anguish to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, until he spoke to me yesterday and I assured him that I was not appearing in the debate to take some esoteric legal maxim which would torpedo the Government below the water line. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, wishing to inject a little light relief into the debate, considered that it would be appropriate if a member, albeit a past member, of your Lordships' swimming relay team, which competes annually on a charitable occasion against
356
another place (when I was a member, I am happy to say that we won) should put in an appearance. I do so with a sense of deep relief because I look upon this as a happy, relaxing occasion. In fact, I did my nocturnal 20 lengths before arriving here this evening.
It is comforting to find that I shall not be subject to the usual relentless attacks of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, nor shall I receive the double-edged compliments from the noble Earl, Lord Longford, or even submit to the equivocal concurrences of the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
As one of four brothers, I learnt to swim at a very early age. Had I not done so, I doubt whether I should have the privilege of appearing before your Lordships this evening. I remained out of my depth in the shallow end of the RAC pool for a long time, probably a very good training for other subjects in which I remain out of my depth even today.
If any authority is required for the proposition that the ability to swim is a basic, fundamental qualification—what is known nowadays as a foundation subject—one need look no further than Alice in Wonderland. If one goes to the first verse, which was used as such powerful evidence against the Knave of Hearts, one will recall that this is what was said:
"She told me you had been to her,
And mentioned me to him:
She gave me a good character,
But said I could not swim".
That totally discredited the Knave of Hearts in the eyes of the King, as it properly
should.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred to 160 children who drowned by reason of being unable to swim. There is probably another figure hidden in those figures—the number of parents, relatives or passers by who could not stop those drownings because they themselves could not swim. Those of us parents who can swim, cannot properly imagine the sense of inadequacy which an adult who has not been taught to swim feels in relation to his children who are about to learn to swim but have not yet learnt. To learn to swim as an adult, when one inevitably weighs a great deal more than as a child, is a difficult undertaking, and that in itself justifies the early teaching.
Leaving aside, as has been said, the sporting advantages of swimming, swimming has an unrivalled therapeutic quality. Like sleeping it
"Knits up the ravell'd sleeve of time".
It washes away stress. It relieves tension.
Your Lordships probably know that the advice to a newly-appointed judge is to have on his desk in large letters the sentence:
"Do not interrupt. I am paid to be irritated".
I amended mine to read:
not interrupt. Swim another 10 lengths".
It is more effective.
Your Lordships are probably aware that the country is divided into six circuits for the purpose of the administration of justice. On each circuit there are two High Court judges, called presiding judges, who for a period of four years preside on that circuit. They are ultimately responsible to the Lord Chief Justice for the proper administration of the circuit. That was an invention by Lord Beeching to prevent the Executive

357
totally taking over the administration of justice. I believe that the contribution I most made to the Western Circuit, of which I was presiding judge for four years, was, through the good offices of schools and universities on that circuit, to ensure that there were swimming facilities at convenient times of the day for all the judges who went out on circuit. I have little doubt that it resulted in more measured and more reliable judgments and if statistics could have been taken, would have shown that it kept down appeals as compared with other circuits.
I only wish to add with diffidence—because of the expert selection in your Lordships' House a reference to Swinburne's poem A Swimmer's Dream which is probably known to all noble Lords. I quote from Part V, stanza 2:
A purer passion, a lordlier leisure,
A peace more happy than lives on land,
Fulfils with pulse of diviner pleasure
The dreaming head and the steering hand.
I lean my cheek to the cold grey pillow,
The deep soft swell of the full broad billow,
And close mine eyes for delight past measure,
And wish the wheel of the world would stand.".
I strongly support the Bill which should bring an end to the degree of deprivation which has been referred to. There has also been a reference to resources involving little more than£4 million. Next Tuesday there will be debated in your Lordships' House once more the War Crimes Bill. That Bill discloses that for its maintenance annually it requires the sum of£12 million a year. When one comes to consider resources that may put the matter in its true perspective.
2 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, first I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Norrie on the masterly way in which he introduced the Bill. I was also going to speak on safety but unfortunately I have to cut my remarks short.
What I find worrying and not as it ought to be is that as a country with a population of over 60 million, surrounded completely by water, we have not come up trumps with teaching children to swim. Some of our partners on the Continent, at least in the EC—I cannot completely regard them all as partners—are streets ahead of us. I understand that in Germany all children over a certain age—eight, I believe—are taught to swim. They all leave school able to swim. We do not nearly approach that, but I am sure that by means of the Bill which my noble friend has introduced we shall catch up.
It seems appalling that we are a rich country, yet apparently we cannot afford to educate our children sufficiently for them to be able to save themselves from drowning. I was fortunate enough to be taught to swim before I went to my prep school. Many children do not have that advantage in life. I hope that enactment of the Bill will not be too long delayed, but one has disappointments in these matters. It is bad enough when adults drown, but when young children drown it is disastrous.
I was once beneath the water and the only sensation I had was a roaring as though I was walking through
358
a field of grass. I am told that if one gets near drowning one hears church bells. Either I was not near enough to drowning or I did not deserve the church bells! However, it is not the worst way of dying. I shall not waste any more time. I hope that the Bill will become law soon, not after several years, and that it will be passed with all possible speed.
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Norrie and the Bill. His description of it was first class; he covered everything.
I was taught to swim when quite young, so I have been fortunate. As chairman for a great many years of the education committee of my local council and of the social work committee, I discovered that one or two small towns had swimming baths but several did not. With great effort, I persuaded the county council to inaugurate three baths in different areas. Since then they have been enormously popular and children have been taught to swim. The initiative was a great success and it did not cost a great deal of money. If all local authorities provided accommodation for both teaching and enjoyable swimming after people have learnt to swim, that would be very valuable.
It seems to me that the Bill is exactly right. I hope, like the noble Viscount, that its passage through the House will not take too long. I am sure that the Government will accept it because it is obviously right. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Norrie and give my strong support to the Bill.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, in the relatively limited time during which I have been in your Lordships' House I have come to recognise the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, as one of our rocks of good sense. He is nearly always right. I give my full support to the Bill. The noble Lord made a cogent and overwhelming case. I am glad that the Bill is receiving such strong and general support from all sides of the House.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, I am not a mighty swimmer. I am not usually eager to plunge in unless steam is rising from the water, but I am glad to be able to keep afloat. Some years ago, when I was on a beach in northern Cyprus, I saw people out in the sea who seemed to be in difficulty. I swam out to see whether I could give them a hand. I discovered that the bathers were four or five British soldiers who could not swim back against the current. I rapidly found myself in the same position. We could not make any ground against the strong offshore current.
My wife was watching from the beach. She asked a Cypriot fisherman whether he would rescue us in his boat. He laughed and declined to do so. She had to ask for assistance from the army who used an amphibious vehicle to rescue us. We remained in the water for about an hour. I was glad that all of us had been taught to swim at some stage and were able to keep afloat. If that had not been the case, I would not be addressing your Lordships this evening.

359
We are, after all, a maritime nation. From every point of view it is highly desirable that everyone in Britain should learn to swim. As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said, there has been an enormous increase in water sports of all kinds. It is desirable that fishermen should learn to swim as they often lose their footing when wading and can drown in quite shallow water. Swimming is an admirable form of exercise, perhaps the very best. However, the most important factor is that the ability to swim should be acquired by all our children and not just by those who are fortunate enough to attend schools where swimming is taught. All our children should learn to swim. In that way we can cut down the tragic number of drowning incidents that occur each year. I warmly support the Bill.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Saint Levan: My Lords, I wish strongly to support the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, in introducing the Bill. I live in Cornwall where over 60,000 children attend schools that are situated not more than 15 miles from the sea. However, recently the primary school's inspector discovered that out of 163 schools, at least 55 per cent. have had to cut down on the swimming instruction that they offer. This is a new and urgent problem. Schools have cut down on their swimming instruction because they now have to pay the cost of hiring pools and lifeguards instead of sending the bill to the local education authority.
For at least 12 years I have been a governor of a large secondary school. I have been a governor for such a long time because I have always had two private ambitions. One of those ambitions which does not concern this debate is that at least some children should learn to play the piano. If the piano is not taught to Grade 5 standard, in 20 years' time very few people will be able to play the organ in our churches and chapels.
The other ambition is that swimming should be taught in schools. But the problem is that if school governors can choose between building a swimming pool or a sports hall, they will immediately opt to build a sports hall because at the moment indoor football, basketball and keep fit classes are in fashion. It is therefore important that some statutory authority should be established to encourage swimming in schools as part of physical education. I am satisfied that enough physical education is offered in our primary and secondary schools. I think that two periods for PE and two for games are probably sufficient. I am satisfied with the provision of physical education in Cornwall. After all, a Cornish jockey rode the horse that won the Grand National. Last Saturday at least 30,000 Cornish men and women travelled to London to watch Cornwall win the finals of the county rugger match. They were known as Trelawney's army as in 1688 the Cornish threatened to march to London if their bishop, Joshua Trelawney, was not released from the Tower of London.
I live on an island off the west coast of Cornwall. The island was visited by 190,000 people last year. Every year my family entertains disadvantaged children from the inner cities. They come mostly from
360
Birmingham and Lancashire. Their reaction to the short boat trip to the island—that is often the first boat trip they have taken—in a slightly choppy sea varies from sheer delight to nervousness and almost terror. If they could swim or had been told something about water safety, the boatman's job would be much easier.
I wish that more children were warned about the seventh wave, that is the sudden breaking of an especially large wave out of a comparatively calm sea. Tragic incidents of drowning have occurred as a result of that wave. It is an even greater tragedy when a young man who can swim is drowned trying to save a friend who cannot. A number of such incidents have occurred in my area.
In recent years there has been an enormous increase in gig racing, dinghy sailing and windsurfing sports. A young man without much money to spend must decide whether to buy a motorcycle or a sailing boat. A young man can buy secondhand windsurfing equipment for as little as£90. Three years ago in Mount's Bay in Cornwall the World Windsurfing Championships were held. A most unfortunate thing happened which even the oldest inhabitants could never recall happening before. For three or four days there was not a single breath of wind. There is no requirement for competitors in sailing races to be able to swim. They are warned that safety is their responsibility and parents are warned that they are responsible for their children.
There is no requirement for fishermen to be able to swim, and many of them cannot. There is no requirement either for lifeboat crews to be able to swim. They wear life jackets and trust their boats. Sailing racing and windsurfing are more dangerous sports than many people realise because they take place in shallow waters, often off a lee shore. Professional seamen would avoid that situation at all costs.
There is of course a wide diversity in the country as regards the quality of swimming pools available to schools. Over a period of time I used to drive a young nephew who was obsessed with swimming from London to Edinburgh. I believe I got to know every municipal swimming pool situated within reasonable distance of the motorway. I was surprised to discover that the poorer areas often had better swimming-pools and better swimming facilities than the richer areas. I suggest that one problem may be that county councils tend to think that the provision of leisure facilities is the prerogative of district councils. A district council has a major problem in deciding whether to build a straightforward swimming pool which is self-financing or a swimming pool combined with a leisure centre in the hope that the leisure centre will finance the cost of the swimming pool.
Swimming should be taught in all primary schools. One solution might be to provide learner pools for young children only, at much lower cost. We know that it is the practice for leisure centres to provide swimming facilities for very young children.
I live in a tourist area and my heart bleeds for young families on holiday in chalets and caravans in wet weather with nothing whatever to do. Indoor

361
swimming in a heated swimming pool would be the perfect answer to keep children happy all day if only they had been taught to swim at primary school.
The inability of primary schools to maintain their swimming programme in Cornwall where the dangers to children who cannot swim are all too obvious leads me to support the Bill to ensure that swimming is taught in the rest of the community.
Finally, in relation to the cost of swimming lessons, transport costs should be within the discretionary powers of the education authority. Until more teachers are trained to teach swimming, parent teacher associations should be encouraged by this Bill to raise money for swimming lessons rather than buying more sophisticated computers as they usually like to do. Sponsored swimming is a very good way to raise money for school funds.
It is not only the risk of drowning for non-swimmers which is the cause of great anxiety. From time to time I have found young mothers in tears because their children are temporarily lost. If they are not traced to the family car or nearest ice-cream kiosk after half an hour's search there remains, only the dreadful possibility that a sea-rescue search 'mill be necessary. Very young families would have much less to worry about when on holiday if this Bill became law.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for having to leave the Chamber before he had finished his speech. I have discussed the Bill with him on a number of occasions.
Perhaps I may explain to the House that the fact that I a m here on my own this evening does not indicate a lack of interest or support for the Bill on the part of my colleagues. The Bill was programmed to have been debated on the day on which the Government introduced their legislation on the?140 poll tax rebate scheme. Some of my colleagues—my noble friends Lady David, Lady Blackstone and Lord Peston—would have spoken on that occasion. However, they are not available today. One is abroad on a parliamentary visit and the other two have made other arrangements. Their absence does not indicate that I am the sole supporter of the Bill. They are strongly in favour of it.
I was here long enough to hear the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, give pretty chilling evidence of what is taking place. I find myself somewhat at odds with some of the Minister's statistical answers in the previous debate regarding the increase in the number of swimming pools, though he said that those included a number of private pools. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, made the point that swimming lessons ought to be available to children not as an optional extra but as part of the curriculum so that every child is taught to swim. As I mentioned in the earlier debate, I have been told that for an additional£5 million every child in the country could be taught to swim at 11 years of age.
I have been able to swim from a very early age, though I would not claim to be a Johnny Weismuller
362
by any stretch of the imagination. However, when I have been on holiday with people who are excellent soccer or rugby players and super cricketers I have been surprised to find that they are terrified of water. There is a lot of truth in the suggestion that the earlier children become used to water the sooner they will learn to swim. All the members of my family swim. My two grandsons of nine and seven are both reasonable swimmers.
There are ways in which the programme can be extended if funds can be found. When I was a youngster at school once one reached the stage when one could swim 25 lengths of the local baths one was given a free pass. It was amazing how that kept youngsters off the street during the school holidays. They would have a daily swim; it was somewhere to go.
The availability of the facilities produces the goods. For example, in the 1930s there was a council school in one of the most deprived areas of Manchester which was small and very dilapidated. It has now passed into history. The school was called Osborne Street and it was lucky in its geographical location because next door to it was a swimming bath which was rather longer than the standard length of 33⅓yards. It was no coincidence that year after year, at a time when boys left school at 14 and 15, that school won the squadron schoolboy swimming championship of Great Britain and very often produced the schoolboy individual champion. I knew some of them personally.
I believe that children will readily conquer their fear of water if swimming is made available to them at an early age. I do not go for the idea of throwing youngsters in before they can walk. I do not think that that is very helpful. However, swimming is one of the healthiest means of exercise. It opens the door to people who cannot normally exercise. People who are disabled, sometimes severely, can feel the benefits of motivating themselves and using water. Swimming offers tremendous benefits which ought to be made available to everybody.
I should like to indicate both my own and my party's support for the noble Lord's Bill and the marvellous principle enunciated in it. I do not know what will become of it, but as it appears that we do not have too crowded a parliamentary programme I hope that it will find approval in this Session. We give it our full support.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, first I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Norrie for the positive, clear and constructive way in which he presented his Bill tonight. I understand very well why the Bill has attracted such support in your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may make one thing absolutely clear. The Government fully recognise the importance of children learning to swim. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport explained this to the noble Lord when he was good enough to come to see him to discuss the idea of introducing a Bill. He has also said it publicly at the recent conference organised by the

363
Swim for your Life Campaign. But he also explained why we thought a Bill of this sort would be premature and indeed might turn out to be unnecessary.
Reference has been made tonight to the recommendation in the interim report of the national curriculum working group that primary school children should have swimming lessons, and that if they are unable to swim by the time they reach the age of 11 they should continue to have lessons until they can.
I make it plain that the Government have not rejected that recommendation. My right honourable friend has pointed out that the recommendation carries considerable resource implications and he has asked the working group to take those into account in its final report. We hope that those commenting on the interim report will let the working group have their views on the practicality of the recommendation and so assist the group in its future work.
I do not want to dwell at length on the question of resources but want your Lordships to have some idea of the scale of the problem. While I know that in some urban areas the provision of swimming lessons has been reduced or cut altogether, at least in general the facilities could be available. That is not always the case in rural areas. It should be remembered that the working group's recommendation is targeted at primary school pupils. There are roughly 20,000 primary schools in England, many of them in quite remote rural areas. Unless these schools have their own pools and can afford to maintain them sometimes pupils would have to travel quite long distances to reach a swimming pool at no little cost in terms both of the transport required and the disruption to the rest of their education. I acknowledge that the noble Lord's Bill recognises these problems by providing for exemptions. I hope that in return he would acknowledge that this particular provision of his Bill is not without its own resource implication, certainly in terms of the people required to carry it out. More specifically, I would argue that as we have asked the working group to consider the practical problems perhaps it would be better to wait for their advice before we embark on this course of legislation. As I said, I do not want to dwell on this question. It is one that the working group will be considering, and the Government encourage all those with an interest in this area, especially those with some practical experience, to write to the working group with their views.
As I said earlier, the Government's main objection to the Bill is that it is premature. As your Lordships will have gathered, the PE working group is very much in business. Its final report is to be submitted to my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State by the end of June. That report will include recommendations for attainment targets and programmes of study. My right honourable friends will consider those recommendations and will, as a result of that consideration, publish their own proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study. These proposals could, if my right honourable friends so decide, say as part of an attainment target that all 11 year-olds should be able to swim and that the related
364
programme of study should therefore include swimming instruction. Your Lordships will know that at the moment I cannot even hazard a guess at what my right honourable friends will decide. But I make the point simply to show that we already have the power to make swimming lessons compulsory and do not, strictly speaking, need the noble Lord's Bill for this purpose.
I should add that my right honourable friends' proposals are by no means the end of the story. These proposals are published for consultation. The consultation exercise is conducted in England by the National Curriculum Council which is required to report to my right honourable friend on the response to the consultation and on any other matters remitted to it. In Wales, my right honourable friend conducts his own consultations. So there is a further opportunity for interested parties to comment on what is or is not said about swimming in the Secretaries of State's proposals.
Yet another opportunity for comment comes at the next stage in the process when the Secretary of State publishes for further consultation a draft of the statutory order with the draft attainment targets and programmes of study. At the end of the day the order is subject to negative resolution and your Lordships have the opportunity to pray against it and debate it.
I appreciate that I have spent some time on the statutory process that we have to follow in order to establish the detailed requirements of any subject in the national curriculum. I have done so to show the very generous opportunities built in for consultation and comment and to demonstrate how it is impossible for the Government to ignore any point on which those consulted have strong feelings.
I have also said a considerable amount about the national curriculum working group on PE. But they are not the only body active in the field—or should I say the pool? Another working group, the Water Sports Safety Working Group, has been asked to consider in relation to water sports whether the present levels of safety advice, education and enforcement are adequate and effective, to identify areas where improvement is necessary and to suggest what those improvements should be.
The membership of the group reflects a spread of activities and expertise. We expect its report to be published this summer. While it is too early to say for certain what the conclusions of the report will be it is more than likely that it will have something to say about the role of swimming lessons in schools and about the need for education concerning water safety. That report will be further useful advice to my right honourable friends when they are considering the place of swimming in the PE curriculum.
I hope that what I have said will have persuaded your Lordships that the Government are by no means indifferent in the matter of young people and water safety. We are completely in sympathy with the aim of the noble Lord's Bill but given the work that is already in hand, we feel that it may be a little premature.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I shall not detain the House very much longer. I am grateful for the support that I have received for my Bill this evening, particularly from the opposition Front Bench with the very positive speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Dean, who drew attention to the decline in swimming pool provision, and Lord Addington, who emphasised the importance of setting national standards to assess swimming ability. Their commitment to the principles of my Bill indicates a strong cross-party endorsement for an educational requirement to teach all children to swim. It is an alliance which I hope the Government will have noted.
I am also grateful for the other speeches made in support of the Bill. I thank my noble friends Lady Cumberlege and Lord Massereene and Ferrard. They rightly drew attention to the state of swimming provision for schools in other comparable countries and she wed how it highlights the inadequacy of our own provision. The very fine contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was clearly inspired by his 20 lengths of swimming this evening. It is quite clear that he must be the fittest of the Law Lords. We heard from my noble friend Lady Elliot, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who both drew on their own experience and knowledge. My noble friend Lady Elliot spoke about the success of the swimming pools that were provided when she was chairman of the education committee of her local council and we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about his experience in Cyprus.
I should like in particular to thank my noble friend
366
Lord Saint Levan. I know that he has taken tremendous trouble to come here this evening. He has come all the way from Cornwall. He is president of the West Cornwall Sea Scouts and Sea Cadets and the YMCA. I know that he is personally very involved in this issue. Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), for her very enthusiastic support for the disabled side. It may not be widely known but in fact she received a gold medal for swimming in the Paraplegic Olympics in 1968 in Israel.
I very much welcome the positive line which the Government have shown tonight. The Swim for Life campaign has had a number of meetings with Ministers and the response has been helpful. It was helpful in a way tonight. It seems that the Government's main concern is about resources. We tried to address that issue tonight. I hope that my noble friend Lord Cavendish will take away with him an impression of the strong political and public support for my Bill evinced tonight. There may be some cost in teaching every child to swim but the cost of failing to take action is surely greater. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Shard Bridge Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past nine o'clock.

  KUWAIT: THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION
  KUWAIT: THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION
  EC TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 27th MARCH
  EC TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 27th MARCH
  STANDARD SPENDING ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK
  STANDARD SPENDING ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK