Sitting of 1 July 1991

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

    Vale of Glamorgan Railway
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the reopening of the Vale of Glamorgan railway line to passenger transport.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It is for British Rail to consider the case for reopening this line to passenger use.
    Mr. Smith: The Minister will be pleased to hear that many of my constituents welcomed the recent statement by the Secretary of State for Transport about the new commitment and investment in rail transport and switching transport from road to rail. Is he aware that they welcomed the statement because they have suffered over the past few years from the familiar problems of traffic congestion, noise and pollution? The reopening of the Vale of Glamorgan freight line to passengers would solve that problem and provide a very attractive tourist magnet and a vital link to Cardiff-Wales airport. We welcome the statement and we hope that the Minister will ask the chairman at least to carry out a feasibility study for
    2
    opening the line. I am afraid that some of my constituents are saying that it is all very well for the Government to make a statement, but they should put their money where their mouth is.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The Government put their money where their mouth is and that is why last week my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced the increase in funds available to British Rail. We need no lectures from the Labour party about the importance of British Rail. We have presided over a net opening of stations while the previous Labour Government presided over closures.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the chances of reopening the Vale of Glamorgan railway line would be considerably enhanced by the privatisation of British Rail? In that context, can he comment on the Government's progress in considering the possibilities of privatisation?
    Mr. McLoughlin: An important part of the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State not so long ago was our intention to end the monopoly under which British Rail runs on the railways. That will bring competition to the railways and it will be better for the future of British Rail and provide opportunities for new lines to be opened.

    Freight Transport
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implementation of his objective of transferring more freight traffic from road to rail.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I recently announced an improved environmental grant scheme to help pay for rail freight facilities that will keep lorries off unsuitable roads. I plan in due course to end British Rail's monopoly by opening up the railways to other operators who want to provide rail freight services

    3
    and I am giving full support to BR's plans for channel tunnel rail freight services which will remove some 400,000 lorry journeys from our roads each year.
    I am pleased today to announce that I have approved British Rail's investment in a further seven new locomotives for channel tunnel freight services, costing some £20 million.
    Ms. Quin: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's objective of moving freight from road to rail will be meaningless without increased funding? Does he deplore British Rail's decision to refuse to allow a channel tunnel freight facility in the north-east of England? Will he take this opportunity publicly to express regret for the 12 years of wasted opportunity when the Government could have promoted the cause of the railways, but singularly failed to do so?
    Mr. Rifkind: British Rail is authorising some £300 million of expenditure on freight services to service the channel tunnel. It is for BR to decide whether a particular freight terminal in the north-east is necessary. On the latter part of the hon. Lady's question, one recalls that investment in the railways fell during the previous Labour Government while it is higher today than at any time since Dr. Beeching.
    Mr. Adley: While wholeheartedly welcoming the recent policy change announced by my right hon. and learned Friend and hoping that the thought is father unto the deed in respect of new investment in the railways, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to contemplate the proposition that our industrial competitors in the Community are running new stock on new railways while our investment goes into providing new stock for Victorian railways? Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore look at what the west Germans are doing, particularly the government railway commission which was set up by Chancellor Kohl, and examine infrastructure and investment so that we can begin to get a level playing field for investment in roads compared with rail?
    Mr. Rikfind: I am most interested in what is happening elsewhere in the European Community. I was particularly delighted that, at the previous meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers, the European Community accepted a British-inspired initiative which, for the first time, will ensure the opportunity for competition in the provision of international freight services throughout the Community. For the first time in our history it will be possible for British Rail operators to provide international freight services to other countries of the Community as a matter of right. I hope that the Opposition, who until now have preserved and been enamoured of British Rail's monopoly, will realise that Europe as a whole has rejected monopoly and is welcoming competition.
    Mr. Prescott: How can the Secretary of State justify his recent statement about being enthusiastically and unequivocally in favour of the movement of freight from road to rail when this week he will be responsible for closing Speedlink to save £30 million, thereby putting many thousands of loads on to the roads, particularly the A1, and when he is about to spend £800 million to widen the A I to deal with extra loads?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is characteristically wrong both in his facts and his interpretation. First,
    4
    Speedlink is a decision for British Rail. Secondly, this year, it expects, on a total turnover of £45 million, a loss of about £40 million. If the hon. Gentleman would maintain a business with that sort of loss, it shows why he is unfit to he put in charge of the affairs of this country. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman seems to be completely unaware that British Rail has already negotiated for more than half its Speedlink traffic to continue to be carried by rail by other means.
    Mr. Harris: Although I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's latter point about Speedlink, does he agree that it seems to many of us that British Rail has almost deliberately run down its freight services, particularly in areas like mine in Cornwall? Over the weekend, for example, a haulier rang me about the closure of the Speedlink depot in Truro which serves a large part of Cornwall. Is not the British Rail approach to business summed up by the train on which I travelled from the west country today? It set off from Plymouth with only eight sandwiches in the refreshment car. Is not exactly that approach being applied in some other parts of British Rail's business, not least freight?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct in emphasising that there seem to be occasionally missed opportunities for British Rail, particularly in the west country which he represents. It is for such reasons that we are committed to ending British Rail's statutory monopoly in order that new rail operators, including Foster Yeoman in the west country, can provide the rail services, particularly rail freight services, that they believe to be necessary. It is a matter of great sadness that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and Mr. Jimmy Knapp appear to be the last two petrified fossils in Europe seeking to preserve that monopoly when all of Europe is now rejecting it.

    Channel Tunnel Freight Terminal
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the case for a channel tunnel freight terminal in Greater Manchester.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): British Rail plans a channel tunnel freight terminal for 1992 in Greater Manchester, either at Trafford Park or Guide Bridge. A decision will be made shortly. For the longer term, British Rail is examining the feasibility of establishing a freight terminal on a greenfield site in the north-west, with good motorway connections.
    Mr. Bennett: May I urge the Minister to use his offices to persuade British Rail to pick the Guide Bridge site on the edge of my constituency? It is an extremely large site and it would be very good for picking up freight in Greater Manchester and transferring it to rail to go across Europe. British Rail has examined the site, but has taken a long time to decide on it; and it is a matter of great regret that it has not announced a decision to go ahead at Guide Bridge straight away so that hauliers in Greater Manchester can start to plan for that. It will also have excellent motorway links by the time it opens.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting British Rail's concept of trying to develop combined transport—freight delivered by road within a fairly narrowly defined area to a rail terminal for onward

    5
    shipping to other parts of the country and through the channel tunnel. I shall pass on his concerns to British Rail and tell it of his support for the idea of a new freight terminal.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend speed up British Rail's granting of freight terminals in Greater Manchester and the rest of the north-west? Inward and various other north-west industrial organisations urged the previous Secretary of State for Transport to use his good offices to get the chairman of British Rail to make a decision. We must plan for the future; the tunnel will be open in 1993 and we have not reached the starting point for our freight. For areas on the periphery of the tunnel, connection to the continent is important so that we can deliver our exports quickly and speedily.
    Mr. Freeman: As my hon. Friend knows, of the nine sites for channel tunnel freight terminal business, six have already been announced and three have yet to be specified—Merseyside, Manchester and the Strathclyde-Glasgow area. I intend to visit the north-west shortly and I am confident that British Rail will have made a decision before I go.

    Pedestrian Accidents
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pedestrians are killed or injured each day; and what steps he is taking to reduce the numbers.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): The provisional figures for the first three months of this year show that the average number of pedestrians killed or injured each day was 142, a reduction of about one fifth compared with the same period in 1990.
    Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend accept that a group of pedestrians who put themselves at unnecessary risk are those who weave in and out of traffic at major crossroads plying their services as washers of windscreens? Is not there something that my hon. Friend could do to stop it?
    Mr. Chope: The best solution is for drivers of vehicles to wash their windscreens before they embark on their journeys—that would put those people out of business. But there is a more serious issue to do with pedestrian safety—
    Mr. Prescott: It is free enterprise.
    Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but this is indeed what free enterprise is all about. If there is no demand for a service there will be no opportunity to make money from it. I suggest that if people cleaned their windscreens before setting out on their journeys there would be no business for those who obstruct traffic in this way.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that the number of child deaths and injuries is causing great concern to many road safety organisations? Will he launch a nationwide campaign to get the figures down?
    Mr. Chope: I am pleased to say that in the first three months of this year the number of child fatalities among pedestrians fell by one third. That is jolly good progress.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend hold urgent discussions with the Home Secretary about the
    6
    prosecution of cyclists who cycle on pavements, especially taking into account the case of four-year-old Abbie-Gail Copley, who came out of her house last week in Chapelfields road, York, and was knocked down by a cyclist, following which she required more than 20 stitches in her face? Sad to say, North Yorkshire police have taken no action. Will my hon. Friend discuss such cases urgently with the Home Secretary so that cyclists know the state of the law?
    Mr. Chope: I doubt whether there is any dispute about the state of the law. It is not ignorance of the law that is causing a number of cyclists to behave in an anti-social and dangerous manner. Enforcement of the law must be a matter for the police.
    Miss Hoey: Although I welcome the reduction in the number of pedestrian deaths, does the Minister accept that many of these deaths are due to fast driving, particularly in built-up city areas? Does he also accept that something more should be done to reduce the speed of cars in our inner cities and, where drivers are going faster than they should, to ensure that they are prosecuted so that elderly people in particular are able to walk about, feeling safe on the pavements?
    Mr. Chope: There is much sense in what the hon. Lady says. The Government are in favour of traffic-calming measures in urban areas and we have introduced a power for local authorities to impose 20 mph zones. All that is lacking is the will on the part of some local authorities to take the necessary action.

    Humber Bridge
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimate he has as to the current level of debt being carried by the Humber bridge board.
    Mr. Chope: The debt on the Humber bridge at 31 March this year was just over £400 million. Since 1986, we have accepted that the bridge is an exceptional case. My right hon. and learned Friend is writing to the chairman of the bridge board to propose a package for writing off and suspending those parts of the debt that cannot be financed from toll charges. Some debt will remain to be serviced from toll revenues. I shall introduce at an early opportunity the necessary legislative measures to give effect to the arrangements.
    Mr. Cran: Has not this saga gone on long enough? As my hon. Friend has admitted that this is a special case, will he be reasonably clear about when the Government will make an announcement about a partial debt write-off? I say that reluctantly, but I have had to reach that conclusion because my hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the income from the bridge does not even meet the interest payments, let alone the amount necessary to write off capital.
    Mr. Chope: I accept that that is the problem and that is why I have just made my announcement. I cannot be more specific until we know exactly when we can bring in the legislative measures. It will then be necessary to calculate what amount of debt has to be written off to make sure that the toll charges are bearable.

    High-speed Rail Link
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on British Rail's proposals for a high-speed rail link through Kent.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government are considering British Rail's report on the options for the rail link.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that four of the proposed routes for the high-speed rail link go across my constituency. For three years, local residents have had to put up with agony and anxiety as British Rail has blundered forward with its plans. In coming to a conclusion, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that we in north-west Kent have nothing to gain in transport terms from a high-speed rail link and everything to lose in terms of our environment?
    Mr. Rifkind: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and they will be taken into account in considering the recommendations of British Rail which I received just over four weeks ago. I emphasise that not only has British Rail already commissioned considerable environmental assessment studies of the various route options, but that whichever option might be chosen as the preferred route will be subject to a full environmental impact assessment with the proper opportunity for public consultation and comment.
    Mr. Prescott: As the Secretary of State is aware, the London channel tunnel group, which wishes to pressure him to make a decision, is here to lobby Parliament. Therefore, will he tell us whether he will make a statement before the House rises for the summer recess? Will the Secretary of State make a decision on the Government's view before the full environmental assessment study on one or both routes?
    Mr. Rifkind: I cannot give the precise timing of any Government decision on the preferred route. British Rail has asked us to say whether we can agree what the preferred route should be, so that it can go ahead with a full environmental impact assessment of whichever route might be chosen. That is the basis on which we are approaching these matters.
    Mr. Sims: My right hon. and learned Friend said that he received the report four weeks ago, but he answered the question to the effect that he received it on 3 May, nearly two months ago. [Interruption.] That is what he said in reply to the question. Does he appreciate that although he said that early publication would cause blight to properties along the route, such blight has existed for some years and continues? Bearing in mind the fact that, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, the London channel tunnel group is here lobbying the House today, urging for publication of the proposals so as to remove uncertainty, speculation and rumours, will he seriously consider publishing the proposals? My right hon. and learned Friend has already said that he will not show a preference, but only publish them. Will he please do it so that we all know where we stand?
    Mr. Rifkind: I shall clarify the position to ensure that my hon. Friend is not misled. If we were to publish all four routes now that would cause considerable unnecessary concern to many people. The preferable course of action is
    8
    for the Government to consider the recommendations that British Rail has put to us and to come to a judgment on the preferred route—the route on which a proper environmental impact assessment should take place. That is what we are working on at the moment and I intend to report to the House on those matters as soon as I can.

    Fishing Vessels (Safety)
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet representatives of the catching sector of the fishing industry in order to discuss matters relating to the occupational safety of the crews of United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. McLoughlin: My right hon. and learned Friend met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry on 24 April. There is a regular dialogue with the fishing industry on all aspects of safety, including the occupational safety of crews, at the twice-yearly meetings of the fishing industry safety group.
    Dr. Godman: The circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Antares aroused deep distress and considerable anger throughout Scotland's fishing communities. I believe that the Minister is aware that the Royal Navy has published its report into the sinking of that vessel. When will his Department publish its report? Has the Minister received any suggestion from the Lord Advocate's office that a fatal accident inquiry will be held? Does he agree that the families of the four men who were drowned in that tragic collision between the submarine and the fishing boat deserve substantial compensation? Presumably that compensation will not be paid until his Department has published its report and a fatal accident inquiry has been held. Has the Minister any information about that inquiry?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As the hon. Gentleman said, the question whether there should be a fatal accident inquiry is a matter for the Lord Advocate and specific questions about establishing such an inquiry should properly be directed to him.
    As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, last week my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced a major extension of the monitoring scheme, operated through the coastguard, which records where submarines are operating. That extension was warmly welcomed by the fishing industry. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must do all that we can to ensure that accidents such as that involving the Antares do not happen again.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable relief in the United Kingdom fishing community at the retention of the Decca navigation system? That community would have faced substantially increased costs had the Loran C system been adopted in place of the Decca system.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right that strong representations were made by the Scottish fishing industry to my right hon. and learned Friend at the meeting to which I referred. We took account of those representations as well as of the fact that, in the end, we received a far better offer from Decca which made us able to switch back to that system. It is worth pointing

    9
    out that it is only in the United Kingdom where the user pays. It is important that, when we agree on negotiations, the user pays as little as possible, but gets a good system.
    Ms. Walley: Is the Minister also aware that there is widespread growing alarm at the number of tragic accidents involving the loss of fishing vessels and their crew? I am talking particularly about the Pescado and the Wilhelmina J. When will the Minister give me a full answer to my letter to him of 30 April? When will he give us the real details that were exposed in an article in the Daily Mirror last Thursday? The Minister must tell the House when we can expect the full Department of Transport report into the Wilhelmina J tragedy to be made public. Why will not the Minister agree to our demand for a public inquiry about shipping safety and for tougher safety regulations to cover flag of convenience shipping?
    Mr. McLoughlin: It seems that in response to the hon. Lady's supplementary question we must go over ground that has been trodden in the past. Losses of fishing vessels between 1975 and 1979 were far in excess of the losses of the past five years. I am sure that no one in this place disagrees that safety is extremely important. The sinking of the Wilhelmina J is still being considered by the Department's legal advisers. I should like to be able publicly to issue a bulletin, but I am unable to do so because an injunction has been served against the Department. The document was given to various relatives and others involved and it has now fallen into the hands of the press. The situation is not acceptable and I am considering the way in which the regulations are framed to ascertain whether an amendment is necessary to enable me to publish the document.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given the important responsibilities of the Department of Transport to ensure the safety of fishermen, has the Department undertaken any review of its system of discussing with the Department of Energy and the Ministry of Defence such matters as the Antares disaster and the difficulties that fishermen face as a result of debris being left in the North sea by those engaged in the oil industry? Is any specific mechanism being established, or does the Department of Transport just wait for other Departments to initiate discussions?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Not at all. There are regular discussions between all Departments on matters that concern fishermen. Today my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced an increase in the area that is covered by the submarine notice. I think that that announcement was warmly welcomed by the fishing industry in Scotland.

    Freight Transport
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that plans for freight movement on the channel tunnel rail link will be on United Kingdom wagons which are compatible with the gauge of continental tracks.
    Mr. Freeman: British Rail plans to use freight wagons on channel tunnel services which will be compatible with both United Kingdom and continental loading gauges.
    Mr. Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the alternative proposals to that of British Rail is to make
    10
    provision for a dedicated freight route with a track and wagon gauge that would be fully compatible with European gauges, which I think British Rail's are not?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is well aware that the Ove Arup proposal includes some facility for freight to pass along its railway lines. I can assure my hon. Friend that in deciding upon a preferred route and then making an announcement on the route for the new rail link, both British Rail and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will consider whether the existing arrangements—small-wheeled bogies, special wagons and the use of the existing railway lines—are consistent with a proper international freight service by the end of the decade.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister pay careful attention to what the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) said, which was absolutely right? No amount of waffle from the Government Front Bench will compensate for what the Government are not doing for the railway system. If the Minister wants freight to be moved on our railways instead of on our roads, he should announce that continental loading gauges and freight wagons will be able to come into the United Kingdom on a dedicated track from Folkestone to Dover and then up to the midlands and on to the north-east and the north-west. Anything less from the Minister will not do.
    Mr. Freeman: To convert British Rail's tracks to continental gauge throughout the country would cost many billions of pounds, and there is no prospect of that happening. From 1993, when the channel tunnel opens, onwards, British Rail and the other railway operators are planning to use special wagons—low-wheeled bogied wagons—that will be able to travel on both European and British gauges. That will provide a freight service that will meet demand from 1993 onwards. In the longer term, as I made clear in answer to the supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), we shall consider whether these arrangements are adequate for the services needed for international freight at the end of the decade.
    Mr. Wolfson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that long-term planning features in the decision that is made on both freight and passenger traffic? Is my hon. Friend aware that if Britain's system is not compatible with the European system, we shall put ourselves at a long-term disadvantage in both the passenger and freight sectors? Does he further agree that there is a danger even now of Britain being described, sometimes in despair, by SNCF people as "branch-line" Britain? That we cannot have.
    Mr. Freeman: This Conservative Government believe strongly in long-term planning—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may laugh, but he conveniently forgets that we have a 15-year, long-term construction programme for London Underground and a road building programme stretching over a comparable period.
    Following a statement that my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make in due course about a rail link, we will have a railway building programme that will provide a long-term plan for Britain's railway system. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) is right

    11
    to say that we need a first-class freight system to take freight between this country and the continent, and we shall have it.
    Ms. Ruddock: Can the Minister confirm that the Ove Arup proposal studied by British Rail and W. S. Atkins was for a two-tier railway that could be used for both passengers and freight, and which would be built to the higher European standard gauge? Does he accept that the public are aware of the routes that are being considered? As his right hon. and learned Friend refuses to say that he will make up his mind before the summer recess, will the Government acknowledge the public interest in this matter and publish the reports at the end of this parliamentary Session?
    Mr. Freeman: Not only is there great public interest in a new rail link, but my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government are paying a great deal of attention to what is a most important project. We need a new rail link between Dover and London primarily to cope with passengers. We must deal with the increase in the expected number of international passengers and the growth in commuter service demand in the south-east. Freight is important, but in the short term, from 1993, it will travel on existing lines and with the new technology, to which I referred earlier.
    Sir Anthony Durant: When considering freight movement following the building of the channel tunnel, will my hon. Friend and British Rail reconsider the possibility of a freight terminal at Reading? I assure him that there is a great deal of support for that.
    Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's view to British Rail. It is for BR, rather than for Ministers, to decide where freight terminals should be located. Ministers' responsibility is to ensure that British Rail has a policy and gets on with it.

    West Yorkshire Rail Electrification
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the future of the West Yorkshire rail electrification scheme.
    Mr. McLoughlin: As I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 18 June, credit approvals are reserved for the infrastructure costs of the West Yorkshire rail electrification scheme. We shall consider resources for rolling stock as a matter of urgency when decisions are taken on the allocation of credit approvals for 1992–93.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that his Department remains committed to the electrification scheme and recognises the importance of retaining Bradford as part of the InterCity network, the need to encourage more people to use local trains, and the importance of electrification to jobs and the expansion of the local economy? It will be very much regretted that he has been unable today to confirm that the scheme—all parts of it—will proceed immediately. We recognise the dead hand of the Treasury behind the dither and delay. Will the Minister give an early sign that a green light will be given to the scheme so that it can go ahead without any further delay?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Unlike the Opposition, the Government have to find the money that they commit themselves to spending. However, I hope that the electrification project can go ahead next year.
    Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable significance that people, not only in Bradford but Airedale and Wharfedale, attach to that scheme, which would more than better the 8 per cent. return on capital that the Treasury requires? Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that unless West Yorkshire passenger transport executive can order soon the rolling stock to run on its splendid new electrified lines, its price may rise—which might place that 8 per cent. return in jeopardy?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am well aware of that problem, and I stand by my statement that I hope that the project can get the go-ahead next year.

    New Railways
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to permit new railway operations.
    Mr. Freeman: As my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier, we propose to give private-sector operators a right of access to British Rail's track. We are considering the details of how to do that, but legislation will be needed.
    Mr. Butler: The north-west rail users' group believes that the Liverpool to north Wales line could be a commercial proposition, but apparently British Rail does not share that view. Will my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals allow a commercial operator to prove British Rail wrong?
    Mr. Freeman: The answer is yes. Meanwhile, before primary legislation can be presented to the House to permit such a commercial venture, all propositions involving private sector finance are welcome, and British Rail and my right hon. and learned Friend will study any such proposals.

  THE ARTS

    New Opera House
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will consider funding the building of a new opera house in London.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): London already has two large-scale opera houses and an increasing range of other places in which opera is performed. Much as I might personally welcome it, I see no need for a further opera house.
    Mr. Fraser: Although one would not expect a Tory Government to emulate a French socialist President, will the Minister confirm that Covent Garden's subsidy averages about £40 per seat per performance? Nevertheless, when great stars appear at Covent Garden, few ordinary people can see their performances because of business subscriptions and the prior claim to seats that many other people have. Does the Minister agree that there is a case to be made for staging productions with

    13
    world-famous stars at a much bigger auditorium, so that the benefits of subsidy can be enjoyed by a much larger number of people?
    Mr. Renton: Despite the fact that the French have just built a new opera house, there are many more opera performances in London than in Paris. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need to present opera to a wider audience, which is why I am happy that a number of groups, such as Opera 80, Opera Factory, and Mecklenburgh Opera, perform in small theatres throughout London. The Royal Opera house has reduced the proportion of its income that is derived from subsidy from 53 per cent. five years ago to 37 per cent. now. It also plans to stage at Kenwood and in the piazza outside Covent Garden popular productions that will be seen by many thousands of people.
    Mr. Dicks: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that as no one would attend the opera unless it was subsidised from the public purse, even contemplating the building of a new opera house would place another millstone around the taxpayers' neck?
    Mr. Renton: I am bound to remind my hon. Friend that when the Royal Opera house stages and records "Carmen" in the open air in the piazza, there will be no direct cost to the taxpayer. I hope that my hon. Friend himself will take the opportunity to sample the delights of "Carmen".
    Mr. Fisher: Most right hon. and hon. Members, although perhaps not all, will have been disappointed by the Minister's reply to the original question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). Will the Minister consider two related points? First, English National Opera's lease on the London Coliseum expires in 1996, when it will be the only national company without a permanent home. Secondly, the London Coliseum and other great cultural buildings incur high maintenance costs. The Minister will know that the Tate, for example, has holes in its roof and needs to spend £27 million, and that the national gallery, where the new Sainsbury wing is to open tomorrow, needs £20 million spent on it. Is not that an appalling indictment of 12 years of Government incompetence and neglect? Does the Minister have a policy, and what does he intend to do about the English National Opera's lease and our great cultural buildings?
    Mr. Renton: I am well aware that English National Opera's lease expires in 1996. The Arts Council, others and I are in negotiation with the owners of the lease to find out on what terms it might he continued so that ENO can continue the great run of successes that it has had at the Coliseum. As regards the wider question raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) Labour's arts policy on such difficult issues has the size and originality of a postage stamp. I wrote an article in Saturday's The Daily Telegraph about encouraging business sponsorship of the arts. What do I find? Most of my arguments were repeated by the hon. Gentleman in The Mail on Sunday yesterday, bringing to mind the old saying of Tom Lehrer,
    "Plagiarise, plagiarise, let nothing evade your eyes."

    Symphony Concerts
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many symphony concerts by symphony orchestras or sinfoniettas receiving publicly funded support took place in London in June.
    Mr. Renton: I do not have information on the number of concerts funded by local government, but I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that 46 concerts were given by symphony orchestras, sinfonietta and chamber orchestras in London in June with Arts Council support.
    Mr. Jessel: Does not that excellent figure of 46 reflect a superb range of concerts of great breadth and diversity and, as the BBC Promenade concert season is about to begin, reinforce London as the music capital of the world? Is not the figure noticeably better than that for Paris where there are larger subsidies?
    Mr. Renton: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, as I am sure does the whole House. He makes his point—dare I say it—on a high note. I congratulate him on behalf of the whole House on the fact that he has just been appointed to the Council of the Association of British Orchestras. There he will doubtless continue clearly to make his point about the success of London as a centre for music.

    Regional Arts Boards
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Minister for the Arts what progress has been made in setting up the new regional arts boards.
    Mr. Renton: I am delighted to report that good progress has been made. Eight chairmen and one chairwoman have been appointed to nine of the 10 new boards, and the remaining board members have been, or are, in the process of being appointed.
    All the new boards now have chief executives, and a start has been made on recruiting other members of staff. The new boards are, therefore, firmly on target to be fully operational by 1 October this year.
    Mr. King: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which shows great progress towards the establishment of a more cost-effective form of administrating the arts. Would he care to tell the House about the sort of savings that he might envisage as a result of doing away with a centralised bureaucratic structure and replacing it with a more clearly identifiable regional structure?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I am hoping that in the first stage of reorganisation there will be savings by 1993 on an annual basis of at least £1 million. All that money will then be available to go to arts companies, rather than to be spent on administration. That is a significant amount and I shall look for further savings once the new regional arts boards are fully in place and we can tell how the integrated structure between them and the Arts Council at the centre works out.
    Mr. Maclennan: Can the Minister say how near he is to knowing which clients are to be retained by the Arts Council and which are to go to the regional arts boards? When does he expect that to be sorted out?
    Mr. Renton: An initial list of delegated clients—as the phrase is—was announced by the Arts Council with my

    15
    agreement a month or two ago. There will be no further delegations until the autumn of next year. Then, when the new national arts strategy has been delivered to me by the Arts Council, I shall take further decisions about the delegation of those companies that remain with the Arts Council.

    Amateur Theatre
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister for the Arts what measures he intends to take to promote amateur theatre in the regions.
    Mr. Renton: Amateur theatre is traditionally self-reliant. In the past 25 years or so there has been a sustained growth in amateur theatre, which has been encouraged by the regional arts association network and local authorities.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend have a word with North West Arts to find out whether it can get together with Warrington borough council to find a new home for the Centenary theatre group in Warrington which has been displaced out of Crosfields?
    Mr. Renton: I am sorry to hear of that difficulty. Amateur theatre and the arts generally play a vital role in arts provision in all areas, including places with limited access to professional work. I have already taken up with the Arts Council the question of that little company and I am glad to say that the Arts Board: North West will be writing to my hon. Friend today to tell him what steps it proposes to take.

    Grants (North-West)
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Minister for the Arts what proportion of the Arts Council grant in 1991–92 has been allocated to the north-west of England; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Renton: The Arts Council grant to Merseyside Arts and North West Arts and its own estimated direct spending in the region amount to nearly £9·5 million. This represents 4·9 per cent. of the total Arts Council grant.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of the Arts Council grant to many of the cultural activities of the north-west. It is especially important to our orchestras, such as the Hallé and the Royal Liverpool philharmonic. Has my right hon. Friend any plans to assist the Royal Liverpool philharmonic with its ambitious project to expand and with its original costs, incurred by its taking over a new building in the centre of Liverpool?
    Mr. Renton: I have met the chairman of the Hallé, and I know about its ambition to have its own concern hall in Manchester. That will require a good deal of money, but I hope that it will manage to raise considerable sponsorship, together with some support from the Arts Council. The appeal for the Royal Liverpool philharmonic is going well. I was delighted to be able to launch it some months ago. I hope that the Royal Liverpool philharmonic will soon have a redecorated home, and that the Hallé will have a new one.

    Poetry
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss support for poetry.
    Mr. Renton: I meet the chairman of the Arts Council regularly for discussions on a range of subjects.
    Mr. Wilson: When the Minister next meets the Arts Council chairman, will he discuss with him the threat to the existence of the magazine Aquarius, which is published by Mr. Eddie Linden? This small poetry magazine requires very little financial support, although it has been a breeding ground for many a poet who has proceeded to become eminent and successful. Will the Minister arrange with the Arts Council chairman for an application for support to be made?
    Mr. Renton: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject and in the literary magazine in question. I assure him that the Arts Council provides help for literary magazines—usually as a one-off, as it prefers to avoid long-term commitments. I understand that no approach has yet been made to the Arts Council about Aquarius, but, if such an approach is made, the Arts Council will certainly consider whether it can give the magazine reasonable assistance.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Book Manuscripts (Vetting)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many manuscripts of books have been submitted for vetting by the head of the civil service in the last two years; and if he will list the authors.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): In the past two years 10 authors have submitted manuscripts to the head of the home civil service under the guidelines of the Radcliffe report. Those whose books have so far been published include the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey); my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie); my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler); Lord Young of Graffham; Sir Alec Cairncross; Sir Bernard Ingham and Mr. Edmund Dell. Three others have submitted manuscripts but have not yet had their books published.
    Mr. Banks: There are quite a few literary gems there.
    Is not the vetting procedure a bit of a nonsense? It has far more to do with preventing potential Government embarrassment than with protecting national security. Most ministerial memoirs—although not, of course, the book by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—are selective, impenetrable and tedious.
    Would it not be far better if we scrapped the whole procedure and adopted a free system, so that everyone could be given the truth? I doubt whether, when the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) writes her memoirs—no doubt they will be called "We Did It Our Way", or something of the kind—we shall read the truth about the Belgrano or Westland. Why do we not get away from all this rubbish? Ministers rarely tell us the truth in retrospect.
    Mr. Renton: I am sure that the whole House will await the memoirs of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) with eager interest. I hope, however, that he will show rather more loyalty to his Front-Bench colleagues than did Barbara Castle. According to her memoirs, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was ticked off by Lord Callaghan for serving the Prime Minister and not the whole Cabinet. Apparently, Lord Callaghan said:
    "Another of Harold's failures is that he has done nothing to reform the Civil Service, and merely comforted himself by surrounding himself with comics like Gerald Kaufman."
    I assume that, whether or not he submits his memoirs to the Radcliffe committee rules, the hon. Gentleman will be rather more loyal to the shadow Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend be candid enough to admit that the vetting procedure is becoming a charade, partly because civil service vetters are incapable of distinguishing between security and embarrassment and partly because there are no sanctions against those who defy the suggestions of the vetting office? Is he aware that at least one ministerial author, whose memoirs will be published shortly, has taken no notice of the cuts that were suggested? Will he be taken off to the Tower of London when the book is published?
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend well knows that there are no sanctions, but I must disagree with him: the system, which is voluntary, has worked well. Sir Bernard Ingham submitted his memoirs to the Cabinet Secretary and made all the changes that the Radcliffe rules require. It is better to have a voluntary system than a compulsory one, and by and large it works reasonably well.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister has prohibited the publication of the evidence that I submitted to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which contained the instructions that Mr. Callaghan gave Ministers about private financial interests? I have heard today from the Chairman of the Select Committee that, for that reason, he will not publish my evidence. Is he aware that, in the circumstances, I intend to publish it myself?
    Mr. Renton: I am interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. Whether his decision is right, and whether he can justify it to himself, it follows in the tradition that he has followed in the past. In his memoirs Against the Tide", he said:
    "when my civil servants turn up with a letter to undermine another Minister, I tear it up‖That's more than can be said of other Ministers."
    I think that he is probably following the same path of slightly idiosyncratic rebellion that he followed when he was a Minister in the Labour Cabinet.

    Next Steps Agencies
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what improvements in customer service have been brought about by the creation of next steps agencies.
    Mr. Renton: Improving the quality of customer service is one of the prime aims of next steps, and agencies are given targets for that. To quote but two of the many examples, the Meteorological Office's "Weather Initiative" provided umbrella retailers and manufacturers with advance information on the likelihood of last week's rain so that they could plan their production and distribution
    18
    accordingly. The Driver Standards Agency has reduced waiting times for driving tests, and in order to promote road safety, examiners will now explain faults made by learners.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that the next steps agencies will help to improve service to all consumers?
    Mr. Renton: I have no doubt that one of the main purposes of the next steps agencies is to give greater customer satisfaction, which will be achieved only by providing better service.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister believe that one of the improvements in customer services as a result of setting up the agencies should be that applicants for income support should automatically be assessed for any other grant or benefit that may be available to them?
    Mr. Renton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been over this before. As I said, it is for the Secretary of State involved and the agency's chief executive to set the performance targets that he expects the chief executive to meet. If the hon. Gentleman would like to take this matter up with the Secretary of State for Social Security and the chief executive of the agency, I am sure that they will carefully consider his suggestion.

    European Community Institutions
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to increase the number of United Kingdom secondees to European Community institutions.
    Mr. Renton: My Department has been spearheading a drive to increase the number of United Kingdom secondees to the European Community institutions. Since April 1990, the number of United Kingdom secondees has increased from 63 to more than 100.
    Mr. Carrington: That increase is highly welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of secondees and their seniority play a vital role in ensuring that the United Kingdom's interests are well represented at the formulation of policy in EC institutions?
    Mr. Renton: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Secondments to the EC are an effective way of increasing our influence in the institutions. When secondees return to Whitehall, they bring back valuable experience which will be helpful in their Departments' dealings with the EC.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the civil service trade unions to discuss opportunities for people with disabilities.
    Mr. Renton: I meet representatives of the civil service trade unions from time to time to discuss a variety of issues. They have not raised opportunities for people with disabilities with me, but my staff have regular meetings with them on this issue and keep me informed of progress.
    Mr. Barnes: Does the Minister agree that people with disabilities have a great deal to offer in many places, including the civil service? Many have acquired

    19
    considerable skills in tackling their disabilities, which means that they would be of great benefit operating fully in the civil service. If there is anywhere that should provide open access and should not be biased against disabled people, it is the civil service.
    Mr. Renton: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will be pleased to know that my staff have, for example, arranged exhibitions of special equipment in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff that will help employ those with disabilities. The civil service employs 7,900 disabled staff —a slightly higher percentage of registered disabled people than in the work force generally.

    Press Secretaries
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what is the number of press secretaries currently working for Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Renton: There are only two posts in Whitehall which carry the title press secretary. These are in the Prime Minister's Office and the Treasury. In addition, there are eight with the title director of information, one chief of public relations and 10 heads of information in other Whitehall Departments.
    Mr. Wilson: In view of the challenge of explaining Majorism to the multitude, does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is enough?
    Mr. Renton: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be able to explain his policies to the admiring British public without the need for any press secretary.

European Council (Luxembourg)
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 June. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom.
It was clear from the events there that Yugoslavia must be the first item on our agenda. I discussed the overnight position with Prime Minister Lubbers and with Chancellor Kohl before the Council opened. We were able to reach rapid agreement in the Council on invoking the emergency mechanisms of the conference on security and cooperation in Europe and a meeting is taking place in Vienna this afternoon.
We also agreed to dispatch to Yugoslavia the Foreign Ministers of the troika—Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy. Their visit brought some respite in the conflict, but the situation was very fragile yesterday and the Foreign Ministers returned to Yugoslavia yesterday afternoon. They secured agreement to the appointment of Mr. Mesic of Croatia as the next President of Yugoslavia and to other measures to defuse the crisis. The situation remains very volatile and the Community will need to be closely involved over the coming weeks. In the meantime, Community aid to Yugoslavia has been suspended. British citizens have been advised to leave Slovenia.
The main item of scheduled business was to discuss progress in the two intergovernmental conferences launched last year, one on economic and monetary union and the other on political union. Discussion centred on the issues raised in a draft treaty text circulated by the presidency, though there was no detailed negotiation of the text itself.
This European Council—as we had wanted—was a stocktaking. It was not the occasion to take decisions, but we have registered the considerable progress made in the Luxembourg presidency as well as our collective will to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December.
The conclusions, which have been placed in the Library of the House, incorporate a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom. I made it clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, although some other partners in the Community disagree with it strongly. The present text means that some things are done on the basis of the treaty of Rome but others on the basis of intergovernmental action in which the treaty of Rome does not apply and the Commission does not have the sole right of initiative.
I welcomed the concept of a common foreign and security policy set firmly within the context of the Atlantic alliance and stressed the need to work by consensus in this crucial area.
There is agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law. That reflects a British proposal that would enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states that fail to comply with Community legislation. We have long argued for a level playing field and for full respect of the rule of law, and we are determined to get it. We have a good record on implementation and we believe that all states that sign up to Community law should implement it.
The conclusions call for early progress on the remaining legislation needed to complete the single market. This
22
means in particular measures on insurance, and air, sea and road transport, which are of importance to this country.
The Council discussed the need to strengthen the Community's external perimeter boundary if free movement of people is to be able to take place within it. We also agreed to better co-ordination in the fight against international drug trafficking and organised crime through the establishment of a European Criminal Investigation Office.
The conclusions also commit us to strengthening the Community's links with the countries of central and eastern Europe. This will initially take the form of association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Government hope that those countries—and probably others—will be ready for full membership in due course.
I also made it clear that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree, and it was understood that nothing could be agreed until everything is agreed at the conclusion of these discussions. I explained that even though to many federal union implies decentralisation, the term carried the reverse implication in this country and would not be acceptable in a text to be agreed at the end of the year.
I explained our reservations about the existing text on the role of the European Parliament. We see a strong case for an increased role for the European Parliament in areas such as control over the Commission through audit of expenditure and measures to safeguard the rights of Community citizens, including the appointment of a European ombudsman. The text entirely reserves our position on the issue of co-decision. The present proposal, involving a complicated conciliation procedure, would not in our view improve Community decision-taking.
In the discussion on economic and monetary union I maintained our reserve on a single currency and a single central bank. We discussed the issue of economic convergence. The need for such convergence is increasingly recognised by our partners, but the nature and extent of that convergence and its relationship with possible target dates for moves to stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union are still for negotiation. All other member states understand that there must, in any case, be a separate decision by the Government and this House on whether the United Kingdom would move to a single currency and, if so, when.
The European Council has issued a number of political declarations which are also available in the Library of the House.
The Council endorsed the initiative that I took in April to establish a United Nations register of conventional arms transfers, and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the United Nations General Assembly.
The Council also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the co-ordination of disaster relief within the United Nations system. We envisage the appointment of a high-level co-ordinator, with direct access to emergency funding and with the authority to pull together the whole disaster relief operation. We are taking that initiative forward in the United Nations now.
At British initiative, the Council agreed a text on human rights, the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. The Community will use its

23
leverage to promote human rights through the economic and co-operation agreements which it makes with third countries.
We welcomed the abolition in South Africa of the remaining legislative pillars of apartheid. We also declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case-by-case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been set up. The establishment of such an independent and non-racial body for cricket was announced on the same day.
I believe that this European Council was a good example of the Community at work. We took rapid action to respond to the crisis in Yugoslavia and will continue to work together for a peaceful settlement. We took stock in a businesslike way of the progress made under Luxembourg's chairmanship. There are difficult issues still to be resolved. As in any negotiation, there will have to be give and take and a judgment will have to be made by the Government and by the House on the overall package at the end of the negotiation. There was a common determination in Luxembourg to work for an agreed outcome to the negotiations by the end of the year. I shall continue to argue for what I believe to be in the interests of our own country and the interests of the Community as a whole.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement. I begin by expressing my strong support for the initiatives taken by the European Council to try to achieve stability, a secure ceasefire and productive discussions in Yugoslavia. I also express the hope that the efforts will be continued and that all the agencies of the Community and of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe will be employed in trying to secure a speedy, peaceful and enduring outcome to the turmoil and divisions in Yugoslavia.
Clearly, for our generation, there are no "small countries far away of which we know little". The Council is therefore to be commended on the speed and thoroughness of its action, which demonstrated how necessary and how possible it is to act as a Community in dealing with the security of our continent. Can the Prime Minister confirm that arrangements to assist British citizens wishing to leave Slovenia are proceeding satisfactorily as the day goes on?
With regard to the discussions on the two intergovernmental conferences, does the Prime Minister agree with me that the negotiations are of supreme importance to the future of our country and that any Government's overriding objective must therefore be the national interest, both for our generation and for future generations? That being the case, may I first say to the Prime Minister that there are no foreseeable circumstances in which it would be beneficial for the European Community to take on responsibility for military defence matters?
Secondly, would the Prime Minister accept, as a matter of principle, the requirement that any economic or political institutions established to share power at European Community level must be democratically accountable—because only democracy is truly robust and also because the powers already ceded by national Parliaments must continue to be subject to democratic control?
24
Thirdly, will the Prime Minister explain why his Government have so strenuously opposed the extension of qualified majority voting on environmental matters and on the social charter? Is it not the case that, in the unified single market after 1992, every effort must be made to ensure that companies and countries cannot gain any unfair competitive advantage by seeking to lower environmental and social standards? Is it not clear, therefore, that common environmental and social protection should extend right across the whole Community and across all its peoples? Why is the Prime Minister still trying to stop that?
On the economic intergovernmental conference, will the Prime Minister first confirm that his hard ecu plan has effectively been dismissed by other member states as impractical and undesirable and is now a dead duck? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what he stated in The Daily Telegraph just two weeks ago—that he accepts the principle of a single currency? And as no national Government or Parliament would ever accept the imposition of a single currency against their will, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to tell us why he continues to give the impression that the menace of imposition exists when it so clearly does not?
Will the Prime Minister also tell the House how he regards the prospect of the creation of a European central bank and if there are any conditions in which he would accept such an institution if it were not accountable to elected democratic authority?
On the vital matter of economic convergence, will the Prime Minister tell the House how he defines economic convergence in the European Community? Does not he agree that real economic convergence must involve improving performance in research and innovation, productivity and the skills of the labour force, all of which are necessary to achieve and maintain high levels of employment and balanced growth?
After 12 years in power, what will the Government do in practical terms to improve performance, especially when investment, output and productivity are falling and unemployment is rising rapidly as a direct result of the Prime Minister's policies? If the Prime Minister attaches importance to real convergence, why does he not work for it instead of just hoping for it? As Maastricht approaches, why does he not stop playing for time for his party and start playing to win for Britain?
The Prime Minister: May I first thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support for the action taken on Yugoslavia and for the calling together of the CSCE mechanism? That will be helpful and I hope that it proves to be successful in bringing to an end what is potentially a very serious and alarming conflict. May I also assure him that the action to assist British citizens is proceeding satisfactorily and is under the very close control of the Foreign Office? We shall do all we can to ensure the safety and security of British citizens.
I can also share with the right hon. Gentleman agreement on the importance of the two intergovernmental conferences that are presently under negotiation. They are of great importance to our present, and perhaps of greater importance to our medium and long-term future. I share his view that there is no case for European defence divorced from NATO. NATO is the central pillar of our defence now, has been for 40 years and will remain so. However, I take the view that there is room for increased

25
action by the Europeans in terms of co-operation on a defence identity, most satisfactorily through the Western European Union, and by a larger European contribution to our collective defence.
In so far as the economic and political institutions are concerned, of course they must be democratically accountable and there are a variety of definitions among our partners in the Community as to what nature of democratic accountability that should be. There is no agreement yet about that, but I think that the views of this House are perfectly clear.
With regard to qualified majority voting, in 1985 we accepted the quite considerable extension of qualified majority voting in the Single European Act in a number of areas, and that has operated thereafter.
We have accepted a number of social charter areas, but there are some that we find extremely difficult to accept, precisely because they would damage that which we most want from the social charter, which is the creation of jobs. Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor I would wish to see action taken that would damage employment prospects in this country.
With regard to the hard ecu proposals, the right hon. Gentleman is wholly and completely inaccurate when he describes the hard ecu proposals as no longer being on the table. They most certainly are on the table. Not only are they on the table, but they have very materially changed the nature of the whole debate on economic and monetary union with the proposals subsequently put forward by other countries to harden the basket ecu and achieve the same economic effect that we sought with the hard ecu principle.
We have made our position clear about a European central bank. If that comes about, it is many years away and it would certainly need to be accountable to a directly elected body. As for a definition of convergence, convergence would certainly mean bringing the European economies closer together on inflation, growth, performance, fiscal deficits and, as crucial as any of those, on the flexibility of the economies to respond to changing economic circumstances.
With regard to the improvement of the economy over the past 12 years, the changing living standards of people in this country indicate very clearly the extent to which the economy has improved dramatically. In so far as our comparative positions on European matters are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman is in no position to claim that he has any monopoly on the future interests of Europe. We are negotiating for the future of Europe in a way in which the right hon. Gentleman never could or would with the divisions in his party.
Several Hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. Although I realise that the statement does not wholly concern Europe and that it is about wider matters as well, I propose to give precedence to hon. Members who were not called in last Wednesday's debate. I will call other right hon. and hon. Members later, if there is time.
Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations and those of the Government side of the House on the way in which he promoted and protected the interests of the United Kingdom and Europe at the meeting? With reference to the fact that the word "federal" does not appear in the
26
conclusions of the meeting, does my right hon. Friend agree that a door that is gently closed can remain just as firmly shut as one that is slammed, and that it is less likely to provoke reprisals?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend emphasises the point with delicious delicacy. It was not a drafting session in the European Council—that lies ahead--but I made it clear that we could not accept a text that included the concept of federalism. It is dangerously ambiguous and it simply would not be acceptable either to me or to the House.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister has rightly emphasised the stock-taking nature of the summit. Nevertheless, he is to be congratulated on ensuring that Britain does not suffer the catastrophe of isolation at Luxembourg. Does he now regret his uncharacteristic but nevertheless inflammatory remarks at Luxembourg on immigration? Does he agree that the Yugoslav situation underlines the importance of having a common European foreign policy? Does he realise that he has not dodged the crunch on Europe, but has merely delayed it, and that he cannot unite his party or lead the country effectively unless he clearly stakes out his position on Europe? Will he therefore begin the process now by saying clearly what is so obvious—that he profoundly disagrees with the crabbed view on Europe put forward by his predecessor in the House last week?
The Prime Minister: I dismiss the last remarks of the right hon. Gentleman—they are scarcely worth consideration. In so far as a common foreign and security policy is concerned, I stated expressly in my statement a few moments ago that I favoured a common foreign and security policy. Yugoslavia, as the right hon. Gentleman says, is a case in point, so, indeed, was the safe havens initiative of some weeks ago. There have been a number of other illustrations where the collective political force of the Community added to the individual political and economic force of member nations to the general good of all. The common foreign and security policy, working on the basis of consensus, is something which I wholly and unreservedly support.
The Government's position is wholly clear. We are seeking an agreement at Maastricht that I can safely recommend to the House and which I believe is in the interests of the Community as a whole. I am not prepared and I am not going to stake out every tiny dot and comma of my negotiating position and undermine that negotiating position within our partners in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman can ask as much as he likes, but what matters at the end is what I negotiate in Maastricht, and I shall give that primacy in all matters between now and then.
In so far as clarity on policy is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman is a bit rich in much of what he says. There is certainly a crystal clarity in the Liberal party's policy: it is the transfer of power from London to Brussels, giving the European Parliament the right to override the Council of Ministers, and the phasing out of NATO. That is not our policy.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and his Cabinet colleagues on their skilful conduct of the talks and the success that he has evidently had in securing essential British and European interests, as well as on the clarity of

27
his statement this afternoon? Those of us who heard the words that the Leader of the Opposition read out, who watched the Leader of the Opposition's face during my right hon. Friend's response, and who noted that it took the right hon. Gentleman 228 words the other day to say nothing are delighted that my right hon. Friend, not the Labour party, is in charge of these matters.
The Prime Minister: My right hon Friend is entirely right; I am grateful for his kind words. The divisions among the Opposition can scarcely be hidden, especially now that the Labour Common Market safeguards committee has made its position clear. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has called in a communiqué for
"The creation of monetary union governed by an autonomous central banking system which should arrive at the issuing of a single currency".
The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, on the other hand, has stated:
"We are against a single currency."
Which is the Opposition's position?
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that in these negotiations he is dealing with the rights of the British people to elect and remove Members of Parliament who make the laws under which they are governed? Is he further aware that in 1987 no party put these matters before the electorate? Is he aware that a dying Parliament has no moral or constitutional authority to reach decisions before the British people have had a chance to assess them? Is he also aware that issues such as the repeal of the corn laws, the Irish question and free trade have in the past realigned British politics; and that the examples of Slovenia, Croatia, Quebec and the Baltic states show that enforced federation can have catastrophic effects quite contrary to those anticipated by those who advocated it? Will he reaffirm that it is the rights of the people, not the rights of Parliament, that are the basis of democracy in this country?
The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Members of Parliament are sent here to exercise their judgment on behalf of the people. Parliament is certainly answerable to the nation, but Members of Parliament have complete authority in the mandate that they have to decide what they believe is right in the interests of the nation and to seek legislation to that end. In due course, they will have to answer for that to the electorate.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no necessary contradiction between the judicious approach to developing the Community which he has adopted in his statement and the possibility of enlarging the Community, in good time and when the process is ripe, to include the nations of central Europe—notably Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary? Can he confirm that the association agreements to which he referred are but stepping stones to that desirable end?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I can certainly confirm that. Nothing that we do in these two intergovernmental
28
conferences must throw such a girdle around the present Community that it prevents others from joining it in future.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Prime Minister accept that, although action was taken on the events in Yugoslavia, many of us were extremely disappointed by the initial reaction of the Council to events in Slovenia? At a time when the Community is looking at the possibility of welcoming a common foreign policy, would not it have been better to issue a clear clarion call saying that we shall respect the ballot box, not the threat of the bullet? What will the right hon. Gentleman do now in the circumstances pertaining in Yugoslavia to recognise the democratic aspirations of these people?
The Prime Minister: The matter of the first importance is to stop the fighting and to prevent the potentially far worse fighting that might take place over the next few weeks. That is why we implemented the CSCE co-operation procedure and why we sent the troika, not once but twice, to Yugoslavia.
I understand and accept fully the hon. Lady's concerns about the independent rights of Slovenians and Croatians.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend for once again showing so clearly that it is quite possible and feasible to combine genuine interests of this country, as shown at Luxembourg, with the genuine overall interests of the Community? Does he agree that, contrary to the ludicrous assertion by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the development of a strict, strong, combined Community immigration policy vis-a-vis third countries would be well received by all member states?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful for that remark, and I apologise to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for neglecting to respond to his point earlier. The discussions that we had on immigration at the EC Council concerned our alarm at the potential immigration south to north and east to west which could occur over the next 10 years. It could literally amount to tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people. It is necessary for the Community to look to its external borders. Conversely, it is equally true—we are already doing this —that we seek to guide help and assistance to those countries to minimise the number of people who seek to move as a result of economic migrancy.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that he is caught in a Catch-22 situation because he is opposing both the social charter and majority voting? If he maintains his objections to the social charter, his European colleagues will evenytually insist on majority voting on it, but if he accepts majority voting, that will enable them to implement the social charter that he so dislikes. Therefore, why does he not take the graceful way out and accept the social charter as a great milestone for workers' wages and hours and for women's rights?
The Prime Minister: We have accepted those parts of the social charter that are in the interests of the people of this country. We have not made a blanket objection to every element in the charter. A number of elements in the social charter programme have been agreed by all member states, including the United Kingdom, but we retain a strong objection to those parts of the charter that we judge

29
would cause and cost job losses in the United Kingdom. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
As to qualified majority voting, as I said earlier, we agreed an extension in the Single European Act in 1985. We shall examine specific proposals for extension on their merits, but we shall need to be persuaded that it is of benefit both to the United Kingdom and to the Community before we agree to any such extension.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I congratulate the Prime Minister wholeheartedly on the line that he took in Luxembourg and the important decisions that he and the Foreign Secretary secured. Does he agree that the real argument about economic and monetary union in Europe is whether the people of the country are better off by going in or poorer by staying out? At the end of the day, there is very little sovereignty in becoming relatively impoverished.
The Prime Minister: The economic interests of the nation are, after defence, the prime concern of this and every Government. My hon. Friend has pointed that out accurately.
Mr. David Winnick: On the wider issues discussed at the meeting, was it accepted that if the criminal regime in Iraq does not carry out fully the United Nations Security Council resolution on nuclear equipment and the destruction of all nuclear weapons, force may have to be used? Does the Prime Minister agree that the hide and seek games carried out by Saddam Hussein and his thugs over the past few weeks cannot be tolerated any longer?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman expresses my view clearly. The European Council strongly condemned the attempt by Iraqi authorities not to reveal part of their nuclear equipment, which we believe they have not done, in explicit contravention of Security Council resolution 687. In our discussions we made it clear that, so long as the Iraqis failed to comply fully with the obligation to observe all the provisions of Security Council resolutions 687 and 688, the Security Council could not envisage lifting sanctions in any circumstances.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend say something about defence? Will he make it clear to his colleagues that the assembly of the Western European Union and its presidential committee have twice said that defence should be done by the Western European Union as part of NATO and that that was supported by the French socialist president of the WEU? Does he feel that his colleagues in Europe may feel that it is right for the European Community to accede to the Council of Europe charter on human rights?
The Prime Minister: There was not an extensive discussion on defence, although there was on security policy. Our partners in the European Community are aware that the view expressed by my hon. Friend is the view of the British Government.
Mr. Gavin Strang: While I support the invocation of the emergency mechanism of the CSCE with respect to Yugoslavia, are not there sound reasons for believing that if any international institution can avert civil war in that country, it is the European Community? I welcome the freezing of EC aid to Yugoslavia, but are
30
there likely to be direct talks between the Council—through the three Foreign Ministers—and the federal army of Yugoslavia? Will consideration be given to any other sanctions that the European Community might bring to bear to try to avert a tragedy in that country?
The Prime Minister: I agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is probable that there will be direct talks between the troika and the people involved in the conflict in Yugoslavia. I hope that they will also speak to the federal Government and the Slovenes and Croats. The troika has a wide-ranging discretion at present and in such a swiftly moving set of circumstances we must, to a certain extent, leave it to the discretion of the Foreign Ministers to take the action they believe is right.
The fact that the Community has twice, within a matter of days, sent the troika to Yugoslavia is the clearest possible illustration that we agree with the central point of the question of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang): that the Community has a prime role to play in helping to bring the conflict to an end.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on the positive approach he exhibited during the weekend in Luxembourg and on his determination to ensure that the agreement at Maastricht can be signed by this country? That may mean compromises not just by ourselves, but by others for the sake of achieving the ever-closer union to which all 12 member countries are committed. Therefore, during the next few months' discussions on economic and monetary union, will my right hon. Friend try to get the emphasis not towards the goal that we do not necessarily foresee, but towards the means to achieve it? We as the Conservative Government are unlikely to object to a single currency if that is to what the market leads, but we want to know the means by which that might be achieved. That is the contribution which we can make to a successful outcome.
The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's view on that point. We gain and lose from time to time on compromises. That has been the way in which the Community has always worked in the past and it will certainly work that way in the future. The only means by which to achieve economic and monetary union safely and securely is by the proper convergence of all the European economies over a period of time. That was mentioned on three occasions at least in the communiqué that we agreed over the weekend. It was also the subject of a lengthy and worthwhile discussion in our deliberations on Friday.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister agree that, whatever federalism may mean specifically, in the European Community it is generally taken to mean the continuing process of the pooling of sovereignty on those matters on which that can be done appropriately? In fact, the Foreign Secretary said so at the weekend. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree that it can only be an English politician who can perversely and eccentrically say that federalism means the exact opposite—centralism—in the English language? The only reason he is afraid of any discussion of this issue is that it will underline the centralist tendency of the state in the past 12 years. He is terrified of any discussion of decentralisation in the United Kingdom and the willingness to move to decentralised institutions in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that had he been present at our discussions on Friday he would not have phrased that question in that way.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Did my right hon. Friend see the opinion poll at the weekend that showed that the majority of people, irrespective of their political views, would rather have him negotiating for this country in Europe than the Leader of the Opposition? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospects that came out of the discussions in Luxembourg bode well for a harmonious outcome at Maastricht in December? Does he agree that that will give confidence to business men and investors in this country?
The Prime Minister: I believe that it is in everyone's interests that we are able to conclude these negotiations and remove at the earliest possible opportunity the uncertainty that faces business men and others. It is for that reason that, despite the formidable difficulties that still lie ahead, there is a general agreement that we should seek to reach an agreement at Maastricht the sooner the better and the sooner we can put it before the House.
Mr. Bernie Grant: May I say to the Prime Minister that I was terribly disappointed that he allowed himself to sink to the level of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Jacques Chirac in his attacks against immigrants in Europe? What evidence does he have to sustain his contention that immigrants are responsible for increased crime, drug trafficking, terrorism and racial tension? Why was it necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to lump legal and illegal immigrants together and to suggest that, at 10 million, those people are equivalent to the size of the population of Belgium—the seventh largest member of the Community?
Why does the Prime Minister support racist and fascist police officers from Italy, Spain and France who wish to enter the United Kingdom in hot pursuit of immigrants and others? Will he say clearly that the Tory party will not use immigrants as cannon fodder in the forthcoming general election campaign?
The Prime Minister: The House knows me too well, and has known me for too long, to believe for one moment that the views that the hon. Gentleman sought to attribute to me are my views. They most expressly are not, and the hon. Gentleman knows that. He should not have expressed such views in that way.
There is legitimate concern in each and every country within the Community about what the outcome would be in the Community of a potentially massive immigration movement as a result of economic migrancy from south to north and east to west unless we take action to prevent it. I care at least as much as the hon. Gentleman about racial harmony in this country, and I do not wish to see it destroyed by the stirring up of old fears that have been put to rest.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decisive and, we hope, effective action taken by the European Community over Yugoslavia shows the right way forward for a collective EC foreign policy, just as did my right hon. Friend's initiative for Kurdish safe havens?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I take the view as well that the Slovenes and Croats have a right to self-determination, but how that right is exercised must be a matter for discussion. We do not wish to see the civil war continuing. Indeed, we wish to see it stopped, and that is the first and most immediate duty of the troika of Foreign Ministers.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why does the Prime Minister believe in a level playing field for competition law and not for employment law?
The Prime Minister: I believe in a level playing field where that is in the interests of all European Community countries. We are saying that we do not want imported into this country employment law that would damage the employment reforms that we have made, which have been to the benefit of the work force and the economy over the past 12 years. Nor do we want employment legislation implemented within the Community where it would potentially cause the same damage as it would inflict in the United Kingdom.
Mr. John Butterfill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on diverting the sterile argument about whether we should participate in economic and monetary union into the much more fruitful area of determining how we can achieve economic convergence. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is costing the German Government DM 150 billion a year to have monetary union with the former German Democratic Republic? That has cost the Germans a 7·2 per cent. increase in their general levels of taxation. Has any estimate been made of what it would cost us immediately in terms of increases in taxation here and in Germany if we were to proceed immediately to monetary union in the Community?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that it would be a practical proposition to proceed immediately to monetary union throughout the Community. Given the differing economic performances of the countries of the Community, monetary union would lead to massive regional unemployment, a massive collapse in asset values, a massive amount of unemployment generally, a massive population movement and huge demands for an increase in structural funds to deal with those problems. It is not a practical proposition until there have been various convergencies. That is undoubtedly meant by those who shout from a sedentary position.
There is an analogy to be drawn, though not an especially accurate one, with the merging of the deutschmark and the ostmark. Essentially what we saw there was the takeover of a weak currency by a very strong currency, and my hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the difficulties that that has caused. The merging of a dozen established currencies is a far larger and more difficult operation to undertake.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Prime Minister guarantee some practical action to curb the new international arms race and to support the splendid sentiments expressed in annex 7 of the communiqué? Is not it nonsense that while Britain has embargoes against many countries, it also supports the Chilean and many other Governments in their development of the multiple-launch rocket system RAYO in Buckinghamshire and Wales, even though the Chileans have announced that they will

33
sell that weapon of mass destruction to any country in the world? Will the Prime Minister take practical steps to curb the greatest evil in the world—the international arms race?
The Prime Minister: It is precisely because we are seeking a greater level of arms control that that statement appears in the communiqué and we have taken other initiatives elsewhere. Of course, countries retain the right of self-defence, but we invite all those that export arms to take great care, as Britain does, over to whom they export arms.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conclusions reached at Luxembourg amply demonstrate that my right hon. Friend—to use the term of the Leader of the Opposition —is "winning for Britain"? Is he not also winning for the development of a European Community that is sensibly and pragmatically based?
The Prime Minister: In our discussions within the Community on the two intergovernmental conferences, we have sought to lay down the right framework for the future development of the Community. That is an immensely important job over which it is worth taking considerable care, and we are seeking to do so.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In respone to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), was not the Prime Minister adamant that there was no question of the Community lifting sanctions against Iraq? Has the right hon. Gentleman read the absolutely spine-chilling report of the Harvard medical school, which asserts that 170,000 under-fives are likely to die this year? Because of the lack of generating plant and medicines, there is the most appalling risk of gastro-enteritis, typhoid, cholera and hepatitis. In those circumstances—and not even for humanitarian reasons, but for the sake of the general impression within the Arab world—shoulcl not the right hon. Gentleman reflect on his policy?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may have been misled by what I said. Medicines are not covered by the present sanctions, so they can be sent to Iraq. Food can be exported with the approval of the humanitarian committee of the United Nations. Medicines and food should be going to Iraq, and they were not covered by my response to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that firm immigration controls are essential for good race relations within the Community, and that some European countries are having to learn that lesson very quickly? Does he further agree that the problems of drug trafficking, international crime and serious crime more generally are very important? Did he also make progress with those issues?
The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's views about the importance to good race relations of proper control of immigration. On the question of drug control, we examined and agreed to develop further the proposition by Chancellor Kohl to develop much greater co-operation between police forces in Europe specifically to combat the problems of drugs and other organised crime.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Was it not rather ungrateful of the Prime Minister to double-cross the Bruges group on economic and monetary union when most of that group voted for him in the Tory party leadership contest? Many of them are absent today, for some unknown reason. What will be the response of the president of the Bruges group?
The Prime Minister: As the premise is wrong, the hon. Gentleman's question is irrelevant.
Mrs. Marion Roe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the progress that he has made towards an agreement with our European partners will be a great encouragement to British industry and a boost to job prospects in Britain?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I agree. Industry and commerce generally will be much happier when the negotiations are concluded and they are aware of what the future holds for them.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Why cannot the Prime Minister define the word "federal"? Is he aware that federal institutions work only where there are proper democratic institutions, both at the federal and the state or national levels? What is happening about the development of democratic institutions in the European Community?
The Prime Minister: I said that I felt that one needed certainty in any treaty that one signed. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at the dictionary, he will find at least five different definitions of the word "federal"—and that is in only the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary." If he tries the longer "Oxford Dictionary," he will find more. If he refers to a German dictionary, heaven alone knows how many he will find.
Mr. Michael Irvine: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the concern felt by many of us that, unless the principle of subsidiarity is rigorously and precisely defined, far too much power will be left in the hands of the European Court of Justice in determining the extent to which the House and other national European Parliaments are yielding up sovereignty?
The Prime Minister: That, again, is a problem of definition which the Community itself is currently examining. Provided that we are entirely clear about what is meant by subsidiarity—and by that, I mean that nothing is done at central level that can better be done, and should be done, at national level—it would be entirely right to include such a definition in the treaty. I promise my hon. Friend that we will seek to achieve that.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am one of those people who look forward to the day when this country is part of a united states of Europe— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—with full political, economic, and military integration. I realise that that view is not particularly popular on this side of the House; and it probably does not go down too well on the other side of the House either. The sovereignty of the House started to go with the treaty of Rome, and has gone that much faster with the signing of the Single European Act. Is it not time that the British people were more fully consulted? Does the Prime Minister completely rule out the use of

35
referendums for submitting to the British people the far-reaching conclusions that will be reached at the intergovernmental conferences and beyond?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman and I have known one another for many years, and he has never shied away from unpopular views—and I respect him for that. I do not believe that referendums are the right way forward. I believe that there will be a general election in the next year or so—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that is probable—indeed, possibly certain. When we have concluded the negotiations in December, as I expect we will have to do, there will be a certain amount of work to be done before it will be possible to put the conclusions of those negotiations before the House. So it is very probable that there will be a general election before the House is invited to accept the conclusions of Maastricht.
Sir Anthony Meyer: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are doing splendidly. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the limited and voluntary pooling of sovereignty within the European Community has been the main factor in stopping its members from having violent disputes among themselves? Is that not the lesson that the European Community has to teach eastern Europe?
The Prime Minister: That is certainly one of the lessons that we must teach eastern Europe, although there are others. My hon. Friend is right to point out that we have been pooling sovereignty with our European partners for 20 years. But we have not only surrendered a proportion of our sovereignty; we have gained a proportion of theirs.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: With regard to the free mobility of labour throughout the European Community, what is the position in respect of those hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who have long been domiciled in EC states? Are they to be denied the right of internal migration? Will they be confined to the countries in which they currently live?
The Prime Minister: No one will be confined in this country, but as I am not entirely sure of the conditions under which some migrant workers are resident in other host countries in the Community, I cannot answer in respect of them. However, I will find out the answer and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are determined to strengthen the rule of law within the European Community? Can he say what proposals the Government have to enforce compliance with the rulings of the European Court of Justice?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that we are determined to enforce the rule of law in every aspect of the Community and it is precisely for that reason that we have tabled our own proposals to fine nations that fail to adopt Community law.
Mr. Max Madden: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is well understood that in the past his predecessors as leaders of the Conservative party reached for the race card when their political fortunes were at a low ebb? Many hon. Members are deeply sorry that he
36
appeared to reach for that card at the weekend. If he does not believe that to be the case, will he read newspaper reports of his remarks in Luxembourg and understand that what he said, and what was reported to be said by him, will give nothing but aid and comfort to racists in this and in other European countries? Will he give a clear undertaking that the United Kingdom Government will not join in any common agreement with other EC Governments about political asylum and refuge without the debate and approval of the United Kingdom Parliament?
The Prime Minister: The greatest damage to race relations in this country is done by people who seek to divine intolerance where there is none. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) heard what I said earlier to his hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). I invite him to reflect upon it and accept it.
Sir Ian Stewart: Dare I ask my right hon. Friend, when he discusses future arrangements for decision-taking within the Community, to be very cautious about ceding extra powers to the European Parliament over the size and distribution of the European budget, because it has not shown itself to be very assiduous in protecting the interests of taxpayers, especially in countries like this one which make a net contribution to the European budget?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point with which I agree.
Mr. Peter Shore: As the Prime Minister knows, the Euro-federal juggernaut slowed but did not stop at Luxembourg. What he said in his opening statement about foreign, security and other policies being dealt with outside the framework of the Rome treaty is extremely important. Can he assure the House that the presidency statement, which in its description of the principles of political union says that it is all to take place within "a single institutional framework", is a clear mistake and something that we are clearly not committed to?
The Prime Minister: No. That statement refers to the treaty of Union and not to the treaty of Rome. At present the political union treaty has the temple structure, in which two parts of it, including common foreign and security policy and general home and justice matters, are on a basis of intergovernmental agreement and are not subject to the treaty of Rome and to the Commission. That is the present position under the draft treaty; it is not yet finally concluded. There are sharp divisions within the Community about whether it should be a unitary or a three-tier structure. I am firmly of the view that it should be a three-tier structure and that is a matter for which the Government will fight very hard in the months ahead.
Mr. David Madel: As regards future discussion on the social charter, does my right hon. Friend agree that the main issue to concentrate on is even more imaginative retraining schemes so that unemployment in Europe may go down?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Twenty-three social action programmes have been published so far, and 12 of them have been agreed. We

37
shall argue very hard indeed for the sort of measures that create jobs and help employees, and hard against the sort of measures that jeopardise jobs.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government have, in principle, agreed to economic, monetary and political union and are now merely negotiating the method and timing? In respect of his important answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about the duty of judgment of the House, and in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), was he saying that it is only constitutionally appropriate for a Bill endorsing any treaty to be placed before the House after the next general election?
The Prime Minister: No, I certainly did not say that that was constitutionally the position. I said that as a matter of practicality that was likely to be what the position would be. If we were at the beginning of a Parliament when this matter was in its present state of affairs, I would think it entirely proper for the Government and Parliament of the day to decide. That is constitutionally proper and I think that I would be difficult to shift from that view.
As regards economic and monetary union, I expressly said to the House earlier that I had entered a reserve on the question of a single currency. As to the principle of a single currency, when I introduced the hard ecu proposals in June two years ago, I made it perfectly clear that that could evolve into a single currency if that is what customers, individuals and countries so wished. That clearly would admit the principle, on the basis of its being a market-driven proposition.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Many of us feel much easier in our minds now that negotiations in Europe are in my right hon. Friend's hands.
Today's European buzz words are "convergence" and "level playing fields". If we are to see a united Europe in any of our lifetimes, does that not mean a massive transfer of wealth from such countries as Britain, Germany and France to, for instance, Greece and Portugal? If we wait for natural convergence, no one will be alive to see the united Europe that everyone says he wants.
The Prime Minister: Over the past few years—most notably perhaps in Spain—we have seen the use of changing economic policies within individual countries which have dramatically improved their living standards and raised them predominantly towards those of the more developed and prosperous northern states in the Community.
What brought that about was not a massive transfer of structural funds—although there has been some transfer —but the changing economic performance and opportunities of a single market, free of barriers, throughout the Community as a whole, and the right economic action within individual countries. That is the way in which we envisage Europe's growing and moving towards a level playing field.
My hon. Friend is right: there are not sufficient funds in Europe to produce that result artificially through the transfer of structural funds.
Mr. Giles Radice: First, does the Prime Minister agree that the main achievement of the
38
Luxembourg summit was to delay any decision on the intergovernmental conferences? Secondly, did the Government make any positive contribution, or express any positive ideas, about the future shape of the European Community?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the first question is no. We were there, however, to take stock of where we are, and to set the orientations for the second half of this debate and the latter half of this year. In the last hour, I have set out precisely the measures that we and others took to lead us down that road.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call hon. Members who have been rising regularly, but I want to move on at 4.45 pm, because I shall in any case have to place a 10-minute limit on speeches in the next debate. May I ask hon. Members to keep their questions brief?
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who willingly voted to start down the European road in 1972, and confirmed ourselves on our journey in 1985, are now entirely happy with the route that he is taking? Will he accept from me—and, I think, from many of my colleagues—that it is nice to know what we shall do rather than constantly being told what we shall not do?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous remarks.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is nice to hear an account of a stock-taking, rather than a stick-taking, Council.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come to remind the British People that the Community represents much more than regulations about crisps, apples and so forth? It is far more to do with how we can create the prosperity in other countries that will make their populations want to stay where they are. It is about being able to send Foreign Ministers with clout to help to negotiate on difficult matters that put all Europe at risk. Is it not time to make that more positive message more clearly heard?
The Prime Minister: I agree. This is about building the right kind of Europe for our children: that is what we are now engaged in.
It is instructive to note that, although we doubtless have considerable reservations about some areas in the Community countries around Europe are striving to join the Community, because they perceive it as the success that it undoubtedly has been.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: May I return to the subject of Yugoslavia? Is my right hon. Friend aware that both Slovenia and Croatia have populations that are larger than those of many EC countries? If both areas hold referenda that come down firmly in favour of independence, will not the EC have to look sympathetically at the idea of recognising them as independent sovereign states?
The Prime Minister: I think that it is premature to take that view. In seeking to end the present conflict in Yugoslavia, I am not sure that it would be helpful for such a statement to be made. We all understand the aspirations

39
of independence in Slovenia and Croatia, but my first concern is to try to stop what otherwise could be a potentially damaging and bloody civil war.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his approach to European integration has overwhelming support in the country? Will he disregard the shouts from the sidelines of his two predecessors, as he knows that he will receive overwhelming support when he makes his recommendations to the House at the end of the negotiations because it is his political judgment which we trust?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that I shall receive much advice on many matters from all sources, and I shall listen most carefully to it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I will have to make the decisions in Maastricht, and he and I will have to place them before the House and defend them.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his predecessor was absolutely right when she said how important it is to include European foreign policy co-operation within the terms of the Single European Act? Will he build on the obvious success that has been achieved by ensuring that we proceed not by amendment of the treaty of Rome but through closer intergovernmental co-operation?
The Prime Minister: I most certainly will do that. As I said to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), proceeding on an intergovernmental basis on foreign and security policy, on home affairs and on justice is the right way to proceed. We shall certainly do so.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Could it be that, characteristically, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has jumped to the wrong conclusions again? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prompt response of the Council of Ministers to the dreadful problems in Yugoslavia showed that when there is a serious problem we can have united action? What would be quite wrong, and what the House and people of this country would not want, would be a permanent single Community foreign policy without the independent views of individual member states.
The Prime Minister: A common foreign and security policy will be successful only if it genuinely carries the support of each of the members of the Community. That is why we seek a common foreign and security policy based on consensus. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) rightly said that the Community was in a particular position to contribute to ending the Yugoslav conflict.
Mr. John Greenway: Among his many successes, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the European Council's endorsement of his initiative for a United Nations' register of conventional arms sales. Does he agree that the collective will of the Community can be used to bring this dangerous trade under control?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree. We shall seek to do so in collaboration not only with our European Community partners but with other partners outside the Community but within NATO.
Mr. John Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the widening of the Community to admit countries that meet our standards of democracy and economic viability is welcome, but that if every time a new state is admitted it brings with it one if not two new Commissioners the bureaucracy will begin to get out of hand? Does he agree that the structure of the civil service of the Commission should be monitored and controlled so that it becomes accountable to, and managed by, the elected Governments and Parliaments of the Community?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to warn that widening the Community may lead to an excess of Commissioners. We have tabled proposals that would reduce the number of Commissioners per country from two to one—not wholly for that reason but it would meet the same point.
Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his positive and vigorous approach in Luxembourg at the weekend. Does he agree that he would have found it difficult, if not impossible, to represent Britain's interests if over the past 25 years the Conservative party had fundamentally changed its policy on Europe seven times?
The Prime Minister: I cannot imagine to whom my hon. Friend is directing his remarks, but perhaps I can guess. I assure him that our position on Europe has been and will remain consistent. Other parties cannot say the same.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is widespread admiration and support, which has already been reflected in the opinion polls, for the combination of firmness, reasonableness and commitment to Britain being at the heart of Europe which he displayed in Luxembourg? Does he agree that a prerequisite for achieving anything in any negotiation is to have some idea of where one is going and what one is trying to achieve? On that score alone, the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Foreign Secretary totally exclude themselves from serious consideration.
The Prime Minister: We are certainly clear about our posture and about what we wish to achieve in this matter. I share my hon. Friend's view that that is not the case with the Opposition Front Bench, as we saw in the debate last week.
Mr. David Sumberg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend not simply on what he said this afternoon but on demonstrating clearly that in the coming difficult months he will definitely be the best man to bat for Britain. During his time in Europe, was he approached by any of his European colleagues seeking clarification of the Labour party's policies, particularly of the speech in last week's debate by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)?
The Prime Minister: I can honestly say that I heard no interest expressed in the Opposition's views.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I turn my right hon. Friend's attention to the point in his remarks that

41
affects more people in the world than any other—his reference to taking account of human rights in European Community agreements? Does that follow from the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development that our aid programme would be concerned with better government and effective use of aid? If so, when will we see a start in what the European Community proposes to do?
The Prime Minister: The statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is part of the process. The intention of the declaration was to guide the work of the Community and member states on human rights. The key element was a reaffirmation that action to promote human rights does not constitute interference in internal affairs. The declaration confirmed the support of the European Community and its member states for good government through their aid programmes.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's observations on European security policy in a most encouraging statement. I wish to press him on his admirable support for the Western European Union as the best European vehicle for enhancing European security, as we are a collective association of free sovereign states in defence. Does Britain intend to pursue co-location of the Council and Assembly and to advocate a European reaction force? What other measures do we specifically want to pursue to make the WEU work?
The Prime Minister: If we can, we shall pursue co-location. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has placed before our European partners proposals for a possible European reaction force. We foresee a development of the WEU that would form an organic link —first, with the Community and, secondly, and crucially, with our NATO allies and with NATO generally.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents warmly welcome his resistance to the imposition of a federal super state?
The Prime Minister: I am pleased to know that.

Points of Order
4.43 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today, after 12 o'clock—so I was not able to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 20—British Steel announced the strategic decision to close the Dalzell platemill in my constituency. It is one of the last remaining steel plants in Scotland. This was a major decision, but no announcement was made by the Department of Trade and Industry or by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. A statement was made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it was made outside the House.
The questions raised about considering the case made for redevelopment of the Dalzell steelworks have not been answered. No adequate measures have been taken to create the jobs needed to replace the steel jobs lost. Would it not be appropriate for the Minister to make a statement in the House this afternoon?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised this point of order now because the question arose after 12 o'clock, when I consider such matters. I am sure that his comments have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench. I remind the hon. Member that there will be a debate on Thursday on these matters when, no doubt, he will be able to make his points.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health any request to make a statement on the licensing of RU486, an abortifacient drug which is undergoing tests by the Department and is manufactured by Roussel? There were strong signs in the Sunday newspapers and today in the Evening Standard that the Department had given approval, yet there is nothing on the Order Paper to show that that approval has been given.
Mr. Speaker: That matter has not been raised with me, but I am sure that those who are responsible for such matters have heard the hon. Member's comments.
Mr. John Bowis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a busy day ahead.
Mr. Bowis: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) raised an important matter. The drug is known to have produced cancer effects in France. It would be wrong for a licence to be given without a statement being made to the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should use the channels available to him, not necessarily the Chamber, to raise that matter with his right hon. Friends.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Companies (Disclosure of Interests in Shares) (Orders imposing restrictions on shares) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Question agreed to.

The Army
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Defence Committee on the Procurement of the Multiple Launch Rocket System and the Phoenix Remotely Piloted Vehicle, HC 49, the Fourth Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 476, and the Seventh Report on the EH101 and Attack Helicopters and the TRIGAT Missile Systems, HC 243, so far as it relates to Attack Helicopters and the TRIGAT Missile Systems.]
Mr. Speaker: No fewer than 35 right hon. and hon. Members are anxious to participate in the debate. Given the late start, it will be necessary to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. I ask Front-Bench speakers and those right hon. and hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be called before then to bear that limit in mind so that as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible may be called.
4.46 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Last summer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence set out proposals on "Options for Change" and the future structure of the armed forces. He spoke of the opportunities flowing from fundamental changes in Europe which would allow us to ensure our security with lower levels of armed forces and with a reduction in the share of gross domestic product taken by defence.
My right hon. Friend referred also to the risks for security that remain in Europe and farther afield. Today is the 75th anniversary of the first battle of the Somme, when so many Northern Ireland soldiers gave their lives in defence of our liberty, and it is fitting that we should debate the future arrangements for the Army and for ensuring that the terrible events of July 1916 are not repeated.
It is a paradox that in a post-cold war world the risks may be more diverse and less easy to predict than the threat posed in the past by the huge military forces of the Warsaw pact massed on the borders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries. Our forces need to be not only well-equipped and well-supported but characterised by flexibility and mobility, ready to be deployed at short notice to wherever in the world it is necessary to defend security.
The Gulf crisis, which broke less than two weeks after my right hon. Friend's statement, has served as an unpleasant reminder that we should not begin to look at the world through a haze of excess optimism or contemplate abandoning well-established foundations of our security. The approach which we outlined last summer has been vindicated, for in setting out our thinking on "Options for Change" we recognised the need to retain a capability to react to emergencies and recognised that our forces must remain our insurance against the unexpected.
As for the position in Europe, I know that there are those who have suggested that the future remains too uncertain, the Soviet Union too little versed in notions of liberal democracy, for the changes to the armed forces to be sensible. One can point to the severe economic and political difficulties still facing the Soviet Union and its former satellites as evidence of potential for instability.
44
The Government recognise those concerns: that is why we remain fully committed to the collective defence provided by NATO and to robust and capable armed forces. It is also why we attach the greatest importance to continuation of the reform programmes under way in the Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe.
However, it would be foolish to ignore the changes that have already taken place in Europe; and there is now a great mass of evidence that these changes are so far advanced that positive response must be right. We are confident of the peaceful and co-operative intentions of President Gorbachev. The Warsaw pact's military structure has been dismantled, to be followed by the political structures—events of fundamental significance which, in the new security environment, pass almost unmentioned in the press.
Perhaps most important of all, Soviet military withdrawals from the one-time Warsaw pact countries are now well under way. All Soviet forces have left Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Soviet forces are expected to have left Poland and eastern Germany by the end of 1993 and 1994 respectively. By 1995, we expect that Soviet force levels in the area from the Atlantic to the Urals will have fallen from the 138 divisions of 1989 to about 70 to 75 divisions. The net result is that, by the middle of the decade, NATO will be facing about 1 million fewer troops in Europe.
The Soviet Union will, of course, retain the capacity to reinforce these forces from outside the ATTU region if they should so choose, but by the mid-1990s we would expect the warning time of a full-scale Soviet offensive in Europe to be a matter of weeks rather than days. Moreover, the Soviet armed forces are now engaged in a major programme of relocation and reorganisation that appears genuinely to reflect the new professed doctrine of defence sufficiency.
Since 1988 procurement and production of equipment for the Soviet armed forces, particularly ground and air forces, has fallen sharply. Between 1988 and 1990, it is assessed that tank production fell by about 60 per cent., from about 3,500 tanks a year to about 1,400. During the same period production of light armoured fighting vehicles was cut by about 40 per cent. and fighter aircraft production by about a quarter, with significant reductions in bombers and combat helicopters. Further reductions in military procurement are expected in the next few years.
When the NATO and Warsaw pact countries signed the treaty on conventional forces in Europe last November, we believed that it would be a further buttress to greater security for all parties. Since then, of course, there have been some well-publicised problems over the interpretation by the Soviet Union of the treaty's spirit and letter. We are pleased that they have now been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
We hope that the resolution of the difficulties over CFE will allow the treaty's ratification by the countries involved in the next few months. I suggest to the House that the series of events since last November proves the continued need for NATO countries to stand firm and united in our dealings with the Soviet Union. The eventual outcome demonstrates the benefits of that approach.
So the time is right for change; not for headlong rush towards disarmament and defencelessness as successive Labour party conferences have proposed with their

45
suggestions that there should be cuts down to the average of the NATO allies but for measured change which maintains adequate defences to ensure our security.
Our attention today focuses on the Army, which played such an important part in the campaign to liberate Kuwait. I will return to its role in the coalition's success in a few moments, but first I would like to say something about a matter which I know is of great concern to the House: the case of the three guardsmen Hicks, Povey and Corporal Ray who so tragically lost their legs when digging a trench on the British Army Training Unit, Suffield range in 1988.
I have been criticised in the press, which reported that I had said that they should get sedentary jobs for which they did not need their legs. Those reports were prompted by a press release promoting a "This Week" programme on the whole subject of compensation for injured service men. This shoddy and biased publicity material implied, quite wrongly, that I was unsympathetic to the guardsmen and cared nothing for their terrible injuries. In fact, my comments were made in the context of the tremendous efforts that they have made to come to terms with their injuries. What I actually said in a reply to Richard Linley, the programme's presenter, was—and here I quote from the transcript—
"they won't be able to do jobs like on construction sites and jobs where they have to be on their feet all the time, but it will be open to them to do a number of jobs in offices and so forth sedentary jobs that people like me have where in practice they don't actually need their legs for that job."
I made those remarks in the knowledge that former guardsman Hicks was looking for a job. I hope that he succeeds. I for one am certainly not prepared to condemn him to a life of unemployment. Mr. Hicks has made a remarkable recovery from his appalling injuries and is making excellent progress with his artificial limbs. The House must judge whether my remarks were fair and reasonable because they were not quoted in full in the press release issued by the "This Week" programme.
Guardsman Povey and Coporal Ray are, of course, still in the Army, but if they too are discharged I am confident that they will wish to forge new careers for themselves. Of course, their opportunities will be restricted by their injuries, but I hope that the spirit and determination that they have shown so far will continue to stand them in good stead. Whether or not they are ultimately successful, they will continue to receive pensions and other benefits.
In cases where a service man is invalided out of the services as a result of injury which is attributable to his service, he will receive a pension from the Department of Social Security—a so-called war pension—which takes account of the degree of disability involved. In addition, his Ministry of Defence pension will be uprated to reflect the attributability of his injury. These awards are tax free and index linked, and provide a continuing basis of financial support for the rest of his life. Clearly, money cannot really make up for the loss of limbs but society, rightly, seeks to provide through the state for those with such disabilities, so an injured service man will also receive certain allowances and benefits. Mr. Hicks, who has left the Army, is receiving £260 per week; this is the equivalent of about £350 before tax. It is instructive to compare that with a civilian injured in an industrial accident who will receive about £190 in the absence of a private pension.
In addition, since the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act in 1987, service men have been able to sue
46
the Crown for damages if their injuries stem from negligence on the Ministry of Defence's part. It is this last point which is at the nub of the concern felt by so many hon. Members as to whether it is fair and reasonable that the injured, who have served their country well, should be required to prove negligence; and whether the Ministry, in dealing with such cases, is forthcoming and helpful, or seeks to hide behind a wall of secrecy.
On the first point, the Government fully understand —and share—the real sympathy which Members feel for these young men. On the other hand, despite the sympathy one feels, we have to see this sad case in the context of other cases which have occurred and which will no doubt arise in the future. We have concluded that the only equitable approach in these cases is to base the question of compensation—over and above appropriate pensions and allowances—on the test of legal liability. Ultimately, that will be for the courts to decide in an impartial way on the evidence of the case.
Secondly, there is the question of the Ministry's approach in cases such as these. We do not approach them in a narrow, commercial way, striving at all costs to avoid the payment of fair compensation where the facts justify that. We aim instead—as is right and proper for a public body which seeks to serve the community—to assist in establishing the facts on which a judgment of liability may be made. Our normal practice in claims cases is to do our best to answer questions and to provide advice on points of fact to a claimant's solicitors to assist in this process. Moreover, if our legal advice is that on the balance of the evidence there is a case against the Ministry, we would normally then expect to reach a settlement out of court, so saving the claimant the expense and trauma of a court process.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Despite the Minister's soft words, is he not saying that the soldiers must go to law and fight their case in the courts and that the Ministry of Defence is not prepared to give them an ex gratia payment?
Mr. Hamilton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has a copy of my speech, and from it he will see that I am coming to further points on that subject.
I have today instructed officials to contact the solicitors for the men to offer a meeting. That will provide the best opportunity for a full review of the case and will, I trust, allow the men's solicitors to address the question of what further inquiries can usefully be made which they would like us to pursue. I hope that that offer will be taken up by the men's solicitors.
Mr. David Winnick: The Minister will know that one of the soldiers, Sean Povey, is a constituent of mine.
I welcome the fact that there is to be a meeting between the solicitors and Ministry officials to discuss the case. But will the Minister bear it in mind that Sean Povey was 18 when he joined the Army and that he was delighted to join? I received a letter from a teacher at his school saying that it was the only job that he wanted to do and, apparently, the day he joined, he returned proudly in his uniform. When, a year later, in July 1989—two years ago now—Sean Povey and the two others were crippled for life, they did not think for one moment that they would have such problems in obtaining compensation.

47
Although we welcome the pension arrangement—I have said this before in the House—it cannot possibly be an adequate substitute for compensation, especially bearing in mind the fact that, also in July 1989, someone who lost both legs during the construction of the channel tunnel received more than £370,000 in agreed damages granted by a court. I beg the Minister and the Secretary of State, who I know is listening, to have compassion and understanding for the three young men crippled for life, who cannot stay in the Army and whose pension arrangements cannot possibly provide for capital expenditure on housing, transport and so on.
I hope that the meeting will lead to the granting of the sort of compensation that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House wish the men to receive. I have not met a single person in my area who does not feel that compensation should be paid. I do not believe that everyone is wrong and only the Government are right.
Mr. Hamilton: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We are offering the opportunity for the solicitors to pursue these matters further, but it is impossible to predict the outcome.
Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hamilton: No, I am afraid that I do not intend to give way further. The intervention from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) took ages and there is already a time limit on hon. Members' speeches. I must get on.
We are talking about a very sad and difficult case.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hamilton: No. The hon. Member for Walsall, North took about five minutes with his intervention. I shall not give way further.
Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The Minister has made it quite clear that he does not intend to give way.
Mr. Hamilton: This is a difficult and sad case—
Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hamilton: No.
Mr. Rogers: The Minister is afraid to answer questions.
Mr. Hamilton: Some would argue that it is inexplicable that such dreadful accidents can happen when no one can be held negligent. However, I think that the House will accept that the profession of arms, by its nature, calls on the service man to face risks in training that will generally be greater than those that a civilian will face. This, I fear, is a necessary part of his training which he undertakes in his own interest and in the interest of supporting his colleagues if and when conflict occurs. If we are to prepare our service men properly for the shock of conflict, our training needs to be as realistic as we can make it, and that calls for the use of live ammunition. Despite all the
48
precautions that we take, however, unfortunate accidents do occur, and it does not automatically follow that such accidents stem from negligence.
We are all proud of the professionalism with which our forces fought in the Gulf. That in turn reflected the professionalism and realism of their training. Many of our units in the Gulf had trained at Batus, and I think would acknowledge how much they owed to that fact. A readiness to accept risks in training, albeit taking all reasonable precautions, saves lives when we have to face live conflict.
I should like to move on to our future plans for the Army, in which I know there is deep interest. In his statement on 4 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained what the future size of the Army would be. Next week we shall be publishing the statement on the Defence Estimates and setting out more fully our latest thinking on "Options for Change" across the range of defence activities. We shall also be keeping the House informed of specific measures affecting each of the services as decisions fall ready.
As with the other services, work in planning the future structures of the Army has been proceeding in consultation with NATO and with individual allies. As a result, we have been able to go a substantial way in fleshing out our initial proposals in a way that will meet both national requirements and the needs of the alliance.
In his statement last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House that NATO Defence Ministers had agreed in May on a framework for the alliance's future force structures. A central feature of that agreement is that, in future, the British Army's main contribution to the defence of Europe should be as part of a new multinational Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps under British leadership. The corps will include two British and two multinational divisions, as well as forces provided by other allies, and will have a range of deployment options throughout the Allied Command Europe area.
Mr. John Browne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, especially in the circumstances. We have heard his views about the guardsmen's case and warmly welcome the proposed meeting with their solicitors. But what is of essence here is the constant reiteration of the assertion that no one is to blame. Where is the proof that no one is to blame? Surely someone is to blame. Why did not the board of inquiry investigate the reasons why the live round was lying on the range in the first place? That is where the blame is to be found but the board of inquiry did not even cover that matter. Will the Minister please give a guarantee that the meeting will allow the solicitors to have the board of inquiry reopened?
Mr. Hamilton: I very much regret having given way to my hon. Friend. I have stated precisely that the point of the meeting to be held with the guardsmen's solicitors is to explore all those matters and to ask those questions. My hon. Friend has asked exactly the same questions as the solicitors will no doubt ask at the meeting, which has been organised for that very purpose.
The United Kingdom will provide the framework for the new corps, including a permanent commander, a significant proportion of the headquarters infrastucture and some combat support. We shall assign to it an armoured division based in Germany in peace time and a

49
more lightly equipped division based in the United Kingdom. In addition, we shall contribute an air-mobile brigade to one of the corps's multinational divisions.
The ACE rapid reaction corps has a role which I know is warmly welcomed by the Army. It shows the high esteem in which our professional forces are held by our NATO allies. That demanding new role will provide a focus for a service, which, although smaller, will remain highly capable.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: My father was an Army chaplain for 30 years. Can my hon. Friend tell the House what will be the future of the Army Chaplains' department which at present numbers about 150? The Navy and the RAF have their own chaplains' department. Is the Army chaplains' department likely to be unchanged, and is its headquarters likely to remain at Bagshot park?
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend will know that the adjutant-general is reviewing all the corps under his responsibility and is working many of them together into a new adjutant-general corps, with which the Army chaplains will be closely associated. We shall continue to have a requirement for Army chaplains in the future, although I cannot guarantee that we will have as many Army chaplains as we have today.
The Army will continue to meet its other commitments and I shall say more about this later. We shall ensure that those forces are properly equipped for their tasks. Ten days ago we announced that we are to place an order with Vickers for up to 130 Challenger 2 tanks to replace Chieftain. The rigorous assessment that my Department has conducted over the past two years gives us every confidence that this new British tank will be a very valuable asset to the future Army. We are also planning a major programme to improve the Challenger I tank. In addition to Challenger 2, by the mid-1990s, the Army will be equipped with a range of high-quality new equipment, including the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle, the AS90 self-propelled howitzer, and the multiple launch rocket system which performed so well in the Gulf.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House today that we will shortly sign a memorandum of understanding with the German Government for the production of the phase II rockets for MLRS. The new rocket, which can be fired from the launchers now in service, will give the Army the additional and very valuable capability to lay scatterable anti-tank mines at long range. That significantly increases the operational effectiveness of the MLRS system and builds on the success of that major international collaborative programme. Taken together, the announcement on MLRS and last week's statement on the new tank provide the clearest possible expression of our commitment to maintain an effective and well-equipped Army for the future.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister has referred to events in the Gulf. Will he comment on two stories in relation to the Gulf that appeared in Scotland over the weekend? The first said that the Gulf trust, which was established by the Secretary of State for Defence and which has now accumulated £3 million, will not be paid out to any of the relatives of the 42 people who were killed during the course of the battle. I would greatly welcome a denial of that.
50
The second story is that the United States has said that its report into friendly fire will not be made public and that British military chiefs will consider the report and then issue their own statement.
I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the distress that both those stories have caused to the families concerned. I expect clear guidance from him. If he cannot issue categorical denials at this stage, perhaps he can write to me or make a statement in the House.
Mr. Hamilton: Let me make the position about the Gulf trust absolutely clear. The moneys in the trust will be administered by the services charities and will be paid out on the basis of need to those people who have suffered during the conflict. That has been absolutely clear and money has already been paid out. Eventually, the money will be passed over to the charities. At the moment, in practice, loans have been made while final arrangements are being made for the money to be paid over to the three service charities. We have learnt many lessons from the South Atlantic fund which, as I am sure the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) knows, paid out very large sums of money at the beginning, and as a result could not provide for the much longer-term needs of many of the service men. I will come back to the hon. Lady on her second point.
Mr. Robert Banks: The decision to equip the British Army with the Challenger tank is most warmly welcomed by people in Yorkshire whose jobs depend on that order. We also appreciate the fact that the decision recognises British techniques and engineering skills. We warmly welcome the decision.
Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope that it will put Vickers in a much stronger position with regard to meeting the challenge in the export market. I hope that it will be successful in exporting Challenger 2 to many parts of the world.
At the same time, we have made it clear that we are seeking to make substantial savings in the support area, including headquarters, at least proportionate to those in the front line.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Minister confirm that a decision has been taken not to downgrade Army HQ Wales at Brecon in my constituency? Does he agree that, if that were to happen, there would be a tremendous loss of status for Wales?
Mr. Hamilton: We are addressing the whole question of the district reorganisation right across Great Britain. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it is important that, when we try to make savings on the support side, we should address the question of the number of headquarters and see whether there are ways in which we can reduce them. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) will have to wait for a statement about that because a decision has not yet been made. It will be very difficult if, whenever we try to make any sensible rationalisations in the management of the Army, there are endless complaints from different parts of the United Kingdom that we all accept that economies must be made but, "not on my front door, thank you very much."
A number of initiatives are being pursued in the Army in line with that objective: restructuring of the Army's training base in the United Kingdom and of the logistic

51
support functions; a rationalisation of the corps in the adjutant-general's area with particular responsibility for personnel management, and a reorganisation of the Army's command structure in this country, to which I have just referred.
Many of the details still have to be worked out. The decisions are difficult and I fully understand that a number of the steps that we shall have to take will be disappointing to hon. Members on both sides of the House whose constituencies are affected. However, it is essential that we ensure that the tail of the future Army is kept in balance with the teeth. It is inevitable that that will require us to close establishments and to dispose of some assets as we reduce the defence estate to match our future needs.
Sir Patrick Duffy: I must state at the outset that I have the greatest sympathy with the Minister and his right hon. Friends in the tremendous restructuring task confronting them. Is he aware that there is a widespread fear on both sides of the House that was perhaps best expressed by the defence debate in the other House recently, that the procedure is motivated largely by a resource-led scramble rather than being based on a proper assessment of commitments? That fear is widely shared. If the Minister can dissipate it, we will be delighted.
Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I have already said, this is a response to the major changes that have taken place in the world. The changes are very much in line—or less in terms of percentage reductions —with those of our allies. We have to face the reality that if we did not make the economies, we would probably be the only member of NATO that was not reducing its defence expenditure or reducing numbers in the light of new circumstances.
Dr. John Marek: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate the fact that the Minister is giving way so often.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) is right. There is great concern about the scramble for economies which, of course, must be made. As the constituency Member for Wrexham, my main concern is for the survival of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, although I understand what the Minister said about the need to make cuts, "but not in my back yard."
Will the Minister assure me that cuts will be made with regard to the efficiency, professionalism and morale of the Army as a whole? If he can assure me that any regiment should not be part Welsh and part English as that would not benefit the Army as a whole, if he can assure me that when the cuts and amalgamations take place due regard will be taken of the regiments with very good recruiting figures and a high proportion of soldiers serving on long-term contracts, I am sure that the case for the Royal Welch Fusiliers will be—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that interventions must be brief.
Mr. Hamilton: I must be rather less generous in giving way because I am only half way through my speech and I have been speaking for more than 30 minutes already.
I can tell the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) that we take many different factors into account with
52
regard to the rationalisation of Army regiments. We are leaving it very much in the hands of the Army to reach conclusions on those matters and to bring proposals to us which we hope to effect. It is better to leave matters like that. I hope that I will not be bullied by hon. Members on both sides of the House about their own particular regiments. Very serious considerations will be taken into account and I hope that the Army can reach conclusions so that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can report to the House in due course.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hamilton: No, I am afraid that I cannot give way again as I must make progress.
As part of the work on the Army's training organisation, we have identified a number of areas where there is scope for more effective use of our resources. As a first step towards the restructuring of the training base, we propose to transfer the training of junior soldiers from three barracks at Colerne, Shorncliffe and Dover, and to reduce the amount of training carried out at three other locations—Bovington, Arborfield and Aldershot. All of those changes, which are subject to consultation with the trade unions concerned, will be achieved by transferring training to other establishments where we have spare capacity. Further announcements on the detailed implications of reductions in the support area will be made in due course.
There is another development concerning our training activities that I should report to the House today. I am pleased to be able to announce that after considerable negotiations the Ministry of Defence has concluded a new licence agreement with the Duchy of Cornwall. That agreement will run for 21 years and will allow continued high explosive firing until 1998, as well as greater public access. The new licence also incorporates the Department's policy of actively caring for the environment, and it establishes new procedures relating to environmental matters, including the creation of a Duchy deputy bailiff specifically charged with environmental monitoring.
The Army's volunteer reserves and reservists will continue to have a key role. We are examining our requirements in this area and, in particular, looking at the roles, size and number of Territorial Army units, having regard to the numbers that we can realistically expect to recruit and retain. We are giving careful consideration to the value of having reserves with a general purpose capability, which would enable us better to provide a framework for expansion in times of tension than units tied to specific roles.
As the House has been told, we estimate that the new structures will require a Regular Army some 116,000 strong, including trainees, by the mid-1990s—about 40,000 smaller than today. The strength of the British Army of the Rhine, currently more than 50,000, will reduce to about 23,000.
Detailed work on the implementation of our new plans for the Army is now in hand. Although we shall be making full use of recruitment controls and natural wastage, there will inevitably be a requirement for some redundancies in order to preserve the right balance of ranks, ages and skills. I hope that, as far as possible, those will be voluntary. Details will be announced as soon as possible.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that previous amalgamations of regiments and also the geographic recruitment areas of regiments will be taken into account, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) mentioned? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that those are matters of great concern to the King's Own Royal Borderers, whose members want an objective assessment of what will happen in future?
Mr. Hamilton: The answer to that question is yes.
It is also inevitable that there will be a need for some amalgamations and disbandments of units. We recognise that carrying through the changes will be a highly complex undertaking, which will need to be managed with sensitivity. As the House knows, we are consulting within the Army on how that should be achieved. Right hon. and hon. Members who attended last year's Army and defence debates will recall that I gave assurances that the new regimental system will remain an important feature of the new Army. I repeat that firmly and unreservedly now. It is, of course, Labour Members who do not value the regimental system. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said in the House that, as new mobile force structures would have to be international units,
"I cannot see the regimental structure being relevant in its present form to the strategic needs of the Army."—[Official Report, 18 June 1990; Vol. 174, c.704.]
We believe in the regimental system. As soon as our consultations are complete, we shall come forward with more detailed announcements. In advance of that, I trust that the House will appreciate that I am not prepared to comment on the future of individual units.
We do not need to look far for an illustration of their value. The past year has, of course, seen the invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait by Iraq, and its liberation by the forces of a unique coalition of countries, including the largest British mechanised force in action since the second world war. We should not forget that, although the Opposition never fail to remind people that they supported the use of force when the air battle began on 16 January, their policy was not to fight but to wait and let sanctions work. If the Labour party had had its way we would still be waiting today, while temperatures soared, the rape of Kuwait continued, and the alliance of coalition forces came under increasing strain.
Mr. Rogers: In view of the support that was given to our armed forces by both sides of the House—the record is available to be read—I find the Minister's remarks most contemptible and unworthy of any Minister of any Government. I wish that the Minister would withdraw the imputation that our forces do not receive the wholehearted support of this side of the House, not just of the Labour party but of other parties. The Minister's remark was contemptible, and he should withdraw it.
Mr. Hamilton: I can understand why the Opposition are so sensitive about this matter. I was stating what their policy was. We have heard little of that policy since the conduct of the war went so well. We can rest assured that, if the outcome had been less successful the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) would be telling us how much better it would have been to have followed Labour advice, to shirk the war, to shirk the fight, and wait for sanctions to bring about the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, repeatedly throughout the months of December and January, many hon. Members on these Benches, including myself, made our position absolutely clear—that is, if force had to be used, it had to be used?
Mr. Hamilton: The fact remains that it was quite clearly the policy of the Opposition that sanctions should be allowed to work. We all heard it; there is no point in our trying to rewrite the history books. It was Labour's policy that sanctions should be allowed to work.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Were you not in the Chair or the Chamber when the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, on many occasions the Defence Secretary said that they were very pleased that there was a united House of Commons because it made the task of fighting criminal aggression that much easier? The Defence Secretary was pleased that the armed forces in action knew that there was a united House of Commons behind them. The Minister's remarks are despicable and contemptible.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not points of order. Let us get on with the debate.
Mr. John Morris: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hamilton: No, I shall not give way. I have given way much too frequently already. I have a long way to go.
Mr. Morris: Can the Minister give an assurance that, having regard to commendations that have been given by Minister after Minister, from the Prime Minister down, about the bipartisan approach to the Gulf war by both sides of the House, the Minister's remarks have been cleared by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary?
Mr. Hamilton: I have already said that there was a bipartisan approach to the outbreak of hostilities. The policy of the Opposition was to wait for sanctions to work.
The basis of the British ground force was 1st British Armoured Division, consisting of 7th Armoured Brigade, 4th Brigade, an artillery brigade, a reconnaissance regiment, armoured and field engineers, an Army Air Corps regiment, and a range of other supporting personnel. The skill and bravery that they displayed in the campaign to free Kuwait must be a source of great pride to us all, and I would like to say a few words about that.
The division had a total strength of about 28,000 personnel. Its fighting strength included 180 Challenger tanks, 260 Warrior armoured combat vehicles, 90 artillery pieces and 18 Lynx anti-tank helicopters. A further 5,000 Army personnel were also deployed to the Gulf, providing engineering, signals and other support at RAF bases, a prisoner of war guard force, and headquarters and other support staff in the area.
The division's part in the allied military victory is now well known.
Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hamilton: I cannot give way again.
Mr. Rogers: As the Minister has mentioned the Gulf war, will he make a statement today on the sale of arms through the wholly-owned subsidiary, International Military Services, to Iraq and Jordan—arms that were

55
then used to fight our troops? Will the Minister now confirm his continual statements to me over the past two years that there were no arms sales to Iraq?
Mr. Hamilton: There were certainly no arms sales to Iraq from British firms. That is what I have always said and I still confirm that absolutely.
During a remarkable advance of nearly 300 km over 66 hours, the division defeated the best part of at least three Iraqi divisions, taking about 7,000 prisoners and destroying or capturing about 200 tanks. By the time allied operations were suspended at 0500 Greenwich mean time on 28 February, 7th Armoured Brigade had taken up a position astride the main road leading north from Kuwait city, with 4 Brigade further to the west.
It should not be imagined that that advance was achieved in the face of no opposition. At times, Iraqi units put up firm resistance and tried to launch armoured counter-attacks. Overall, however, the Iraqis were not given the opportunity to organise effective resistance. They were outmanoeuvred and outfought.
Sadly, 19 British soldiers lost their lives in action during the campaign. For an operation of this size, that figure is very low, but that will be no consolation for families who lost their loved ones. I know that they will have the deepest sympathy of the whole House as they try to come to terms with their loss. Nine soldiers were killed when United States aircraft fired on their Warrior vehicles. I understand the particular distress that their families are feeling at this time. The inquiry into the incident is being carried out as quickly as possible, but it is important above all to establish the full facts. We will, of course, make known the results of the inquiry as soon as we can.
First Armoured Division achieved a magnificent feat of arms. An equally remarkable feat was the logistics effort required to move the division and its equipment to the Gulf, to maintain it in the harsh desert conditions, and to enable it to carry out its swift advance through the Iraqi positions. Each day, for example, the division required 400,000 litres of water and 500,000 litres of fuel. With anything less than first-class logistic support it could not have achieved as much as it did in so short a time. In the event, logistics and support personnel formed nearly half the strength of the division.
As a result of the division's deployment to the west of Saudi Arabia, the Army's logistic transport vehicles travelled on average about 650 km every day. Most traffic was restricted to only one major road. In spite of these difficulties, the logistic chain which was established performed magnificently. When allied operations were suspended, the division had advanced more than 300 km from its forward force maintenance area, and yet its logistic chain was still intact and fully effective. I am sure that the House will pay particular tribute, as do the fighting troops of 1st Armoured Division, to the excellent support provided by the Royal Corps of Transport, the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, and all the other support personnel in the Gulf.
The logistic task in the Gulf is not yet over, however. All the division's equipment and stores need to be made safe and brought back to their bases in this country and Germany. The scale of the task, with over 15,000 vehicles and many thousands of tonnes of stores and ammunition
56
to prepare and dispatch, was such that it was thought after the conflict that the removal of equipment would not be complete until December this year. In fact, the latest estimate is that it will be finished in either late July or early August. That is a fitting tribute to the professionalism of the logistic support group, and it reflects the high degree of skill and dedication of all the personnel who ensured that Operation Granby was so successful.
Individual reservists and members of the Territorial Army, most of them volunteers, made a vital contribution to the success of Operation Granby, particularly in medical roles, but also, serving under short-service regular commissions, throughout the teeth and logistic arms.
Hon. Members will recall that on 17 December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence reported to this House that Her Majesty the Queen had authorised the call out of reservists under section 10 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. Some 1,700 reservists were called out in connection with the Gulf conflict, over 1,000 of them soldiers, and almost all have now been demobilised. I would like to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of them for the dedication with which they served and to wish them well as they settle back to civilian life.
The situation in Kuwait is now such that we do not envisage the need to call our further specialists from the reserve forces under the provisions detailed on 17 December. Her Majesty the Queen, in exercise of the powers conferred upon her by section 10 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, has today, by order signified under the hand of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, been pleased to revoke the authorisation for the call out of reservists in connection with the Gulf conflict.
This revocation is a formal step which makes it clear that no further call out will be undertaken in relation to the situation which gave rise to the order of 17 December. I should make it clear that this revocation does not affect the liability for service of the handful of reservists still embodied, nor does it affect their rights under the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985.
Throughout the Gulf war, our soldiers were fighting under the threat of chemical attack from the Iraqis. That threat never materialised and, although it is difficult to define categorically why not, it is likely that the Iraqis were terrified that the United States would retaliate with weapons of mass destruction. In short, deterrence worked. It is therefore a matter of great concern to all our service men whether Britain keeps her independent nuclear deterrent. As a general election approaches, they look for clarification from the Labour party as to where it stands in this important issue. They will have heard last Thursday that Labour is dodging the question of ordering the fourth Trident boat and will keep its options open as to whether to cancel it. That will of course threaten our ability to maintain continual deterrent patrols if one submarine were to break down while another was in refit.
However, it is the recent remarks by the right hon. Member for Gorton that have caused most confusion. He has stated that Labour is not committed to negotiating away Britain's nuclear deterrent as long as other countries still have nuclear weapons. But that is where he is completely wrong. In its 1989 policy document "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change", a future Labour Government were committed to negotiating away Britain's deterrent in return for similar reductions in the Soviet arsenal. So what has changed? Do Labour party

57
documents not mean anything any more? Do resolutions passed by a two-thirds majority at Labour party conferences have no effect on Labour policy? One is interested to know who took this decision. Was it taken by the Leader of the Opposition and by a few people around him—or was the whole Labour party involved?
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
Mr. Hamilton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was part of the decision.
Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps the Minister will cease his party-political ranting for a moment and tell us—this is a genuine question—about the threat from the so-called Iraqi nuclear capability at Aby Gharaib and Tuweitha.
Mr. Hamilton: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman could help us and tell us how this amazing Labour party statement was arrived at. Perhaps he was a party to it. As he knows, we are hoping to implement United Nations resolution 687 which deals with Iraqi nuclear capability. The problem is being dealt with, and the President of the United States has made statements on the matter.
I turn to other activities of the Army in the past year. The same skill and dedication are, of course, demonstrated every day in the very different circumstances of Northern Ireland. Supporting the Royal Ulster Constabulary to uphold democracy and the rule of law against the terrorist threat remains, sadly, the Army's largest continuing peacetime commitment. In this it is well supported by the other services. The Royal Marines regularly provide a commando in place of an Army battalion, and the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force continue to make a major contribution to security in the Province.
The Army's force level in Northern Ireland remains at some 17,000 personnel. Over the past year, these force levels have been temporarily increased to deal with specific situations; a battalion was deployed in December 1990 to support the RUC in a period of especially high terrorist threat in the run-up to Christmas; another battalion was deployed in March and April 1991 to assist in the removal of two border check points; and another battalion has just returned to the mainland from the Province after being temporarily deployed there to support an operation to refurbish some security force bases. If judged necessary, such reinforcements could occur again.
The courage and sense of purpose shown by the armed forces in Northern Ireland in the face of terrible atrocities must attract our highest respect and gratitute. Tragically, a heavy price was paid in 1990 to preserve order against violence. A total of 15 soldiers were murdered by the terrorists. Eleven were killed while on duty—six in the IRA's barbaric proxy human car bomb attacks on two check points on 24 October, in one of which a Minister of Defence civilian employee was also murdered. Four other soldiers were killed while off duty, all part-time UDR members. A further 213 soldiers were wounded or injured in 1990.
1991 has thus far seen eight soldiers murdered—this includes two members of the UDR killed in an IRA rocket attack in March; three UDR soldiers murdered on 31 May at Glenn Anne UDR base by an IRA bomb containing some 2,000 lb explosive; and, most recently, Private Harrison, who was murdered on 19 June by the IRA in
58
front of his fiancée while visiting her on leave from the mainland. Some 100 soldiers have been either wounded or injured.
The recent attempts at further attacks, last week, on the band of the Blues and Royals, and over the weekend against an RAF recruiting office in Preston, remind us yet again of the need for constant vigilance.
Mr. Terry Dicks: As the Minister knows, the attempted bomb attack took place in my constituency. Will he pass on to the bandsmen of the Blues and Royals the message that they will always be welcome in Hayes, whatever may have happened? Does he share my anger at the words of the Labour candidate in Hayes, Mr. John McDonnell, who has in the past wined and dined IRA terrorists and representatives of Sinn Fein and who said, when he heard of the attack, that he would meet the IRA and Sinn Fein again tomorrow? Does the Minister share my disgust at that statement, and will he call on the Labour party to disown such a character?
Mr. Hamilton: I wholly support my hon. Friend on that. We must never give succour to IRA terrorists, and we must make it clear to them that, even if they do bomb people on the mainland, life will go on as usual and we will in no way be cowed by their activities.
There have, however, been notable successes in the campaign against the terrorists' criminal activities. During 1990, 217 people were charged with serious terrorist-type offences, including 18 for murder and 62 with attempted murder. There were further successes against the terrorists elsewhere in 1990, in the Republic, on mainland Britain and on the continent, with the discovery of weapons and bomb-making equipment and the arrests of a number of suspected terrorists.
The House will, I am sure, join me in saluting the bravery and dedication of these men and women who tackle the terrorist threat every day of the year. The number of awards bestowed over the years on members of the armed forces serving in Northern Ireland reflects this gallantry and commitment. The 241 awards made in 1990 included the first George Cross in 11 years, to an Army bomb-disposal expert.
In addition to the activities that I have mentioned, the House will know that the Army has undertaken a wide range of tasks over the past 12 months. They range from quiet, perhaps sometimes humdrum, roles to the most dangerous and demanding tasks. The qualities of professionalism and courage shown by the Army's men and women in these many different ways deserve the thanks of the whole British people: this year they have also earned a wider gratitude abroad by their part in the coalition effort to ensure that Saddam Hussein's unprovoked aggression against Kuwait would not stand.
The British Army continues to be a highly regarded and highly effective force, thanks above all to the qualities of its individuals and to their teamwork. Our responsibility is to give them the support they need to remain as capable and effective as they have proven to such good effect this year. In pursuing changes in structure, we must remain sensitive to those fundamental requirements.
Mr. Michael Grylls: At the beginning of his speech, my right hon. Friend described, while the House listened attentively, the changes in the east-west situation. Has he heard the criticism of the size of the cuts in the Royal Armoured Corps? Does it not

59
worry him that there have been criticisms that the corps has been cut far more than it should have been in comparison with the rest of the Army? Would it not be better to make cuts in the tail of the Army rather than in the part that we would need if there were a conflict? Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind?
Mr. Hamilton: I assure my hon. Friend that the reductions in the support to the front line will be commensurate with other cuts. It is important that we achieve this. The cuts in the Royal Armoured Corps reflect the fact that armoured divisions in Germany are to be reduced. Our need for armoured regiments is therefore reduced.
Sir Alan Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hamilton: No, I must finish, or I shall be here for ever.
I have outlined the Government's overriding concern for the future of the Army. I believe that that objective should be endorsed by the whole House.
5.42 pm
Dr. John Reid: As the Minister said, we are having the annual debate on the British Army on the 75th anniversary of the battle of the Somme. If ever we required an illustration of the courage and dedication of the British Army, and the growing sacrifices that its soldiers were prepared to endure for this country, we need look no further than the Somme. If ever we needed an illustration of the folly and futility of war as a vehicle for solving political problems, we need look no further than the Somme. There the answer lies, on the bloody battlefield on which some 20,000 British and allied soldiers lost their lives in the first 24 hours, and where countless thousands more were destined to lose their lives over the next five months for the conquest of five miles of territory.
The anniversary is also a timely reminder that, whatever the advances in weapons and equipment over the past 75 years, whatever the progress in technological sophistication and whatever the refinement of the operational art of warfare, wars are still fought, the hardships of war are still endured, and the ultimate sacrifices of war are still made by the men and women who make up our armed forces. We gladly pay tribute to them today, not least because, for some time past, they have been asked to undertake their arduous duties under a cloud of uncertainty. They have been asked and they have responded, displaying a steadfastness of purpose in a European and international political situation that is almost unsurpassed in its fluidity. Old barriers are coming down and new problems are arising. Concepts of threat and of risk, of defence and of security are undergoing profound redefinition.
I wish that I could say that their fortitude has been matched by the insight, clarity of vision and decisiveness of the Ministers who have the temporary honour of presiding over the Army's future and fate, but that would be stretching the credibility of the House too far, even on the anniversary of the Somme—perhaps I should say particularly on the anniversary of the Somme, because that
60
battle and that war proved a long-lasting saying about military life: even the most lion-hearted can be led by donkeys.
I was about partially to exclude the Minister of State from that, and to congratulate him on having made, at least in his opening paragraphs, a genuine attempt to give us some form of strategic review, but I am afraid that the manner in which he demeaned himself and the House by the misuse of the slur and his comments on the war of the United Nations, with the full support of both sides of the House, against Iraq detracted from anything that he said. What a pity that he did that. If that is the level of the much-heralded attack on the Labour party's defence policy, and if that is where the Conservative party has retired to in its attempts to gain votes at a general election, let us have more of it. I am sure that the British people will be thoroughly revolted by an attempt to use a war in which our soldiers died, a war supported by every party, for cheap political gains.
Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when it came to appeasement and trying to avoid war when it was obvious that it was inevitable, and condoning, in some respects at least, what occurred in the invasion of Kuwait, the most notorious person putting forward that view was the former Tory leader and Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who, at least until the beginning of the war, used every argument both in and out of the House to avoid facing the fact that we had to fight fascist aggression?
Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend states the facts. I have no wish—nor have my colleagues on the Front Bench or throughout the party—to reduce a magnificent effort by our soldiers and the magnificent unity of the House by involving myself in any attacks or slurs on any hon. Member. Whatever our views, and from whatever side of the House they emanated, whether it was the case mentioned by my hon. Friend or that of the pacifists, or those Labour party members who took a different view, I am certain that all spoke with the utmost sincerity. I respect the views that they espoused and will not attack them for holding them, particularly not for cheap political gains.
In the 13 months since the previous Army debate, we have witnessed events of great significance for the future of the British Army. We have seen the painful beginnings of the "Options for Change" process, an exercise which is turning into a defence review by striptease. We have seen the conclusions of NATO's force restructuring, in which our forces have deservedly been assigned a leading role. Not least, we have participated in a multinational coalition which successfully defeated Iraqi aggression in the Gulf. Each of those would have been significant enough in its own right, but taken together they will result in the most profound changes experienced by our armed forces since world war two.
I shall begin with an assessment of the Gulf war. I thought that I could say that I spoke for the whole House when I said that the contribution made by the British Army, with the support of the House, to the liberation of Kuwait was outstanding. I am sorry that, since the Minister's statement, I cannot now say that that was with the continuing support of the whole House. Nevertheless, we congratulate our forces because, from the beginning of the ground campaign on 24 February, it took

61
approximately four days for the 1st Armoured Division to disable the Iraqi armoured reserve and reach its intended position north of Kuwait city.
One of the most impressive statistics of that short but violent campaign is that not one Challenger tank was lost to enemy fire. By any standards, it was an impressive operation, proving once again the superior fighting quality and logistical efficiency of the British Army—something which the Minister mentioned.
In paying tribute to our troops, none of us should forget the sacrifices that were made. During our deployment in the Gulf 44 British soldiers lost their lives and approximately 43 were injured. Remarkably light as such casualties were in the face of such an enemy, each is a tragedy to be mourned. In the wake of victory we should not forget that many Iraqis perished during and after the war. For the most part they, too, were the victims of Saddam Hussein's megalomania.
Perhaps the most tragic accident to involve British troops during the war was the so-called "friendly fire" incident in which nine Royal Fusiliers were killed by a United States A-10. Considerable concern has been expressed about those deaths, and rightly so, not least because, four months later, there still appears to be a great deal of confusion about what went wrong and who was to blame. This has been an agonising time for the grieving relatives. Whatever the final outcome of the inquiry, I hope that the Minister can promise that there will be a full and frank disclosure of the report and its conclusions. When the Minister replies to the debate I hope that he will inform us what progress, if any, is being made on friend or foe identification systems.
Another grave cause for concern that has arisen as a consequence of the Gulf war is the sanctioning of the use of about 200 Royal Engineers in mine-clearing operations being conducted by a private contractor, Royal Ordnance. I have already raised this matter with the Minister in correspondence and on the Floor of the House. There is considerable anger in the Army because its troops are effectively being used as mercenaries. I share that anger.
I have been unimpressed by the assurances I have received from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that Royal Ordnance will cover the expenses of the deployment and that the engineers will be involved only in the location of mines and unexploded shells, not their disposal. Expenses or not, the British Army does not exist to provide such a hidden subsidy to a private profit-making concern. The location of mines and shells is in itself an extremely dangerous task and the lives of service men have been put at risk in a totally irresponsible manner. I urge the Minister to assure the House that there will be no repetitions of such incidents.
Sir Alan Glyn: What is the hon. Gentleman's view on the safe areas for the Kurds? Should we or should we not protect those areas until United Nations forces take our place? The United Nations observers are incapable of doing the job.
Dr. Reid: Since the beginning of the Gulf conflict we have consistently urged that all measures should be taken through the auspices of the United Nations and that all support should be given to any resolution or initiative taken by the United Nations. The problem was not the
62
spirit in which the havens were embarked upon, but the thinking through of the likely outcome of the difficulties of establishing and then removing such havens.
Earlier I spoke about the performance of the Challenger tank in the Gulf. It exceeded all expectations and Vickers has now reaped the reward with an order for Challenger 2 as a consequence. That decision, along with two announcements this evening, has the virtue of allowing the Government to claim that they have managed to decide on something in the procurement sphere. That matter will be covered more extensively by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), if he is fortunate enough to participate in the debate.
Questions have arisen on the availability of spares for the 1st Armoured Division, which were smoothed over by the Minister today. It is fairly common knowledge that that division's Challengers were only kept fully operational in the Gulf by stripping parts from the two divisions that remained in Germany. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true? If it is, it appears that the British Army of the Rhine would be only partially operational in the event of war. Such confirmation would vindicate my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, who have argued that the sacrifice of the spares budget to other projects in the past few years has been a false economy.
Can the Minister confirm or deny a report that appeared on 6 June in the Glasgow Herald to the effect that the 157 Challengers used in the Gulf have been left there for a long time to rust? Can the Minister elaborate on the questions asked of him by the Select Committee on Defence on that subject? I am well aware that press reports frequently turn out to be exaggerated and that may be the case in this instance. However, I am sure that we are all particularly concerned by the report in the Glasgow Herald since it quotes a senior officer as describing the situation as
"nothing short of vandalism by neglect."
Can the Minister assure us that that is not the case? How much of the equipment has been retrieved so far? What is the estimate of any damage that may have resulted from that incident?
The Minister was correct to mention Northern Ireland, because in addition to participating in the multinational coalition in the Gulf in the past year, the British Army has continued to fulfil its other duties, not least of which is guaranteeing the security of Northern Ireland.
Since the last Army debate 16 soldiers have been murdered by the IRA, including five members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. In addition, 15 Royal Ulster Constabulary officers have been murdered. In common with the Minister, I wish to record our debt to those men and all those who continue to fight against terrorism in the most difficult of circumstances.
Last year the Provisional IRA sunk to new levels of depravity and cowardice with its use of human-proxy bombs. What could be more sadistic than kidnapping a person's family and then forcing that person to drive a van-load of explosives at a checkpoint? On 24 October six soldiers and one civilian were killed in two such incidents. Fortunately, since then, similar attempts have failed.
For all its blood-letting the IRA cannot ignore one simple fact. As an organisation which likes to consider itself an army, it, too, must depend on morale. After 21 years of killing and maiming it has palpably failed to achieve its objectives and it knows it. Even the IRA is beginning to see the futility of its actions. I am sure that we

63
all hope that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is successful in his search for a political solution. Such a settlement would deliver a devastating blow to terrorism.
"Options for Change" will probably and properly occupy most of tonight's debate. The House could be forgiven for remaining somewhat confused about this process—the defence review that isn't. "Options for Change" could perhaps be best described as "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma", if I am permitted to misquote a former Prime Minister.
It should be put on record that the Secretary of State was apparently incapable of even choosing an accurate title for the process that is now under way. "Options for Change" is a complete misnomer. Where are the options? What options have been or will be placed before Parliament? On what grounds are the supposed options being considered within the Ministry of Defence and by whom? Against what criteria are they being measured in the absence of a full defence review? I shall be happy to give way at any stage if the Secretary of State wants to elaborate rather than sit here like the silent service.
It is becoming clearer by the day that, so far as Parliament is concerned, the only option that we will have is to take it or leave it when the bureaucracy has completed its covert endeavours. All of that would be bad enough if the Secretary of State and Ministers showed any sign of being in control of the process, but they appear to be genetically incapable of taking as important a decision. There is now a growing feeling on all sides of the House that if the Secretary of State was asked the simple question, "Do you have problems making decisions?", he would probably answer, "Well, yes and no."
The Secretary of State has now had almost 12 months to marshal the collective cognitive processes of his colleagues and what is the result of that massive intellectual effort? On 25 July last year the Secretary of State told the House that he envisaged a Regular Army of "around 120,000". He said that he would provide further substantial details in due course. On 4 June this year, after 10 long and arduous months of mental toil and turmoil—
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): And a war.
Dr. Reid: I shall come to the war in a second. As they say in "Fawlty Towers", "Don't mention the war."
After 10 long and arduous months of mental toil and turmoil, no doubt with the able assistance of a Ministry of Defence establishment of thousands, the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that he envisaged a Regular Army of 116,000. We were told of nothing else. In short, it has taken Ministers 315 days of supreme effort to arrive at the conclusion which they had first arrived at during July 1990.
If there has been a lack of decisions, there has been no lack of excuses. This evening, the Secretary of State gave us one of his favourite excuses—the war. There has been no shortage of excuses for the delay in providing us with a comprehensive review. We were told in July 1990 that the Secretary of State had made merely a preliminary statement. It was then said that decisions—D-day itself—would not be far off. Then D-day was postponed
64
because of the conventional-forces-in-Europe negotiations. We were then told that D-day had been postponed again because of the consequences of German unity. That was after the wall had come tumbling down—largely, it seems, because of a trumpet blown far away in Finchley. Then it was the Gulf war that caused the delay. The next delay was NATO's restructuring. No doubt we shall soon be told that the Glasgow fair holidays are to blame.
Only one thing has become clear, and that is that the D of D-day stands not for decision but for that famous D-word, dither. I hope that we shall not be offered the same excuses this evening as those that the Secretary of State has used in the past. The excuses are that the Gulf war delayed the review and that the Government waited until NATO had concluded its defence review before they came to a decision on force levels.
I shall take up the excuse that has been given from a sedentary position by the silent Secretary of State, but I am somewhat surprised that that excuse turns out to be the war. My colleagues and I who considered the Armed Forces Bill and the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill in Committee made the generous offer that we were prepared to suspend the deliberations of the Committees to allow Ministry of Defence civil servants and others to concentrate on the war effort. We were told explicitly—this can be found in the report of the proceedings in Committee—that there was no need to suspend the Committees because it would be business as usual for the MOD throughout the war. It is clear that the Gulf war can be no excuse for delay.
The second excuse is that the Government had to wait for NATO's restructuring. The Secretary of State's claim that he was waiting for an announcement on future NATO force structures before allowing us to enter into the myriad secrets of "Options for Change" is not borne out by General Galvin"s comments to the Royal United Services Institute on 30 May, to the effect that his officials had been waiting for individual member countries to decide on their own force levels before NATO finalised its arrangements. Indeed, most of our NATO allies are far more advanced in force restructuring than we are.
The fact is that the Government's excuses are entirely bogus, and they should admit that. They are excuses that are designed to obscure another massive dither. The Secretary of State is directly to blame for the decision-making paralysis that has gripped the MOD for more than a year. I have no doubt that if he had left the decisions to his junior Minister, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, they would have been taken ruthlessly and speedily, though they might have been less tasteful to the House.
Damage has been caused by prevarication. The despondency that is to be found in the Army and in defence industries could easily have been avoided. We are left with a Regular Army of 116,000 troops, a cut of about 40,000. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces tried this evening to give us the nearest thing yet to an outline of a strategic position, but in the absence of a full defence review and of any clearly thought-out and published criteria by which decisions are being taken, the cut of 40,000 begs two unanswered questions.
The first question is why there should be a cut of 40,000. The second question is. "Where are the cuts to be made?" Why was the cut not 30,000 or 50,000 instead of 40,000? The Opposition have asked repeatedly—we have repeatedly been refused an answer to the question—

65
whether there is a strategic rationale that explains the extent of the cuts. If there is not, the cut of 40,000 is, as we suspect, a short-term arbitrary cost-cutting exercise, and a disgrace. If there is a rationale that explains the cut, it is the best kept secret since the Normandy landings and the Government have been misleading the House. That is an even greater disgrace.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On Thursday, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, was kind enough to confirm that his party's defence aspiration was to reduce spending to 50 per cent. of what it is now by the year 2000. I understand that the Labour party has an aspiration, or even a policy, of cutting spending by a third at least, although that aspiration or policy is undermined by some Labour Members who want spending to be cut by a great deal more. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to the House why it is the Opposition's aspiration or policy to cut spending by a third, without any comments being made about commitments, when they are criticising the Government by cutting spending by a fifth.
Dr. Reid: My policy is not to cut by a third. My policy, and the policy of the Opposition Front Bench, is to initiate a strategic analysis of the present threat, and from that to allocate a response. We do not endorse the Government's policy, which is, "How much do we have to save and what can be cut to achieve that saving?" I shall take up this issue later in my speech and elaborate upon it.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Reid: I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to make some progress. The Minister made a long speech and, unfortunately, my speech will be a little longer than usual.
All the evidence suggests that no strategic rationale lies behind the cuts. It seems that there is no logic attached to them. I shall give two examples. First, in his statement last year on "Options for Change", the Secretary of State said that there would be a greater reliance on reserve forces. There are strong rumours a year later that the regular-reserve force mix that is being considered within the Ministry of Defence will involve cutting the Territorial Army to 51,000. If that is so—I hope that the Minister who replies will be able to confirm or deny the rumour—we are talking of a 40 per cent. reduction in the Territorial Army's formal establishment, compared with a cut of 25 per cent. in the Regular Army's establishment. How is that consistent with the words of the Secretary of State in July 1990 that there would be a greater reliance on reserve forces?
If there is to be a greater reduction in the reserve establishment than in that of the Regular Army's, and if there is no strategic rationale for that, the inescapable conclusion is that the cuts will be made not on the basis of military and defence criteria but according to political and lobbying criteria. Could it be that the disproportionate cuts that are about to be inflicted on the reserve forces are the result of the relatively weak lobbying power of those forces within the Ministry of Defence?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I understand the hon. Gentleman's thinking and I know that he is trying to advance a valid argument. I think, however, that he forgets an important factor, which is that a review has been conducted, with us playing our part, through NATO. That
66
is the strategic review. If he examines that, he will more clearly understand what "Options for Change" is all about.
Dr. Reid: A review has, indeed, been conducted by NATO. There has been far more of a review at NATO level than at Government level. Although the United Kingdom is a member of NATO, and although there is an overlap of interest, the United Kingdom has a separate dimension. Not all of our military commitments are related directly to NATO, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. We have four and a half roles, and some of them have nothing to do with NATO. I agree that NATO has done a considerable amount of thinking and has published many more options than the British Government. I am asking the Government to follow NATO's lead and to tell us the basis on which decisions about reserve forces and regiments of the Regular Army will be made. If they do not do that, they will be subject to pressures from lobbying from local interests or by the Treasury.
The questions that arise in respect of Territorial Army cuts arise also in terms of the Regular Army. It has been strongly suggested in the press, presumably on the basis of unattributable briefings by representatives of the Government, that the headquarters, one regular battalion and all three reserve battalions of the Parachute Regiment are to be cut. Where is the logic in cutting a highly mobile, fully established and well-regarded Parachute Regiment at exactly the same time as Britain is being assigned a leading role in NATO's rapid reaction corps? Surely greater emphasis, not less, is being placed on the mobility and flexibility of troop deployments. The answer is that no one knows what the logic is, precisely because of the lack of any coherent, top down, strategic declaration by the Government. The same problem is apparent with the infantry divisions.
One of the major problems affecting the British Army during recent years has been recruitment and retention. The Army is 3,000 soldiers below strength, and even after a cut of 40,000 the problem of recruitment and retention is likely to remain. However, from the rumours that we have heard there appears to be no sign—until tonight, when the Minister gave a reassurance—that the divisions and regiments with the best recruitment and retention records will be treated any differently from those with bad records. Again, lobbying power appears to be playing a significant part, especially in any consideration of the future of the Household division, which has a number of influential supporters.
My second question is about exactly how those cuts will be made. Perhaps the most craven act of the whole sorry business was the Secretary of State's attempt to protect himself politically by demanding that the Army decides which regiments are to be cut. It must be the first recorded case of a firing squad being ordered to stand in a circle. What leadership, what courage, what a cheek—the Secretary of State gives a whole new meaning to Churchill's phrase, "What a chicken! What a neck." This bunch of Ministers could never be accused of cowardice in the face of the enemy, only cowardice in the face of their friends.
Are not the Government embarrassed by the fact that two divisions, the Scottish and the Queen's, are reported to have refused to make any recommendations? Can anyone blame them? It is silly of the Secretary of State to expect the regiments effectively to sign their own death warrants.

67
It is an abdication of responsibility and another example of the right hon. Gentleman being incapable of making a decision.
Mr. Livsey: The two Welsh regiments in the Prince of Wales division—the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Royal Regiment of Wales—are being outmanoeuvred within the division, with the aim of one of the Welsh regiments having to go. The people of Wales are resisting that most strongly.
Dr. Reid: I am genuinely trying to help the Secretary of State and the Minister. The Minister knows that I always try to be helpful on these issues. In the absence of any published strategic criteria or a full defence review, whatever decisions they take they will be murdered by local interests, by lobbying and by the Treasury. In the absence of a full defence review, which has been constantly urged on the Government by the Labour party, it is inevitable that decisions will be determined largely not by strategic and military considerations, but by a combination of political expediency, old-boy lobbying and Treasury cost cutting.
To enter into a major force restructuring process without first having carried out the essential preliminaries of a full strategic review is to concede all the arguments in advance to the lobbyists and to the Treasury. It is a recipe for expediency, not for rational restructuring. It will mean not only a diminution of defence spending and of force levels—both of which are understandable and welcome in the present circumstances—but a maldistribution of resources within the reduced budget and a maldeployment of the reduced forces, neither of which is understandable or welcome.
Mr. Tom King rose—
Dr. Reid: My speech will have been successful if only because it has brought the Secretary of -State to his feet.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman touches on a serious matter—the maldistribution of resources and the need to avoid that. If I understand him correctly—and I do not want to mislead the House—he said that the Labour party has not yet conducted any strategic review of the future for defence. Has it yet decided how much money it will spend on defence?
Dr. Reid: The Secretary of State is not misleading the House. He was correct to say that the Labour party has not yet carried out a full defence review, but we intend to do that within the first six months of government. We have not had the assistance of 150,000 civil servants, as the right hon. Gentleman has had. It is, therefore, all the more incredible that the Labour party is far more advanced on strategic thinking than the Secretary of State and his Ministers. We do not blame hon. Members or ex-members of regiments for fighting their corners, but we condemn the Government for embarking blindfolded on the exercise.
The regimental system and the structure and organisation of the British Army developed in the 19th century in response to its role as an imperial policeman, and it still reflects that basic structure. If it is to meet the demands and the challenges of the 21st century, its reformation should be based on at least a full review of those demands and challenges.
Sir David Price: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Dr. Reid: I am referring to a document called, "The Operational Arm of Warfare". I shall give the hon. Gentleman the relevant pages later. If I am wrong, the Army is wrong.
Sir David Price: The history of our regiments shows that they were founded in the 18th, not the 19th century, and many were raised privately. Is the hon. Gentleman recommending that we return to private armies?
Dr. Reid: If I am wrong, I shall stand corrected, and I shall bring that to the attention of the author of "The Operational Arm of Warfare", which was produced by the Army staff college. No doubt the hon. Gentleman, with his reservoir of knowledge, is better versed than the staff college.
Mr. Ted Garrett: A piece of regimental history that should be known is that some of the regiments are more than 325 years old. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) was right to say that they were raised privately. They were given numbers, and they were then given county titles if they so wished. That is why their titles have the county first, then the number.
Dr. Reid: I shall stand corrected if I am wrong, but I repeat that the regimental system and the structure and organisation of the British Army developed in the 19th century in response to its role as an imperial police force, and it stil reflects that basic structure. Those words can be read in Hansard, and they can be compared with the report by the Army staff college. If I stand corrected, so does the Army staff college.
If the consequences of the Government mishandling of "Options for Change" will be hard on the regiments, they will be no less hard on the individual service men and women. Ministers would have done better to remember the stricture of Field Marshal Viscount Slim to his officers:
"You will put first the honour and interests of your country, and next the safety, well-being and comfort of your men."
The Secretary of State hopes that as much as possible of the 40,000 reduction will be achieved by natural wastage. Even allowing for that, there is no escaping the fact that a large proportion will have to be achieved through redundancies. We are therefore entitled to ask about the arrangements that the Government are making to help service men and women made redundant to find a secure place in civilian life. The answer to that question is not encouraging—the Government have not made any proposal to offer service men and women a better quality of pre-release training, despite being urged to do so by the Labour party. There is not even the slightest sign that they are thinking about doing so. That is disgraceful in the economic climate that the Government have created and in which ex-service men and women will have to live when they are thrown out of the Army. Governments used to wash their hands of responsibility for soldiers once they left the forces. The present Government apparently intend to wash their hands of soldiers while they are still in the forces, before they are thrown out.
The situation is even worse in respect of housing provision for ex-service men and women, who are disadvantaged in two ways. There is a low percentage of home ownership in the Army, particularly among

69
ordinary soldiers, and, having moved around frequently, the ordinary soldier will not receive high priority on a council house waiting list. In any event, waiting lists are longer than ever, and housebuilding at lower levels than ever, since the Government came to power.
What do the Government propose to do about those 40,000 of their brave young lads and lasses, of whom they like to speak so proudly, when they are thrown out without a job or home?
The Government should have at least made a decision—and I am glad to announce that they have done so. The Government have decided to do nothing. They are not even discussing with local authorities the problems that will inevitably arise—as the Minister of State made clear to me in replies to my parliamentary questions. There are no proposals either to utilise vacant land or empty properties owned by the Ministry of Defence. This is the same Government who castigate local authorities for leaving properties vacant.
Currently, the MOD owns 2,527 acres of vacant land that could be used for low-cost housing. We only ask that the Ministry considers doing so. Also, according to a parliamentary answer given last year, 16·3 per cent. of the 76,068 married quarters owned by the MOD were vacant, 5·4 per cent. of them for more than one year—and the Government love to castigate Lambeth council over precisely the same kind of figures. Of the 1,790 civilian properties owned by the MOD, 12.5 per cent. were vacant, and 6·7 per cent. of those had been empty for more than six years.
I quote those statistics to highlight the inactivity of the hierarchy within the Ministry of Defence when it comes to protecting the quality of life of our soldiers and of those likely to find themselves made redundant. Perhaps the Government's indecision and indifference should not surprise us.
I am glad that the Minister of State clarified tonight his remarks concerning the payment of compensation to the three young Grenadiers who were unfortunately injured. His clarification was useful, because many of us were horrified at his reported comments—but I accept that they were taken out of context. However, I say in all sincerity to the Minister that he should not be so defensive, because when he is, it can sound—even though the right hon. Gentleman might not mean this—as though he is accusing people who have been extremely badly injured of trying to profit from their injuries. I am glad that there is some movement in that regard, and I look forward to considerable sympathy being shown to those young men when the proposed meeting takes place.
In almost every sphere, and at almost every level, the performance of the Secretary of State and of his Ministers over the past year, and in respect of "Options for Change", has been woefully inadequate.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer fully the question put to him earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because he only answered part of it? The hon. Gentleman accepted, as my right hon. Friend's question implied, that Labour has not undertaken—or could not undertake—any review of Britain's defence strategy. However, the hon. Gentleman did not say whether Labour has already decided on the level of its defence budget—that is, that it would be one third less than the present budget.
Dr. Reid: This may be difficult for the hon. Gentleman to grasp, but the whole purpose of a review is to review matters. If one draws conclusions at the beginning of a review, there is little point in undertaking a review. We make two pledges. First, we will spend whatever is necessary to defend Britain. Secondly, that expenditure will be based on a strategic analysis—a full defence review—within the next year, within the first six months of the incoming Labour Government.
That is in stark contrast to the performance of the present Secretary of State and his Ministers. At the level of analytical review, they have gone absent without leave. At the level of procurement and finance, they are in a shambles. At the level of force structures, they have passed the buck in the most craven fashion to the Army itself. At the level of service conditions, they have shown an indifference exceeded only by their indecision.
If the Secretary of State and his Ministers were judged by the same criteria that they set for soldiers, they would not proceed beyond page 32 of the "British Military Doctrine", which sets out the three elements of fighting power. They are the conceptual component—the thought process; the physical component—the means to fight; and the moral component—motivation, leadership, and management.
The present Government fail abysmally in respect of all three. At a conceptual level, they are unable, unwilling, or incapable—or perhaps all three—of undertaking the necessary review and analysis that is an essential prerequisite of any fundamental change. At a physical level, they have abysmally failed in their projected expenditure targets for the 1990s, and in the provision of rational procurement for the present. At the moral level, they have abrogated leadership, provided no motivation, and have undermined morale.
It is almost 400 years since Cardinal Richelieu remarked that history knows of many more armies ruined by want and disorder than by the efforts of their enemies. Almost four centuries later, the Government have set out to prove Richelieu correct. After all that, the British Army is entitled to ask, "With friends like the Government, who needs enemies?"
6.26 pm
Mr. George Younger: I strongly associate myself with the tribute that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces paid to the conduct of our soldiers, sailors and airmen during the Gulf war. There is no doubt that the sheer quality of the British Army was shown up for its absolute completeness, and I congratulate all involved on the excellent job that they did. I refer not only to the troops at the front line but to the attention paid to staff training, which clearly paid off in a big way, because logistic support was a major factor in our success. I am also pleased that the Challenger tanks performed well, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend also on the recent decision to choose the Challenger again. I am sure that Challenger 2 will be a first-class tank, and one that will sell well in many parts of the world.
I strongly disagree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers. If r, he Gulf war had gone wrong, and if Britain's involvement had been badly conducted, we would be blaming them. As it is, it is only right that we should congratulate my right

71
hon. Friend and all his colleagues on the superb job that they did in beginning Britain's involvement at the right time, and in the right place.
Dr. Reid: I would not want the wrong impression to be created. I did not cast any aspersions against the Secretary of State's leadership during the Gulf war. I am happy to place on record my gratitude for the way in which the Secretary of State and his Ministers conducted themselves. If anything, it was the Secretary of State who chose to make the war a divisive issue. Despite the contributions made by some Back-Benchers and others, I refused to sink to that level of personal criticism during the Gulf war.
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It may be that I was swept up by the hyperbole and overstatement that characterised the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It seemed that he was criticising my right hon. Friend and his Ministers for everything. I am glad to learn that that was not the case, because my right hon. Friends deserve great credit for their conduct.
In turning to "Options for Change" and the proposed Army reductions, I hope that I will be constructive in suggesting to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State the best possible way of completing the process that they have started.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Motherwell, North about the process being wrong. My right hon. Friends have put in a great deal of extremely good work. The fact that they carried on doing so during the Gulf war is a remarkable achievement, and I pay tribute to them for it.
I have great sympathy for Ministers when they tackle such an enormously difficult task as a reduction of this size in the Army. No enterprise could be more difficult, in military terms, than trying to do it at this time. However, I must tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that my sympathy for and realisation of the difficulties does not mean that I believe that Ministers do not have to listen to suggestions or criticisms which they think must be partial. There is a lot to be learned from people who have comments to make on the matter. The problems of reduction have to be faced, and I know of no one in any part of the forces, or among their supporters, who says that reductions are wrong. Everyone knows that it has to happen. The question is how. How can it be done acceptably, in a way that we can support and understand?
My constituents have brought the Scottish point of view and their concerns to my notice. Within the Scottish division there is enormous concern about how the problem is being tackled, which is not surprising because it is the best-recruited division against its establishment and has been for some time. Sad as it is, we must recognise that that is against a background where a large number of Army units are not able to get anything like up to establishment. I understand that 15 battalions are undermanned by more than 100 men and 20 are undermanned by more than 70 men. None of those is in the Scottish division, and I hope that that will be borne in mind.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should not try to strengthen the weak regiments by weakening the strong
72
and that any across-the-board cuts would be very unfair to the Scottish regiments? We should enjoy the strength of Scottish recruitment and retain those regiments.
Mr. Younger: Perhaps it would help to speed the debate if I were to sit down, saying that the hon. Gentleman has made my speech for me, but he has not quite.
The Scottish division made a great commitment to the Gulf war—relatively, its commitment was greater than that of any other part of the Army. It is true to say that all those commitments were met by the Scottish battalions without any support or extra reinforcement, and few of the other parts of the Army could say the same.
The Scottish divisions have been excellent at recruiting and retention, which is just as important, and that should also be borne in mind. I am showing why there is concern and how we should tackle it. The Scottish division, in common with many others, has lost many important parts already. About 20 years ago we lost the Cameronians and it is interesting to note that recruiting in Lanarkshire has been difficult ever since and has never been up to average. There were two difficult amalgamations: the Camerons and the Seaforths, which have become the Queen's Own Highlanders; and the Royal Scots Fusiliers, which came from my constituency, with the Highland Light Infantry, which have become the Royal Highland Fusiliers. Both are extremely successful and happy regiments, but it was a difficult amalgamation.
Good recruiting in those conditions is a vital resource which we have far too little of. Many parts of the Army are suffering because they are unable to recruit enough men. The Scottish division does not have that problem, and I hope that that will be remembered.
Apart from the Scottish division, there is the question of the Scots Guards because if a reduction is made there it could affect Scottish manpower and also the second Royal Tank Regiment and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards which recruit from Scotland and have already been amalgamated.
Mr. Ted Garrett: I fully concur with the right hon. Gentleman in his concern about the Scottish division. However, I believe that during his time as a Minister he allowed the young soldiers recruitment depot to be moved from the Bridge of Don down to Northumberland, yet there was little outcry about it. The young soldiers' morale could not have been very high when they moved them into Northumberland without even considering the matter.
Mr. Younger: I remember that very well. The hon. Gentleman is right and we were considerably concerned about the transfer at the time. However, I understand that it has gone very happily, which is a good thing.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: I understand my right hon. Friend's important argument about recruiting for the Scottish regiments. Does he agree that one of the great worries affecting the British Army is what will happen to regiments after the review? Will quality of performance and excellence be the end product? We will have a much smaller Army and therefore it must be a much more excellent Army. That is what is worrying many soldiers who want to continue.
Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State deserves great credit for the firm statement by the Secretary of State when he said that he believes in and supports the

73
regimental system. My right hon. Friend repeated that today. There is no doubt that in large part the intensely high quality of the British Army is due to the regimental system, and the Secretary of State deserves great credit for that.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the interesting aspects of previous amalgamations between regiments—up to six regiments have amalgamated in the south-east—is that one can rebuild esprit de corps and regimental commitment in the larger units?
Mr. Younger: I agree, as some of the amalgamations have been extremely successful. However, one cannot recreate the ability to recruit in certain areas and that is vital, that is what the Army lacks in many places and needs, and it is something that the regiments that I mentioned can produce.
I have mentioned that aspect only to show why there is concern and will now move to the constructive part of my speech. Difficult decisions have to be faced, and in no way can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wave a magic wand so that he does not have to take any of them. However, he must have backing and support, and he needs to do two things to get them. First, he must convince us all that the total figure that we are supposed to be reducing the Army to will be able to cope with future commitments. Secondly, when the reductions are decided and have begun, they must have an understandable and defensible basis. When one is doing something that people do not approve of, one cannot say to them, "I'm sorry, I can't produce a rational reason for this. It's just going to happen."
There is widespread doubt that 36 infantry battalions is anything like enough to carry out future commitments without being overstreched. It is difficult for those of us who are not intimately involved in drawing up the arms plot to spell out the figures. We must rely upon Ministers to help us out. There is no doubt that there is enormous concern among those who have operated the system and that is what convinces me that it is a real problem. Those people who understand about the arms plot understand how difficult it is for understrength battalions, those which have too heavy a programme and those which have not had enough leave to get the job done—the problem of overstretch.
Among people who know about such technical matters, and I do not claim to be one of them, there is a lot of doubt. If I understand what the Secretary of State said, we will have to produce two divisions of three brigades each for NATO's rapid reaction force—one at home and one in the British Army of the Rhine—which works out at 12 infantry battalions. In Northern Ireland we have to provide about 10 battalions—sometimes 11 and sometimes nine—and we all know that a tour in Northern Ireland requires longer than the five or six months of the tour because some battalions are preparing to go, some are recovering after they come back, and leave and retraining must be taken into consideration. The actual commitment could be half as much again.
We have many other commitments as well. We have a battalion in Belize; we do not know how long that will go on. We have part of a battalion in the Falklands, and one
74
and a half in Cyprus. If we add the battalions in the air mobile brigade to the total of 36, we find that only three are left to carry out the entire home defence role.
The Secretary of State has said that the home defence requirement will not change substantially. My arithmetic may be suspect, but I quickly reached a total of more than 36 battalions. I shall be relieved if I am told that I am wrong, but I should certainly like an explanation. It is desperately important that we do not commit ourselves now to that figure of 36 until we are sure that we are not overstretching our resources.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the current doubts about whether the detente between east and west has become firm enough for us to make such reductions. I do not consider that a reason for not starting to make them in the first place, but it is, I think, a reason for us to take measured steps rather than committing ourselves immediately to such a low total.
As I have said, my right hon. Friend should take a second criterion into account. When the decisions have to be made, they will of course be painful, and many people will find some of them distressing. I entirely sympathise; we must be able to give each person a credible reason. 1 can think of only one that would hit home when unpalatable decisions had to be made. People would have to be told, "The regiment about which you are concerned cannot produce the necessary numbers, and has not been able to do so for some time. It is so understretched that we doubt whether it will be able to recover. Sadly, it will have to go."
At present, the rest of the Army is carrying the battalions that are below strength. According to personal accounts that I have been given, someone who is stationed with the next-door battalion, which may have only two companies, will in practice do more duties, even if nothing is said to that effect.
It is vital that the 36 battalions—or whatever the new number will be—are at full strength. The only way to achieve that is to go for the areas that, year in, year out, have the best recruitment and retention levels. I could defend that position anywhere; I should be as happy as it is possible to be to explain it to the colonel of a regiment that must go, and to say, "I am very sorry, but it makes sense to me." What I could not do is tell the commander of a fully recruited battalion with excellent potential, "I am sorry, but the powers that be are going to turn you out."
I intended my suggestions to be constructive; I hope that they will help my right hon. Friend.
6.43 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has said. I took comfort from his arithmetic—not least because, in his new life, he is chairman of the institution with which I bank. I was able to feel confident to some extent that that institution and my modest resources were in sound hands.
I was also interested by the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the amalgamation of the Highland Light Infantry with the Royal Scots Fusiliers. As he said, it has resulted in a very effective and happy regiment. The amalgamation itself, however, was by no means happy. My illustrious father-in-law, who was colonel of the Highland Light Infantry, was compelled to resign—as, indeed, was the colonel of the Royal Scots Fusiliers. The resulting unhappiness lasted for some time.

75
I cannot escape a sense of frustration: we are making judgments, and commenting on the quality of decisions, at a time when we do not have before us a properly laid-out strategic framework in which the Government can operate their defence policy in the next five or 10 years. The Minister was at pains to deny that the proposals were Treasury-led, but he has found it difficult to persuade the Select Committee that they are not. A good deal of circumstantial evidence leads to the belief that much of what is now under consideration derives from a desire to find savings in the defence budget, rather than from a careful analysis of what is needed and what resources are required to meet our commitments.
All parties in the House are committed to reductions in defence expenditure but all those commitments were entered into before the events of 2 August last year. In each case, they were based on a number of assumptions: first, that there would be an early implementation of the conventional forces in Europe agreement; secondly, that the extension of democracy in the Soviet Union would proceed smoothly; and, thirdly—perhaps the most significant assumption—that there was little likelihood of British forces' having to fight a war outside the NATO area in the foreseeable future.
All three of those assumptions proved to be invalid. The first is coming to pass, but not without considerable difficulty, owing to the eddy and ripple of military influence being exerted on Mr. Gorbachev by the red army—an influence that may yet prove more decisive and independent than the tawdry intimidation of Lithuanians in their own country, as the Institute of Strategic Studies, at least, acknowledged in its recently published book "Strategic Review 1990–91".
I do not believe that we should engage in this debate without a clear indication of the Government's long-term proposals. "Options for Change" is not a defence review; Ministers go to great lengths to emphasise that. So far, it consists of the statement made by the Secretary of State approximately 12 months ago, with an attached list of the resources that we have now and what we might be reduced to, along with decisions that have been announced since then.
I find it very difficult to test properly the Secretary of State's announcement of the reductions in Army numbers without a clear understanding of the tasks that those men and women will be expected to undertake. Much of what the right hon. Member for Ayr said struck me as self-evident, and—despite, perhaps, his efforts to avoid it—seemed to make formidable criticism of the position adopted by the Government so far. That is hardly surprising: although he was probably too modest to say so, the right hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of fighting a rearguard campaign to ensure that a local regiment is not disbanded. The "Save the Argylls" campaign is still remembered in Scotland as a popular expression of public feeling that had a direct political consequence.
When, on 3 June, the Secretary of State announced his proposed cuts in the Army, he was criticised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) for delaying such action. To some extent, that criticism has been repeated this evening: there have been accusations of indecision and dithering.
76
I do not charge Ministers with delaying; I charge them with haste. They have made decisions and announcements without having reached a set of strategic conclusions that they could share with the House. It is true that uncertainty is damaging to morale, but it cannot be more damaging than flawed certainty. There is a substantial risk that some of the certainty that is being demonstrated contains assumptions that are invalid and judgments that, essentially, are flawed.
What are the Government's plans for reserve forces, and I use that expression in its generic sense? This is not a time for cliche-ridden pleasantries about their contribution. I shall try to set out my stall for the principles that should be taken into account. Logic demands that if reductions are made in the professional Army, there should not automatically be parallel, similar proportional reductions in reserve forces. Logic also demands that if reductions are made in the professional Army, more reliance will almost certainly have to be placed, potentially and perhaps in actuality, on reserve forces. Reserve forces on whom greater reliance may be necessary require to be trained and equipped to perform at a higher level, and at a level that might take them into the front line. Reserve forces who may find themselves in the front line must be so well trained and equipped that they can, with a minimum of disruption, fit in with professional forces.
Those propositions seem self-evident. They do not seem to be embraced by the suggestion that one should simply make a flat-rate percentage cut in the allocation of resources to our reserve forces. I ask the Minister to consider this question, which I hope crystallises the points that I have made. Do the Government undertake that in their treatment of reserve forces they will apply the principles to which I have referred and not be seduced by a simplistic percentage formula, the purpose of which is merely to obtain financial savings?
There must be lessons to be learned from the Gulf. The success of the helicopter surely shows the need for an end to the uncertainty about the procurement of the Apache aircraft. The conclusion that no ground army could have withstood the aerial bombardment to which the Iraqi forces were subject, which has substantial support, underlines the close relationship between air and land resources and the extent to which the effectiveness of those on the ground, however well equipped or trained, is prejudiced if inadequate air power is available.
We know that tanks proved to be extremely effective, but we cannot ignore the self-evident problems of moving them from Germany to the theatre in which they are to operate. To some extent, we were fortunate that Saudi Ardbia had extensive port facilities, not least at Al-Jubayl, which might not be replicated in other circumstances where we sought to deploy such armour.
But it is on regiments that, I suspect, much of the debate will turn. I shall not be the first or the last to say that. The Government have seriously miscalculated the consequences of indiscriminate disbandments and amalgamations. That is why I was so impressed by what the right hon. Member for Ayr said. We know that the regimental system is central to the organisation of the Army. I think that it was being suggested that, to some extent, the system was established in the 19th century. I think that Secretary of State Childers and his immediate successor were responsible for a reorganisation then, but the regimental system had existed for many hundreds of years before that.

77
We know that regiments have a special place in the affection and loyalty of the communities from which they recruit. It is not only retired generals who feel strongly about these matters. I received rather an emotional letter from the widow of someone who had served in a Scottish regiment. She now lives in my constituency, and she said that the regiment was one of the things of which her husband, who served in the ranks, was most proud throughout his life. She kept his medals because it reminded her of the tremendous affection and loyalty that he had for his regiment. It is not only generals or colonels who are anxious about the continuance of regiments with which they have been associated.
In considering which regiments may have to be reduced, we must have regard to those that have recruited and retained best. The Scottish regiments fulfil those criteria. I am urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that Welsh regiments also fulfil those criteria. I feel a deep sense of unease that the Government have seen fit to leave it to the Army to make proposals on the cuts. That may be described as consultation, but the perception is that responsibility for the decision has been handed to the Army. That is an unwitting dereliction of ministerial duty. These are matters for ministerial decision, not for Army decision. If the Scottish colonels are correctly reported as having declined to do the job that was urged on them, I believe that they were right to do so. Indeed, they may have been constitutionally right to do so. When such decisions are made, they are inevitably political, and responsibility should neither be diluted nor devolved.
Last year, we paid tribute, as is customary on these occasions, to the bravery and professionalism of the men and women of the Army. When we did so, I doubt whether many believed that within 12 months those men and women would be exposed to such challenges and risks as many of them faced in the Gulf. I hope that, like me, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were impressed and proud of the announcement of the awards to those who served in the Gulf. It was eloquent testimony to their bravery and skill.
This year, because of the example of our forces in the Gulf, we can renew that tribute to their bravery and professionalism with redoubled conviction. But there are others who almost daily must show great courage, matched with great restraint. I speak, as some may suspect, of those who serve in Northern Ireland. I doubt whether Northern Ireland is regarded as a glamorous posting, although there is strong evidence to suggest that many who serve in the Army look forward to it as it is an opportunity to put into practice the skills that they have acquired and to show their commitment in a practical way to the Crown. They deserve our support and recognition, and, as long as their presence in Northern Ireland continues to be necessary, a debate such as this should not take place without their contribution being properly recognised.
6.59 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) referred to 1 July and the battle of the Somme and rightly reminded us of the sacrifices that have been made by the British Army and the valour, courage and proficiency that it has shown. I, too, would like to pay a tribute not only to past
78
generations but, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, to those who are serving in the Army today.
I suggest, however, that in the first world war it was the predecessor of Kitchener's citizens' army, the 100,000 strong all-volunteer regular Army who fought in the concluding months of 1914, who offer a lesson that is more relevant to our experience today. After three months, they were virtually decimated, but in the face of overwhelming odds they slowed up and eventually stopped the Kaiser's army. In the last few weeks of that campaign, what helped to stem the tide, and therefore made the basis of the allied offensive possible, were the forces of the Territorial Army, who supported what was left of the regular British expeditionary force. That small army of 100,000 was highly trained. Its soldiers used their weapons with such proficiency that the German generals thought that they were equipped with machine guns, although in reality they had far too few of them. Their morale was second to none, and we all admire their sense of duty.
Those forces were supported by the Territorial Amy; they were all volunteers; and they were highly trained—ingredients which many of us have emphasised as the qualities that must be retained if we are to make a success of "Options for Change".
I am now speaking under the 10-minute rule, and I know that many right hon. and hon. Members are anxious to speak. I shall make my points, although too briefly to do them justice.
I warmly support the regimental system, which is fundamental to the morale, sense of duty and proficiency of the Army, especially the infantry. It would be unwise of me to go into which units should or should not be retained or into how many should be amalgamated or even disbanded.
I should like to put a point to the military specialists, the professionals, who will have the unenviable task of making recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, although I imagine that the Government, not the generals, will make the decisions. Will the professionals consider retaining at least a cap badge at company level or, if that is thought unworkable, keeping a regimental tie with those reserve units which are expected to play a combat role at short notice? Time will not permit me to elaborate, but I believe that that is probably the most workable of the suggestions which I have heard.
It has been argued that the changes proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State do not bear any relationship to our military needs or strategy and that the figures produced for the three services, especially the Army, have been plucked out of the air and are almost entirely Treasury driven.
I have some reservations about the Government's proposals, but if the implication is that they have little to do with the threat to our security, I beg to differ. We played a constructive part in the review of NATO strategy. We cannot have a series of individual national defence reviews. That does not work any more. We are all part of an integrated command. Britain alone cannot come up with a defence review and think that that will provide for its defence or for national interests. There must be a collective and international system involving the closest friends and allies.
The trust and confidence built up in the NATO process have served us well. I do not accept that there is a need for

79
a purely national defence review. Once we have agreed the figures with our allies—I believe that the cuts make some sense—we have a duty to consider how they can be implemented within the broad parameters of the NATO defence review.
The United States believes that it should cut the size of its armed forces in Europe by 50 per cent., compared with 30 per cent. for Germany and 20 per cent. for Britain, of which a large portion will be borne by the Army. The changes mainly involve the NATO central front, in which the Army plays a greater part. If our commitment to the central front is substantially reduced, it follows that, much as one may regret it, the Army will be called to bear a greater burden than the Royal Air Force or the Navy.
On grounds of logic and military sense, the Government are right to point out that there has already been a review. From that review has emerged a role for Britain for which no other country could be better suited. The new NATO strategy fits in with the Army's traditional role, recognising that the massive Soviet presence in eastern Europe is withdrawing, that East Germany is now part of the Germany bundeswehr, that the Warsaw pact is being disbanded and that there will no longer be troops almost muzzle to muzzle glaring at each other across a division of about 150 miles. For the first time since the end of world war two, the bulk of our Army, with all its dependants, will no longer be stationed in Germany, at great expense.
The new NATO strategy will emphasise flexibility and mobility, which could not be better suited to an all-volunteer Army. We have been relieved of the prospect of fighting, as part of a mass of land forces in continental Europe, one of those old-style clashes of continental armies. That analysis may be incorrect, although I believe that it is the best one. I am comforted by the thought that Germany, the United States, France—although it is not part of NATO—and the rest of our allies agree that that is probably a reasonable scenario. An outbreak of hostilities involving the Soviet Union is not thought likely to occur in the foreseeable future. If it did, we would have available nuclear weapons and the capability of the Air Force and our sea forces.
In those circumstances, the proposed cuts are probably about right, but that leads me to my caveats. The strategy should not work on the cheap; if it is on the cheap, it will not work. It will break down if we believe that the Army can do the job without the best possible equipment. Compared with the continental armies, ours is small. There is a risk that it is too small. That can be overcome only by Ministers meeting the wishes which have been expressed today.
We must emphasise that the proposed force can discharge its new role effectively only if it is "meaner"—to use the word bandied about the Ministry of Defence. Flexibility involves airborne troops and other specialised troops, especially those trained in amphibious landings and equipped to operate in difficult terrain. For the force to fulfil its role, better equipment and rigorous and more realistic training are needed. As the force is on the small side, if it is to perform its tasks, particularly in Northern Ireland, the obligations which I have spelt out must be met.
80
My last point is also a warning. We must pay more attention to our reserve force. Because the size of the regular Army has been reduced and the world is still an uncertain place—I am not talking just about Europe and the Soviet Union—we must have reserve units which can easily be called out to fill any gaps.
Some people argue that that is a cheaper way of dealing with any unexpected troubles that arise. Whatever happens, it will cost money. Some may look for a big dividend from "Options for Change" and believe that we can go much further down the road of saving money. I remind them that, in 1984–85, 5·2 per cent. of our budget was spent on defence compared with an estimated 3·7 per cent. in 1992–93, according to the public expenditure White Paper.
If we are to discharge our duties in the way that I have outlined, and if we recognise that we cannot fulfil expectations of making great economies in the armed services, we shall be able to fulfil our duties as laid down and agreed by us in NATO.
However, I emphasise the role of the Territorial Army, which in 1914 supported the first 100,000. It supported the regulars against the Kaiser's army and helped to stem the tide. That is a lesson that we should never forget.
7.9 pm
Mr. John Morris: I also congratulate our forces who were in the Gulf. They were professional and brave, and we were all relieved that the conflict was short.
However, I very much regret the Minister's remarks in which he tried to misrepresent the role of the Labour party during the Gulf war. We wanted every effort to be made to ensure that a war was avoided and that peaceful measures should be tried first. I, in my innocence, thought that that was exactly what the Government were purporting to do. Once the die had been cast Labour Members, led by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, went time after time into the Division Lobby in support of our troops. The burden of the Minister's remarks showed that he failed to recognise the overwhelming support from all parties for our troops once they were at war. That was very churlish of him, and I want to put the record straight.
In the few minutes that I have at my disposal I want to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) who is also a former Minister of Defence. It is a long time—21 years—since I was a Defence Minister. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance of the regimental system. There must be something in it. That may not sound tidy to the civil service mind, but the regiments are important blocks for building the modern infantry in this century as in previous ones. The system has lasted a long time and is based on local loyalty, on families and friends who join a particular unit because their forebears did the same.
There is a marvellous Welsh word that I shall spell out for the convenience of the House. Cynefin means affinity to one's habitat and ties to one's area. It is a major plus factor in times of stress, when the chips are down and our forces are in battle. That idea may not commend itself to the tidy civil service mind, but it is reflected in recruitment, certainly in the Principality, and in other parts of the country.
We are facing a period of cuts, and I have always accepted—as most hon. Members now accept—that we must reap the benefits of the peace dividend and of the

81
general warming of relations. It is important that if the rationalisation and the restructuring are to happen, it must be on a fair basis. I was disturbed by the Minister's remark to the effect that the Army should be left to get on with it. Nothing similar has been said about washing one's hands of the issue. It is a constitutional decision for Ministers to take. The Army should decide on the minutiae and the niceties. No amount of Pontius Pilate-like washing of hands will get Ministers out of this difficulty. It is for them to decide; they are answerable to the House and they must take into account all the factors, including history, tradition and their political answerability to the House.
We do not know what criteria will be used, and that fact has been echoed in many speeches today. As the right hon. Member for Ayr asked, will recruitment be an important factor? We know that some regiments are undermanned, but in Wales—and in other parts of the country—we are able to recruit and man its three regiments of foot.
Mr. John P. Smith: And more.
Mr. Morris: And more. We may lose one regiment of the line—like other parts of the country, we have also suffered cuts. I am old enough to remember the South Wales Borderers and the First Welsh Regiment leaving. I had the privilege of serving with them as I have also done with the Royal Welch Fusiliers. Wales has suffered cuts and has lost many major military establishments, which resulted in a loss of local employment. We want to know what the political criteria will be. Can we be assured of fairness? Will recruitment be considered important? In view of recruitment in Wales and of the past cuts, I believe that there is a strong case for Wales to maintain its three regiments of the line.
What are the current proposals? Like all those who take an interest in these matters, I have heard that a suggestion emanated from a meeting of generals and colonels of regiments at which those representing Wales were heavily outnumbered that the Royal Welch Fusiliers should be amalgamated with the Cheshires. I have never heard such a ridiculous and politically inept proposal. Thirty to 40 per cent. of the Royal Welch Fusiliers are Welsh speakers. Does anyone believe that if the oldest Welsh regiment disappears people will flock to join the Cheshires? That is nonsense. If recruitment means anything, there must be a political input into this major decision.
I do not know what the input of the Welsh Office is. When individuals and organisations have been to see the Secretary of State for Wales they have received a pretty dusty, non-committal answer. He, unhappily, serves two masters. He represents Wales, in theory, but he has his Cheshire constituency at heart. He does not believe that there is any great difference between those interests because people cross the border. He has allowed his Cheshire responsibilities to come first.
There is a problem with the Royal Welch Fusiliers because we were outnumbered at a gathering where there were more English than Welsh and because the Welsh Office did not speak out. The Minister of State announced to the Western Mail a fortnight ago that he was in charge. He said that everyone from the Queen down knows that he is acting as Secretary of State for Wales. This is his great opportunity to speak up and to do something for Wales.
The suggested amalgamation is reprehensible. The Army would suffer, Wales would suffer and it would be disastrous if recruitment were not recognised as an
82
important factor. The least that the Minister can do is to tell us what the criteria will be. The House should know, so that we can judge before the die is cast. The issue is too big to be left to the generals. There should be a political input and a political decision. The Government cannot wash their hands of an important regiment which has served the country well and which I hope will continue to serve it in the future.
7.18 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart: Every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken has rightly praised the enormous skill and courage with which the Army has in the past year carried out its role in Iraq and in Northern Ireland. Those two names—Iraq and Northern Ireland —remind us that the world is still a very dangerous place despite the collapse of international communism during the past few years.
The nature of the threat has changed, and it is possible to make substantial cuts in the defence budget. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that the size of the Army was to be reduced by about 25 per cent., I did not object. I think that there is room for a reduction in the size of the Army, especially as, for the first time since the end of world war two, it will basically be returning to this country. For the first time since the war, more than 50 per cent. of trained soldiers will he serving in the United Kingdom. That means that we ought to be able make substantial cuts in the administrative tail of the Army.
In Germany, we need major hospitals and big supply depots, but we shall not need them once the Army returns to this country. The means that we should be able to make disproportionately large cuts—within the 25 per cent.—in the administrative tail.
It is astonishing, therefore, that larger than average cuts are proposed for our combat units. Infantry battalions are ideally suited to provide a flexible response to the uncertain threats that we shall face in future. I was astonished to learn that it is proposed to cut our infantry from 55 battalions to 36, of which two will be Gurkha battalions. That means that there will be only 34 British battalions left.
The senior officers who have to plan are clearly unhappy, and some of them have said, "It will not work." Unlike, say, the Green Jackets, or the Airborne division or the Argylls, the Queen's division is not made up of prima donnas. The Queen's division is at the heart of our infantry. The council of colonels of the Queen's division
"question the viability of an Infantry of only 34 British Battalions in the light of what they perceive to be the commitments".
What can be done? First, I suggest that the Gurkhas should be taken out of the "Options for Change" exercise. I do not believe that they should be disbanded. We should keep a brigade of 4,000 Gurkhas, but as the basis for a United Nations force. There is a need for a United Nations force in northern Iraq at this moment and, in the near future, there may well be a need for such a force in Cambodia. There has also been a collapse of authority in Somalia; aid workers have had to leave because there was no one there to protect them. The Gurkhas could provide the basis of an ever-ready United Nations force. There is much interest in the concept of a United Nations standby force given the thawing of the cold war, and Britain should play a role in developing such a force.

83
Secondly—and here I admit to an element of special pleading—I think that it is crazy to cut the third battalion and the regimental headquarters of the Parachute Regiment. If we are to play a leading role in the rapid reaction force, it is plainly barmy to reduce the size of the Parachute Regiment. There will also undoubtedly be an extra need for special forces to tackle the terrorist threat in the years to come. We should remember that about 70 per cent. of the Special Air Service and more than 50 per cent. of the special forces as a whole are recruited from the Parachute Regiment. To dry up the recruitment pool for our special forces does not seem to make any sense—except, perhaps, under a policy of equal misery for all.
Thirdly, the 36 front-line battalions should be supplemented by a force of perhaps 10 base battalions in a lower state of readiness—perhaps with some reserves with special training and call-out liabilities on their strength—which could be reconstituted in 30 to 60 days to support the 36 front-line infantry battalions that would be kept up to 100 per cent. strength and receive the best possible training. The existence of "hybrid base battalions" could act as an insurance against the problem of overstretch which, under present plans, will undoubtedly face the Army.
The Secretary of State and his colleagues earned warm plaudits from the House for their conduct during the Gulf war. It would be a tragedy for them, and for the country as a whole, if they went down in the history books as Ministers who broke the back of the British infantry.
7.26 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I echo the tributes to the Army, its leadership and its training; they are superb. In the time at my disposal, however, I can choose only one theme. I shall concentrate on disabled service men and ex-service men. I welcome the Minister's comment about the three Grenadier guards whose solicitors are to meet representatives of the Ministry. I regard that as half a step forward, but only half a step. The Minister could simply have said that he accepted the principle that they would be paid. He has not done that yet, so they are not guaranteed compensation.
I want to raise again the problem of those ex-service men disabled by alleged negligence before the Crown Proceedings Act was changed in 1987. Unlike the Guardsmen, those ex-service men do not have the right to sue, nor do they receive compensation. It is scandalous that they should be left in limbo.
The House will know that between 1947 and 1987 members of the armed forces were banned from suing the Ministry of Defence for injuries due to alleged negligence. The House may recall the campaign that I led to change the law and abolish section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act which ended in victory. On 8 December 1986, the then Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who spoke from the Back Benches today—announced that the Government had decided to abolish section 10. There is no doubt that that was the result of the campaign. Subsequently the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) became an Act, and section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act was abolished.
84
Ironically, the very disabled ex-service men who had campaigned with me were denied the benefit and did not even receive an ex gratia benefit. Among those severely disabled service men was one of my constituents, Martin Ketterick, and Snowy Clingham, both of whom have become well known. Their loyalty for the services has never been doubted. However, they have felt betrayed.
As the Ministry of Defence remained intransigent, I contacted the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). Her answer merely echoed that given by the MOD. I suggested to her that a trust fund should provide ex gratia payments for those ex-service men who were disabled before the law was changed before the announcement of 8 December 1986. I said that payments could go to those who could show evidence that their injuries were probably due to negligence.
However, the then Prime Minister said that the trust fund proposal did not surmount the principle of restrospection. She objected that an open-ended scheme would
"cause distress and embarrassment to former service men alleged to have caused injury to others."
I suggested a compromise to the then Prime Minister. I said that to avoid an open-ended commitment claims should be considered only from those injured in action which led to an official investigation and a conclusion of faulty behaviour, equipment or procedure. That was a very reasonable proposition. To overcome the problems of retrospection, I suggested that ex gratia payments should compensate only for costs and suffering experienced after the decisive date of 8 December 1986.
As a further attempt to solve the problems, I leaned over backwards and suggested to the then Prime Minister that the ex gratia payments should be based only on the written evidence available as that would undoubtedly rectify the major causes of injustice. Every one of those proposals was rejected by the right hon. Member for Finchley.
When the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) became Prime Minister, I asked him to reconsider the issue. He said that the difficulties
"in principle and in practice"
were too great to act. The Government encountered difficulties
"in principle and in practice"
when they dealt with haemophiliacs who were infected with AIDS as a result of contaminated NHS blood transfusions. The Prime Minister found his way round that and commendably so. He should do precisely the same thing for disabled ex-service men. He should find his way round the problems and difficulties. They believe that the MOD's behaviour has caused difficulties and they believe that the Ministry has misled them.
Very few people inside or outside the House have heard of the "redress of grievance" procedure. However, when that campaign was at its height and when the disabled ex-service men were helping me, senior Ministers in the MOD told them about the procedure. It was suggested that the disabled ex-service men should divert their attention to that procedure. They took the Ministry at its word and they pursued the redress of grievance procedure.
Later, at exactly the same time that the Secretary of State for Defence announced in the House that the law was being changed, my constituents and the other ex-service

85
men were informed by the MOD that they were to receive nothing from the redress of grievance procedure. That was an astonishing way for the Ministry to act.
I want to ask the Minister several questions. Does he accept that Martin Ketterick and others were encouraged by the MOD to use the procedure to which I have referred? Did the MOD believe that that procedure would be successful for those ex-service men? If so, what caused the change of mind? Was the MOD familiar with the problems of those ex-service men? Did it understand them? Was it a coincidence that every campaigner was rejected? 11 would welcome answers to those questions later.
I remind the Minister that the Royal British Legion is committed to persuading the Government to give retrospective compensation. The soldiers', sailors' and airmen's association agrees with that, as does the Federation of Army Wives. There is a great body of responsible opinion in favour of that and hon. Members on both sides of the House want a fair deal for those ex-service men. I hope that the Secretary of State and/or the Prime Minister will reconsider those issues and do what they can for those ex-service men, who face a serious situation. A great injustice is being done. Unless some change can he made, that injustice will embitter future service men as well as the ex-service men. That is the last thing we want. I beg the Minister to reconsider, to change his mind and to give justice to those very loyal ex-service men.
7.36 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: I feel like someone who has been queuing since Thursday for a ticket for Wimbledon. I am glad that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has seen it out with me, and I am grateful for his help on Thursday. I am also grateful for the presence of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement who, as always, is listening attentively to the debate.
What seems like a long wait is but a short time in comparison with the years of training that our armed forces have to undertake. Those long years of training are normally used only in a few hours. Having seen the way in which our armed forces acquitted themselves in the Gulf, we must be grateful for their work.
Our wait is nothing in comparison with the wait for the end of the cold war. It was gratifying to learn that the Warsaw pact was dissolved in Prague today. The Soviet Union has allowed its allies to go their separate ways, thus announcing the official end to the cold war.
I am sure that, like me, hon. Members on both sides of the House did the prize crossword in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday. Interestingly, clue 11 across was:
"Where it costs nothing to live in non-communist countries?"
Of course, I need not tell hon. Members that the answer was, "the free world". We may be free, but the cost of remaining free is anything but cheap.
"Options for Change" has created much controversy in the House. Over the past few days, people have asked whether it should be Treasury-led or threat-led. We would be naive to believe that the Treasury does not have a role to play. However much people may try to hide it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking for a 20 per cent. cut in defence expenditure over the next few years. The
86
Labour party seems to want to hide the fact, but it is looking for a cut of at least one third, while the Liberals were clear about wanting a 50 per cent cut.
We could consider the threat aspect and ask the generals what they believe should be spent on defence. Any prudent general would say that we should be spending two or three times as much as we are spending now. However, we must be realistic. We already spend more than our European partners. Members of all parties are looking for a peace dividend. We must be ready to talk to our would-be opponents and reduce the threat and reduce the number of forces that we must put into the field.
I have not heard much about getting our armed forces into the right state to be able to fight. Much has been denied or swept under the carpet about our armoured corps within Germany. To get one third of those people in the field, I am told by people whom I trust that we effectively stripped our forces in Germany and we had about six months in which to do that. That cannot represent sensible economies. We must examine that matter.
There is no point in having forces who cannot fight; we might as well disband them. However, if we want them to fight, let us make sure that they are properly equipped. The MOD has taken that matter on board. The equipment budget is not being cut anywhere near as much as the manpower budget is being cut. We must learn the lessons, recruit people and fill regiments, and they must be suitable fighting forces.
I now refer to the MOD as a customer. We on this side of the House rightly want value for money, but we cannot expect the Vickers and Westlands of this world to give value for money unless they get clear statements from the MOD about what we want them to do and give them a timely order for the equipment that we have asked them to develop and produce. Delay costs money, and that money must be recouped by those companies or they will go out of business. Therefore, the money must come from the taxpayer. We must get it right.
We must also be careful about competitive tendering. It is all very well if we have half a dozen companies trying to make many different systems and the MOD, perhaps, buying two or three systems, but we often buy one-offs. It will be impossible to keep several companies with their own research, development and manufacturing capability. Therefore, we must be careful about how we deal with competitive tendering. We must take sensible decisions in the light of what we are trying to buy. Of course, if we buy boots or rifles for the Army, we buy a large number. That is very different from buying a frigate or a tank.
It is interesting to note that The Daily Telegraph today said that research facilities in the MOD should be cut and that perhaps the only things that we should bother to keep are radar and underwater weapons. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I agree that there are problems, but The Daily Telegraph has got it wrong. We cannot expect the high level of defence research to be shared by many different companies. There are ways of managing that issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the next steps Defence Research Agency, but we roust ensure that the DRA has the funds that it needs and that we are not duplicating research that is being done better by our allies. Clearly, when it comes to underwater weapons technology, we are well ahead of many of our allies, and certainly ahead of the Americans, who spend far more money on it. We must play to our strength.

87
I can give no credit for decision making in the MOD. As my hon. Friend knows, I was a management consultant in an earlier life and was often called in to examine decision-making procedures. I was close to many decisions in the Procurement Executive, whether in respect of land, air or sea systems controls. The MOD is run around in circles by civil servants. The Procurement Executive, which is incredibly labour-intensive, is not being put to good use. We must ensure that we have good value for money, that management decisions are made, and that, every time we suggest that we cut the number of people, we move them to one site. Co-location exercises, as my hon. Friend knows, outlast any Minister's term of office.
We saw that game with the quality assurance directive for more than a decade. I am sure that, in respect of the sea systems control group, which is already four years old, the so-called decision will not be made for another four years. I am quite sure that it can make it to the decade as well.
I tried to get the large, glossy copy of "Options for Change". We have a three-page list of what we are looking for. That is very good, but we should be discussing what we are committed to achieve. If we give them a set of equipment, our forces will try to achieve whatever we politicians tell them. Unless we make those decisions early, we are bound to get them wrong. In the past few days, we have discussed strategic issues—for example, should we have paratroops, or are paratroops obsolete? Should they be brought in by helicopter? What about amphibious lift? All those matters should be discussed in full. I refer also to the tank versus helicopter in respect of fire power, air versus land versus sea, and how those three aspects interact. How about technology versus manpower? Again, nobody seems to be talking about those points. We are all worried about which regiments will be kept or not kept. Frankly, that is not the issue.
When there was an announcement about a reduction in my junior leader's regiment in Bovington, I did not jump to my feet because I believe that we must look at all these things. Dorset must be careful not to try to grab too much or not to accept its share of cuts. However, the rapid deployment force should be based close to Dorset for many sensible reasons. I shall not list them as I have no time to do so. Dorset will do its bit. If we want a free world, we must be prepared to pay for it.
7.46 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: I join hon. Members in paying tribute to our armed forces for their record of dedicated and disciplined service throughout their long history—from the tragic battle of the Somme, the 75th anniversary of which has already been mentioned today, to Operation Granby in the Gulf and, of course, still for 24 hours a day in Northern Ireland. History demonstrates that every nation requires armed forces and that a modern nation needs the shared security of regional alliances. It should surely be self-evident that the strength of those forces should be determined in proportion to the risk or threat that they may be required to confront.
I am happy to say that the threat of superpower confrontation and massive land assault in central Europe has gone, and thank God for that, but there are still plenty more residual risks that we require our armed forces to face up to. The risks remain. There is the obvious risk from
88
the Soviet Union which still has massive forces—they are still being enhanced—on the northern flank of our NATO ally in Norway. Secondly, there is the mounting risk of direct or spillover conflict in eastern Europe, whether in Yugoslavia or in any of the other areas where economic, ethnic or religious pressures may be building. I suppose that we have some of those ethnic or quasi-religious pressures every day in Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, there is a probability of further need for United Nations-sponsored task forces to contain threats to international order "out of area", which could mean literally anywhere. Fourthly, by the same token, this world is full of risks of natural or unnatural disasters in which emergency relief can be most efficiently achieved with military logistics and military efficiency. That means volcanoes, floods, famine, the recent events in Kurdistan and so on.
Those are just some of the ongoing risks that we may expect our forces to be able to confront. I want to know whether the "Options for Change" exercise has included any assessment of any of those risks. What are the options? The term "options for change" implies that different choices have been put before Ministers and the House, but I do not think that hon. Members have been made aware of any of them.
Last year the Secretary of State for Defence announced a range of cuts to the strength of our forces. Since then our forces have been deployed to the Gulf and have played their part in winning a war and have then returned—but we are still waiting to hear about the specific options. Along with my colleagues on the Defence Select Committee I have been doing my best to evaluate such options as there may be. All of us are deeply suspicious that the Ministry of Defence is tailoring its perceptions of the risk of conflict to meet short-term financial restraints dictated by the Treasury. By all means let us have a peace dividend—I hope, a big one—but let us have a genuine and open assessment of the risks and options before we reach any firm decisions.
It would be reckless folly to carve up our armed forces in a way which would leave them without adequate means to perform the tasks that we are likely to have to ask them to carry out in future.
Just as the threat to the future of Rosyth naval base does not make sense in the context of the strategic environment, I suggest that MOD's approach to the review of the Army seems equally bereft of logic especially its assessment of the future of Scotland's seven infantry battalions. I am not surprised that the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) have already mentioned that. It falls far short of military precision; it bears all the hallmarks of a crude Treasury carve up—and that should be exposed in this debate.
Early last month in anticipation of this debate I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him to publish a table showing
"(a) the nominal manpower establishment, (b) the actual manpower strength, (c) the percentage of nominal establishment achieved, (d) the number of recruits becoming available each year, and (e) the rate of retention of recruits and trained soldiers for each regiment and division in the British Army."
In the context of "Options for Change" these are fair questions to be asking. The answers to them are facts which any Minister should have at his fingertips before making decisions about the future of regiments and

89
battalions. It would be fairly silly to wind up successful regiments while maintaining units that have difficulty keeping themselves up to strength. But the Minister replied, after the usual holding answer,
"I will write to the hon. Member."—[Official Report, 19 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 224.]
Not surprisingly, I have not heard from the Minister on that question. Perhaps he does not know the answer; perhaps he does not want to know it. He certainly does not want Members of the House of Commons to know the answers to such questions in anticipation of a debate of this nature.
I am happy to say that I have been able to obtain some of the information from another source. The figures are not right up to date—they apply to the end of 1990—but they are near enough.
The information shows that the nominal establishment of the 50 infantry battalions in the British Army came to a total of 29,320 men, an average of 586 soldiers per battalion. The actual strength of the battalions totalled 26,408—a shortfall of 2,912. The recruitment and retention performance ranged from a deficiency of more than 17 per cent. in the Queen's division through to the —this is relatively fine tuning—deficiency of 3 per cent. in the Scottish division. Trends in recent years show that of the seven infantry divisions all but the Scots and the paratroops are struggling to recruit and retain the number of soldiers that they require. Surely that information should be taken into account in any "Options for Change" exercise.
It would be invidious to mention the names of the regiments concerned, but I see that one battalion in the Queen's division was 174 below strength; one in the Light division was 135 below strength; one in the Prince of Wales division was 120 below strength; one in the Guards division was 105 below strength; and one in the King's division was 100 below strength.
The contrasting range for the Scottish division was as follows: one battalion was at three above establishment and the worst was only 41 below establishment. I note that the Scottish division infantry training depot at Glencorse has the lowest adult recruitment wastage figure of all such depots in the British Army.
Mr. Ted Garrett: Has my hon. Friend taken into account the fact that the true numbers may be smaller than those that he has quoted because some of the soldiers are away from their battalions undergoing training?
Mr. Home Robertson: I understand that that has been taken into account, but since I do not have much time I shall not go into the point in detail.
Against this background of manifest difficulties in recruiting and retaining infantry, what is the sense of sacrificing flourishing battalions in the Scottish division? We should build on strength. The local regiments in Scotland have been through the process of cuts and amalgamations before. Any further cuts in the number of regionally-based regiments, with their enduring sense of local loyalty, could do lasting damage to the interests of the British Army; and they would, incidentally, deprive more than 100 young Scots each year of a respected and worth-while job opportunity, and of the training that goes with it. Further cuts would also make a great many people, including the right hon. Member for Ayr and myself, very angry indeed.
90
I am not surprised that the Scottish regiments have refused to play the Minister's game of Russian roulette. I share the personal feelings expressed by others, being the son of a member of the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Member of Parliament representing a large number of soldiers serving in the first battalion the Royal Scots, the first regiment of foot in the British Army, which has just distinguished itself again in the Gulf.
I am convinced that there is a continuing role for the Scottish infantryman in a world which still contains a wide range of risks. It would be reckless of the Minister to lose this valuable resource. We have become accustomed to the Government destroying national assets during their 12 years in office, but I hope that even they will not be daft enough to proceed with the threatened destruction of one third of the Scottish infantry division.
7.56 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: My right hon. Friend the Minister began by mentioning a reduction in the production of offensive weapons in the USSR. That is good news, but I am far from satisfied that it has gone far enough. The Soviets are still producing vast quantities of weaponry of the most sophisticated and modern type and we must be extremely vigilant if we are not to be outmanoeuvred.
I believe that "Options for Change" means assessing the minimum forces required and then establishing the best value for money for achieving that aim. We have been told that the present Army establishment of 156,000 is to be reduced to 116,000—a significant reduction. We must pay particular attention to the good value for money given by the Territorial Army. A Territorial soldier costs on average one sixth of his regular counterpart. So instead of thinking of reducing the TA's numbers—I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)—we should recognise that it is very good value for money. We should think of increasing its numbers.
I was delighted to hear the Minister say that 1,700 reservists served in the Gulf, of whom 1,000 came from the Army. As recently as 12 June this year his noble Friend claimed that only 572 served there, which caused a great deal of resentment in the Territorial Army, because it was responsible for training the people who may have gone on to S-type engagements. If they had not been trained by the TA they would not have been equipped to go on such engagements in the first place—so we must give the TA credit for that, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend did so.
Nevertheless, the news did not come in time to be included in the press release issued by the Minister of Defence about the City parade on Friday 21 June—it made no reference to the Territorial Army, and that caused a good deal of annoyance among reservists. They felt upset enough as it was because they had not been called in greater numbers to serve in the Gulf.
S-type engagements involve people who volunteer to serve with the regular forces on the basis of their Territorial training. There is a rule that a bounty cannot be claimed by a Territorial soldier if he is not available for nine months of the bounty year. That has been waived for those who volunteered to serve in the Gulf, but not for those who volunteer to serve in Northern Ireland. Many people feel that there is just as much danger in Northern

91
Ireland as there was in the Gulf and it is wrong that those who volunteer for S-type engagements are precluded from getting bounties even if they have served for longer than three months, although for fewer than nine, in any one bounty year. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take an urgent look at that, because it is causing a great deal of discontent.
The availability of reservists depends on the help and assistance of employers, who play a vital role. I was delighted to hear recently that the employers are now considered to be more important than honorary colonels and that they are being invited more frequently to witness TA soldiers in camp and elsewhere so that they can see the beneficial effects. This has come about because it has been realised that it is essential to have employers on our side. I hope that when those in industry are considered for high civil honours, their support of the Territorial Army is taken into account. I know that the TA, with the assistance of the Ministry of Defence, sends certificates to employers to thank them for their support, but there must be a commitment to serving the country.
The TA can be compared with the National Guard, of which the United States made great use in the Gulf. More than 63,000 National Guard members served in the Gulf; a further 8,000 National Guards went to Europe to release personnel to serve in the Gulf; and another 60,000 were mobilised in the United States, ready to be sent to the Gulf if required. That shows the commitment of the United States to its reserve forces. Had we been able to provide similar opportunities for our reserve forces, they would have appreciated much more that they are an essential and integral part of the Army.
We need a complete reserve formation, and TA brigades are required. The system whereby TA soldiers are attached to other units is not working. Such soldiers were not called up to the Gulf, and the system has not proved satisfactory. Much discontent was caused thereby. Perhaps we should ask not only for a specific TA brigade but for TA officers serving in a high level in the echelons of the armed forces.
A rapid reaction force is being created and, recently, the TA has been training for certain action that would be useful in this regard. In particular, I think of the third line logistic support—transport, medical, supply and rear area defence, which are all aspects to which the Territorial Army could make a positive contribution. There has been much talk, and advertisements on hoardings, about the "One Army" concept and the importance of getting over the fact that the Territorial soldier is every bit as important as the regular. We have not heard much of that recently. I am disappointed, because if that had been implemented, the Territorial Army would have made a greater contribution in the Gulf.
I think here in particular of the paras, who have already been mentioned. They are extremely well recruited and deserve to be encouraged and expanded rather than cut. They can make a positive contribution towards the general reserve, and also, by helping the civil powers, to national disasters. We should give them a specific role in that, as the National Guard has in the United States.
If that is to be the case, we have to ensure that the Territorial Army has adequate training time, adequate permanent staff, the best equipment, adequate access to
92
training areas, enough ammunition and plenty of administrative support. It should also have an additional factor that is essential in any TA unit—the best club in town. We have to say thank you to the wives and families of the TA soldiers, as well as the employers, and without the best club in town, these people cannot be thanked either.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister would not expect me to sit down without mentioning the fact that this year is the 175th year of continuing service of the Gurkhas with the Crown. Some 500,000 of them served in the 1939–45 war, of whom 52,000 were killed or wounded. They won 13 Victoria Crosses and 13 officers attached to them also won VCs. There are now 8,000 Gurkha soldiers and in May 1989 an undertaking was given that that number would not be reduced below 4,000, come what may. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to confirm that.
The use of Gurkha soldiers makes a positive contribution to third world aid. Their salaries, which are repatriated to Nepal, and the pensions that they receive on their return are a major source of income for the country. It would be entirely wrong if we did not ensure that this was properly acknowledged. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give some answers later.
8.6 pm
Mr. Ted Garrett: I did not intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), but he may be interested to know that there is a Territorial Army infantry brigade, based at York. I took some of my hon. Friends to see it on a 14-day exercise and they were impressed by the performance of the soldiers. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman wants an infantry brigade in the south, he will have to fight jolly hard for one.
The thought crossed my mind that the Minister passed to the colonels the problem of the amalgamation of the regiments and that they came back and said that they did not want to do it. If anybody else in the Army had done that, they would have been court martialled. It is time that Ministers got themselves into a courageous mood and started to make some decisions. A lot of argument tonight has been about what I would call a dereliction of duty —failure to come up with a decision. Perhaps Ministers have read what happened in 1968—some of us can actually remember what happened. The Secretary of State for Defence then was a Labour Member who represented a Leeds constituency. He conducted the whole business on a semi-secret basis and came up with the hotch-potch with which we are living today.
One famous north country regiment survived because the colonel-in-chief happened to be the King of Norway. Another survived because it was the Duke of Wellington's regiment. Logic went out the window when nepotism came through the back door. Some of us suspect that that might happen again and some hon. Members have implied that it is already happening.
I do not want to be boring, but I, too, want to refer to the problems of the Parachute Regiment. Hon. Members have referred to the criteria upon which that regiment is based. I believe that the 4th Volunteer Battalion of the Parachute Regiment has a record equal to none on recruitment as it is over-strength. I support that parachute battalion as it originated from the 9th Durham Light

93
Infantry Battalion. The battalion headquarters are in Pudsey and it recruits from Leeds and Bradford. It has outlying companies in Gateshead, Middlesbrough, Liverpool, Oldham, Lincoln and Leicester. What better dedication could one get than that of those volunteers who travel such distances to link together to form an effective battalion? Above all, they display all the attributes that one would expect from soldiers of the Parachute Regiment. I sincerely hope that the issue of the numbers expected to keep a battalion up to strength will be given full consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) mentioned the battle of the Somme. In those days an infantry battalion had 1,000 men. In the second world war an infantry battalion was made up of 800 men. Now, an up-to-strength infantry battalion is made up of 650 men. However, that battalion has 10 times the fire power of its predecessor in the second world war.
History shows that the British people, as Rudyard Kipling aptly said, do not want to know about the Army until the trouble starts. We tend to forget totally about the Army. In the 1930s our armed forces were depleted to the point of total weakness. The British expeditionary force that went to France in 1940 was probably just as ill-equipped as the British expeditionary force that went to France in 1914. It did not have the equipment to mount an effective defence and if it had not been for the morale of Dunkirk and elsewhere the losses would have been greater and many more would have been taken prisoner. We never learned the lesson from that.
When the conflict started in Korea we sent our troops out with tropical equipment. It never dawned on the silly farts to check the temperature in that part of the world. British troops were fighting in atrocious, bitter conditions and had it not been for the generosity of the Americans who were so well-equipped we would have had severe casualties. They would have been caused not by being shot at by the enemy, but by succumbing to the weather conditions.
What about the confrontation in Malaysia? Again, we were ill-equipped and had it not been for the incompetence of the communist insurgents in some areas we could have been faced with a long conflict. Some of us can remember Aden. An ill-led attack—if that is the right word—was made in a part of that colony that was then ours. That resulted in the men being sent in with a bad communications system as the signalling equipment was out of date. The weapons given to those men were not their own; they had been left somewhere else. As a result of bad leadership many were killed, including many from the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers.
Hon. Members have already spoken about what happened to our armour when it eventually got to the Gulf. We were damn lucky it was a short campaign, because otherwise our troops would have been stranded there without the necessary spares and equipment. Had it not been for the heroic efforts of the Vickers' workers of Leeds and Newcastle, who worked round the clock to get those spares out to the Challenger tanks, the position would have been far more serious.
I have always been a traditional supporter of the British regimental system because, under that system, it does not matter what one's rank is in the Army. If one is part of the regimental system one can safely say that, when in difficulties, one will be looked after by one's comrades. If the worst comes to the worst and a man is wounded and
94
has financial difficulties as a result, every effort will be made—even if the state cannot provide support—by that man's regimental comrades to give him some financial assistance to help him and his nearest and dearest through that difficult time. I was pleased to note today that the Minister and the Government have had a change of thinking and have accepted that there is a greater obligation to help those who have the misfortune to be wounded either in peace or in war. They will be confronted with fewer financial worries than other men who have served in British forces over the centuries.
8.16 pm
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) who clearly feels so strongly about the British Army and all it stands for.
A year has passed since we debated the defence estimates. For obvious reasons the emphasis then was on the momentous changes in eastern Europe and their implications for that region and further afield. On that occasion I suggested tentatively that one day NATO forces might have to be deployed to combat instability in the Balkans or the Baltic states. Little did I imagine that, in a matter of months, British troops would be sent to confront a dictator who had occupied a country "east of Suez", to coin a historic phrase.
Today I want to examine some of the implications of restructuring the British Army—an exercise made all the more sensitive for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces as it is taking place in the aftermath of such a brilliantly successful campaign. First, however, I should like to pay a heart-felt tribute to all of those honoured in the Gulf awards announced last week. Those awards are a recognition of the sterling work done by all ranks within the Kuwait theatre of operations. I hope that the House will forgive me if, as a result of my particular experience, I single out Brigadier Cordingley and the 7th Armoured Brigade with whom I had the privilege of serving when they thrust forward 120 miles in 65 hours from Saudi Arabia, through Iraq, to Kuwait. Their commitment, cohesion, competence and compassion were something extremely special, even by the Army's high standards.
I believe that there is immense relief in all parts of the Chamber at the retention of the regimental system. It still staggers me that there were people who were prepared to argue that we could have infantry battalions numbered 1 to 35 or armoured regiments numbered 1 to 12 or whatever. They still expected that we could preserve the sort of loyalty for which our Army is renowned around the world. Our regimental system has caused jealousy in armed forces everywhere. However, I do not envy my right hon. Friend some of the delicate decisions that he must consider in the next few weeks. He has already said that he will take into account some of the geographical arid historical factors behind the regiments. I welcome his assurances today that levels of recruitment, notwithstanding the cap on recruitment in recent months, will also be one of the factors taken into account when reaching any decision.
If regiments must be disbanded I hope that their identities will be preserved in the Territorial Army and the

95
reserve forces, whose role in the future will, I hope, be expanded and better defined, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne).
If my right hon. Friend takes such factors into account I believe that he will be rewarded by the regiments showing the very adaptability and flexibility that he wants. The regiments will put all their armchair critics to flight whatever challenges lie ahead.
On the wider issue of the new shape of the Army, I shall express some reservations that I trust will be interpreted in the constructive way in which they are offered. I can understand the political technique of saying to the Army, "We plan to reduce strength by 25 per cent. to 116,000 men. Now you tell us how to structure the armour, infantry, artillery and logistic units to fulfil our various roles." It might be useful to put numbers in context and to say that a reduction of 40,000 men represents about the total number of our service men in all three services who were involved in the Gulf.
What I do not understand is how and when the Army, if it so believes, says, "With the numbers with which we are left, we are not able to fulfil the roles that you have defined." It is not for me to say to the Army that I hope that it will not be unduly inhibited in saying that. The issue is clearly too important to take that approach.
It has been widely reported that we are faced by a Treasury-led exercise. I believe that the current euphemism is "close Treasury scrutiny". When does "close Treasury scrutiny" become overbearing or a damned sight too cosy by half'? Does an Army of 116,000 men mean, when taking account of training establishments, a field Army of under 100,000? If so, is that compatible with home defence, NATO and out-of-area commitments? My mathematics may be at fault, and certainly they are no better than those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), but if the Royal Armoured Corps is to have a 50 per cent. reduction in manpower and infantry battalions are to be reduced in number by 40 per cent., does that imply in the context of an overall reduction of 25 per cent. that teeth arms are treated more harshly than support arms? I would welcome education and assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I believe that he used the word "commensurate" in his earlier remarks, but I would be grateful for further details.
The House knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to achieve a smaller and better Army that is better at home and better at work. If that is achieved, retention levels should be improved and many of the old bugbears of service in the Army will be removed. Those difficulties are not confined to pay because the Government have done marvellously well in increasing the pay of our armed forces. A more important factor is boredom, for example, which often arises from lack of opportunity to train, restrictions on track mileage and on the use of ammunition, as well as restrictions that are imposed on the use of spares.
If improvements are to be made in all those areas as well as in domestic conditions—involving separation within families, inadequate accommodation and general turbulence—money will be needed. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to ensure that the new model Army has proper financial support from the outset.
96
The current underprovision was revealed somewhat starkly by the British Army of the Rhine's deployment of a mere two brigades in the Gulf. That underprovision must not be built into the Army's new future. Unless funding is sorted out we shall not be able to afford the kit that served us so well in the Gulf. I shall not go into details now as time does not permit.
I make two positive suggestions in the belief that the service dividend comes before the peace dividend. First, I am told that the Ministry of Defence telephone directory is remarkable in size per se, and in its apparent justification of the internal structures of what many perceive to be a top-heavy organisation. I feel sure that the average senior non-commissioned officer or major who is made redundant as a result of "Options for Change" will be less disgruntled if he sees actual evidence of the slimming down of the MOD. We hear that there are about 20,000 people vulnerable in the MOD, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister whether that number is "adequate" in the broader-brush scene.
Secondly, there is the old issue of the hypothecation of funds, which I ask to be readdressed. It is a ghastly term but we all know what it means. In the context of options, it would be reasonable and equitable for the Army to benefit from the sale of superflous assests. The MOD sits on vast realty. Government Departments and nationalised bodies have not been noted over the past years for being very good at the management of property portfolios, even in the change of climate since 1979. With the vast capital receipts that could be realised, combined with the slashing of maintenance costs of many installations, I suggest that there could be a reciprocal gesture from the Treasury. Surely that is not too much to ask. That would mean that most of the proceeds could be reapplied for our practical and necessary defence needs. The importance of my argument is emphasised by rumours that a significant amount of the funds contributed by sympathetic countries during the Gulf war are languishing in the Treasury.
It could be argued that the Falklands conflict postponed the radical rethink of the Army, a process that other institutions have rightly had to face in the past decade. The Army is not shy of such an exercise; it simply wishes to be reassured that it will have the proper funding and structure to enable it to carry out the tasks that it undertakes supremely well. After all, it is no coincidence that the United Kingdom has been given the incomparable privilege of permanent leadership of the rapid reaction corps.
In the reorganisation of the Army, I ask my right hon. Friend to look to the lessons of the past and to show flexibility in dealing with the problems that may arise over numbers. I believe that the competence and consistency of this Conservative Government offer the best reassurance to the country that its defences will not be undermined in future.
8.26 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I am concerned about several aspects of "Options for Change", but, as I need to make a case, I shall confine my remarks to the provision that is made in the Colchester establishment for corrective training for service men and service women who are under sentence. The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) has told me that he wishes to be associated with my remarks.

97
It is not possible properly to discuss Colchester's circumstances without making reference to the Royal Navy detention quarters at Portsmouth. I am uniquely placed in at least one respect to comment on both establishments, because I served simultaneously as a member of the boards of visitors of both establishments. In the past, I have made representations on behalf of the RNDQ that provision for corrective training with a nautical bias be retained at Portsmouth under direct Admiralty management and control. Until the special report of the Select Committee on Defence that considered the Armed Forces Bill during 1990–91, that case had always been made successfully. With the introduction of that report, however, it seems that the Ministry of Defence is to announce a timetable for the closure of RNDQs and a redeployment of resources at Colchester by October 1991. The discussion of potential consequences of such a redeployment is the purpose of my contribution to the debate.
The corrective training centre at Colchester was opened in its present form in 1988, though it was well known before that for its rigid discipline and effective application of what became known as the short, sharp shock. Whether it deserved such an epithet in those days is beyond my judgment because I had no direct experience of the regime. I must say, however, that all the service men whom I encountered who had sampled its discipline displayed a marked reluctance to return for a second helping.
I can vouch for the fact that the rebuilt establishment provides a well-balanced, comprehensive, rigorous and effectively demanding programme of rehabilitation for the A-category service men under sentence who intend to return to their units and for those in D-category who are destined for discharge.
The Colchester establishment—the military corrective training centre—was designed to accommodate slightly more than 200 males. Over a year ago, when proposals were first mooted to accommodate female offenders, I wrote to the Secretary of State urging that if the proposals were to be pursued, proper, permanent and purpose-built facilities should be provided for them, including the additional staff that would be required to supervise detention and rehabilitation. I believe that I wrote that recourse to temporary accommodation would be financially wasteful in the long term, and that conversion of existing space would have adverse effects on current detention programmes and would be nonsensical following so quickly on the official opening of such a carefully conceived and purpose-built centre.
Sad to say, the wrong decision was made last year, so the MCTC has been deprived of about two dozen places for men while it currently accommodates only five women in the space that has been reallocated. As a result of that error of judgment, there is now a waiting list of service men under sentence. These men are wrongly detained in regimental guardrooms while they await transfer and induction to Colchester. Over the past fortnight, there have been between four and 15 men in that position. The situation is unacceptable and is to be deplored.
Without betraying confidences, I shall let the House know how the members of staff who are responsible for the MCTC feel about the present circumstances. They say that the
"MCTC is being asked to provide an instant short term solution to make up for their reluctance to tackle the issue earlier … These issues are contrary to the fundamental
98
principles of corrective training and ethos of the Centre which have evolved through experience and errors made in the past over many years. To set them aside because of demand without making adequate additional provision is a dangerous and unprofessional precedent to set and one which should not be taken lightly. As you are aware the MCTC can be likened to a delicate eco-system which is highly susceptible to change and inappropriate tinkering. The Imprisonment and Detention Rules are our safeguard and should be honoured in full … We believe we have tinkered with the Regime enough and that accommodating the RN with a 'quickie ad hoc' solution is not the answer. We believe we have a 'golden' opportunity to fund the build of the new F Section on the basis that its completion will release sufficient accommodation to meet the RN's requirements on the closure of RNDQs. Not only is this the most practical solution but the financial savings are both obvious and considerable and would more than offset the cost of the new build in less than 2 years. We would have thought that even the Treasury would support such a decision."
Those are the thoughts of the staff; that is their well-considered response. We pay those people to look after those responsibilities on our behalf.
Let no one suggest today that proposals under "Options for Change" will reduce demand for places in corrective training. That cannot be so, and I shall explain why. Guardroom personnel in numerous units have been or are being civilianised. The number of operational guardrooms has already been reduced in the Army, and in the Royal Air Force the regional service detention rooms have been reduced from five to four. Many units of all three services will be returning to serve within the bounds of the United Kingdom. It is natural to assume that the charge of absent without leave will become more frequent as it is infinitely easier to go absent close to home than while stationed overseas. I remind the House that absenteeism accounts for about two thirds of charges.
I wish to make three more points. First, it would be wrong for RNDQs to be moved before proper provision is made. I ask the Minister to announce tonight that October 1991 is not a possibility. Secondly, the Royal Navy and the RAF should be making a financial contribution to the cost of Colchester. My understanding is that they do not. Why not? They should do; perhaps they could buy the place. Thirdly, all existing accommodation needs to be made secure. That was known 12 months ago, when prisoners escaped from Colchester simply by knocking holes in the ceiling, getting into the roof space, kicking off the tiles, dropping to the ground, and legging it into the distance. That is still possible today, but nothing has been done about it. Why not?
I appeal to the Minister to pay serious attention to the points that I have raised, because they are of pressing urgency. I would have loved to be able to comment on some of the "Mad Mitch" aspects of our earlier discussions, and I would have loved to be able to talk about the future of the armed forces. In my North Atlantic Assembly role, I serve on the committee that has been examining those circumstances since 1988. Sadly, I must confine myself to the remarks that I have made.
8.33 pm
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As we have witnessed the collapse of the Warsaw pact, the withdrawal of more Soviet troops to inside their borders, and the reluctance of President Gorbachev to support every communist dictatorship in the world, it is right to review our defence requirements and to plan a new role for NATO.

99
For the past 40 years, our defence plan has envisaged a mass attack on West Germany by the Soviet, Polish, Czechoslovakian, Hungarian and crack East German divisions. That can no longer happen. We must respond to that change, and we need to develop new armoured divisions that can react immediately and flexibly to any new threat. The world is still a very dangerous place, as we recently discovered, and too much talk about a peace dividend can be sadly misplaced.
I must make it clear what the peace dividend actually means: we keep our defences strong, and peace is our dividend. The phenomenal changes in Europe have been possible because the west has maintained strong defences —and the Conservative party and Government can take a special pride in the fact that Britain has done more than any other nation in Europe to guard the peace over the past 40 years, as witnessed by our immediate and brilliant response to aggression in the Gulf.
The north-west of England has done its fair share in keeping the peace. I am proud to represent the county town of Lancashire. However, the King's Own Royal Border Regiment covers not only Lancashire but Cumbria, so today I am not pleading only a localised constituency case. Over the years, the north-west has consistently produced high-grade soldiers. It continues to produce, on a per capita basis, more recruits for the Army than any other region in the United Kingdom. Of crucial importance is the fact that the census projections show that the north-west will continue to have more than sufficient recruits in the future—even better than the eastern side of the Pennines.
We all accept that there will have to be reductions in the Army, painful though that is. Those of us who believe in the regimental system—of whom I am very much one—must prove that the system is sufficiently flexible to respond to change—but the response must be fair and be seen to be fair. When the subject of amalgamations is discussed, I trust that the Government and the Ministry of Defence will need no reminding that all the infantry regiments in the north-west were amalgamated in the 1959 round of defence reductions. In total, seven former regiments in the north-west were reduced to the current three. It would be a great travesty of justice if any of those fine regiments was required to suffer amalgamation yet again—or, even worse, be threatened with disbandment —while regiments elsewhere escaped amalgamation in any form. It would be doubly unjust if any unamalgamated regiment hailed from any area whose future recruiting potential was less optimistic than that prevailing in the north-west.
The MOD requires the King's division to reduce from eight regular infantry battalions to six. The Royal Irish is giving up one. The question is whether the second battalion should come from east or west of the Pennines.
The criteria of the executive committee of the Army Board are clear. Top priority is manning, to ensure that battalions are fully manned in future. The crucial matter is future manning potential—a point made also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). The total number of young men in the target area for the KORBR is better than that in the east of the Pennines. Based on the national census for the 16 to 24-year-old age group, at each five-year point the west will have more young men than the
100
east from which to select the numbers that they need. There would be a wider choice from which to recruit the projected 115 men needed per battalion per year to maintain operational levels—and wider choice means better quality.
The next criterion is that, in principle, those regiments that have not been amalgamated until now should be considered for amalgamation before others that have been amalgamated. The west has an unanswerable case. Not only have all the regiments to the west of the Pennines previously been amalgamated, in 1959, but two to the east have never been amalgamated. It would be wrong to inflict further amalgamation on the west while two in the east remained unamalgamated.
Another criterion is geographical representation. If the KORBR goes, Cumbrians will have no county regiment in which to enlist, which would be contrary to the ECAB criteria.
The final criterion is territorial links with the Territorial Army. West of the Pennines, each of the three regiments has one regular and one Territorial Army battalion. The east has only a regular battalion. The Yorkshire Territorial Army elected to be separate, so it has no kindred identity with the regulars. Moreover, the strength of the Territorial Army in Lancashire was acknowledged two years ago by the provision of a superb new headquarters in Lancaster —the finest in the United Kingdom.
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the delicacy and the sensitivity of the decisions that Defence Ministers and their senior military advisers must take. That is why my right hon. Friend and the Army are to be commended for producing impartial guidelines and criteria for determining which regiments are to be disbanded or amalgamated. I and those of my hon. Friends who represent other constituencies in the north-west studied the guidelines and decided that they were the best possible criteria for the Minister of Defence to use in reducing regimental strength fairly—without any individual regiment using undue influence. As the three regiments west of the Pennines have already been amalgamated and show the best recruiting potential, no changes to them should be made—if the Army's own guidelines are to be followed.
I am not making a special case for the King's Own Royal Border Regiment or the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, or asking for the Army's rules to be bent. Nor do I expect my right hon. Friend to make any announcement tonight. However, I make one demand of his winding-up speech; that he assures the House that the official guidelines produced by the executive committee of the Army Board will be followed in the King's division in the north of England.
If my right hon. Friend does not give me that assurance, there will be grave suspicion that some generals are bending the rules to favour the eastern side of the Pennines and some unamalgamated regiments there—and then the fat will really be in the fire. However, if my right hon. Friend assures me that the Army will follow its own rules, I am delighted to tell him that the young men of north-west England will continue to serve Queen and country as proud members of their county regiments, just as they have always done.
8.40 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I have been listening almost as a bystander in the debate between Government Back-Benchers and Ministers. It has been almost a case of the poll tax revisited. The Government will have a lot of trouble on their hands dealing with the legitimate aspirations of the supporters of county regiments. I wonder whether it is right to concede the argument automatically that Army numbers should be reduced, and therefore to fight over the bones that are left—"My regiment before that of anyone else."
One of the strongest cases made so far was that advanced by the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) who argued conclusively that we will not be able to discharge our military obligations in wartime if the Army is reduced to the level proposed by the Government. I may add that we will be unable to discharge our peacetime obligations with the numbers that the Government envisage. That is the crux of the matter.
One is usually embarrassed about repeating cliches, but that used by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) deserves to be repeated time and time again. I refer to her remark that the peace dividend is peace itself. Since 1970, whatever Government have been in office, defence expenditure has fallen, by a total of 19·2 per cent., and manpower by 33·4 per cent. One may concede that in 1970 we were overdefended or overcommitted, but one wonders how far one can go before reaching bottom.
Unless the Government are prepared to abandon Britain's commitments, which would be difficult, the Army and the armed forces of the future will be so overstretched that they will be a paper Army, Navy and Air Force. Last July, I asked the Secretary of State how, if the Royal Navy could not discharge its obligations with a force of "about 50 frigates and destroyers, it would do so with about 40" —and we know that the figure will really be 34 or 35. The same applies in respect of the Army.
Over the years, we have made the decision to have one of the smallest armies in NATO. A United States report on allied contributions to common defence published in May 1991 shows that, in terms of active duty, military and civilian manpower, and committed reserves in NATO and Japan, as a percentage of total population, Britain comes twelfth. It is clear to me, as it must be to anyone, that our armed forces, having been at a high level in 1970, have fallen to a level below which it will be difficult to sustain Britain's future military defence.
The threat today is not that which existed two or three years ago, for it has moved much farther east. While I am delighted by the actions of President Gorbachev, I refer the House to a paper by a Soviet general who has not been made redundant by today's abandonment of the Warsaw pact—General Lobov, a senior member of his country's General Staff. He reported that the Soviet military was being disadvantaged by the conventional forces in Europe treaty and suggested several solutions—and I am sure that he was writing not as an isolated member of the Soviet General Staff but on its behalf.
General Lobov's prescription is to improve combat training; effect the transition to a contract system—that is, professionalisation—for manning; maintain headquarters and war time strength in peace time; search for new forms of co-operation on defence issues with the armies of former allies; and improve mobilisation capacity under the new economic conditions.
102
General Lobov also calls for a rapid reaction force based east of the Urals—that is, outside the CFE treaty area. He cites the United States' rapid deployment force, numbering 444,000, as an example. He also argues for a blue water navy capable of interdicting allied reinforcement. I know General Lobov very well—he does not hide his views—and I suggest that we need to be a little cautious about developments in the Soviet Union.
Perhaps a few years from now, the situation will be beyond doubt. President Gorbachev may have control over the military, and the CFE, START 1, and START 2 treaties, and others, may have been implemented. If so, we will be able to perceive with certainty that our forces need not be kept at their present level—or even at that now envisaged by the Government. However, I suggest that that time has not yet come. When it does, I will acknowledge it—and hope that everyone else will.
It is a pleasure to speak in any defence debate, and particularly so now, because my views roughly correspond with those of my party. Having listened to the robust speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), and in anticipating the future, I speak with a great deal of pleasure about what has been happening. I listened with pleasure, too, when right hon. and hon. Members strongly defended our armed forces —unlike in many previous debates in the House. It is ironic that the Minister of State's criticism of Labour's nuclear policy is that we are considering cancelling Trident SSBN 08. At one time, we were criticised for our intention to cancel SSBN 05, 06, and 07.
It is legitimate to argue, bearing in mind strategic arms reductions, that three submarines will be feasible. I fully acknowledge that four may be desirable, in case a disaster befalls one of them. However, it may be that by the time the flotilla is at sea, there will be greater co-operation with our French allies, and that the need for many submarines from European nuclear powers to be at sea simultaneously will prove unnecessary. We heard this afternoon that the Navy is cancelling only one submarine, and we must be thankful that it is only one.
Although the threat has changed, it has not been eliminated, and the euphoric response that followed developments in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union has been put on ice. Some people fondly imagined—and still imagine—that armed forces have become superfluous. Some argue even now that our security requirements will be encompassed and satisfied by some new world order, the United Nations, the CSCE process, and, more implausibly, the European Community. However, we will not be able to meet our full security requirements unless we maintain a high commitment in the future, as we have in the past, to NATO.
That is not just because that commitment will prevent unilateralism—and I do not use that word in the old sense —or because, if there were any so-called EC alternative, to do otherwise might sever the link between Europe and North America—which would be a catastrophe in every sense of the word. It is because those who aspire to a European defence order now are being somewhat premature, by at least a decade.
The year 1991 has been seen as critical for NATO. How will NATO be able to agree and to implement a new political and military strategy in response to an environment in Europe characterised by both positive and negative phenomena? The way in which NATO has adapted, even before the London declaration, has been

103
quite incredible. It has shown relevance and that it is not prepared to wither away in empathy with the decline of the Warsaw pact NATO is relevant, easy to justify and is not merely wanted by most EC countries; its existence is earnestly desired by many of our former adversaries in eastern Europe, who certainly knew that its existence underpinned their security.
The second critical issue for 1991 will be whether the historic process—building down the east-west military confrontation—continues or whether there will be any major setbacks.
The third major area of concern in 1991 involves what lessons Europe will draw from its mixed experience during the Gulf crisis. In my humble view, that experience would not lead one to the conclusion that NATO will be supplanted by the EC.
8.50 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: I look back upon a regimental career which started in the East Surrey regiment and continued in the Royal Fusiliers, the 43rd —the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry —the King's African Rifles, and ended in the Parachute regiment. If I embarked upon special pleading tonight, I could go on for quite some time, but I would not include the King's African Rifles.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is absolutely right to set parameters for the reduction especially in the infantry and, to leave it to the professionals to decide, but then he has to make the final decision. I cannot understand why any hon. Member on either side of the House should object to that. The last thing that I want is to see politicians making the initial decisions. Let the professionals do it; that is what they are paid for, and for which they have the expert knowledge.
I take issue with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and other Ministers over the levels set, especially for the infantry. It is not merely the Queen's or Scottish divisions which are worried; every soldier I talk to believes that we are cutting our infantry far too hard and fast. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) in saying that 38 battalions would be much nearer the mark. The Minister would have given his professionals a much easier task if he had given that figure.
There is no doubt that the British infantry is of the finest quality in the world. It is part of our material for war, but such quality cannot be achieved overnight. It can be achieved with machines. One can stop a tank production line, press a button and start the line producing again. However, once one loses quality manpower one is left high and dry because it will take at least a year to begin retraining, and I doubt whether one could do so even then.
The quality of our infantry and the special quality of our airborne soldiers has been recognised and respected world wide. Without that quality, the Falklands campaign would have failed. There would have been no Goose Green and no Darwin. Without that quality, we could not have played such a magnificent part in the Iraqi campaign. The Royal Fusiliers were there in strength and played their part very well indeed. Without that quality, we certainly would not have been allocated the prime task that we have been given within the rapid reaction force. Every hon. Member can be proud of that role.
104
My message is that the cuts are too deep and are in the wrong place. That case was argued very well by John Keegan in an article in The Daily Telegraph today which many hon. Members may have seen. He says that an infantry battalion costs about £15 million a year, in round figures. I hope that the review of the other arms of the service bears that figure in mind. In the article, he mentions that the intelligence corps has 1,600 soldiers and exists
"to interrogate enemy prisoners and to exercise 'field security' in time of European war."
Let us have a good hard look at that. A hard look, too, at the education corps—never my favourite—might provide us with another battalion. The chaplains' department must cost another £15 million: and then there are 200 dentists and 700 doctors—one to every 220 soldiers in the Army. That is where the cuts must be made first and foremost. Leave our infantry battalions alone where that is possible and let them remain at full strength. The infantry must hold pride of place in the Army of the future and I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) in his place because I know that he will support me in that argument.
If there are to be reductions they must never be on the basis of shared misery. That is no way to retain the quality of which we are so proud. Quality is the key, and we must ensure that it is kept both within a reduced regular infantry strength and within the Territorial Army which will still have a vital role to play.
Many hon. Members have been kind tonight to mention the territorial battalions of airborne forces—for example, the fourth battalion of the Parachute Regiment, which is a TA battalion. I must also mention the 15th battalion in Scotland, another magnificent battalion. Not one of the soldiers who are so happy to be recruited into the 15th battalion would look at any other TA battalion. They want to be airborne soldiers and we can say goodbye to them if we do not keep them as airborne soldiers. Then all that quality will disappear.
When considering quality and our regular Army, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, there cannot be any cut in the strength of the Parachute Regiment, the brigade headquarters and its supporting arms within fifth Airborne Brigade.
I also worry about the provisions of the right sort of training for a specialist force such as the Parachute Regiment. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that they would move junior regiments from Aldershot and that there would be amalgamation. One cannot amalgamate junior soldiers in the Parachute Regiment or parachute soldiers in training with ordinary infantry. I am not being unkind to the infantry, but that would be a desperate waste of money because they would start at one level of training and then move to a much higher standard.
Proper provision for the right sort of training for airborne soldiers is crucial. I will not say that the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines are the key to the future of our ground forces, but they both have a crucial role. In general, I am a great supporter of the Royal Marines. We need an undertaking, however, that there will be no difference between the training given to the Royal Marines and that provided for airborne forces. We must also look carefully at the establishment levels of the Royal Marines, which are enormous in comparison with that of our Airborne Brigade.

105
Everyone has, of course, made it clear that special pleading is not the order of the day, but, if we are to maintain quality, that exemplary regiment, the Devon and Dorsets—with its fine recruiting record—must surely be retained. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree. If anything happens to that regiment, there will be the devil to pay.
There is still time to think again. At the very least, we should consider retaining between 38 and 40 battalions rather than the 34 that are now envisaged. If cuts must be made, let them be made "at the back end". Let me finish on a lighthearted note: that might even leave room, at last, for a decent gymnasium in the Ministry of Defence.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We have half an hour before the winding-up speeches are expected to begin. It will be evident that many hon. Members still wish to speak. I hope that speeches will continue to be short.
9 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: Let me start with a few brief words about my constituency.
Woolwich has been a military town since Henry VIII set up his dockyard there in 1515. The Woolwich arsenal was established in 1671, and Woolwich has been the cradle of the Royal Artillery ever since, having maintained a close involvement with it since its formation in 1716.
Since the Royal Ordnance factory closed in 1967, the main employer on the Woolwich arsenal site has been the Directorate-General of Defence Quality Assurance, which was referred to earlier. Throughout the 1970s, the directorate was beset with uncertainty about the possible dispersal of its work away from London.
In the early 1980s, money, time and effort were invested in planning the reorganisation of the arsenal site: that included the investment of £300,000 in the design of a new quality assurance headquarters. On 12 April 1984, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, wrote to reassure me about the future of the arsenal. The letter said that
"in the foreseeable future"
a move
"would be very expensive. It, therefore, looks as if there will be a QA presence at Woolwich for a very long time."
Less than five years later, another Minister who had done a different set of sums decided that it made financial sense to move quality assurance from Woolwich to Teesside. Since then, that decision has been subjected to scrutiny; now no one seems to know where the directorate will end up. We are expecting people to do their work with uncertainty hanging over them year after year. It is about time that the MOD made a firm decision about where quality assurance will finally lay its weary head.
The people of Woolwich had, I think, come to terms with the loss of the arsenal from 1993 onwards; but, in the past few weeks, we have read stories in the press about the transfer of the Royal Artillery from Woolwich to Larkhill. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces assures me that no decisions have been made; I note, however, that if the RA left Woolwich, that would mark the end of nearly 500 years of service to the armed forces on the part of the local people.
106
I am not indulging in a special pleading. I accept that we cannot live in the past; I realise that our armed forces must be organised in a cost-effective way. But, as the forces become smaller, many communities throughout the country will find that historic and military links are suddenly severed. I hope that the Government will recognise the resulting problems, and will handle them with sympathy and sensitivity.
The Select Committee reported on the multiple-launch rocket system in March, and the Government replied in May. MLRS was deployed to great effect in the Gulf: we all saw pictures on television showing its awesome fire power as the salvoes of rockets were launched. Later, we heard of the shattering effect of those rockets on the morale of the Iraqi troops as each delivered 644 anti-personnel bomblets on the target.
We should recognise that the Army was lucky that MLRS was available in time. The decision—made in 1985—that it should be built on a collaborative basis in Europe, rather than being purchased from the United States, led to a four-year deferment of the in-service date. Our report recognised—and the Government's reply emphasised these factors—that European production would bring some £300 million worth of work to United Kingdom companies, and would introduce a second source of supply. As our report observed, however,
"These benefits have to be weighed against the disadvantage of the four-year delay in the in-service date."
Without MLRS, the effectiveness of the British Army in the Gulf would have been much reduced.
Three versions of MLRS are in production or under development. When the Select Committee reported, the MOD was uncertain about its requirement for all of them. I am glad that the Government have decided that they require sufficient MLRS1 launchers and ammunition to supply three regiments, as envisaged in the earlier plans. We said in our report that the completion of the review of our requirement for MLRS2 rockets was urgent. I therefore welcome the Minister's announcement this afternoon.
MLRS3, the anti-tank munition, is at an earlier stage of development. It is progressing well and we are pleased that the MOD has learnt several lessons from the first two versions. The greatest threat so far has been doubt about the United States' commitment to the project. The Defence Select Committee wrote in April to the chairman of the Senate's appropriation sub-committee and the Senate subsequently approved the funds. Its chairman assured us that our letter had been a crucial factor in reaching that decision. I am sure that he wrote the same to everybody else who approached him.
The Phoenix remotely piloted vehicle is intended to assist the location of targets for MLRS and other artillery. Phoenix has been severely delayed for 32 months by development problems, which, thankfully, have been overcome. The difference is that MLRS just made it to the Gulf but Phoenix did not. That was an enormous pity because Phoenix would have been of much assistance to our artillery. We look forward to introduction into service soon.
Our report on the attack helicopter, which has been published today, recognises that the MOD is right to abandon its attempt to combine the attack helicopter and the armed reconnaissance helicopter roles. The collaborative land attack helicopter project, which cost the MOD no more than £3·5 million, proved that that involved too

107
many compromises. The MOD is rightly concentrating on preparing the staff requirement for the attack helicopter, which will be purchased off the shelf from abroad. The Defence Select Committee has always doubted whether the United Kingdom's requirement needed to be met by a new development programme.
Today's report also covers the third-generation anti-tank guided weapons systems that are being developed collaboratively, mainly with Germany and France. We are concerned about the length of time that is being taken to develop those systems. The medium-range, man-portable version is taking eight years, while the helicopter vehicle-mounted, long-range version is a 10-year programme. The Committee concludes:
"The TRIGAT weapons systems are undoubtedly technically quite advanced, but we doubt whether the complexity of the task justifies such lengthy periods of development."
We are concerned that the MOD has yet to decide which attack helicopter or land vehicle it will procure. These decisions are important to TRIGAT's development progress and must not be delayed much longer. The choice of an attack helicopter and its principal anti-armour weapon will be crucial for the Army's strength in the decade ahead.
Faced with dramatic changes in Europe and the need to scale down the size of Britain's forces, the Government could have decided to abandon some military capability and to opt for a policy of role specialisation with our European allies. That would have meant depending on our allies to perform tasks that the British forces had previously done for themselves. The Government have chosen to maintain existing British military capability, but at a lower level. On balance, I think that that decision is probably correct. Having argued for role specialisation in the past, I must now recognise that the scope for such change is limited. The Gulf war showed us clearly that the interests of European nations are not identical and that not all our allies can be relied on in the complex crises that have replaced the clarity of the former east-west conflict.
The cost of maintaining a wide range of diverse military capabilities will be substantial. Smaller forces, flexible enough to meet unpredictable challenges, must, as we all recognise, be well trained, well equipped and, above all, well motivated. That is not a cheap option. The worst of all worlds would be for British forces to find themselves smaller but still overstretched in an effort to cover too many roles and too many responsibilities. The new position offers us the chance to match, at long last, the resources of our armed forces to the tasks that we expect them to carry out. That, rather than a crude cost-cutting exercise, must be what we do in this operation.
9.9 pm
Mr. John Browne: Today I brought my top hat into the Chamber, for three reasons. The first is that we are witnessing the funeral of the British infantry —and here I disagree with some hon. Members who have spoken on that issue. Secondly, this is largely being done by a massive conjuring trick. Of course, one could produce a live rabbit from a top hat, but not from one that has been squashed flat and has become so small that it does not have credibility. My third reason is the great injustice that has been done to the three mutilated Grenadiers and many
108
other service men who have not been properly compensated. I propose to wear my top hat in the Chamber until there is justice for those soldiers.
The speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister was disappointing—I would have given it the title "Thanks for the Memory". But my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Secretary of State deserve sincere thanks for saving the regimental system, which was under question. They also deserve sincere praise for negotiating with our NATO allies our role in the rapid reaction corps. That was a very major achievement.
My right hon. Friend the Minister also deserves sympathy. I am about to criticise, but in the understanding that any reorganisation and any cuts involve difficulties. It is a darn tough job and this is a highly charged political issue.
First, cuts, like expansion, must be justified and, secondly, they must be sensibly made.
Mr. Gorbachev's peace challenge has changed the very nature of strategic peace itself from nuclear deterrence, under which we lived for 45 years—to a large extent under the nuclear wing of the United States eagle—to a peace of detente.
Although there have been great changes, I question whether there has been any significant lessening of the threat. Under the old threat, we knew its identity, probably the Warsaw pact; we knew its direction, from the east; and we knew the killing zone, in Europe. Now we do not know the identity, direction or potential killing zone. Who on 1 July last year would have expected the Gulf crisis? Today we look at the possibilities of a military backlash in the Soviet Union, of unrest in Europe and of mass immigration from eastern Europe to the EEC.
There are many lessons to be learned from the Gulf, a few of which I shall highlight. First, logistics are the essential oxygen of the modern high-intensity battlefield. Secondly, if one is not high-tech, one is dead. Third, it is difficult, if not impossible initially, to employ reserve forces in the front line teeth arms of a modern battlefield.
Mr. John Wilkinson: They certainly were deployed in the Gulf war. What about the United States National Guard?
Mr. Browne: I am sorry, but I am rushing against the clock.
We were told that in future we would deploy small, lightly equipped units, but in the Gulf crisis we deployed large, heavily equipped formations. The gap between warning time and response time was vital—we were lucky to get some six months.
The most important lesson was that the United Kingdom formations in Germany were not battle ready. Three armoured divisions were denuded to provide just two armoured brigades which were battle ready. The ratio was 9:2 in terms of men, ammunition, equipment and spare parts. It exemplified the fact that, for decades, we were sold third-party insurance in terms of our military defence. Successive Governments cut and said that it would make no difference, but it has made a difference. If the Government really believe that peace alone is not enough and that we demand peace with freedom, and therefore that defence is their primary duty, they owe it to the country to deliver comprehensive defence insurance.
Today's Army is not battle ready and is overstretched, and yet it is proposed to cut it by another one third. I have

109
yet to hear what change in strategy, threat or task justifies that. The Chief Constable of Northern Ireland asked for another two battalions, but we cannot provide them. If we have a rapid reaction corps, we must have battle-ready divisions—we no longer want the type of divisions that sat undermanned and underequipped in Germany. Cuts must be constructive. They must be built up from the intended strategy and roles of the armed forces. They must concentrate on quality, cost-effectiveness and the best-suited assets. We now have a director of infantry who has called for equal pain, for pro rata, across-the-board cuts. I mean no disrespect to the Opposition but that is socialism—socialism in uniform. I have never heard of anything so fatuous or damaging to the armed forces.
If we are after quality, why do we consider cutting the Parachute Regiment, the Household division and the Gurkhas? If we are after suitability, why are we cutting five British battalions in order to retain the Gurkhas? Why are we cutting the large regiments, which we want, but saving the small ones? Pro rata cuts are utter nonsense and very damaging.
I turn to the Household division. A cut of three battalions is proposed for the Household division, but it has already lost two battalions in the previous cuts. It has a dual role—it has public duties and performs an active role, which is vital for recruitment for the whole division. Thirty per cent. of the Household division took part in the Gulf war. It is an extremely cost-effective division. First, it is made up of large regiments. Secondly, it earns money. Tourist income in Britain amounted to some £5·5 billion last year and, in view of the posters seen worldwide, what would be a fair estimate of the division's contribution to that sum—20 or 10 per cent? Even if one takes the lower figure, 10 per cent. represents £550 million that is earned by the Household division. Therefore, I believe that it is largely self-financing. The ceremonial uniforms for the entire division cost less than one tank.
As for quality, would it raise the quality of the British Army to cut three footguards battalions? Such a question is unbelievable. History proves it to be nonsense.
Why is a general—the poor chap whom I have criticized—the director of infantry—playing such a highly charged political role? I believe that, as many hon. Members have said, it is because my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have abdicated their responsibility for what is a very difficult political decision. In making that decision, my right hon. Friend must consider the concept of the critical mass—in this case, the critical mass of military credibility. I believe that the Army is already down to that critical mass and that the proposed cuts would go below it.
I turn now to the injured Grenadiers. Their story is well-known and I shall not waste time repeating it. The Government have decided not to make an ex gratia payment. They have challenged the three mutilated Grenadiers to take on the mighty Ministry of Defence, which has shrouded itself in secrecy. The Ministry of Defence still holds the crucial evidence on which the outcome will rely—the inquiry's report—and it is scandalous that it is still a classified document and not yet available to the Grenadiers' legal representatives.
It is interesting that the Government keep assuring the House that no one was to blame for the incident. How is it possible to know that no one was to blame for an unexploded shell lying for five years on a range over which people have walked and which has been dug? The board of inquiry was not asked even to investigate why the shell was
110
there, so it did not report on negligence in that respect. I believe that justice will not be done until my right hon. Friend assures the House that the board of inquiry's report will be made available and that the inquiry itself will be reopened.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposed meetings with the Grenadiers' legal representatives, but they are not enough. We want either the ex gratia payment or the reopening of the board of inquiry. This would create a precedent, but why are the Government so worried about precedents'? They are worried because there are tens of soldiers now in civilian life who have not received the correct compensation. They should have fair compensation, so of course we are striving to create a precedent because in this case it would be a good precedent.
I have already taken enough of the House's time, so I shall sit down.
9.19 pm
Mr. Ken Eastham: I realise. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are all expected to try to be brief, and I therefore propose to touch on only three issues—Ministry of Defence contracts, the alternative strategy and a matter relating to service men.
As an engineer, I readily welcome the contract placed for the Challenger 2 tank, which will greatly assist Newcastle and Leeds. The Challenger is a good tank—an efficient machine—and I also believe that we should buy British wherever possible. Having said that, I think that the Government should look to the future and realise that the contracts will last for only the next two or three years. We ought to consider our future strategy on how to provide work for defence workers in various parts of the country. We have often talked about the peace dividend, and we should remember that these are serious matters both for workers and for the nation as a whole. We cannot expect that the Ministry of Defence will be placing large orders for ever—the days of large contracts are gone—and, that being so, we should seriously consider our strategy for the peace dividend.
My second point concerns the serious question of what is happening to the industrial south. The House will recall that during the last recession most of the defence jobs lost were based in the north, but now job losses are occurring in the south. That is something new. Companies such as Westland and British Aerospace are entering a critical period and the consequence will be further massive job losses. Perhaps hon. Members representing southern constituencies are not used to mass unemployment, but there is every indication that job losses will now descend on the south. I draw attention in particular to the large British Aerospace factory in Kingston. I have a letter from the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, which has made some proposals for a sky park to help to alleviate the massive 3,200 job loss which will affect not only that factory but businesses in the area, both large and small. The same is true of many other areas in the south.
I am the secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union parliamentary group. I get tired of the increasing frequency with which people from the southern counties appeal to us to make representations about their jobs. It would be a healthy thing if Conservative Members from

111
the southern counties started to take note of the growing problem, which will primarily affect the engineering industry.
My third point concerns service men and personnel. Numerous hon. Members have spoken with great pride about the quality, loyalty and efficiency of our service men, saying what great people they are. A constituent of mine, Mr. H. A. Pickering, joined the forces as a boy soldier at the age of 17. Until that time he had had no other employment. He then went into the senior force and was posted to Munster in West Germany. He had been there for only six or eight weeks and was on sentry duty when, at the age of 19, he was shot up by the IRA in a terrorist attack. His legs were seriously injured and he received 11 machine gun bullet wounds. He was given 25 pints of blood and ultimately was discharged from the Army with a 50 per cent. disability.
That case was drawn to my attention in March. I made some inquiries about how that young man was managing because he had no family to go to. Some friends of mine took him in without any assistance. That young boy was having a very difficult time. I made inquiries about his benefits and discovered that he was initially receiving £83 a month from the German Government, £24·14 minus tax from the Army and £114 per month from the Department of Social Security. According to my calculations, that young lad was receiving less than £53 a week on which to live. Since my inquiries with the Minister, the Army pension has been increased to £144 a month, although that will still be taxed as before. He also received a princely lump sum of £2,578.
That young lad is now 21. He would normally have expected to work for the next 40 years. I am extremely disappointed and dissatisfied about the treatment that he has received from the Government. I wrote to the MOD and received a letter from the Earl of Arran dated 20 June. He wrote:
"I am afraid that there is no appeal procedure against the rates of pension paid out under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme."
I thought about that lump sum of about £2,500 and the meagre monthly payment that that young man is receiving and I wondered what kind of a lump sum someone would expect to receive if he was involved in a serious motor accident. I also thought about what happens in the police force. Police work is hazardous. I made inquiries and was told that the police can receive two benefits—industrial injuries payments and criminal injuries compensation. However, that is not the case for the poor young lad who gave his best in the Army about which so many talk with pride. The Army offers very little compensation in such circumstances.
I get a little sick when I watch those great victory parades with people marching down the streets as bands play and flags fly. Although medals are given out, we never hear about the young fellows who have given their all, but have received virtually nothing in compensation.
I appeal to the Minister to review the appeal procedures for unfortunate people such as the young man whom I have described. Those people have given so much and are obviously receiving so little. It is about time that the MOD made changes through the Treasury so that those people can receive adequate compensation which would at least
112
place them on the same footing as anyone else who suffers injury. This is a complete disgrace and the Minister has a lot to answer for.
9.29 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: I was appalled by the behaviour of the Government Front-Bench Members when my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) outlined the case of his constituent who was badly wounded and received such sad, sorry and shabby treatment from Ministers.
The Secretary of State does not like this matter at all. He started off by muttering from a sedentary position when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was discomforted by criticisms that were made of him on television—criticisms that were echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Minister's discomfort reached appalling levels during the debate. If the television programme misrepresented his position—[Interruption.] Even if the press release misrepresented his position, I watched the television programme and heard the Minister say that they should get jobs in which they do not need to use their legs, or words to that effect. If I have misunderstood it, I am sure that many other people have also misunderstood it. If the Minister does not like it, he has recourse to the courts to settle it. He does not have to come here to justify his position and waste the time of the House by making what was basically a personal statement on the issue.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) has highlighted the Government's position in the shabby sequence of events in which they participated. I am not at all surprised, because they reached the depths of shabbiness and contemptibility in their attack on the Labour party's position on the Gulf war. The Minister said that Labour shirked the fight and shirked the war. However, his right hon. Friends the present and previous Prime Ministers thanked the Labour party and the House for the solidarity that had been shown to our armed forces during the Gulf conflict. The Minister made a pathetic attempt to pick up a few votes.
A policy decision has been taken in the Conservative party to attack the Labour party on defence. That is fine; we are happy to justify our position. [Interruption.] Our position is a darn sight stronger than that of the Secretary of State, especially when, as three or four hon. Members have pointed out, his generals were engaged in a Pontius Pilate act in the reorganisation of the Army. Because he is afraid of the political consequences, he handed over the decision to the colonels and the generals. That is not my criticism; that has been said by the Secretary of State's right hon. and hon. Friends.
The previous Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Gentleman—I use the word "gentleman" advisedly, because he was a gentleman in his conduct of the business of the Ministry of Defence—paraphrased his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and told the Secretary of State for Defence how he should go about his business. He said—he can check the record tomorrow —how he should continue the process, which is exactly what the previous Prime Minister said to the present Prime Minister. The wisdom of the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is needed by the House. When Ministers are running and electorally scared, they need the cool,

113
calm wisdom of senior members of their party with a little experience—for example, the former Secretary of State for Defence. He put his finger right on it.
All hon. Members have asked about the criteria used in cutting the strength of the Army. We have had no answer to that question. At no time over the past few months have Ministers put forward any proposals.
I must plead a special interest: I am a former member of the Welsh Regiment and of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, but I shall not again put the case for the fusiliers, since it was so ably put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—
Mr. Martyn Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I know that he is embarrassed because of his position as a former member of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, but as one from Wrexham, the regimental headquarters of that regiment, I should like to put the case on his behalf. It is ridiculous that a country the size of Wales should be cut down to one regiment, given that we recruit so well and constitute such a high proportion of the Army's numbers.
Mr. Rogers: I agreed to make a short wind-up speech so I will not reiterate the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon. The Welsh dimension in this matter is unique. Seven per cent. of the Army's requirements are recruited from Wales—there is no problem with recruitment, therefore. I see that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is in his place; he represents a Welsh-speaking constituency, so he knows that at least 40 per cent. of the Royal Welch Fusiliers speak Welsh.
If we believe in a regimental system at all, we should keep the Royal Welch Fusiliers. Recruitment, morale and the relationships between comrades from the same community, living and working together in danger—all are improved under the regimental system, so If suggest that the Secretary of State reconsider the case of the Royal Welch Fusilisers.
Having discharged my obligation to my old regiment, I wish to turn to some of the speeches that we have heard today. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) talked of a crude Treasury carve-up of the Army. He was right. Everyone knows that these cuts are Treasury driven, not strategically driven. We are worried about that lack of appraisal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) talked about how regiments help former members. The regimental system is the backbone of the British Army and it would be a sad day if it were ever done away with. In a small way, I have had reason to be grateful to the Welsh Regiment benevolent fund—after I emerged from the Army. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made much the same point in a telling speech.
The former Secretary of State for Defence, in a superb speech, told the Government how they should behave. I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from him before he leaves the House. I also pay tribute to the speech by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who made a thoughtful and constructive contribution. He and I have often crossed swords on defence matters, but I found his speech extremely thought provoking.
Opposition Members do not need to criticise the Government. In today's debate, Conservative Members have said that we may put the armed forces in such a state
114
that they will be unable to fight; and that we had to strip down our forces in Germany so as to be able to fight in the Gulf—because they were not properly equipped.
The Government's failure to implement a correct procurement policy on the basis of competitive tendering is destroying proper procurement methods. The hon. Member for South Dorset said, significantly, that he would not award credit marks for the decision-making in the Ministry of Defence. When will the Minister produce his paper on "Options for Change" for civilians and civil servants? We have one for the Air Force, one for the Army and one for the Navy and we want to know when they are coming forward.
Mr. Tom King: Probably next week.
Mr. Rogers: That information is a substantial step forward. We have at least had one announcement from the Secretary of State. The most telling remark made by the hon. Member for South Dorset was that within the Conservative party and within the House—the forums where there ought to be discussion—there has been no strategic discussion of the major issues. The role of the armed forces and of the Army has not been identified, but these cuts will fall anyway.
We naturally paid great attention to what the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) said after his valiant service in the Gulf. We pay tribute to those who received honours last week. I mention that in particular because we were appalled by the shabby and contemptible attack by the Minister, who tried to divide the House on an issue on which it had not been divided throughout the war. As the hon. Member for Wimbledon said after returning from the Gulf, our forces out there were pleased to know that they had the backing of the whole House. That makes the Minister's statement more contemptible. I am sure that he will live to regret politically what he said.
What the Government are doing is appalling, particularly when they know that before the war, and for part of the war, British arms were going into Iraq and Jordan. A wholly owned Government subsidiary, International Military Services, had a secret deal with the Iraqis. The Minister has denied that at Question Time, but we shall see who told lies in this matter. I am not using the word lies tonight, Mr. Speaker, but lies have been peddled about other matters in the arms trade with Iraq, as will be shown over the next few weeks.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) made a plea for the Territorial and reserve forces, a point made time and again by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Last year, the Government said that if they reduced the regular forces, they would rely more on Territorials and reservists, so why are they now cutting reserve forces? What is the point of having such forces if they cannot fulfil their obligations?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) spoke about compensation for the Grenadiers and other injured service men. I appeal to the Government to look at this matter again, as more and more evidence comes out of the plight of service men, particularly the person mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley. That case needs looking at again.
When I attempted to intervene constructively in the Minister's speech—he would not give way—I wanted to ask him a question that has since been brought up by other hon. Members: how do three legless service men take on

115
the might of the Ministry of Defence? The Minister has said that they can go to court and the lawyers can sort the matter out, but who would fund the case? I know that, for able-bodied people, going to court and being involved in legal issues is a great trauma. However, for disabled ex-service men it must be traumatic to think that, as a result of a tragic accident that took place during their service to their country, they now have to go through the court procedure once again. The Minister has said that the matter has been handed over to the lawyers. That is rather like the answer that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) who asked a question about insurance policies. The Minister replied:
"The Department has, however, arranged for service men to have access to various commercial insurance policies at advantageous premium rates"—[Official Report, 28 June 1991; Vol 193, c. 580.]
What a way to treat our service men. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is right to talk about what happens after the flags start waving, the band starts playing and the service men march while the Secretary of State wraps himself in the union jack and takes all the credit for what has gone on. What is left is the human debris that result from tragic accidents. Those people are forced to go to court and through the legal system to get proper compensation.
9.45 pm
Mr. Archie Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
First, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) once again on having gone to the Gulf. I do not know whether hon. Members realise it, but I am afraid that the Army records with his name on as a reservist were not completely accurate. My hon. Friend was down as a reservist with the Life Guards rather than as a medical officer. The Life Guards recruit all its medical officers directly, whereas many other units of the British Army take their medical officers from the Royal Army Medical Corps. In the circumstances, it would not have been necessary for my hon. Friend to volunteer for service in the Gulf, and I believe that it was particularly creditable of him to put his name forward when it was not necessary to do so.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) raised a number of questions, one of which related to the EOD squadron in Kuwait, which is working there in support of Royal Ordnance. The hon. Member made a number of points about the deployment of that squadron, but this is not the first time that service men have supported British firms. I agree that that has not happened in the particular circumstances of Kuwait, but there has been a tendency in the Ministry of Defence to give support to British firms. We are proud to do so.
It is obvious that Royal Ordnance would not have got the contract had it not been for the support given to it by the Royal Engineers. From the time of the liberation of Kuwait the Royal Engineers have provided emergency humanitarian relief to Kuwaitis, including the clearance of unexploded ordnance. 21 EOD squadron will ensure a smooth handover to Royal Ordnance, giving it some time to assemble its team which will continue to work after the Royal Engineers return to the United Kingdom.
116
The sappers' task will involve predominantly making safe ordnance, aircraft bombs and military booby traps, but only where no greater risk arises than is acceptable in peacetime operations. That task will also include the provision of advice to Royal Ordnance and its work force.
Explosive disposal is by its nature hazardous, but the Ministry of Defence has stipulated that the officer commanding has the right to refuse any task he believes to involve greater risk than in peacetime. He has already exercised his authority over requests to clear ordnance within the oilfields.
The deployment is for a transitional period of four months, by which time we expect Royal Ordnance to be fully capable of assuming the whole task. This is a unique situation requiring a flexible, practical response and is unlikely to be repeated.
It was very agreeable to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) speaking in the debate. This is probably the first time that he has spoken in a defence debate since he ceased to be my Secretary of State. I welcome him back here. I should like to get the statistics right on the number of Scottish personnel who served in the Gulf. We reckon that Scottish personnel accounted for about 9 per cent. of the Army's presence in the Gulf, and that about 5 per cent. of the Army as a whole is Scottish. Certainly the Scottish presence in the Gulf represented a larger percentage than that in the Army as a whole. We owe a great debt to the Scottish regiments and the Scottish service men for the role that they played.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr made a number of constructive points on the reduction in the size of the Army. I assure him that in reaching final decisions on the Army's future structure we will take into account all relevant factors. In particular, we shall have regard to the need to produce a fully manned and fully effective force. I know that he realises that even with our reduced Rhine Army it will continue to make a contribution to the Northern Ireland roulement, as will other units in the rapid reaction corps, which will be based in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) talked about the importance of our reserves. I know that the future of the Territorial Army is a subject of great importance to many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I can assure the House that we are closely examining our military requirements and giving careful thought to TA units having a more general role than at present and providing a framework for expansion in times of increased threat. We are certain that the TA will play a vital part in meeting our future defence needs and that it will retain a challenging role, which it will undertake with accustomed dedication and enthusiasm.
The question arose of proportionate reductions. It is worth saying that the TA depends on the Regular Army for all the training that it receives, and that that is carried out by Regular personnel. If it is necessary, as it is, to reduce the number of Regular personnel, some reduction of the TA is inevitable as well, although it does not have to be proportionate.
Mr. Brazier: My right hon. Friend used the phrase, "retain a challenging role". I serve in the Territorial Army and I have many friends who do so. We in the TA do not feel that there is a real and challenging role for us, and that

117
is leading to the disillusion of so many good TA units. The essence of the role of any force, whether regular or reserve, is that it should be available for war. It is a sad fact that no TA units were sent as units to the Gulf. That is the principal cause of the drop in morale and the reduction in numbers and in attendances within the TA over the past few months.
Mr. Hamilton: I hear what my hon. Friend says. It is not the first time that I have heard that criticism. If we are to embark upon an operation such as the Gulf war, we must take into account that if we call up or use any reservists for such an operation we shall disrupt civilian lives, jobs and so forth. However, members of the TA served as reservists and played a role. We were grateful for what they did.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North talked about surplus Ministry of Defence housing. I assure him that the Government are determined that no more than the minimum and necessary number of service dwellings should be retained. The Army's housing stock is now about 14 per cent. smaller than it was in 1981. However, many empty properties are not suitable for disposal because they are undergoing restoration or repair, or are already earmarked for service families. We are aiming to dispose of a significant number of surplus Army quarters over the next two years. As many of these as possible will be sold to service families through the services discount scheme.
Many hon. Members have taken the opportunity to talk about decisions that are made on regiments, and we have heard of skilful and impressive plans for regiments throughout the land. I must say that there has riot been complete consistency in the arguments that my colleagues and I have been asked to consider. The House wi11 not be surprised to hear that I have nothing to say tonight about the future of individual units. It is right that hon. Members should state their cases, but it is equally right that the Government should not be rushed into premature announcements.
It is important that the Army is being consulted, but there is no question of Ministers shirking their responsibility. The ultimate decision will be taken by Ministers, but, my God, we would get some criticism from Opposition Members if we were not consulting the Army on what its future should be. It is right that we should look to the Army itself to put proposals to us, following which we shall make final decisions. I shall find it regrettable if the vast bulk or the totality of the decisions that have to be made is not in the form of proposals from the Anny. The less that politics is involved in the matter, the better. I believe that the military is in a position to make the best decisions. I hope that it will produce proposals for us that will cover all the decisions that have to be taken.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) raised the difficult issue of the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and the position of those injured before May 1987. As he will recall, it was exceptionally agreed that ex gratia payments should be made for those cases arising between the date of the announcement of the intention to repeal and the repeal itself. The House will recall that, after much debate, it was not possible to make the repeal retrospective; to have done so would have inevitably created unacceptable injustices and anomalies.
118
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South rightly praised the role of the Territorial Army in the Gulf, which I touched on in my opening remarks. He also asked about the arrangements for bounties payable to those serving in the Gulf. The arrangements made for the Gulf reflected the very special circumstances of that campaign. I have to tell my hon. Friend that there are no plans to extend the arrangements to those volunteering for short tours in places where such personnel are regularly posted. My hon. Friend mentioned Northern Ireland, and I am sorry that I cannot meet him on that point.
A number of hon. Members asked about the thinking underlying "Options for Change". There was concern that it might be led by resource restraints rather than by policy. As I explained at length earlier, that fear is unfounded. "Options for Change" is based firmly on an appreciation of the momentous changes under way in Europe. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said that NATO had given serious thought to what the future strategy should be, and in particular the future size of the Army front line has been arrived at by making an informed judgment covering both the needs of purely national tasks, such as the Army's role in Northern Ireland, and the role that we are asked to play in NATO's future force structure. Having determined the appropriate size of our front line in that way, it is essential that we ensure that arms and civilian support are reduced by at least the same scale, and that we are doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden also mentioned the importance of the work undertaken by NATO. The role that will now be played by the United Kingdom is a key one, of which we can be proud. He rightly said that that role will not be cheap. I assure him that we are fully committed to equipping and training our forces properly for their future tasks. The announcement that I made tonight on MLRS2 is another demonstration of that commitment.
That is one reason why it may appear to the House that the reductions in the services for which we are asking are drastic. We want to be able to ensure that the troops that we have are properly funded, that we have a significant equipment budget, that we have sufficient money to spend on the training that the troops need, and that we can meet the accommodation and other aspects of service life that are so important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) mentioned the reduction in our forces in Germany, and asked that our support structures there be reduced. We will be looking hard at the scope for such action. We have already announced the closure of a number of depots in Germany and elsewhere on the continent, and further decisions will be announced. We are determined that the tail will be reduced, although we must not overlook the need to maintain effective support for the teeth of the Army. Recent events in the Gulf have left us in no doubt about the importance of an effective logistics system.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) expressed concern about the efforts to deploy armoured forces to the Gulf. I remind him that we deployed units of war establishment without the level of mobilisation of reserves that would have been available in a major European conflict. The harsh conditions in the Gulf, with the exceptional demand on our equipment and spares, was also an important factor.

119
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North was concerned about what progress had been made with IFF —identification friend and foe—for armoured vehicles, following the A-10 incident. Schemes to fit armoured vehicles with sophisticated electronic identification systems have been considered both by the MOD and by NATO. However, operational analysis has shown that such systems can only complement rather than replace visual identification. An electronic identification system may be attractive, but until complex technical problems have been overcome, such a system is not practical. The need to prevent such tragic incidents occurring in future will be given careful consideration, as we study the conduct of the campaign and the conclusions to be drawn from it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for proper planning and resources for resettlement as the Army reduces in size. Those leaving the Army as that happens will have access to the same level of resettlement support as is provided to all leaving the services at the present. They will receive advice and counselling, and up to 28 days' training, to equip them with new skills or to assist them in transferring their existing skills to the civilian job market.
In addition, they will be able to obtain assistance with finding a new job from the Army resettlement employment liaison service, or from the Officers' Association or Regular Forces Employment Association —both of which receive funding from the Ministry of Defence.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Points of Order
10.1 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After the Prime Minister's understandably long statement this afternoon, you expressed the hope that, given that 35 right hon. and hon. Members wanted to speak in the Army debate, speeches would be kept short —especially those made by members of both Front Benches. As things turned out, the speeches of the Minister for State and of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) together lasted—understandably, because of interventions—100 minutes. Is it not a matter of some concern to the House, when a time limit is imposed on Back-Benchers, that a speech of 56 minutes should be made by the Minister?
When I asked the Leader of the House on 6 June whether there would be any time in tonight's debate for reflection on the Gulf war—of the kind that the House had after the Crimean war, the Jameson raid, and the Falklands war—he replied:
"As I said earlier, when we are debating defence matters, it may be possible to raise some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions."—[Official Report, 6 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 420.]
For many of us, and particularly the dissenters, that has not proved possible.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Member's point.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I like to give way to interventions if possible—and I did so during my speech. I will take guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, if I should not do so in future, to keep my speeches shorter.
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to give the Minister that sort of guidance. By way of general guidance, I suggest that if Departments give their Ministers a 15-minute speech, it may turn out to be a 30-minute speech, whereas a speech intended to last for 30 minutes may take longer. It is a question of self-discipline. If the speeches made by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) had each lasted only 30 minutes, it would have been possible for other hon. Members to be heard.
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to item 9 on the Order Paper, concerning rates of duty on mineral oils, which seeks to set taxes two years in advance—for the first time, without a Bill being put before Parliament. That seems contrary to Standing Order No. 53. Is it in order, therefore, for the House to consider that motion?
Mr. Speaker: I have been informed that motion No. 9 will not be moved tonight.

Church of England (Care of Churches)
Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
10.3 pm
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This is a long and detailed Measure, but essentially it is not complex—and it is both reasonable and desirable in its objectives. It is primarily concerned, as the Ecclesiastical Committee's report makes clear, with the care and conservation of churches and land, and articles belonging to them, in the parishes of the Church of England. Within that overall aim the Measure seeks to secure two broad objectives: first, to strengthen and extend the Church of England's legal and administrative arrangements for the care and conservation of churches; secondly, to extend and reform the general law relating to ecclesiastical courts and their officers.
The background to the Measure is that the Church of England enjoys the privilege of being exempt from secular planning law, for example from listed building consent, so far as repairs, alterations or additions to its parish churches and other consecrated or dedicated buildings is concerned. However, that privilege—known as ecclesiastical exemption—is not unqualified. Those responsible for parish churches—generally parochial church councils and the incumbent—have to secure a form of permission called a faculty before they can undertake any repairs, alterations or additions to their churches.
This measure is required essentially to reinforce and modernise the faculty procedure. It was part of the agreement between Church and state in 1977, which inaugurated the granting of state aid for churches in use, that the Church of England, via its General Synod, undertook to review and improve the operation of that so-called faculty jurisdiction.
Turning briefly to the more detailed provisions of the Measure, it amends legislation in three main areas: care and inspection, which is part II; the amendment of the faculty jurisdiction, in part III; and certain reforms of the ecclesiastical courts, which is also in part III.
The measure provides for the diocesan advisory committee, which advises parochial church councils, and the diocesan chancellor—who is an ecclesiastical judge—on the care and conservation of places of worship, to have a written constitution including provisions for three members who are to be appointed after consultation with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, the various national amenity societies and the relevant local authorities.
The diocesan advisory committee will be required to make an annual report to the diocesan synod and will have its own budget for the first time. Paragraph 3 of schedule 3 amends the Inspection of Churches Measure 1955, requiring a bishop to establish a five-yearly inspection scheme for all churches in his diocese and to extend the scheme to certain valuable or vulnerable articles in churches. The carrying out of inspections is to be extended to chartered building surveyors, in addition to architects.
Clause 12 makes it clear that a consistory court—the diocesan court presided over by the chancellor of the
122
diocese—has power to grant faculties, subject to conditions, and enables the court to grant faculties authorising the archdeacon to carry out, at the petitioner's expense, where he or she has defaulted, the works authorised by the court.
Clause 13 re-enacts section 5 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964 in more concise language, but with the addition of five new provisions. First, the consistory court is empowered to require any party, other than the petitioner, whom it considers responsible for any act or default which led to the faculty proceedings being instituted, to meet the whole or part of the cost of the proceedings and the expenses of any works authorised by the faculty—that is in clause 13(1). Secondly, the clause reinforces an existing power of the court which enables it to add, as a further party to the case, any person alleged to be so responsible—that is for any act or default in respect of which the court proceedings had been initiated —even if that person is an outsider. That is in clause 13(2). The court may also require that person to attend a hearing —clause 13(3)—and may treat failure to attend without reasonable excuse as a contempt of court—clause 13(11).
Thirdly, the consistory court is given power to issue an injunction restraining a person from committing or continuing in an unlawful act in respect of any church, any article belonging to a church or any churchyard in the diocese—that is in clause 13(4). Fourthly, the court is empowered to make a restoration order to restore the position that existed before the unlawful act was committed—that is in clause 13(5)—and a time limit of six years is imposed on certain enforcement proceedings under the clause. In my third and fourth examples, the consistory court may act on its own motion, on the application of the archdeacon or that of any other person who appears to the court to have a sufficient interest.
Clause 15 requires a chancellor, or an archdeacon exercising delegated faculty jurisdiction, to seek the ad vice of the diocesan advisory committee before dealing finally with any faculty matter. Exceptionally, if the chancellor considers what is proposed sufficiently urgent, he may grant a faculty, or issue an injunction, without the committee's advice.
Clause 15 was amended during its consideration by the General Synod to require the chancellor to seek the advice of the diocesan advisory committee, rather than to obtain that advice. That may seem a bit of hair-splitting, but, during consultation with the Department of the Environment and English Heritage, it was pointed out that in certain circumstances a long delay over a faculty could be detrimental to the church fabric, and that, if a reasonable length of time had elapsed since the seeking of the committee's advice—hitherto unforthcoming—the chancellor should have power to go ahead with that advice. That is expected to happen only very rarely, but a measure of flexibility would be provided when the chancellor thought it desirable.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Delay in decision-making can indeed be very damaging to fabric, especialy if it happens over a winter and frost has eaten into stone that may not have been pointed as well as it should have been. Who can make the decision that work must be done quickly, even if all the money is not available? This is a serious problem.
Mr. Alison: The chancellor of the diocese, or the archdeacon and his associated officers, can bypass the diocesan advisory committee for precisely the reason that the hon. Gentleman has so perceptively given. The requirement is that they should seek advice, not that they should obtain it.
Having sought the advice—and its materialisation, for whatever reason, having been delayed—the archdeacon and his relevant fellow officers can bypass it and proceed to implement the vital repairs or other emergency action that may be needed for the reasons, perhaps climatic, that the hon. Gentleman has helpfully cited.
Clause 18 re-enacts, with modifications, section 2(4) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964. It empowers the chancellor to execute an instrument authorising demolition, or partial demolition, of a church without a faculty, in specified emergencies—if, the matter being urgent, there is not enough time for a faculty to be obtained. The terms of the instrument are to supplement, not exclude, any listed-building controls that may be applicable.
Where there is total demolition of a listed church, or where an order for such demolition is proposed, the church will cease to be an ecclesiastical building for ecclesiastical purposes and the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 will apply. Listed building consent will be required in the same way as it would be for a secular building.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the other place questions were asked about the extent of the powers in clause 18 to avoid normal planning constraints and to agree to demolition or partial demolition. Reading between the lines, it was suggested that the Minister who spoke for the Department of the Environment would reconsider the matter. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a considered view on whether clause 18 goes too far?
Mr. Alison: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman —I am coming to that point. I remind him that where full or total demolition is proposed, for which an order must be made in advance, the building ceases to be a ecclesiastical building altogether.
Mr. Hughes: Altogether?
Mr. Alison: The order is the operative factor. Once an order is made, the building ceases to be an ecclesiastical building and therefore automatically falls within the ambit of the full secular law.
Mr. Frank Haynes: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the weather affecting churches. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the beautiful little church in Bolsover was seriously affected by mining subsidence. I remember the arguments and the questions that were being asked in the House about what we were going to do about that beautiful little church. All sorts of things were being said, but in the end the Church Commissioners caved in and did not fight their corner. My question is about churches in mining areas, which can be seriously affected by mining subsidence. Where do we stand?
Mr. Alison: In the context of this Measure, if subsidence occurred in Bolsover or near the hon. Gentleman's constituency that was so detrimental to the parish church that it was about to collapse around the heads of the
124
worshipping congregation, that would be an emergency and the church authorities would wish to secure authority totally to demolish it or it might fall down when people were worshipping. In such circumstances, the church authorities would have to publish an order for its demolition, and from then on it would cease to be an ecclesiastical building and would be subject to the full secular law on listed building control. Normal planning regulations and requirements would apply to the way in which it was handled thereafter.
The point that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made about the availability of compensation for subsidence, though interesting and important, is not within the ambit of the Measure that I am introducing. I would be happy to debate that with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.
Mr. Haynes: The right hon. Gentleman is not doing very well. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not get a great deal of help from the Church Commissioners. The matter dragged on and on. If that could happen in Bolsover, it could happen in any small mining village. The people could end up without a church.
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. I am afraid that we are wandering slightly outside the ambit of the Measure, although I am happy to travel down this road with so important a navigator as the hon. Member for Ashfield.
The hon. Gentleman is slightly unfair to the Church Commissioners. They coughed up plenty of money. It was impossible to do so, except in the context of protracted legal negotiations between the parochial church council, the incumbent of that church and British Coal. Those complicated negotiations involved liability. Such negotiations were unavoidable, but they were concluded and the parish council was well endowed with compensation.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Where there is partial demolition, the ecclesiastical exemption will continue to apply. That does not mean, however, that the chancellor of the diocese will have unfettered discretion. Clauses 18(1) and 18(2) of the Measure mirror the provisions of the 1990 Act, and those requirements must be satisfied before the diocesan chancellor can issue an instrument for partial demolition. The relevant sections of the 1990 Act contain four groups of requirements upon which secular authorities insist in planning law in respect of the demolition of certain listed buildings. Clauses 18(1) and (2) transpose those sections, in effect to apply pari passu to the ecclesiastical authorities within their ecclesiastical exemption and faculty jurisdiction. They will mirror the requirements of secular or state planning law in the functions that are discharged within the scope of ecclesiastical exemption. Therefore, there will be no lack of proper supervision or control as a result of ecclesiastical exemption—the diocesan chancellors will behave exactly as if they were the secular planning authorities.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his careful and clear explanation. This is obviously a matter of general importance involving the conservation of important buildings. Does one conclude from the right hon. Gentleman's comments that the emergency powers granted to a diocesan chancellor in partial demolition cases will not give him any greater power under the church legislation over churches than

125
planning authorities have under equivalent secular planning legislation? Although there are emergency powers, are they equally constrained, or does an emergency give additional rights against which there would be protection in secular planning law?
Mr. Alison: Only partial demolition is relevant in this respect. I believe that the hon. Gentleman and everyone else is satisfied on total demolition. Although some ecclesiastical independence is retained because of ecclesiastical exemption for partial demolition, the ecclesiastical authorities have done exactly what the hon. Gentleman seeks—they have limited themselves as the 1990 Act would have limited them had it applied to them directly.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that there is a delicate balance to be struck between the liturgical needs of parishioners and proper conservation of historic buildings. I suggest that the Measure, which received overwhelming majorities in all three houses of the General Synod at final approval stage, gets that balance about right. In moving the motion, I wish to place on record the thanks of the Church of England to the Department of the Environment for the great help which was given over a long period during drafting and consideration of the Measure.
10.24 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Scottish Presbyterians such as myself must be careful in trying to meddle in the affairs of the Church of England. In a sense, I speak in sackcloth and ashes as perhaps all hon. Members should when telling other people what to do with their ecclesiastical buildings.
I take this opportunity to say that the Crypt—not a hundred yards from here—needs urgent attention. During the past four years I have, through the Serjeant at Arms and through the Property Services Agency, asked endlessly for something to be done about the stone rot in the Crypt, especially that by the font just past the beautiful etchings of Noah and Moses. I understand that there are difficulties, possibly caused by the bomb in the 1940s, by the drainage system and by the cracks. I find it profoundly embarrassing to take knowledgeable visitors into the Crypt to see the disintegration of the stone in the beautiful marble octagonal chapel. So it is with considerable reservation that I even rise to speak.
My excuse is that my wife was for 12 years a member of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland and is now a member of the Scottish Ancient Monuments Board. In Scotland, we have a civilised habit whereby the Ancient Monuments Board goes on three-day visits each Whitsun and spouses are allowed to go along as paying guests. One can learn a great deal. It is against that background that I put three points to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison).
First, I welcome the principle of quinquennial or five-yearly inspections, but who carries out those inspections? What powers are there to enforce any conclusions that might be reached?
Secondly, there follows from that the vexed question of grants from the state for church repairs. In Scotland there has been much difficulty even for great churches such as the Holy Rood in Stirling, because money that might have been forthcoming from state sources was not for a long time forthcoming. It is unreal to expect churches, which as
126
a result of population changes have small congregations, to undertake the work that they perhaps should undertake.
Thirdly, I do not come from Norfolk or Suffolk but I regard the wonderful wool churches—the great monuments of medieval European architecture—as part of my heritage as much as anybody else in these islands. All praise to the work of Lady Harrod and others who have devoted the latter part of their lives to trying to do something about the problems. Nevertheless, the time has come for substantially more state help.
In a different context I, like the Secretary of State for the Environment, went to Heveningham hall. I shall not go into detail other than to say that it had been beautifully restored inside. I went there at the invitation of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). I have never seen better restoration of wood and plaster work, the features on which I am competent to pass judgment. But what on earth is going to be done about the Suffolk and Norfolk churches which were in once prosperous farming areas, but whose congregations have now dwindled and perhaps moved to the towns? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any thoughts on the vital question of giving state help to churches which are part of the medieval European heritage but which cannot be supported by their local congregations to the extent that repairs now demand?
10.29 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: My intervention will be on a similar subject to that raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I welcome this timely Measure, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for clarifying the point that I raised earlier.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow has posed a question that was left unanswered: how sure can we be that historic church buildings in England are adequately funded? Let me give an example. I am a member of the congregation of St. James's, Bermondsey, a beautiful Waterloo church in the diocese of Southwark, which can be seen from the railway line coming out of London Bridge station. We have just restored that church and hung new bells. The stone work has also been cleaned. All that was made possible only by our going round seeking special funding—in this case, funding gratefully received partly from English Heritage and partly from the London Docklands development corporation. There are other churches that are very near to St. James's but outside the London Docklands development corporation catchment area, whose congregations or incumbents could not have gone to the LDDC, which has helped the architectural heritage in London, and which has done excellent work north of the river, in the docklands churches of Tower Hamlets, Wapping and the Isle of Dogs, and also, I believe, in Newham.
Our concern is that congregations and, indeed, dioceses often cannot raise the necessary funds. That is certainly true if they are in inner-city areas or areas that were once prosperous. I see that the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) is in her place. I do not mean it impolitely when I say that I know that there are some areas of her constituency which were once more prosperous than they are now and where the capacity of congregations to keep their churches in a good state of repair is substantially

127
reduced. That is also true of very rural parts of the country. My family comes from Herefordshire, which has some beautiful churches whose congregations number a handful of people, if that. Suffolk and Norfolk face similar difficulties. In some East Anglian churches, there is one service a month because the vicar has seven or eight parishes to look after.
It is right that we should update our procedure. I welcome the fact that we are addressing the care of churches this year just as we addressed the care of cathedrals last year. We welcomed the arrangements, announed last year, whereby some state aid would be given for cathedrals, but it must be said that many churches are still equally in need of support, albeit not necessarily in the same way. I hope that the right hon. Member for Selby will be able to answer, at least in part, the concern felt by people—whatever their denomination if they are Christians, or religion if they are not, or views if they are people of no religious persuasion—that the heritage of Christian buildings throughout the country should be preserved and that too many of them have been under threat in recent years.
10.33 pm
Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, let me respond first to the points raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked about the five-yearly inspection, which I mentioned in my opening remarks.
The inspections will be carried out, as they usually are at present, by architects and also—as a result of the powers taken in the Measure—by surveyors. The inspection may result in recommendations to make a change, repair or improvement to a particular building, either on the initiative of the inspection body or person or possibly in conjunction with the parochial church council and the incumbent of the building inspected. Wherever the initiative comes from, either the inspector or the incumbent and PCC have then to submit the scheme for corroboration and advice to the diocesan advisory committee, which is an expert body. In due course, that body will issue a faculty or permission for the work to be carried out. A systematic, regular inspection system results in reasonable recommendations for change, subject to the advice of the diocesan advisory committee, being authorised by the faculty jurisdiction procedure.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to money. I speak with some diffidence as I do not know enough about the affairs of the Church of Scotland or the Episcopal Church of Scotland to know exactly how their finances work. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that since 1977 the state has made substantial sums, running into many millions of pounds, available to the Church of England for the maintenance of our historic heritage of old and splendid ecclesiastical buildings. That to some extent bears upon the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who referred to the problem of raising enough money for many of our fine buildings, the huge range of needs and the relatively limited resources.
The grant aid scheme for churches in use is to be reviewed by the Department of the Environment in conjunction with the churches to discover how it can be
128
refined, extended and elaborated and generally improved. There is something in view. Now that the principle of state aid has been accepted, improvements and perhaps elaboration are in prospect.
Mr. Dalyell: Is it not wrong that most of the money has, perhaps understandably, found its way to the restoration of great cathedrals like Wells and York instead of trickling down to some of those country churches where a little money could make a difference?
Mr. Alison: Since 1977, the lion's share of the money has gone to the parish churches. The Government have only recently accepted the principle of state aid for cathedrals. On the whole, cathedrals have had a better, more photogenic base on which to appeal for substantial funds. Many of them have, with good management and before any state aid was in prospect, succeeded in raising considerable sums of money. State aid is now in prospect for cathedrals, but since 1977 the bulk of the money has been available for parish churches.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has taken the debate slightly further by saying that a Department of the Environment reconsideration is in prospect. If that is so, I want to record a bid for a subject to be reconsidered; namely former church buildings such as the palaces of the Bishops of Winchester and Southwark which are beautiful buildings, but which no one can identify because there is nothing on those buildings to tell people what they are. If the DOE is reviewing the way in which it can help, it can assist by allowing people to be informed through English Heritage about the historical importance of buildings.
Mr. Alison: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot make a very intelligent comment on it other than to suggest—and this is an almost anarchical, entirely improper and unofficial suggestion—that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey should persuade the Bishop of Southwark to consecrate or dedicate the building he mentioned so that it becomes an ecclesiastical building. It can then come within the ambit of all the marvellous things that we arc seeking to do. However, he must not take that advice as ex cathedra.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend should watch out. The Bishops of Winchester had palaces or residences all over the place. Perhaps it would be far better to leave them buried. Now is an appropriate time to ask my right hon. Friend to pass on the thanks of the House to all those who have produced the Measures and those who look after the buildings and put in many hours of dedicated work. We are grateful for what they achieve. We would not have much of our heritage without the work of people at parish level. How pleasant it is to read part I of the Measure, which is fairly unusual in an ecclesiastical Measure. It states:
"Any person or body carrying out functions of care and conservation under this Measure …shall have due regard to the role of a church as a local centre of worship and mission."Such a statement of principle is very welcome, and I hope that it will be repeated on other occasions.
Mr. Alison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful, constructive and agreeable accolade to those who have made an important, worthwhile, and desirable contribution in respect of this Measure.
Mr. Dalyell: I hope that the new director of works for the Palace of Westminster to be found by Saxon Bamphylde, the head-hunters, will have as his job specification the urgent architectural needs of the Palace, and not the reorganisation of staff, as the rumour is, that he be brought in to cut down, on a hatchet basis, the number of staff working in this Palace. I hope that attention will be given to the problems that I raised, such as the surrounds to the Crypt of the House of Commons.
Mr. Alison: I shall want to study carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Crypt chapel. I am not quite as familiar with it as he is. I am speaking without notice. I do not think that the jurisdiction of the Crypt chapel
130
comes within that of any diocesan authority. It is one of the peculiars, in the jargon of ecclesiastical circles, which means that it is not a royal peculiar, but just a plain peculiar. That means that the scope for taking action in respect of the needs of the Crypt chapel do not strictly come within the scope of the Measure or of the Diocese of London. I shall take further advice on the position of the Crypt chapel and will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Church of England (Diocesan Boards of Education)
10.41 pm
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
The Diocesan Boards of Education Measure replaces and repeals the Diocesan Education Committees Measure of 1955, enacted quite a few years ago. The first aim of the new Measure is to give more flexibility for diocesan boards than the 1955 Measure afforded, particularly in the light of changes since that far-off time, not least the passing of the Education Reform Act 1988. Diocesan boards have wide responsibility for education in parishes, Sunday schools and adult groups, over and above a board's specific responsibility for church schools. The schedule to the Measure gives the necessary flexibility to the composition of the diocesan boards, depending on the diocese.
The second aim of the Measure is to give financial control to the board in the matter of voluntary-aided schools where the board has to act as banker, guarantor and provider. The third aim is to allow the diocesan board to develop a strategy for church schools so that the church can be an effective and coherent partner with the state in the dual system.
Lastly, the Measure would bring diocesan boards into line with synodical government and make boards accountable to the diocesan Synod. In addition, the Education Reform Act reached the statute book in 1988, as I reminded the House, and the Measure has been drafted to take account of its new provisions.
Hon. Members will have seen that the Measure was given final approval with large majorities in all three houses of the General Synod. The one area that gave concern to some members was clause 7, which empowers a diocesan board to give directions to the governing body of the school. At all stages of the passage of the draft measure through the Synod, the Department of Education and Science and the Charity Commissioners were consulted. They raised no difficulty with regard to the clause.
Secondly, the board is specifically excluded by clause 7(5) from giving directions when a school wants to apply for grant-maintained status.
Thirdly, many of the matters on which a board might give directions would be those for which the Secretary of State would have ultimate responsibility. The House will nevertheless note that our own Ecclesiatical Committee sounded a modest although not overriding reservation about this point in paragraphs 10 and 11 of its report to the House.
I know that, in spite of the Ecclesiastical Committee's decision that the Measure is expedient, one hon. Member, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—he hoped to be with us this evening but I understand that he has been delayed and therefore sends his apologies—advises me that he still has some misgivings about the extra powers the diocesan boards are being given in the Measure.
132
The hon. Member for Birkenhead has raised two points with me in correspondence. As they are of general interest, it is reasonable to delay the House for a minute or two with some comments on his reservations.
First, the hon. Gentleman is worried about the future of church schools when local education authorities are reorganising or being reorganised. All too often, he believes, authorities pick on church schools to close if closures have to take place. The hon. Gentleman does not want this Measure and the enhanced powers of diocesan boards which it provides to frustrate or prevent a church school from taking a decision to apply for grant-maintained status, thus side-stepping the possible closure which the education authority may have in store for it. As I have already pointed out, clause 7(5) specifically prevents a diocesan board from frustrating any application for grant-maintained status by a voluntary-aided school.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Birkenhead expressed fears about the scope for governors of church schools in situations of change somewhat less final or sweeping than that of applying for grant-maintained status. He believes that in the new world in which schools operate nowadays, following the Education Reform Act, church schools which are successful and go-ahead will be able to attract pupils from the less successful schools. He visualises situations, however, in which a very powerful case might he put forward by some doicesan boards of education to prevent a voluntary-aided church school from maximising this opportunity and increasing its numbers up to its physical limits—particularly if some non-church state schools faced local closure as a result of the migration of children and pupils to a growing voluntary-aided church school.
I hope that I can largely reassure the hon. Gentleman on this point. If a successful church school sought to increase its intake, a diocesan board would not—indeed, it could not—overrule the aspirations of the local governors to let their school expand to its full capacity or to its so-called standard number—which is the same thing. Under the open enrolment provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988, no one can prevent the growth of a school up to the capacity of its building, should there be a parental demand that the governors wish to meet.
However, if there is an expansion beyond existing physical capacity, extra capital expenditure would logically be involved. That would raise somewhat wider issues. The diocesan board, for example, would become liable to find the 15 per cent. of capital cost not provided for by the 85 per cent. Department of Education and Science grant. It could not allow itself, however, to become a passive, residual and automatic provider of funds, in response to a school governing body's unrestricted initiative to expand its capacity. It is thus unlikely that the diocesan board, or the Secretary of State for Education and Science, would authorise extra capital expenditure on expanding a voluntary-aided church school where there is already spare capacity in the locality.
I hope that, on these two points, the hon. Member for Birkenhead will feel reassured that, within reasonable limits, school governing bodies' scope and initiative for extra enrolment, where there is the school capacity, will not be frustrated or inhibited by the Measure. The object of the Measure is to assist in the promotion of high standards in education, including the spiritual, moral,

133
cultural, mental and physical development of children in schools and more widely in society. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.
10.51 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: As it is for other hon. Members who were members of the Ecclesiastical Committee, this is the second time round the course for me, because we have already debated the Measure. As the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) knows, and other colleagues may be aware, I expressed some concern about the provisions in this Measure that go further in giving powers to diocesan boards than the secular legislation gives to local education authorities vis-a-vis governors of schools. In secular education, the pattern has been to hand more powers to governors, and that was the thrust of the Education Reform Act 1988. As the Ecclesiastical Committee, and those who gave evidence to it, accepted, the Measure has some moves in the other direction. There are provisions that explicitly give the diocesan board power to direct and intervene, as the right hon. Gentleman said. They come in clause 7, which is entitled:
"Powers of Board to give directions to governing bodies of aided church schools."
There was a dispute at all stages in the Synod and subsequently as to what the right test should be and whether the test of intervention should be that someone had acted unreasonably, or whether the test, as in the Measure, should be
"Where the Board is satisfied that the governing body …is discharging its functions …in a manner which is not in the best interests of the school or church schools generally".
The right hon. Gentleman rightly alluded to the two paragraphs in the report where the Ecclesiastical Committee in general, in paragraphs 10 and 11, pointed out that there was at least one circumstance where the power to intervene was questionable, because it was not subject to a final overriding decision by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. In paragraph 11, the Committee said:
"The point does not seem to the Committee to hold good, however, where the Board uses its powers under subsection (I) to direct a governing body not to take some action. If, for example, the Board gave a governing body directions not to publish proposals for changing the character of the school which the governing body was intending to publish under section 13(1)(b) of the Education Act 1980, the governing body would be under a duty not to proceed with the publication. In such a case the matter would never fall to be submitted for the Secretary of State's approval."
That report makes it clear that two of us on that committee were not happy with the majority's conclusions. Even at this late stage in the debate I should like to reiterate my concerns. They will not be unfamiliar to those who have followed this debate and they derive from my experience of recent years as a school governor in a Church of England school.
The case is quite controversial and I would be neglectful if I did not mention it in this debate. It concerns the Southwark diocesan board of education and the Bacon's Church of England secondary school. That 18th century school is to be closed at the end of this term because the governing body decided to support the proposition that the school should be a city technology college. That decision was reached when I was on that governing body and I accept that I was out-voted—I do not make any
134
complaint about that. The school will become the first Church of England CTC to be built, and will be in Southwark, in Surrey docks in my constituency.
The governors voted to close the school and supported the proposition that the Sir Philip and Lady Harris trust and the Southwark diocesan board of education should co-sponsor a CTC. At the time of that decision, one of the complaints was that the board's principal officer—he is aware of my view—specifically set the ball rolling for the CTC, without coming out in the open and discussing it with the governors, the school community, the members of the diocesan board or the diocesan bishop. From subsequent conversations I have gathered that the whole thing happened in a rather underhand way.
As a result of that behaviour the decision to turn Bacon's from a church secondary maintained school into a CTC was considered to be additionally controversial. The staff and the head opposed the decision and many governors—in the event a minority—also opposed it. As a result it was felt that the decision did not carry the full support of the school community.
In a way, all of that is water under the bridge as the governors voted to close the school and to set up a CTC. The diocesan board, as one of the promoters, found that the matter was debated by the synod of Southwark diocese only after the event. The sequence of events meant that first the governing body decided and only then that decision subsequently went before the synod.
The Measure before us still offers the possibility of intervention by the diocesan board. Subsequently the matter can be debated by the diocesan synod as a result of the clauses to which the right hon. Member for Selby referred. I believe that that process is completely the wrong way round. If there is a major decision of principle, such as that a church school should opt out, become a CTC or be closed—all are perfectly valid options within the education system—there should be wide consultation to test the body of opinion in the diocese. That should happen before the decision is taken by the diocesan board of education or the school.
I would not have felt the need to say anything further on the subject had subsequent events not reinforced the view—I heard witnesses say the same before the Ecclesiastical Committee—that the Southwark diocesan board of education has continued to neglect the best interests of the school in major respects.
I must use this forum to give notice that, unless the complaints that I outline are dealt with adequately, the reputation of the diocesan board and of the church in Southwark will be impaired greatly. This issue is relevant to the Measure as the Measure gives to the diocesan boards powers that are greater than those of the education committee to intervene over and above the heads of governors. If the diocesan board does not have the confidence of the members of the education community, giving the board more power is not something that some of us are very willing to see happen.
There were clear terms of agreement negotiated between the governors of Bacon's school and the CTC promoters—the trust and the diocesan board—on whether children who wished to go to the city technology college should have the right of appeal if turned down, and on the rights of children and staff to be able to transfer from the school to the college. It is the strong view of many staff, including senior staff, of many of the parents of children at the school and other parents—the view is irrespective of

135
whether the parents' children still attend the school—and of the teaching unions and associations that are affected that the Church has broken its word.
I make the allegation explicitly because there is still just about time to recover the position before the end of the school year. It does Christian education no service when, having decided to go down a controversial road—to set up a Church city technology college—and having carefully negotiated terms, the Church appears clearly to break its word by failing to execute the terms of the agreement.
This general subject was carefully considered by those in the Synod, including the members of the relevant committees, who thought that there would be no abuse of powers and that it was appropriate to give the diocesan board extra powers. They may have had broader experience than mine, as I have been a school governor only once at the school in question, and once more recently in another church school in Southwark.
Despite what has been alleged, I do not advance these arguments out of pique because I have an incorrigible view that city technology colleges are so awful that I shall do everything that I can to undermine them. I have told the principal designate of the CTC that I shall support him and his staff as the college gets up and running. I have made it clear that I shall support the pupils and all those associated with the college. It is not my job to undermine a decision that has already been taken.
It is my job, however, to point out when the Church lets itself down, and there are many aggrieved people who consider that the word of the Church and of the education diocesan board in Southwark is not what it should be and is not what it was said it would be. It is felt that this experience has not shown the Church in a good light. Unless the Church and the diocesan board in Southwark end the sorry saga by putting their house in order, the end of Bacon's school, after centuries of service to the community, and the beginning of Bacon's college will have taken place against a background of an unpleasant set of circumstances. It is unfortunate that locally many feel already that the powers of the diocesan board are the last powers which should be extended.
I give the warning that recent experience in Southwark shows that it may sometimes be better to have the secular system whereby the governors have more powers relative to the education committee, as we have legislated for them to have, rather than fewer powers. I hope that what I have said with some anger on behalf of quite a large number of people with some bitterness will be heard where it is meant to be heard and that matters will be put right before it is too late.
11.4 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will not expect me to take up in detail his remarks about the route that has been taken by Bacon's secondary church school and its successor city technology college. I merely say in passing that I am not certain that the Inner London education authority was especially fond of Bacon's school. I think that there were differences over secular control. I recall that on several occasions education authorities tried to look away from some of the schools—often church schools, and primary schools at that—that have been
136
popular with parents and staff, to look with more favour on schools where they thought that there was more of the ideological approach that suited their own prejudices. I pay tribute to the many members of staff, head teachers and governors of schools who have managed to stand out against some of the temporal inclinations of education authorities. School reorganisation is not a problem confined to the Church of England; the Roman Catholics have a great deal of controversy over some decisions, but by definition they are excluded from the provisions in this Measure.
During a short intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) during the debate on the previous motion, I welcomed the general principle stated at the beginning of that Measure. I appreciate that it is not necessarily appropriate to this Measure, which deals with what the Secretary of State may do, and he may not want to be bound by a denominational or religious declaration of principle. The partnership between the Secretary of State, the Department and the Church authorities is, on the whole, good and it works reasonably well.
There are times when I think that some of the capital allocations to church schools have been abysmal. In London, some of the decisions that have had to be made on capital spending have not been limited by the 15 per cent. that may be raised by diocesan authorities; the problems have arisen because the capital allocation from the Department has been nil. I do not mean just small —on some occasions it has not existed.
My main point relates to clause 6—the provisions for the appointment of someone from the diocese to the committee looking after religious education not only in church schools, but in all schools within the education authority or the diocese. I fear that if 12 to 16-year-olds in church schools, as well as in non-church schools, were asked to explain the story of the prodigal son, to describe the actions of the Samaritan on the Jericho road or to go back to the Old Testament and show some understanding of the story of Ruth, only a very low proportion of them would be able to say much about any of them. They might recognise the words, "the good Samaritan", it is conceivable that some of them would recognise the words, "the prodigal son", but it is unlikely that they would have any idea of the detail of the stories or how they fit into two of the parts of the Christian faith—those of love and forgiveness.
We appear to have succeeded over the past 20 years in throwing away a great deal of our religious education, let alone our religious instruction. We have managed to devalue, by ignoring, much of our heritage—Judaeo, Christian and, to some extent, Hellenic—because we have stopped believing that we have practical measures that would allow young people to learn what many of us learned.
I am not suggesting that the Church of England provides a way to become good—I do not think that that is what the Church is for—but the Measure provides some of the mechanisms for passing down to successive generations some of what has been passed to us. I hope that, through the mechanisms of clause 6(1), people will find support in their dioceses and communities for the work of religious education, which has diminished when it should have increased.
11.8 pm
Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the debate.
I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will not consider me unreasonable or impertinent if I do not get drawn too deeply into the affairs of Bacon's school, which the hon. Gentleman brought vividly to the attention of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Indeed, his comments are on record in the report that it makes to the House.
I wish to make one or two more general comments in view of the enhanced authority that the Measure would give to diocesan boards of education, apparently in contradistinction to the tendency in the secular schools —the ordinary maintained schools—that more and more power be devolved to the governors and away from local education authorities.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it in good part if I say to him that had the diocesan board of education disagreed with the governors of Bacon's school in respect of its desire to become a CTC, that very power of the diocesan board of education mentioned in paragraph 11 of our report that the hon. Gentleman pinpointed—to issue to a school a direction, without any qualification or appeal, not to do a certain thing—would have put it in a position to secure precisely that which the hon. Gentleman wants—to prevent Bacon's school from taking certain action that he did not want it to take. Unfortunately, that enhanced power becomes a liability in the case he cited —but it could have been a veritable asset.
Mr. Simon Hughes: That is a fairly obvious conclusion to draw, but I would not take that view. If the diocesan board had taken a different view, its powers under the Measure—if the case had arisen next year rather than two years ago—would have allowed it to intervene. My concern remains the same. If the diocesan board had decided that the governors' view was wrong, and had used its powers to direct the governors, it could override them whichever view they had taken. The governors would have no appeal. They would have no chance of making their case to the board. The Measure's overriding power goes against the current tendency in the secular world, and the Measure permits too much in the way that it is drafted.
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has been clear and consistent. He suggests that, whichever way a diocesan board might move, he is in principle not too happy about the enhanced authority that the Measure gives it. However, its enhanced power does bear on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltharn (Mr. Bottomley) concerning religious education.
I draw attention to the functions of the board, as specified in clause 2(1), where it says that the functions of the board shall be
"(a) to promote or assist in the promotion of education in the diocese, being education which is consistent with the faith and practice of the Church of England."
Only in Church of England schools is it possible to secure an education
"consistent with the faith and practice of the Church of England."
In a controlled school, for example, although it may be a church school in origin, the religious education that it provides must be in accordance with the local education authority's agreed syllabus. It does not have to be the
138
much finer and more highly flavoured religious input that is appropriate to a voluntary-aided school, where it may be possible to secure education that is
"consistent with the faith and practice of the Church of England."
I make that point because it is possible, as matters now stand, with the considerable powers that are in the hands of a school governing body, for a new incumbent to enter the parish and to become chairman of the local church school's governing body. A new set of parochial church council members, who may be of an entirely transitory character, could also turn up on the school governing body. Then, hey presto! A case was brought to my attention in the past week by those who have been advising me about this Measure. A school governing body, made up of a not particularly interested incumbent and some not very committed parochial church council members can suddenly decide that they do not want the bore and the threat of having to raise the 15 per cent. of the total capital sums which they are required to find as part of their voluntary-aided status. On one fine summer's evening and in one vote, the school governing body then decide that they will opt out of voluntary-aided status and will opt in to controlled status. Through the single vote and decision of a group of people in the parish, who may be gone in five years' time, the whole of the purposes of clause 2(1)(a) of this Measure, which is to secure
"the promotion of education …consistent with the faith and practice of the Church of England;",
can be thrown out of the window.
In those circumstances, it seems reasonable that when a school governing body decides that it wants to change the status of the school in a way that undermines and evacuates those very qualities of high calibre religious education in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England, and when it decides to throw those out in a casual decision to opt for controlled status, the diocesan board should have the right to say no, to say that that is too draconian and final. It should have the right to tell them that it undermines the whole purpose of voluntary-aided church schools and the provision of quality religious education which the boards of education are there to promote.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and also to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) for raising the issue. This is a very important debate. There is a strong argument for ensuring the protection of Christian education against maverick decisions by transitory people or careless custodians. However, there are ways of achieving that through a dialogue, just as when we make a decision in the House it has to be dealt with in another place and we have to consider what they think.
There is scope for dialogue between a governing body and a diocesan board. The question is whether one allows dialogue or an unquestioned arrogation of rights—telling people what to do with no question of their debating it. I am not saying that there should not be that sort of support from a diocesan board concerned about the fundamentals. I share the view of the hon. Member for Eltham that, unfortunately, the product of all our efforts may be that in many church schools the fundamentals are not clearly propagated by even a combination of the diocesan hoard and the governing body.
Mr. Alison: Dialogue is one thing, but a decision has to be taken. In the type of case that I have cited—where there is the possible loss of voluntary-aided status because of a unilateral decision by a school's governing body—although dialogue over the decision is desirable, someone has to bite the bullet and have the final say. Diocesan boards of education should have the power to prevent voluntary-aided Church of England schools from opting out and thereby losing the input of distinctive Church of England education. Dialogue is important, and if I knew more about Bacon's school I would be able to comment more constructively on whether there was adequate consultation. Nevertheless, even if one accepts that, the provision in the Measure is desirable for those reasons.
Mr. Hughes: Perhaps I should have used the word co-decision rather than dialogue. Sometimes there is an advantage in ensuring that a decision has to pass through two stages. Perhaps that would be a more secure way to achieve the objectives that the proponents of the Measure and those who are concerned about the greater powers on one side are looking for. If that can be achieved in practice all the time, perhaps it will be a good outcome of this change and this debate.
Mr. Alison: I take the point. Paragraph 9.3 of our report states that the board of education
"is required to make a report to the next meeting of the diocesan synod in respect of any directions given by it under the clause".
I know that that is closing the door after the horse has bolted, and I fear that it will provide no consolation for the hon. Gentleman. I will, however, ensure that what he has said is brought to the attention of the relevant authorities.
I hope that I have dealt adequately with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Planning Appeals
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
11.20 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: I am delighted to be able to raise a matter that pertains specifically to my constituency. It concerns the way in which the Department of the Environment's planning appeals mechanism works in practice—which, to local residents, seems beyond belief.
Last year, a planning application in the name of Mr. I. J. Reed to run an amusement centre at 60 High road, Willesden, was refused by Brent council. Mr. Reed appealed to the Department of the Environment, and the appeal was heard on 4 April 1991. CETRA—the local residents' association, which is very strong and has the support and respect of all the local political parties—objected to the application on the grounds that the centre would add nothing to the environment or to shopping facilities, and that both the Willesden green plan and the unitary development plan discouraged such use in a primary shopping area.
On 31 May, the Department issued its findings—that such use would be allowed, on certain conditions. Mr. Reed stated that no person under the age of 18 would be admitted, although that condition had not been laid down by the Department. The premises now need a licence, issued by a Brent council sub-committee, and CETRA has submitted an objection to the issuing of a licence.
CETRA must show that Mr. Reed's other amusement centres are not complying with the conditions of planning permission and/or licensing regulations. His other premises are in Harlesden and Burnt Oak: he also has an appeal under way in regard to premises that he wishes to open at 10 Bank buildings, Harlesden.
At the inquiry, the Government and Mr. Reed seemed to be on the same side, as the inspector's report shows. According to paragraph 5, on behalf of Mr. Reed,
"it was contended that a range of complementary services are necessary to support the shopping attractions, and these can positively contribute to the vitality of shopping centres. Such uses include financial and professional services, cafes and restaurants and, increasingly, amusement centres. This view is in accordance with the advice contained in …Circular 13/87".
Many of my constituents have still to be persuaded of the benefits that an amusement centre brings: certainly, those benefits cannot be classified in the same category as professional services, cafes and restaurants.
In quite a fair account, the report also gives the views of the council and the residents, who were in agreement:
"The Council considered that an amusement centre would be disruptive rather than complementary to the shopping centre. This was also the view expressed in most of the letters of representations."
If there is an underlying ideology for the inspector's decision, it appears in paragraph 8, where he states:
"The centre would offer an opportunity for leisure and recreation for shoppers in the same way as a cafe or restaurant, providing a complementary function."
I hope that the inspector will pop along to Willesden high road to see many harassed shoppers pausing to spend a few bob in the local amusement arcade before staggering backwards and forwards with their shopping in an area that is poorly served by public transport and that suffers from the most appalling congestion. Most people simply want to get in and out of the area as rapidly as possible and

141
complete their purchases. I do not think that many people set out from the Willesden green area to spend a delightful half hour on the machines before flogging their way around Gateway supermarket. Perhaps the inspector does not do his own shopping.
The public's perception is contrary to that rather remarkable view. The reputation of amusement arcades is not such that they are an equivalent addition to the amenities of an area's financial services or restaurants. In many areas—I am not saying that this will inevitably happen with this proposed arcade—amusement arcades lead to a concentration of prostitution, where young people make their bodies available to people who are attracted in the knowledge that that service is freely available. In many arcades, drugs are distributed and they are constantly under surveillance by the police and are a constant source of problems to them. In addition, they tend to act as a magnet for local petty criminals. That is why all the schools in the area object to the arcade. In other areas of the country, the last thing that a local school wants is for an amusement arcade to open in the vicinity.
Uniquely on Brent council, all the political parties agreed. They unanimously rejected the application, as they have rejected several others in the past decade. To get the Conservative party, Liberal Democrats and the Labour party in Brent to agree on anything, other than that they do not like my criticisms of the council, is almost unique.
Such unanimity should count for something. The council's planning officer says that in his recollection the Department of the Environment has not refused an appeal against the council's dismissal of a planning application for an amusement centre in the past 10 years, with the result that six now operate in the borough. Some people would include the town hall and make it seven, but one does not have to pay to get in there.
The position is quite remarkable. The Government created the poll tax to improve local accountability, but they will not let a local authority decide whether a shop should he used as an amusement centre. One wonders what earthly point there is in having a remaining form of local government if it cannot be trusted to make a decision based on its intimate knowledge of the locality. The political unanimity resulted from that local knowledge, which is shared by all members of the local authority.
The Government have rightly made strict rules on the need to consult residents when councils draw up planning policy and district plans. The unitary district plan currently being drawn up by Brent firmly rejects amusement centres in primary shopping areas. Many local people at meetings that I have attended have said, "Why bother? What is the point of trying to mobilise arguments, of persuading the council and of trying to persuade the inspector when the Government decide to override the local authority?"
After discussion, the local residents' group, CETRA, has advanced what it thinks—I share its view—is a much more sensible approach, certainly to relatively small planning applications such as this. The Chapel End Tenants' and Residents' Association said:
"Would it not be possible for appeals to the DOE to be restricted in the same sense as an appeal in a criminal case would be, ie further evidence has to have come to light, or there has to be evidence of 'jury nobbling', or misdirection by the judge …planning applicants should not be able to go to appeal just because they don't like the verdict; if they can show that they were prejudiced against in some way, or the Officers withheld vital information from Councillors then that
142
of course would he a different matter. There should also he an appeal system for us as the system is loaded against us at the moment. If Councillors have been 'nobbled' and approve a Planning Application that is contrary to the wishes of the majority of people, we really have no right of redress. In certain cases we may be able to go to the Ombudsman but generally we don't have the same right to have the application heard again in front of an independent third party."
That is a sensible approach when dealing with small and much less controversial planning decisions. I well understand that Secretaries of State find difficulty in calling in vast planning applications involving the South Bank or controversial matters that consume the interest of the nation. As one can see from the absence from the debate of most hon. Members, this issue does not consume the interest of the nation. If it did, the Chamber would be full. It is nonsense that these decisions are considered at this level of government rather than being left to local authorities.
The residents now can object only to the licence being granted on the narrow grounds that the person concerned is unfit to hold such a licence or the premises are unsuitable. Unless the residents operate their own policing system, they will find it difficult to investigate an applicant's suitability.
This brings me to a side issue which I raised in another Adjournment debate—use orders. The residents state:
"Willesden High Road is full of premises with A3 use—every other shop seems to be a restaurant of some sort. Kilburn is now packed with what are ostensibly pubs but by my definition are nightclubs and the trend is working its way down Willesden Lane. We already have one pub in Willesden where no planning permission was needed …because it was previously two restaurants."
Two premises may be knocked together and a pub may appear without local residents being able to object. The pub to which I referred has
"now applied for a licence until midnight, 7 days a week. As people are not queueing up to buy shops in the High Road, I"—
CETRA—
"predict that a number of them will become pubs/wine bars within the next year or so."
The Government are still pondering the review of the A3 use group as the system is obviously not working. I hope that it will not he long before the report is published and there are further restrictions.
More pubs, wine bars and amusement arcades will mean the death of what is still a central shopping facility for a local, family community. Willesden high road has been badly affected by the recession over the past few years. One shop after another is closing. Often people purveying alcohol or running amusement arcades seem to be the only ones interested in opening in the face of the recession.
The area has suffered from the general rundown in grants to the local authority. It needs much spent on it to enable it to improve and to attract new jobs, yet traffic remains congested. The contemptuous way in which London Transport has ignored local residents and introduced one-person bus operation means that the street tends to be congested, with buses often causing long delays as people try to get on and the operator issues tickets, answers questions and so on. The area is declining. The last thing it needed was the Government saying, "Here comes the amusement arcade." That is another nail in the coffin and will be seen as such by every local trader. It is an unhelpful sign for a shopping precinct that is struggling to survive in the midst of a grim recession.

143
I conclude by raising an issue that I raised earlier: what is local government's role if we cannot trust local councillors to take such decisions? No one would deny that there must be a system of inspectors hearing appeals to prevent a completely unrepresentative, or even corrupt, clique operating a council's planning system for personal advantage. Generally, one thinks of the fraud squad dealing with such circumstances.
The idea of an inspector overturning local political opinion, the opinion of local residents and of local schools leads one to ask the fair question, would the inspector, Mr. Geoffrey Hill, want an arcade in his street? I strongly suspect that the answer would be, no. I suspect that if he were told that an amusement arcade was to be opened near where he lived, he would be one of the first to object to the local planning committee and to mobilise support against the idea. He would be right to do so because it would damage his area and would probably reduce property prices.
I strongly suspect that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), would not like one next door to his property any more than I would. If we do not want them next door to us or in our local shopping centres, why do we operate a nonsensical system which overrides all local opinion and which means that Big Brother Government decide that people must live with them, whether or not they want to do so? That is not a sensible planning system.
The Government should take on board the quotation that I read from CETRA. They should consider whether they operate the best system for conducting such appeals, a system that can be properly understood only by local people and in which local opinion should be paramount.
11.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on obtaining the opportunity to raise this issue. I am grateful to him for giving me advance notice of the subject.
I listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about amusement arcades. I know that he examines closely the impact of planning decisions and of planning legislation on his constituency. I also know that there is considerable local opposition to the opening of the proposed amusement premises. Therefore, I am glad to have the opportunity to reassure him about the care taken by the planning inspectorate in deciding planning appeals and to try to explain the position of amusement arcades in relation to town and country planning legislation.
At the outset, I must explain that I have to confine my remarks to the general issues raised by these cases. I cannot discuss a particular decision taken by a particular planning authority or any decision taken on appeal. That restriction is especially relevant to the appeal decision involving No. 60 Willesden High road. Under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 there is a period of six weeks following an appeal decision during which it is open to any party to challenge that decision in the High Court. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that six-week period has not yet elapsed. Therefore, I must be careful to avoid any possibility of prejudicing my right hon. Friend's position. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon.
144
Gentleman will agree that the right to challenge appeal decisions and thus to subject them to the scrutiny of the courts demonstrates that all such decisions must be taken only after very careful consideration of their planning merits.
The purpose of allowing a disappointed applicant to appeal against the refusal of planning permission is to enable a developer to have a second chance for the planning merits of his proposal to be considered by an independent and impartial person. At one point, I thought that the hon. Gentleman implied that, because appeal decisions might turn out to be different from those originally taken by the local planning authority, no right of appeal should exist. When planning control was introduced after the war, it effectively removed the right of individuals to develop or, indeed, to use land or property that they either owned or rented in the way that they wanted unless they had obtained permission from the local planning authority. Under those circumstances, it seems reasonable that a right of appeal should exist.
Appeal decisions are made only after a very careful evaluation of the planning merits of the cases involved. The inspectors' points of reference—in terms of legislation, Government planning guidance and any relevant provisions of a development plan—are identical to those which would have been considered in the first instance by the local planning authority. The position is the same for appeals against the failure of a planning authority to determine a planning application within the required period. There can be no sense in which appeal decisions are more lenient on the developer than local planning authorities' decisions; the issues to be taken into account are the same, and the record shows that a very substantial proportion of appeal decisions uphold the original decision taken by the local planning authority.
However, I know that there is a particular problem with cases involving amusement arcades in terms of the way they are perceived by third parties and sometimes by local planning authorities. Much opposition to amusement arcades centres on the expectation that they will attract noisy and unruly adolescents and, in some cases, act as a meeting place for young people, encouraging anti-social or even criminal activity, as the hon. Member for Brent, East suggested. Those who oppose amusement arcades from that point of view find it difficult to accept a decision to grant planning permission that seems to have taken little note of their concerns about the likely clientele of the arcade. The difficulty of accepting a decision to grant permission may be greater where that decision is made by an inspector following an earlier decision, taken at a local level, to turn down the application. I shall refer to the expectation that an amusement arcade will attract disreputable and disruptive clients as a "moral" concern.
I have to make it clear that such a moral concern, whether or not it is well founded, is not a land use planning consideration, and, as such, should not be taken into account in the decision whether to grant planning permission. All planning decisions should reflect the judgment of the courts that planning controls should not be used to prevent lawful forms of development on the ground that they are felt to be socially or morally undesirable. That point is reflected in my Department's development control policy note 11 "Service uses in shopping areas". Planning inspectors, therefore, cannot

145
uphold local authorities' decisions that they believe to have been based on local opposition rooted in prejudice against an amusement arcade per se.
A local planning authority determining a planning application for an amusement arcade should consider what aspects of the proposal need to be subject to planning control. Development control policy note 11 identifies several typical planning considerations. They include the creation of unacceptable noise and disturbance. An arcade should not be allowed in a residential area or near schools or hospitals if it can be shown that the noise that it would create would be obtrusive. That deals with the hon. Gentleman's question about objections that an individual —for example, the hon. Gentleman, a planning inspector or me—might have to an amusement arcade near his home. Our objections might be well founded if it was proposed to site the arcade in a residential area where it would create an obtrusive degree of noise. Appearance is another relevant issue, especially in conservation areas. The kind of amusement proposed can also be relevant: if it is of a sessional nature, traffic and parking issues can be involved.
All those points may be "material considerations" to be taken into account in any planning decision about an amusement arcade. However, every planning decision must have regard to the provisions of the local development plan. Relevant policies in an up-to-date development plan carry considerable weight in development control decisions, and the Government have repeatedly made it clear over the past few months, during the passage of the Planning and Compensation Bill through the House, that we wish to move to a more plan-led system, which will give greater coherence and predictability to planning decisions.
We have emphasised the importance of development plans in the whole decision-making process. We have stated that, where there are clear, up-to-date policies in development plans, which are consistent with national and regional policies and relevant to the proposals under consideration, they will carry considerable weight with the Secretary of State and his inspectors in dealing with planning appeals. In effect, the development plan will be the starting point for deciding planning applications and will provide the framework for local decision making in a greater proportion of cases in the future. In the longer term, we hope that comprehensive coverage of the country by up-to-date local plans will help to reduce the number of appeals. The overall effect will be to enhance the role of the local planning authority.
At present, the London borough of Brent has no specific local plan policy on amusement arcades. I have had the opportunity of discussing with the hon. Gentleman—on another occasion and in a slightly different context—the role that will be played in future by unitary development plans, and I believe that he shares my hope that the borough's emerging unitary development plan will contain clear and soundly based policies that address issues of local concern, which may include the intensity of the large number of amusement arcades in Brent.
146
None of what I have said about the scope of planning control over amusement arcades should be construed as diminishing the importance of what I have identified as the "moral" concerns about amusement arcades. This is not the context in which to consider the effects of such arcades on young people. However, I stress that it is because of concern about the possible "moral" or social implications of amusement arcades that the granting of planning permission is not in itself enough to allow an amusement arcade to become established. Under the Gaming Acts, amusement arcades that offer prizes require permits. Local authorities concerned at the spread of such premises in their areas therefore have a means of control, even when planning permission has already been granted. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary keeps a very careful watch on the effectiveness of this legislation and on the whole question of the social consequences of amusement arcades.
Under the Gaming Act 1968, premises with amusement-with-prizes machines require a permit and considerations that may be irrelevant to a planning application or planning appeal may nevertheless be valid factors for a local authority to take into account when deciding an application for a permit. Although there is not a great deal of case law, I am advised that among the grounds that can be used for the refusal of permits either alone or in combination with other grounds are demand —which may already be met by other existing premises in the area; fire safety; the possibility of under-age people entering; and trouble in the locality as a result of the congregation of young people which would encourage truancy and delinquency. Another ground is the possibility that undesirable people might be attracted to the arcade. Social problems may be worse and there may be difficulties for the police. Another consideration may be the suitability or otherwise of the proposed manager.
All those grounds suggest that the power to refuse a permit can be useful for local authorities concerned about the growth of amusement centres in their areas, irrespective of whether planning permission has been granted. Local authorities may make byelaws under section 75 of the Public Health Act 1961 covering such matters as safety, fire precautions, public order and avoidance of nuisance. Byelaws can regulate opening hours and require the manager not knowingly to permit the premises to be the habitual resort or place of meeting of reputed prostitutes. They can also require the manager not knowingly to permit the entry of any person who is drunk or disorderly. The Home Office published and circulated model byelaws to local authorities in October 1989.
I said at the outset that I could not comment on the specific case referred to by the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that my general remarks have shed some light on the principles involved in relation to the particular problem that has arisen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Official Files
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Attorney-General what guidelines cover the circumstances in which official files held by Departments may be destroyed; and what changes have taken place in these guidelines in the last 20 years.

  The Attorney-General
  The framework within which records of Government Departments are selected for permanent preservation is that recommended in the report of the Grigg committee in 1954 (Cmd. 9163) and accepted by the Government in 1955. The Public Record Office issues guidelines to Departments on the procedures to be followed and on the general criteria for selection. These guidelines are kept under review by the Public Record Office and were last updated in 1983.

  Section 3(6) of the Public Records Act 1958 provides that records that have been rejected as not required for permanent preservation shall be destroyed unless the approval of the Lord Chancellor has been obtained for their disposal in some other way.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total Government expenditure on funding under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 for 1990–91, itemised by borough and district and identifying for each borough and district the amount of education expenditure for that financial year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The following local authorities received grant, at the rate of 75 per cent. of salary costs, under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 in the financial year 1990–91.

  Precise figures for the amount of grant paid for education expenditure to each authority are not available. It is estimated, however, that education provision accounts for approximately 80 per cent. of total grant.

  ENGLAND

  £

  County Councils

  Avon

  899,403

  Bedfordshire

  2,462,492

  Berkshire

  1,648,953

  Buckinghamshire

  1,365,268

  Cambridgeshire

  1,161,520

  Cheshire

  23,539

  Cleveland

  643,796

  Derbyshire

  1,186,688

  Devon

  11,640

  Essex

  12,692

  Gloucestershire

  386,154

  2

  £

  Hampshire

  442,087

  Hereford & Worcester

  13,912

  Hertfordshire

  1,926,714

  Humberside

  208,176

  Kent

  298,059

  Lancashire

  5,476,253

  Leicestershire

  3,515,092

  Northamptonshire

  1,153,879

  North Yorkshire

  13,007

  Nottinghamshire

  1,989,788

  Oxfordshire

  904,018

  Shropshire

  73,303

  Staffordshire

  783,444

  Suffolk

  153,571

  Surrey

  96,172

  Warwickshire

  1,079,088

  West Sussex

  148,272

  Wiltshire

  212,224

  West Midlands FCDA

  73,486

  West Yorkshire FCDA

  111,294

  METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  1,044,759

  Bury metropolitan borough council

  262,017

  Manchester city council

  2,341,572

  Oldham metropolitan borough council

  2,469,256

  Rochdale metropolitan borough council

  1,140,765

  Stockport metropolitan borough council

  29,037

  Tameside metropolitan borough council

  724,154

  Trafford metropolitan borough council

  298,489

  Merseyside

  Liverpool city council

  188,171

  South Yorkshire

  Doncaster metropolitan borough council

  17,856

  Rotherham metropolitan borough council

  291,825

  Sheffield metropolitan district council

  2,138,900

  Tyne and Wear

  Newcastle city council

  448,275

  North Tyneside metropolitan borough council

  35,909

  Sunderland borough council

  49,508

  West Midlands

  Birmingham city council

  5,546,014

  Coventry city council

  3,264,069

  Dudley metropolitan borough council

  1,027,900

  Sandwell metropolitan borough council

  1,795,748

  Walsall metropolitan borough council

  1,723,646

  Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council

  1,675,084

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford City metropolitan council

  6,516,031

  Calderdale metropolitan borough council

  878,222

  Kirklees metropolitan council

  2,456,441

  Leeds City council

  1,992,965

  Wakefield metropolitan district council

  159,907

  Non Metropolitan Districts

  Blackburn

  111,603

  Bristol City council

  52,787

  Derby City council

  43,301

  Gloucester City council

  10,798

  Gravesham borough council

  31,775

  Hyndburn borough council

  9,542

  Ipswich borough council

  7,545

  Leicester City council

  179,196

  Luton borough council

  42,744

  Middlesbrough borough council

  19,990

  Milton Keynes borough council

  14,514

  Nottingham City council

  144,387

  Oxford City council

  26,603

  Pendle borough council

  17,066

  Peterborough City council

  66,127

  Preston borough council

  4,456

  Reading borough council

  19,312

  3

  £

  Redditch borough council

  12,928

  Slough Corporation

  20,434

  Scunthorpe county council

  12,858

  Southampton City council

  65,434

  St. Albans district council

  18,744

  Wycombe district council

  38,956

  London Boroughs

  London Boroughs Grants Unit

  7,022

  Inner London

  Camden

  1,544,899

  City of London

  23,500

  Greenwich

  1,248,340

  Hackney

  4,299,227

  Hammersmith

  1.011,358

  ILEA

  19,308,052

  Islington

  1,727,799

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,051,382

  Lambeth

  1,468,067

  Lewisham

  1,440,252

  Southwark

  2,302,159

  Tower Hamlets

  4,353,398

  Wandsworth

  2,117,834

  Westminster

  1,519,653

  Outer London

  Barking

  245,849

  Barnct

  1,202,176

  Bexley

  15,523

  Brent

  2,614,389

  Croydon

  1,384,268

  Ealing

  5,579,558

  Enfield

  535,477

  Haringey

  2,871,610

  Harrow

  755,346

  Havering

  29,798

  Hillingdon

  448,158

  Hounslow

  1,620,992

  Merton

  588,786

  Newham

  2,580,767

  Redbridge

  880,844

  Richmond

  74,879

  Sutton

  15,696

  Waltham Forest

  1,627,145

  Wales

  South Glamorgan City Council

  483,494

  Cardiff City Council

  22,692

  Colleges and Polytechnics

  London Institute

  42,152

  City of London Polytechnic

  66,238

  Huddersfield Polytechnic

  18,027

  Lancashire Polytechnic

  117,345

  Luton College of Further Education

  70,708

  Leeds Polytechnic

  19,494

  Teesside Polytechnic

  92,119

  Grant Maintained Schools

  94,905

  Total Expenditure

  135,482,981

  Note:

  (i) Some payments (eg ILEA) include late submitted claims and do not therefore relate solely to a local authorities expenditure for the single year in question.

  (ii) The table also shows the grant paid to 5 polytechnics, one College for Further Education and 4 Grant Maintained Schools who, by virtue of Section 211 of the Education Reform Act 1988, may claim section 11 grant direct.

  Civil Damages
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the total amount paid out by police authorities for civil damages since 1982.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Compensation paid out by police authorities for civil damages under section 48 (2) b of the Police Act 1964 is a matter for the police authority concerned and there is therefore no central record of the total amount paid out by police authorities.

  Wrongful Imprisonment
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to improve the machinery that exists for paying compensation to people who have been wrongly imprisoned and are subsequently released; and whether he has any plans to provide compensation to people whose close relatives are wrongly imprisoned.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans at present to amend the existing arrangements under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, or under the ex-gratia scheme, for the payment of compensation to those who have been imprisoned as a result of a wrongful conviction.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  By the end of the current financial year, my Department expects to have spent£1 million on television advertising for fire safety and £2·2 million on television advertising for crime prevention.

  Non-television publicity campaigns costing more than £100,000 are:

  £

  Electoral Registration

  520,000

  Absent Voting

  650,000

  Civil Protection Magazine (Publication)

  100,000

  Police Recruitment: Graduate/Ethnic

  338,000

  Police: Special Constable Recruitment

  1,488,000

  Crime Prevention

  3,900,000

  Fire Prevention and Safety

  2,064,000

  Passports

  132,000

  Prison Service Recruitment

  1,036,000

THE ARTS

  Arts Funding (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has made arrangements to meet representatives of the Association of London Authorities and London Boroughs Association to discuss arts funding in London.

  Mr. Renton
  I have made arrangements to meet the Association of London Authorities on 25 July. The London Boroughs Association has asked to explore the issues with my officials, and a meeting has been arranged for 8 July.

  Museums (Admission Charges)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his most recent assessment of the effects of admission charges to museums introduced in the past four years.

  Mr. Renton
  Those museums where admission charges have been introduced have reported that, after dropping initially, attendances have generally picked up, and in many cases, have returned to previous levels. Figures recorded before the introduction of admission charges cannot however be regarded as wholly reliable.

  Arts Provision (Wales)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will meet local authority leaders to discuss arts provision in Wales.

  Mr. Renton
  I have no plans to do so. However, I met the chairman and senior officers of the Welsh Arts Council in Cardiff recently, and they hold annual meetings with representatives of the local authorities in Wales.

  Arts Spending (London)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the average spending on the arts across London boroughs during the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Local authority arts funding is discretionary and there is no central reporting requirement. I am afraid that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Service Morale
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is proposing to take to improve morale in the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  Our aim is to have an efficient, effective and well-motivated civil service.

  Millions

  Taxpaying individuals with earnings subject to NIC above the UEL

  Taxpaying individuals with total earned income above the UEL

  Basic rate only

  Higher rate

  Total

  Basic rate only

  Higher rate

  Total

  Taxpayers aged under 65:

  Husbands

  1·4

  1·1

  2·5

  1·5

  1·1

  2·6

  Wives

  0·1

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  0·7

  Single men

  0·3

  0·2

  0·5

  0·3

  0·2

  0·5

  Single women

  0·2

  0·0

  0·2

  0·2

  0·1

  0·3

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  0·1

  Total

  2·0

  1·4

  3·4

  2·1

  1·6

  3·7

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1991–92 the number of top rate taxpayers with(a) gross and (b) taxable incomes within the following income ranges (i) £23,700 to £27,700, (ii) £27,000 to £30,000, (iii) £30,000 to £35,000, (iv) £35,000 to £40,000, (v) £40,000 to £45,000, (vi) £45,000 to £50,000, (vii) £50,000 to £55,000, (viii) £55,000 to £60,000 and (ix) over £60,000.

  Community Institutions
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to increase the number of United Kingdom secondees to Community institutions.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington).

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet Mr. Kenneth McGinley, chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 18 April 1991 at column 568.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1991–92 the number of basic rate and higher rate taxpayers with earned incomes above the national insurance contribution upper earnings limit, giving figures separately for(a) husbands, (b) wives, (c) single men and (d) single women and distinguishing between pensioners and non-pensioners.

  Mr. Maude
  The latest estimates in respect of 1991–92 are given in the table on two bases depending on the scope of earned income. The first basis compares the annual equivalent of the NIC upper earnings limit—UEL—with the total of earnings from employment and self-employment for those subject to NIC. The second basis compares the UEL with total earned income, including pensions and taxable benefits in kind, for all individuals.

  Mr. Maude
  Since mortgage interest is not to be deductible at the higher rate for 1991–92 it is appropriate to analyse higher rate taxpayers by range of income after deducting allowances and reliefs excluding mortgage interest.

  The latest estimates are as follows:
  7

  Total income for income tax purposes £ per year

  Number of higher rate taxpayers in 1991–92 Thousands

  23,700–27,700

  10

  27,700–30,000

  110

  30,000–35,000

  480

  35,000–40,000

  320

  40,000–45,000

  210

  45,000–50,000

  130

  50,000–55,000

  90

  55,000–60,000

  60

  Over 60,000

  290

  TOTAL

  1,700

  Total income less allowances and reliefs1 £ per year

  Number of higher rate taxpayers in 1991–92 Thousands

  23,700–27,700

  470

  27,700–30,000

  190

  30,000–35,000

  320

  35,00(M0,OOO

  190

  40,000–45,000

  120

  45,000–50,000

  80

  50,000–55,000

  60

  55,000–60,000

  50

  Over 60,000

  220

  TOTAL

  1,700

  1 Excluding mortgage interest.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of taxpayers in 1991–92 who have taxable incomes of less than £2,000, giving figures separately for single people, husbands and wives.

  Mr. Maude
  The latest estimates of taxpayers with taxable incomes in 1991–92 of less than £2,000 are as follows:

  Million

  Single people

  1·9

  Husbands

  1·2

  Wives

  1·6

  TOTAL

  4·7

  Taxable income is income subject to tax from all sources after deducting allowances and reliefs.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), of 2 May,Official Report, column 301, if he will publish the figures on the same basis showing separately average allowances and reliefs claimed against tax due under (a) schedule E and (b) schedule D.

  Mr. Maude
  Taxpayers can be analysed according to whether they have a main source of income taxed under schedule E. Latest estimates for 1990–91 are as follows:
  8

  Taxpayers with a main source of income from employment or from an occupational pension

  Gross income £ per year

  Amount of tax reliefs and allowances set against income £

  0 to 5,000

  3,200

  5,000 to 10,000

  4,200

  10,000 to 15,000

  5,300

  15,000 to 20,000

  6,300

  20,000 to 25,000

  7,100

  25,000 to 30,000

  7,500

  30,000 to 40,000

  7,700

  40,000 to 50,000

  8,500

  over 50,000

  10,300

  Average

  5,200

  Other taxpayers

  Gross income £ per year

  Amount of tax reliefs and allowances set against income £

  0 to 5,000

  3,200

  5,000 to 10,000

  4,500

  10,000 to 15,000

  5,500

  15,000 to 20,000

  6,100

  20,000 to 25,000

  6,600

  25,000 to 30,000

  6,600

  30.000 to 40,000

  7,100

  40,000 to 50,000

  8,300

  over 50,000

  12,100

  Average

  5,300

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the same basis as his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 354, concerning the effect of an upper limit on all income tax allowances and reliefs, if he will estimate the net effect of these options, assuming that all reliefs and allowances are limited to the basic rate of income tax.

  Mr. Maude
  It is estimated that, at 1991–92 levels of income, restricting all allowances and reliefs to the basic rate of income tax would yield about £2·2 billion. The additional yield from introducing upper limits of £10,000, £15,000 and £20,000 would be about £450 million, £150 million and £100 million, respectively, in a full year. The estimates do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the changes.

  Lost Revenue
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated lost revenue to the Exchequer from employers not paying tax and national insurance contributions for(a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c)

  Mr. Maude
  The amounts of PAYE tax and class I national insurance contributions remitted or written off as irrecoverable in the accounts years to the end of October were as follows—
  9

  PAYE (£ million)

  NIC Class 1 (£ million)

  1988

  130·7

  15·9

  1989

  122·9

  15·1

  19901

  107·1

  17·3

  1 Provisional.

  Public Information
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications the Public Records Office has received in each year since 1977 for the file T160/763/ F14755; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Public Records Office does not hold records of aplications for files which are not in its keeping.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 June,Official Report, column 313, what information he has on the means by which file T160/763/F14755 was destroyed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Treasury records show only that the file was reviewed in 1977 and destroyed.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) employees and (b) self-employed people have earned income above the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions, distinguishing between basic rate and higher rate taxpayers.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 27 June 1991]: Latest estimates for 1991–92 are as follows:

  Individual taxpayers aged under 65 with annual earnings1 above the UEL

  (millions)

  Main source of earnings of:

  Basic rate taxpayer

  Higher rate taxpayer

  Total

  Employment

  1·9

  1·1

  3·0

  Self-employment

  0·1

  0·3

  0·4

  Total

  2·0

  1·4

  3·4

  1 Earnings subject to NIC from employment and self-employment.

  The main source of earnings is as indicated in Inland Revenue administrative records for tax collection purposes. Taxpayers with substantial income from both sources are included in the "employment" category.

TRANSPORT

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the development of regional airports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Our liberalisation policies, both in the European Community and in bilateral negotiations, are increasing the scope for regional air services and we are facilitating development at local authority airports by issuing credit approvals, particularly for the first phase of Manchester's second terminal.

  Railway Electrification
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on investment approval for railway electrification.

  Mr. Freeman
  We welcome worthwhile proposals for investment, including electrification, from British Rail. Proposals naturally have to be good value for money and affordable.

  Freight Transport
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the establishment of freight terminals for onward transport of freight to the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The establishment of freight terminals for channel tunnel traffic is a commercial matter for British Rail, and does not require the Government's approval. British Rail keeps the Government fully informed of progress in preparing for the commencement of channel tunnel freight services.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his present proposals are for the deregulation of buses in London.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's proposals for the deregulation of buses in London were set out in the consultation paper "A Bus Strategy for London" issued in March. We have received more than 200 responses to that paper which are currently being assessed. An announcement on the Government's conclusions following the consultation exercise will be made shortly.

  British Rail
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legislative changes he proposes following his recent speech on the future of British Rail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We shall be working with British Rail and the private sector to identify further practical measures to encourage rail freight that could be brought forward without legislation. Our plans to give new operators a right of access to British Rail track will need legislation in due course.

  London Channel Tunnel Group
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received a request to meet representatives of the London channel tunnel group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. We are well aware of the support from this group of London boroughs for an easterly approach to Stratford for the rail link. My right hon. and learned Friend has told the group that he is not undertaking consultations himself, but that it will be for British Rail to consult once a preferred route is announced.

  Chelmsford-Liverpool Street Line
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss British Rail's investment plans on the Chelmsford to Liverpool Street line.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend has regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail at which they discuss a wide range of issues.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes to make any representations to his French counterpart on the operation of air traffic control on flights between London and Paris; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Industrial action by air traffic controllers in Paris has caused substantial delays to flights recently. The United Kingdom national air traffic services are in daily contact with their French counterparts to help relieve the situation. It is for the French authorities to resolve their own industrial relations problems.

  Road and Rail Expenditure
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much spending on road and rail increased(a) since 1979 and (b) between 1974 and 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Since 1979 investment on road and rail in Great Britain has increased by about two thirds in real terms. Between 1974 and 1979, it fell by about a third in real terms.

  M4 (Deaths)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatal injuries have been recorded on the M4 in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Chope
  The number of people killed each year on the M4 motorway during the seven years 1983 to 1989, the period for which figures are readily available, was respectively: 29, 19, 24, 39, 33, 28 and 24.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which country he proposes to take as a model for his proposals in railway privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We believe that the privatisation of British Rail will be the model for other countries.

  Transport Delays
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the cost of transport delays due to congestion, roadworks or breakdowns during 1990.

  Mr. Rilkind
  We are taking a wide range of measures to deal with congestion, including substantial investment in public transport, roads and traffic management. There are no reliable estimates of the total costs of congestion, but they are clearly large.

  England-Scotland Road Links
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve road links between north-east England and Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has a number of schemes in the current road programme which will improve links between north-east England and Scotland.

  On the A1 north of Morpeth there are dual carriageway proposals at Brownleside and Marshall Meadows to the Scottish border.

  Improvements to the A66 and A69 which link with the west coast routes to Scotland are also planned. These are at Temple Sowerby, Stainburn to Great Clifton and Stainmore to Banksgate on the A66 and the Haltwhistle on the A69.

  Work on a dualling scheme between Bowes and the Durham/Cumbria boundary on the A66 is due to be completed by autumn 1992 and the A69 Brampton bypass was opened on 18 April 1991.

  The preferred route for the extension of M6 Carlisle to near the border with Scotland was announced on 13 June 1991. Together with proposals by the Scottish Office, it will complete a motorway link to Glasgow.

  All of these schemes have made, or will make a significant contribution to improving road links between the north-east and Scotland.

  European Air Services
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the liberalisation of European air services in the last six months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The EC Transport Council in March agreed a proposal introducing a mechanism to enable swift action to be taken in cases of predatory practices by airlines. This is a vital ingredient of the single market. Two other EC regulations have also now taken effect: one which further liberalises arrangements for Community air cargo services, and one which sets minimum levels of denied boarding compensation for passengers. We now await the Commission's proposals for the final stage of liberalisation, which we understand will be put forward shortly.

  Casualty Rates
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the rates and trends of European countries' road deaths and serious injuries since the beginning of 1987.

  Mr. Chope
  The definition of serious injury varies considerably between different countries. It is therefore not possible to make meaningful comparisons. The table gives information on road deaths in European Community countries taken from the United Nations Economic Council for Europe—ECE—publication "Statistics of road traffic accidents in Europe" for 1987, 1988 and 1989. The standard international definition of a fatality is where death occurs within 30 days of a road accident. Figures for those countries which use a different definition have been adjusted according to scaling factors used by the ECE.
  13

  Road deaths and rates of road deaths: EC countries 1987–89

  Source: UN/ECE publication 'Statistics of road traffic accidents in Europe'.

  Number Killed1

  Scaling Factor

  Scaled Number Killed

  Population (thousands)

  Traffic (million veh kms)

  Rate per 100,000 Population

  Rate per 100 million vehicle kms

  1987:

  United Kingdom

  5,339

  1·00

  5,339

  56,930

  ֵ

  9·4

  ֵ

  Great Britain

  5,125

  1·00

  5,125

  55,355

  356,2001

  9·3

  1·4

  Belgium

  1,922

  1·00

  1,922

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Denmark

  698

  1·00

  698

  5,125

  ֵ

  13·6

  ֵ

  France

  9,855

  1·09

  10·742

  55,510

  ֵ

  19·4

  ֵ

  Germany (West)

  7,967

  1·00

  7,967

  61,077

  401,000

  13·0

  2·0

  Greece

  1,502

  1·12

  1,682

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Ireland

  462

  1·00

  462

  3,543

  ֵ

  13·0

  ֵ

  Italy

  6,784

  1·07

  7,259

  ֵ

  313,655

  ֵ

  2·3

  Luxembourg

  68

  1·00

  68

  370

  ֵ

  18·4

  ֵ

  Netherlands

  1,485

  1·00

  1,485

  14,614

  87,960

  10·2

  1·7

  Portugal

  2,296

  1·30

  2,985

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Spain

  5,858

  1·30

  7,615

  38,832

  92,48 52

  19·6

  ֵ

  1988:

  United Kingdom

  5,230

  1·00

  5,230

  57,065

  ֵ

  9·2

  ֵ

  Great Britain

  5,052

  1·00

  5,052

  55,487

  380,9001

  9·1

  1·3

  Belgium

  1,967

  1·00

  1,967

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Denmark

  713

  1·00

  713

  5,129

  ֵ

  13·9

  ֵ

  France

  10,548

  1·09

  11,497

  55,750

  ֵ

  20·6

  ֵ

  Germany (West)

  8,213

  1·00

  8,213

  61,715

  427,400

  13·3

  1·9

  Greece

  1,511

  1·12

  1,692

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Ireland

  463

  1·00

  463

  3,538

  ֵ

  13·1

  ֵ

  Italy

  6,939

  1·07

  7,425

  57,505

  331,800

  12·9

  2·2

  Luxembourg

  84

  1·00

  84

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Netherlands

  1,366

  1·00

  1,366

  14,714

  93,762

  9·3

  1·5

  Portugal

  2,534

  1·30

  3,294

  10,305

  ֵ

  32·0

  ֵ

  Spain

  6,348

  1·30

  8,252

  39,078

  99,1592

  21·1

  ֵ

  1989:

  United Kingdom

  5,554

  1·00

  5,554

  57,236

  ֵ

  9·7

  ֵ

  Great Britain

  5,373

  1·00

  55,653

  407,8001

  9·7

  1·3

  Belgium

  1,993

  1·00

  1,993

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Denmark

  670

  1·00

  670

  5,130

  ֵ

  13·1

  ֵ

  France

  10,528

  1·09

  11,476

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Germany (West)

  7,995

  1·00

  7,995

  16,434

  438,500

  48·6

  1·8

  Greece

  1,699

  112

  1,903

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Ireland

  460

  1·00

  460

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Italy

  6,410

  1·07

  6,859

  57,575

  ֵ

  11·9

  ֵ

  Luxembourg

  67

  1·00

  67

  378

  ֵ

  17·7

  ֵ

  Netherlands

  1,456

  1·00

  1,456

  14,804

  95,489

  9·8

  1·5

  . Portugal

  2,375

  1·30

  3,088

  10,337

  ֵ

  29·9

  ֵ

  Spain

  7,188

  1·30

  9,344

  38,925

  105,0001

  24·0

  ֵ

  1 Traffic data for Great Britain has been revised since the publication of the ECE bulletin. Data is taken from 'Road Accidents Great Britain 1989'.

  2 Traffic on state roads only.

  ֵDenotes data not available.

  Children in Cars
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current rear seat occupancy rate by children in cars in traffic.

  Mr. Chope
  Observations from a Transport and Road Research Laboratory survey of seat belt wearing carried out in April indicate that 10 per cent. of cars contain rear seat passengers under the age of 14 years.

  Transport 2000 Seminar
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will be represented at the seminar, "Transport; Roads for Development or Exploitation," organised by Transport 2000 at Westminster Central hall on 13 July.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of his plans to monitor the effectiveness of compulsory rear seat belt wearing for adults which comes into effect on 1 July.

  Mr. Chope
  The roadside surveys of seat belt wearing carried out at six-monthly intervals by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory will monitor the change in wearing rates following introduction of the new law. In addition, the quarterly analysis by my Department of data from the road accident report forms completed by the police will reveal how effective the new law has been in reducing the number and severity of casualties among rear seat passengers.

  Motor Cyclists
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further advice he will give to motor cyclists following the publication of "Your Driving Test and Driving".

  Mr. Chope
  I am pleased to announce that the Driving Standards Agency has produced an official reference book for motor cycle riders which will be published today. It covers a wide variety of subjects including all aspects of riding technique with particular emphasis on defensive riding, equipment, legal requirements, details of compulsory basic training, the motor cycle test and basic maintenance. The book will cost £6·95 and will be available from HMSO agents and high street bookstores. I am placing copies in the Library.

  Buses (London)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many buses are currently being operated in the Greater London area; what the figures were 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  London Transport tells me that, excluding Green Line routes, there are currently 4,910 buses in the Greater London area operated by London Buses Ltd. or under agreement with, or under contract to, London Transport. The figures for 10 and 15 years ago were 5,094 and 5,611 respectively. The figure of 4,910 does not include buses operated under London local service licences.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the study, "The Hex Connection: Some Problems and Hazards Associated with the Transportation of Uranium Hexafluoride", by Dr. Miles Goldstick, published by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, in April.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This publication is currently on order.

  Transport Act 1985
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has conducted a recent survey on the effect of the Transport Act 1985 on off-peak and Sunday services.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There has been no recent survey of off-peak and Sunday services.

  London Transport (MMC Report)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on London Transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. I have however received one letter supporting an article which appeared in the Financial Times of 6 June about the MMC report, which called for more investment in the underground.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those counties in England for which there are no motorway or trunk road signs to their principal towns.

  Mr. Chope
  The Isle of Wight is unique among English counties in this respect.

  Fuel Efficiency
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been undertaken by his Department to evaluate the effectiveness of corporate average fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicle manufacturers; and if he will introduce such standards in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 24 June 1991]: The Department has examined the impact of the United States corporate average fuel efficiency scheme. Although the scheme has improved overall fuel economy within the vehicle fleet in the United States of America, it is generally acknowledged to be a regulatory measure made necessary by the very low gasoline prices in the United States of America.

  The Government are working with the EC to ensure that if any measures are taken to regulate fuel economy, they are sensible and effective.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the European Commission about the environmental impact of the east London river crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 27 June 1991]: My right hon. and learned Friend has had no discussions with the European Commission about the east London river crossing. An official response to a letter from the Commission about the scheme was sent in December 1989.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the nearest proposed red route to Leyton and Leytonstone.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 27 June 1991]: The priority red route network will be based largely on the primary route network in London, as indicated in the discussion document "Traffic in London". Copies of this document were placed in the Library in December 1989.

  It is likely therefore that the nearest routes to Leyton and Leytonstone will be the A106 and A 11, but decisions will be taken only after consultation in accordance with the provisions of the Road Traffic Bill.

  Pontypool-Newport Line
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investment proposals he has received from British Rail to improve services on the Pontypool to Newport line.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  British Rail has not proposed any investment for the Pontypool to Newport line.

  Networker Express Trains
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress there has been towards approving investment in the new Networker express rolling stock for the Kent coast services of British Rail.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Investment priorities are a matter for British Rail. It has recently submitted a strategy document for this rolling stock to my Department. My officials are discussing it with the board. More work needs to be done by BR before a formal investment case can be presented.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Auditing Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the functions of the recognised supervisory bodies to be created under the Companies Act 1989 in respect of disciplining(a) auditing firms and (b) individual partners in auditing firms.

  Mr. Redwood
  Under paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 11 to the Act, a recognised supervisory body must have inter alia adequate arrangements and resources for the effective enforcement of compliance with its rules. This could entail disciplinary action against individual partners as well as against the audit firm itself.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the names of the bodies to which complaints may be made about the behaviour and conduct of the recognised supervisory bodies.

  Mr. Redwood
  Complaints should be made to the body itself. Paragraph 12 of schedule 11 to the Companies Act 1989 requires a recognised supervisory body for company auditors to have effective arrangements for the investigation of complaints against the body in respect of matters arising out of its functions as a supervisory body. I would expect such arrangements to include independent or lay involvement in the investigation.

  In addition, under the Act the Secretary of State will have a continuing role in ensuring that recognised supervisory bodies satisfy the criteria for recognition, and he would therefore have an interest in complaints about their behaviour and conduct.

  Financial Reporting Review Panel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will propose legislation, specifying the time limit within which the financial reporting review panel will be required to respond to a complaint.

  Mr. Redwood
  It was one of the preconditions for authorising the financial reporting review panel under section 245C of the Companies Act 1985 for the purposes of section 245B of the Act that the panel appeared to my right hon. Friend to have satisfactory procedures for receiving and investigating complaints. The panel's procedures were published on 27 June and a copy has been placed in the library.

  Accountancy Practices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to introduce regulations under which all the members of the accountancy profession would have equal access to information relating to the Auditing Standards Board.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is for the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies and the Auditing Practices Board, as appropriate, to determine their policy on access to information about the board.

  Catering
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet the Federation of Catering Equipment Suppliers.

  Mr. Leigh
  I would consider sympathetically any such request.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases the Insolvency Service has investigated in Yorkshire in the last 12 months for which statistics are kept; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Although statistics are not kept on a county basis, all cases except summary administrations are inquired into by official receivers of the Insolvency Service and where the circumstances of the insolvency require are subject to further investigation. As a result of those investigations, during the year ended 31 March 1991, official receivers covering the Yorkshire area, which would also include parts of adjoining counties, submitted 209 reports alleging either the commission of possible criminal offences or recommending application be made for the disqualification of directors whose conduct appears to make them unfit to be concerned in the management of limited companies. As at 30 June 1991, there were 191 cases under investigation by those official receivers.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many officials in the Yorkshire offices of the Insolvency Service are qualified in(a) law and (b) accountancy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest figures available show that 29 officials in the Yorkshire offices of the Insolvency Service have studied for accountancy or allied qualifications. Of these, three are fully qualified, one will shortly be sitting her final examinations and others are still studying. None of these officers has a law degree and such legal expertise as is required is provided by the solicitors division of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Gold and Silver
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effect of the single European market in respect of consumer protection on the purchase of items made from gold and silver.

  Mr. Leigh
  There are no proposals at present to introduce a Communitywide system of marking precious metals so the completion of the single European market
  19
  will not in itself have any effect on the legislation currently in force in the United Kingdom and the other member states in this area. It will, however, be necessary at some stage to establish a common regime for precious metals in the European Community. The Government have made it clear that they regard the compulsory marking of articles of precious metals as essential to protect both purchasers and the trade and that the United Kingdom hallmarking system is the best means of ensuring this.

  Medicines
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of representations from the manufacturers of generic medicines on the issue of supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products were in favour of the European Commission's proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The representations received from the manufacturers of generic medicines have covered a range of views. None has given unqualified support to the Commission's proposal; indeed, some have not favoured any supplementary protection. Most, however, have recognised the case for some supplementary protection, but have advocated a shorter period or have suggested other provisions to offset the effect of supplementary protection on generics manufacturers.

  Whitbread (Tenancy Agreements)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what moves he is making to collect evidence on the way in which Whitbread is using notices to quit to enforce tenancy agreements with licensed victuallers.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Secretary of State has made it clear that the issuing of notices to quit is not necessarily to comply with the beer orders. He has met Whitbread to urge the company to keep the number of notices to quit to an absolute minimum. The renegotiation of tenancy agreements is of course a commercial matter between the landlords and their tenants. However Whitbread has been asked to keep my Department informed of progress, including about the number of notices it sends to tenants.

  Premium Rate Phone Services
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Office of Telecommunications about the establishment of a compensation scheme in respect of recorded premium telephone services.

  Mr. Redwood
  The issue of compensation schemes in respect of premium rate telephone services was considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1989. Its report recommended that such a scheme should be introduced for chatlines. This scheme is now in operation and also includes other live services. It was not recommended that it should include recorded services. I have not held any recent discussions with OFTEL about extending the scheme in this way.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department has no immediate plans for further television advertising. In the current financial year publicity activities in support of the following elements of departmental programmes are expected to cost more than £100,000:

  Enterprise Initiative

  Single European Market

  Export Promotion

  Innovation, Research and Development

  Managing into the 90s

  Manufacturing Practice

  Information Technology

  Consumer Affairs

  Business and the Environment

  Inner Cities

  The Queen's Awards for Export and Technology

  UK Space Interests

  Deregulation

  Inward Investment (Overseas Publicity)

  Staff Recruitment

  This list excludes expenditure on the day-to-day marketing of services by the Department's executive agencies.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of jobs in the footwear and textile and related industries liable to be lost if the multi-fibre arrangement were abolished.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Professor Silberston's independent study for my Department, published in October 1989, estimated that an immediate rather than phased ending of the multi-fibre arrangement could lead to between 16,500 and 33,000 job losses in the United Kingdom textiles and clothing industry, with the lower estimate being the more realistic figure. The study also estimated that the MFA cost United Kingdom consumers £980 million a year at 1988 prices. With minor exceptions, the multi-fibre arrangement does not cover footwear products.

  ECGD Insurance Services Group
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the proposed privatisation of the short-term business of the Export Credits Guarantee Department currently operated by the Insurance Services Group.

  Mr. Lilley
  Preparatory work for the privatisation has been taking place for some time. Parliament has been informed of progress as the sale of this business is subject to the completion of the passage of the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill through both Houses of Parliament.

  An invitation to tender was issued in early March and I have now completed a thorough review of the responses. I have paid particular attention to the bidders' commitment to, and understanding of, the business, the financial robustness of the proposals, the future business plans and the likely acceptability of the bidder to customers and to staff, as well as to price. In the light of

  21
  this review, I have selected NCM as the preferred purchaser of the business. This selection is, of course, subject to contract and there will now be a period of detailed negotiations between the Government and the company.

  I am confident that the proposed transfer of the business to the private sector will provide United Kingdom exporters with access to a more comprehensive and efficient service than will be possible from within a public sector environment. The Government will continue to provide support for the business through the proposed reinsurance arrangements with the new company, including the "national interest facility" which will continue, subject to satisfactory financial performance, for as long as the Government consider it essential to meet the reasonable needs of exporters.

  Simpler Trade Procedures Board
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the operation of his Department's Simpler Trade Procedures Board and its electronic data interchange facility since it was established.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 25 June 1991]: The Simpler Trade Procedures Board (SITPRO) is a non-departmental public body supported by my Department. SITPRO's main objectives are the elimination of unnecessary procedural barriers to international trade and the provision of impartial advice to British exporters on procedural aspects of exporting. SITPRO is a world leader in the development of international standards for electronic data interchange.

  Czech and Slovak Federal Republic
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what current initiatives are under way sponsored by his Department to increase trade and enterprise in and with the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 27 June 1991]: Overseas trade services staff in the United Kingdom and Prague provide a range of services to encourage trade with and enterprise in Czechoslovakia. A DTI official is on secondment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to help administer the know-how fund's schemes to assist longer-term investments in eligible countries, including Czechoslovakia.

  Food Imports
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the United Kingdom's trade deficit with the rest of the EEC can be attributed to food imports.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom's net visible trade deficit with the European Community was £10·8 billion in 1990. The visible trade deficit in respect of food, feed and drink was £4·4 billion. It would be wrong to conclude from such figures that 41 per cent. of the deficit could be attributed to food: because some sectors have positive balances, the sum of the deficits will add to more than 100 per cent. Thus the deficit on machinery was 43 per cent., that on motor vehicles was 50 per cent. and that on miscellaneous goods was 27 per cent.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Miscampbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid has been given to Bangladesh in the last six months.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The most recent figures available for British aid to Bangladesh are for the financial year 1989–90 when £52·8 million was disbursed. Within the last six months, our assistance has also included an additional £11·85 million to help the Bangladesh people cope with the effects of the recent cyclone.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mercenaries
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to ratify the United Nations international convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We did not sign the convention and therefore do not propose to ratify it. Implementation of the convention would require primary legislation. Following the consideration of the whole question by the Diplock committee, we decided not to introduce legislation on mercenaries. We still do not consider that the need for such legislation has been established.

  EC Council of Ministers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community's Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Fisheries Council will meet on 8 July and Ministers will discuss the 10th, 11th and 12th amendments to the conservation regulations and control methods in the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation regulatory area. Ministers may also discuss North sea and Celtic sea herring and Norwegian sand eels.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 8 July to conduct a multilateral surveillance of the economies of member states. Ministers may consider the formal adoption of the Commission's annual economic report and discuss further the investment services directive. Ministers may discuss European investment bank lending outside the Community with a view to examining the possibility of extending European invesment bank operations to other countries and regions and adopt a Council statement on the Commission's report on European Community fraud.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 15 and 16 July and Ministers will discuss the agricultural aspects of the GATT Uruguay round and food quality. Ministers may also discuss the welfare of animals during transport and reform of the common agricultural policy.
  23
  The Internal Market Council will meet on 22 July and Ministers may consider the Dutch presidency's proposed directive on sweeteners in foodstuffs, and three related proposals on the rational use of medicines. Ministers might also discuss the draft regulation to provide for a European company statute, and the second Diplomas Directive.

  The Budget Council will meet on 25 July to consider the 1992 preliminary draft budget submitted by the Commission.

  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 29 and 30 July. Ministers are likely to discuss follow-up to the European Council on 28 and 29 June. Ministers may review the state of negotiations of association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the question of European Community assistance to the Soviet Union. Ministers will discuss the European Community investment partners facility, an instrument designed to promote joint ventures in developing countries. The revision of the Commission's mandate for the negotiations between the European Community and Gulf Co-operation Council on a free trade agreement may be considered. Ministers will review progress in the EC/EFTA negotiations on a European economic area and may also examine EC/Turkey relations. There may also be a ministerial session on the intergovernmental conference on political union on 29 or 30 July.

  The Gulf (Disappearances)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 June,Official Report, column 635–36, what information he has received on the disappearance of the British TV journalist Rosanna Della Casa and on the deaths of Nick Della Casa and Charles Maxwell in the Turkish-Iraqi border region, from (a) Turkish authorities, (b) Iraqi authorities and (c) the commission to investigate the incident; and if he will make this information available to their next of kin.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received the full co-operation of the Turkish authorities in our inquiries into the disappearance of Mrs. Rosanna della Casa and the deaths of Mr. Nicholas della Casa and Mr. Charles Maxwell. The Iraqi authorities have also said that they will co-operate. Investigations are continuing with the assistance of Scotland Yard. Next-of-kin are being kept informed at every stage.

  "The Gulf Between Us: The Gulf War and Beyond"
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to obtain for his departmental library a copy of the study, "The Gulf Between Us: The Gulf War and Beyond", edited by Victoria Brittain.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Not at present. It will be ordered if it is required.

  Arms Control Yearbook
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the 1991 "Yearbook on Arms Control and Environmental Agreements (Verification Report)" edited by J. B. Poole.
  24
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Yes.

  National Union of Mineworkers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking in respect of the unauthorised release of information from Government communications headquarters or its outstations on the financial affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 7 June, at column 367.

  Guyana
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are sending official observers from the United Kingdom to observe the elections in Guyana in October; what support(a) the United Nations and (b) the Commonwealth are giving in the conduct of the elections; and what contribution Her Majesty's Government are making towards the costs of such assistance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government of Guyana have indicated that they will allow only official election observers from the Carter centre and the Commonwealth secretariat.

  We have agreed to make a substantial contribution towards the costs of the Commonwealth observer mission, in line with the established formula governing contributions from Commonwealth member states to the Commonwealth secretariat's activities.

  I have no information that the United Nations will play a role during the elections in Guyana.

  A date for the elections has not yet been announced.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no plans to carry out a paid TV advertising campaign. The only domestic publicity campaign costing more than £100,000 that it will carry out is a continuing series of leaflets for British travellers explaining consular services abroad and giving general travel advice. The budget for this campaign in the present financial year is £200,000. Existing TV and radio publicity on the same theme is broadcast free as public service announcements and the FCO has no plans to produce new material at home.

  The FCO has budgeted £12·4 million in the present financial year for publicity of various kinds overseas to promote Britain and in support of British Government policies.

  Liaison Group of Anti-Apartheid Movements
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's response to the memorandum of the
  25
  Liaison Group of Anti-Apartheid Movements of 10 June to the President of the Council of Ministers; and if Her Majesty's Government will support its being discussed at the Luxembourg summit.

  Mrs. Chalker
  EC Heads of Government discussed South Africa at Luxembourg as the right hon. Member will he aware. They welcomed the important progress made in South Africa towards the abolition of apartheid. They did not agree with the liaison group's recommendation that the EC should suspend its decision to lift some sanctions against South Africa.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Footpaths and Bridleways
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley of 4 June,Official Report, column 196, if he will make it his practice to keep central records of the number of public footpaths and public bridleways that have been created or closed to the general public.

  Mr. Needham
  Under the Access to the Countryside (NI) Order 1983 it is the responsibility of each district council to compile and preserve maps and other records of public rights of way in its district. It is not my intention to have the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland duplicate those records.

  Maydown Incinerator
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends that the hazardous waste incinerator proposed for Maydown, County Londonderry will he no risk to the community or the environment.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 26 June 1991,Official Report, column 488.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further regulations he intends to introduce with respect to the control of substances hazardous to health in the proposed incinerator at Maydown, County Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  If the proposed incinerator came into operation, it would become subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and health and safety regulations made under the order. At present, the Department of Economic Development does not intend to introduce health and safety regulations with specific respect to the proposed facility.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research he has undertaken to determine whether the waste presently earmarked for incineration in the proposed plant at Maydown, Co. Londonderry, could be recycled by the producers of such waste.

  Mr. Needham
  The extent to which waste can be minimised and recycled will be central in the consideration by any company of the feasibility of an incinerator. High temperature incineration—without doubt, the most costly solution—will be considered only when it is clearly the only appropriate technology for disposal.
  26
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evaluation of the site of the proposed incinerator at Maydown will be, or has been, undertaken by(a) his Department and (b) other and independent bodies, to determine where in Northern Ireland any emissions would deposit in a wind speed of zero, five, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 mph blowing from the south to north west points of the compass.

  Mr. Needham
  If it decides to proceed with this proposal, Du Pont (UK) Ltd. would be obliged to submit a planning application which would be treated as a major application under article 22 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. The submission of an environmental statement with this application would be mandatory under the terms of EC directive 337/85 and the Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989. As part of this environmental statement, the company would be required to carry out detailed mathematical modelling of the incinerator's emissions—a wide range of wind speeds would be used —and their impact on all compass points would be assessed. The company's submission would be critically examined by the alkali and radiochemical inspectorate of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. The Department has no information about the evaluation of this site by other and independent bodies.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to building an incinerator which could deal with non-hazardous and non-toxic waste as well as with hazardous waste.

  Mr. Needham
  There are significant differences in the requirements for the combustion and destruction of these wastes.

  Chemical Waste
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the percentage of chemical waste produced by (1) Du Pont and (2) the rest of Northern Ireland which could be rendered safe by a digestion process.

  Mr. Needham
  Chemical waste produced by Du Pont and other similar industries in Northern Ireland is, by its nature, not digestible by any known process. The only possible methods of disposal are in hazardous waste landfill or by high temperature incineration.

  Harbour Improvements
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to improve the harbours at Church Bay, Rathlin and at Ballycastle, and to promote a better ferry service.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) has taken the following steps to improve the ferry service between Ballycastle and Rathlin:

  (a) Negotiations are under way with the ferry operators regarding the provison of an annual subsidy to ensure the continuance of the serviceand for a grant toward the improvement of the ferries, particularly as regards passenger safety and comfort.

  27

  (b) Work is being carried out this year to improve acces s to Rathlin Harbour. Taking into account investigations at Ballycastle Harbour total expenditure this year will be over £300,000.

  (c) Plans to provide safe berthing at Ballycastle and to deepen the harbour at, and channel to, Rathlin Harbour have been agreed with the Moyle District Council which owns the harbours. These works have been estimated at almost £4 million and, subject to the availability of finance, are schedule for completion in 1993.

  These actions will secure the ferry service in the short term and will allow the introduction of a modern service. The form of such a service has not yet been decided.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give for each available year from 1978, the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the

  Electricity

  Oil

  Gas

  Area sq ft million

  1983–84

  Consumption

  25·5 million Kwh

  4·25 million litres

  72 Kth

  Cash prices

  £1,140,000

  £680,000

  £58,000

  1990–91 prices

  £1,537,359

  £717,053

  £70,931

  1984–85

  Consumption

  27·2 million Kwh

  4·65 million litres

  79 Kth

  Cash prices

  £1,065,000

  £684,000

  £58,000

  1990–91 prices

  £1,408,056

  £667,843

  £69,540

  1985–86

  Consumption

  29·6 million Kwh

  4·83 million litres

  61 Kth

  Cash prices

  £1,443,000

  £863,000

  £51,000

  1990–91 prices

  £1,834,437

  £851,126

  £59,262

  1986–87

  Consumption

  36·5 million Kwh

  5·21 million litres

  36 Kth

  Cash prices

  £1,518,000

  £534,000

  £36,000

  2·87

  1990–91 prices

  £1,929,783

  £658,321

  £41,491

  1987–88

  Consumption

  33·8 million Kwh

  5·14 million litres

  47 Kth

  Cash prices

  £1,563,000

  £437,000

  £33,000

  2·92

  1990–91 prices

  £1,986,991

  £579,284

  £40,035

  1988–89

  Consumption

  33·6 million Kwh

  5·63 million litres

  8 Kth

  Cash prices

  £1,611,000

  £396,000

  £3,000

  2·92

  1990–91 prices

  £1,878,910

  £514,642

  £3,162

  1989–90

  Consumption

  33·18 million Kwh

  5·2 million litres

  25 Kth

  Cash prices

  £1,622,000

  £469,000

  £11,000

  2·96

  1990–91 prices

  £1,767,980

  £534,660

  £11,550

  1990–91

  Consumption

  Not yet available

  Cash prices (including VAT)

  £1,857,000

  £588,000

  —

  3·22

  1990–91 prices

  £1,857,000

  £588,000

  —

  Oil and electricity were subject to VAT from 1 July 1990.

WALES

  Rural Affairs Department
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received advocating the setting up of a rural affairs department in the Welsh Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No statistics are kept of representations on this subject, but I am aware of a small number of representations over recent years.
  28
  buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in (a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: The energy information requested for the years prior to 1983–84 and the square footage information prior to 1986–87 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. From 1983–84 onwards, the energy consumption and costs for the Northern Ireland Government office estate, broken down by fuel together with the square footage of accommodation to which it relates, is as follows:—

  Because of the multi-functional nature of my right hon. Friend's responsibilities, the Welsh Office is well placed to take an overview of different policies as they affect rural affairs. There is also a great deal of collaboration between the various parts of the Welsh Office and between the Department and other agencies and bodies concerned with rural affairs.

  Teachers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales ( I ) if he will publish a table showing the number of teacher vacancies and vacancies as a percentage of teachers in post in Wales(a) by grade and (b) by main teaching subject in each year from 1986;

  (2) if he will publish a value showing (a) the number of teacher vacancies and (b) vacancies as a percentage of teachers in post in each county in Wales during each year from 1986;

  The number of unfilled teacher vacancies and teacher vacancies as a proportion of full-time teaching posts Primary schools

  Clwvd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1988

  Number of vacancies

  8

  6

  52

  1

  69

  6

  2

  0

  144

  Percentage of full-time teachers

  0·56

  0·39

  2·97

  0·10

  2·64

  1·10

  0·13

  0·00

  1·20

  1989

  Number of vacancies

  17

  4

  46

  8

  90

  5

  11

  0

  181

  Percentage of full-time teachers

  1·18

  0·25

  2·58

  0·81

  3·56

  0·94

  0·70

  0·00

  1·50

  1990

  Number of vacancies

  31

  3

  33

  26

  81

  10

  3

  0

  187

  Percentage of full-time teachers

  2·14

  0·18

  1·83

  2·64

  3·27

  1·81

  0·18

  0·00

  1·53

  1991

  Number of vacancies

  5

  8

  81

  21

  108

  5

  16

  28

  272

  Percentage of full-time teachers

  0·34

  0·48

  4·50

  2·17

  4·12

  0·93

  0·98

  1·69

  2·20

  Secondary Schools

  Year

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1986

  Number of vacancies

  3

  20

  26

  13

  41

  0

  6

  72

  181

  Percentage of FT teachers

  0·16

  1·25

  1·18

  1·02

  1·47

  0·00

  0·34

  4·01

  1·30

  1987

  Number of vacancies

  2

  8

  3

  9

  34

  0

  0

  13

  69

  Percentage of FT teachers

  0·11

  0·50

  0·14

  0·72

  1·26

  0·00

  0·00

  0·75

  0·51

  1988

  Number of vacancies

  2

  4

  25

  11

  32

  11

  1

  5

  91

  Percentage of FT teachers

  0·11

  026

  1·23

  0·92

  1·21

  1·96

  0·06

  0·29

  0·69

  1989

  Number of vacancies

  9

  3

  15

  16

  35

  11

  4

  12

  105

  Percentage of FT teachers

  0·52

  0·20

  0·77

  1·36

  1·35

  1·94

  0·25

  0·72

  0·82

  1990

  Number of vacancies

  11

  11

  46

  22

  38

  10

  10

  11

  159

  Percentage of FT teachers

  0·64

  0·72

  2·46

  1·92

  1·62

  1·77

  0·60

  0·68

  1·28

  1991

  Number of vacancies

  14

  12

  11

  20

  69

  9

  7

  17

  159

  Percentage of FT teachers

  0·84

  0·78

  0·60

  1·83

  2·92

  1·63

  0·42

  1·07

  1·30

  Unfilled teacher vacancies and teacher vacancies as a proportion of full-time teachers in secondary schools by subject taught

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Subject

  Number

  Proportion of posts Per cent.

  Number

  Proportion of posts Per cent.

  Number

  Proportion of posts Per cent.

  Number

  Proportion of posts Per cent.

  Number

  Proportion of posts Per cent.

  Number

  Proportion of posts Per cent.

  Mathematics

  21

  1·31

  7

  0·45

  6

  0·40

  8

  0·54

  18

  1·25

  15

  1·06

  Computer studies

  7

  2·90

  5

  2·13

  3

  1·32

  1

  0·45

  2

  0·93

  1

  0·47

  Chemistry

  4

  0·96

  2

  0·50

  0

  0·00

  3

  0·79

  4

  1·08

  5

  1·37

  Physics

  7

  1·58

  4

  0·93

  3

  0·72

  6

  1·48

  3

  0·76

  5

  1·29

  Biology

  2

  0·39

  1

  0·20

  4

  0·82

  2

  0·42

  1

  0·22

  2

  0·44

  Other Science

  6

  0·86

  3

  0·44

  7

  1·06

  4

  0·62

  8

  1·29

  12

  1·96

  French

  11

  1·57

  4

  0·59

  5

  0·76

  13

  2·02

  8

  1·28

  12

  1·95

  30
  (3) if he will publish the results of his Department's latest survey into teacher vacancies in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The latest survey on teacher vacancies was carried out in January 1991. The results are included in the following tables which show the number of teacher vacancies in all schools and the number of vacancies by subject in secondary schools between 1986 and 1991. Comparable information for the primary sector is not available for 1986 and 1987. Details of teacher vacancies by subject in primary schools and by grade are not held centrally.
  31

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Subject

  Number

  Proportion of posts Per cent.

  Number

  Proportion of posts Per cent.

  Number

  Proportion of posts Per cent.

  Number

  Proportion of posts Per cent.

  Number

  Proportion of posts Per cent.

  Number

  Proportion of posts Per cent.

  German

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  1

  0·71

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  2

  1·51

  French/German

  1

  0·00

  1

  0·00

  1

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  5

  0·00

  3

  0·00

  Spanish

  0

  0·00

  1

  3·79

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  Welsh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  0·00

  Other Languages1

  8

  n.a.

  2

  n.a.

  7

  n.a.

  6

  n.a.

  16

  n.a.

  6

  n.a.

  English

  15

  1·06

  10

  0·73

  14

  1·05

  12

  0·92

  27

  2·13

  8

  0·64

  Drama

  4

  3·95

  2

  2·04

  1

  1·05

  1

  1·07

  1

  1·11

  1

  1·12

  History

  10

  1·44

  1

  0·15

  1

  0·15

  4

  0·62

  7

  1·13

  1

  0·16

  Social Studies

  5

  3·51

  0

  0·00

  1

  0·74

  2

  1·53

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  Geography

  13

  1·74

  4

  0·55

  3

  0·43

  4

  0·58

  6

  0·90

  7

  1·06

  Religious Education

  4

  0·85

  1

  0·22

  0

  0·00

  1

  0·23

  4

  0·95

  3

  0·72

  CDT

  16

  2·00

  1

  0·13

  7

  0·93

  7

  0·95

  7

  0·98

  5

  0·71

  Commerce/Business

  5

  1·68

  5

  1·74

  3

  1·07

  2

  0·73

  7

  2·64

  0

  0·00

  Art/Light Craft

  4

  0·62

  1

  0·16

  4

  0·66

  1

  0·17

  2

  0·35

  3

  0·53

  Home Economics/N'work

  8

  1·03

  2

  0·27

  4

  0·55

  4

  0·56

  1

  0·14

  7

  1·02

  Music

  5

  1·19

  3

  0·73

  2

  0·50

  2

  0·52

  6

  1·60

  11

  2·97

  Physical Education

  11

  1·26

  3

  0·35

  3

  0·36

  3

  0·20

  6

  0·77

  7

  0·91

  Remedial

  11

  2·02

  6

  1·14

  5

  0·97

  1

  0·20

  11

  2·27

  5

  1·04

  Careers

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  Other main subjects

  1

  0·22

  0

  0·00

  1

  0·23

  5

  1·17

  1

  0·24

  2

  0·49

  Combined subjects

  2

  22·97

  0

  0·00

  1

  12·18

  2

  24·98

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  Sub total

  181

  —

  69

  —

  87

  —

  94

  —

  151

  —

  117

  —

  Head vacancies3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  Deputy Head vacancies2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  7

  —

  6

  —

  10

  —

  Total vacancies

  181

  —

  69

  —

  91

  —

  105

  —

  159

  —

  131

  —

  1 Prior to 1991 the number of vacancies for teachers taking Welsh was included with those vacancies for teachers taking other languages. LEAs also reported teacher vacancies for teachers required to teach two languages in this category.

  2 Separately identified figures for heads and deputy heads were collected for the first time in 1988 possibly resulting in undercounting in earlier years. But to the extent that they were recorded prior to 1988 they will have been allocated to a teaching subject, slightly inflating the number of vacancies in individual subjects relative to their 1988 value.

  Notes:

  1. Vacancies are recorded for full-time permanent appointments or full-time appointments of at least one term's duration which an authority intends to fill or to which it has unsuccessfully attempted to make such an appointment.

  2. The number of teachers is provided by LEAs on the form 618G and relates to all teachers working full-time. The number of teaching posts has been estimated by applying the proportion of teachers in each subject obtained from the 1989 Secondary School Staffing Survey to the number of full-time teachers in post in each year.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to publish the results, or a report thereof, of his quinquennial review of the work of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The conclusions of the reviews will be published and these will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Trading Standards
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his proposals for the future of the organisation of the trading standards service in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The organisation of the trading standards service will be a matter for consideration in the context of any decision to restructure local government in Wales.

  Craft Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of how public funding provided in 1990–91 to aid the craft industry in Wales via the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural 32
  Wales and the Wales Craft Council was spent; how many businesses benefited directly therefrom; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The financial year 1990–91 was the final year of the three-year Craft Initiative. Details of how public funding provided to aid the craft industry in Wales was spent during the initiative, and the number of businesses that benefited in that period, were provided in the evaluation of the initiative. A copy of this has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the changes in the incidence of unemployment in(a) Wales and (b) the area covered by the valleys programme in each of the past 30 months for which figures are available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is contained in the following table:

  Unemployment in the programme for the Valleys area and Wales

  Valleys

  Wales

  Total

  Absolute monthly change

  Total

  Absolute monthly change

  1988

  November

  30,354

  —

  115,768

  —

  December

  30,292

  -62

  114,533

  -1,235

  33

  Valleys

  Wales

  Total

  Absolute monthly change

  Total

  Absolute monthly change

  1989

  January

  30,963

  671

  116,245

  1,712

  February

  29,812

  -1,151

  112,044

  -4,201

  March

  29,095

  -717

  107,696

  -4,348

  April

  28,543

  -552

  103,188

  -4,508

  May

  27,411

  -1,132

  97,818

  -5,370

  June

  26,279

  -1,132

  92,804

  -5,014

  July

  26,291

  12

  93,272

  468

  August

  25,714

  -577

  91,113

  -2,159

  September

  25,928

  214

  90,594

  -519

  October

  24,091

  -1,837

  86,514

  -4,080

  November

  23,296

  -795

  85,658

  -856

  December

  23,677

  381

  87,161

  1,503

  1990

  January

  24,764

  1,087

  90,349

  3,188

  February

  24,183

  -581

  88,851

  -1,498

  March

  23,797

  -386

  86,638

  -2,213

  April

  23,474

  -323

  84,557

  -2,081

  May

  22,922

  -522

  81,194

  -3,363

  June

  22,417

  -505

  79,103

  -2,091

  July

  23,146

  729

  83,202

  4,099

  August

  23,330

  184

  84,609

  1,407

  September

  23,647

  317

  85,858

  1,249

  October

  23,411

  -236

  86,030

  172

  November

  24,052

  641

  89,923

  3,893

  December

  25,559

  1,507

  95,662

  5,739

  1991

  January

  27,077

  1,518

  101,452

  5,790

  February

  27,746

  669

  104,889

  3,437

  March

  28,995

  1,249

  108,049

  3,160

  April

  30,309

  1,314

  110,504

  2,455

  May

  30,274

  -35

  110,237

  -267

  Source: Employment Department.

  Standard Assessment Tasks
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those who have made representations concerning the implementation of standard assessment tasks; and whether he intends to revise them following their representations.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As at 27 June the following representations had been received.

  Number of Representations

  Teachers

  10

  School governing bodies

  15

  Parents

  18

  Teacher associations and unions

  3

  1 Plus 1 petition containing 58 signatures.

  Many of the correspondents provide constructive comment on the assessment arrangements and these have

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  11990

  Clwyd

  Alyn and Deeside

  4

  2

  4

  3

  8

  8

  9

  7

  5

  11

  Colwyn

  9

  8

  8

  15

  14

  9

  6

  5

  10

  9

  Delyn

  3

  2

  4

  5

  3

  2

  5

  10

  12

  10

  Glyndwr

  3

  2

  4

  5

  7

  5

  5

  6

  4

  9

  Rhuddlan

  6

  6

  10

  13

  13

  12

  9

  10

  11

  12

  Wrexham

  7

  9

  8

  8

  11

  10

  10

  14

  8

  13

  34
  been forwarded to the School Examinations and Assessment Council, which is currently undertaking a wide-ranging evaluation of this year's exercise.

  Employment Action Team
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the employment action scheme will begin in Wales; and in what travel-to-work areas the scheme will be implemented.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  "Employment Action" is due to be introduced in the autumn. All training and enterprise councils will shortly be invited to enter into negotiations with the Employment Department about the scale and nature of local provision.

  Royal Welch Fusiliers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the future of the Royal Welch Fusiliers; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have received 59 written representations calling for the continuation of the Royal Welch Fusiliers in their present form. We have also received a number of personal representations.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was raised by local authorities in Wales in 1990–91 using their discretionary powers to raise £5 per head of adult population, in areas where there is a single tier of principal local authority, and £2£50 per head of adult population, in areas where there are two administrative tiers; and if he has made any assumptions for the likely yield under this power for 1991–92.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Local Authority Usable Receipts
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate for local authority usable receipts in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Local authorities estimate that at 1 April 1991 they had £40 million of usable accumulated capital receipts. In addition, they forecast that the usable part of receipts received in 1991–92 will be £34 million. No equivalent figures are available for later periods.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many planning applications, rejected by local authorities, that were subsequently approved by Welsh Office inspectors on appeal, there were in each Welsh planning area in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is as follows:
  35

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  11990

  Dyfed

  Carmathen

  6

  1

  8

  3

  3

  5

  4

  9

  7

  19

  Ceredigion

  5

  5

  2

  1

  8

  8

  7

  8

  11

  10

  Dinefwr

  2

  1

  1

  2

  6

  6

  2

  3

  5

  10

  Llanelli

  9

  2

  5

  4

  7

  3

  9

  9

  9

  15

  Preseli

  1

  0

  3

  3

  4

  2

  2

  5

  1

  2

  South Pembrokeshire

  7

  3

  6

  4

  4

  5

  3

  2

  6

  12

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  3

  1

  1

  2

  4

  2

  1

  3

  6

  7

  Islwyn

  3

  1

  1

  5

  6

  6

  6

  5

  6

  7

  Monmouth

  16

  17

  10

  9

  14

  12

  12

  12

  18

  28

  Newport

  4

  7

  7

  6

  10

  12

  8

  6

  10

  25

  Torfaen

  4

  4

  3

  7

  10

  11

  6

  7

  6

  13

  Gwynedd

  Aberconwy

  4

  6

  10

  5

  14

  15

  6

  14

  12

  25

  Arfon

  5

  4

  2

  4

  9

  8

  7

  3

  2

  4

  Dwyfor

  6

  6

  5

  5

  6

  3

  9

  9

  13

  16

  Meirionydd

  5

  5

  6

  4

  3

  9

  1

  4

  0

  0

  Ynys Mon

  15

  17

  12

  10

  11

  17

  23

  17

  18

  27

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  1

  5

  1

  4

  2

  3

  3

  3

  7

  4

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1

  7

  2

  2

  1

  5

  4

  4

  4

  3

  Ogwr

  13

  4

  8

  9

  3

  5

  6

  8

  14

  22

  Rhondda

  4

  5

  4

  1

  3

  7

  0

  5

  7

  12

  Rhymney Valley

  4

  5

  4

  5

  3

  1

  4

  7

  5

  5

  Taff Ely

  9

  6

  7

  7

  8

  13

  6

  10

  10

  23

  Powys

  Brecknock

  1

  1

  7

  6

  6

  9

  6

  6

  3

  3

  Montgomery

  3

  5

  2

  6

  1

  3

  2

  5

  5

  9

  Radnor

  2

  2

  0

  0

  3

  4

  1

  4

  0

  4

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff

  15

  10

  22

  18

  31

  20

  21

  21

  36

  41

  Vale of Glamorgan

  24

  20

  17

  15

  13

  22

  21

  21

  32

  27

  West Glamorgan

  Port Talbot (Formely Afan)

  2

  4

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  4

  Lliw Valley

  6

  4

  11

  8

  7

  10

  6

  5

  4

  9

  Neath

  2

  4

  4

  2

  2

  2

  5

  3

  5

  7

  Swansea

  22

  14

  23

  19

  23

  23

  10

  21

  30

  32

  1 Excludes appeals within National Parks.

  National parks

  1989

  1990

  Snowdonia

  9

  7

  Brecon Beacons

  4

  8

  Pembrokeshire Coast

  6

  4

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.
  36
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Office does not plan to run any television advertising campaigns.

  The Department will run three publicity campaigns in 1991–92 costing more than £100,000:

  Enterprise Wales

  Road Safety

  Drug and Alcohol Misuse

ENERGY

  Electricity Act
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects codes of practice to be published and complaints procedures to be established as required by the Electricity Act 1989; and what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the Director General of Electricity Supply has discharged his duties with respect to consumer protection arrangements envisaged in that Act.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I understand from the Office of Electricity Regulation that most of the regional electricity companies' codes of practice and procedures have now been approved by the Director General of Electricity Supply, and that the remainder should reach that stage shortly. I meet the director general regularly to discuss all aspects of the regulation of the electricity industry and am confident that he is discharging his duties effectively. Consumers will benefit directly from the challenging standards of performance on customer service set by the director general which come into force today. These important initiatives are a practical example of improvements in service to customers of the kind which are at the heart of the citizens' charter proposals.

  Wave Energy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to remove the responsibility for developing a United Kingdom wave energy programme from the Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. Responsibility rests with my Department for the general research development and demonstration programme for renewable energy technologies; this includes wave energy. The energy technology support unit, based at the Harwell laboratory of the Atomic Energy Authority, is responsible for the day-to-day management of the programme and reports directly to my Department on the performance of its work.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the average length of time taken to process a claim by a network installer under the Government's home energy efficiency scheme; and what is the accepted performance target for such work.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A proportion of cases are subject to technical monitoring and payment is only made once work has been found to reach the required standards. My Department's contract with the Energy Action Grants Agency—EAGA—requires it for at least 90 per cent. of all cases to approve valid claims or reject incorrect claims for grant money made by a network installer under the home energy efficiency scheme within 15 working days of receipt. The EAGA is currently meeting this target.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he has taken to ensure that arrangements under the home energy efficiency scheme are satisfactory and that adequate resources are being made available for both network installers and contractors to undertake their work.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Initial experience in operating the scheme has confirmed that it meets a real need and is 38
  being well received. The changes to HEES that I recently announced will further promote standards and protect clients. I am satisfied that the funding available is adequate to treat some 200,000 homes in the current financial year.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the cash value of the non-fossil fuel obligation in the year to date in terms of the additional payment to Nuclear Electric for the cost of generation and the remainder of the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Details of premium payments made by the regional electricity companies to specific generators contracted within the non-fossil fuel obligation—NFFO—are commercially confidential. However, the Director General of Electricity Supply has announced that in 1990–91 receipts from the fossil fuel levy, available for financing NFFO qualifying arrangements, amounted to £1,175 million.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the total megawatt capacity of bids for entrance in the second tranche of the non-fossil fuel obligation; and how these are split between the categories of renewable energies that he is considering.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I regret that I am unable to give the information requested, because to do so might prejudice the operation of the competitive tendering procedure that has been adopted by the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd. for selecting the projects to be contracted under the proposed Renewables Order 1991.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any proposals for disaggregating the nuclear from the non-nuclear segments of the non-fossil fuel obligation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  For practical reasons, and to reflect the Government's policy of introducing additional tranches of renewables capacity during the 1990s, the non-fossil fuel obligations in respect of nuclear and renewables have been made under separate orders. However, my right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce separate levies for nuclear and renewables, which would be cumbersome and inefficient.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what advance payments of nuclear levy have been made to Nuclear Electric in respect of the Sizewell B nuclear power station during its construction phase;

  (2) what arrangements he has made for the payment of nuclear levy in respect of Sizewell B (a) before it is fuelled, (b) during its phasing-in period and (c) in operation at full capacity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Details of premium payments made by the Regional Electricity Companies to specific generators contracted within the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation, including Nuclear Electrict plc, are commercially confidential.

  Non-fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to review the 1998 terminal date for the application of the non-fossil fuel levy, or any subsection of it.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend and I are confident that the regional electricity companies have the flexibilities they need to offer generators acceptable contracts under the proposed Renewables Order 1991. My Department's forthcoming renewables review will provide an opportunity to consider the longer-term implications.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department has a continuing programme of publicity to promote energy efficiency, including a joint campaign with the Department of the Environment on the environment and home energy efficiency, the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry and renewable sources of energy. None of these campaigns will involve television advertising in the current year.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Daresbury Laboratory
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the investment in total in current values to set up and establish the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury as an operating centre.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The final capital cost of the nuclear structure facility was £13·6 million at 1980 price levels. This corresponds to £26·3 million at current prices.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to(a) the capital costs, (b) the setting-up costs, (c) the commissioning costs and (d) the back-up costs of the LINAC facility at Daresbury laboratory.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The equipment forming the LINAC facility was transferred from the university of Oxford and installed at Daresbury laboratory at a cost of £1,235,000. Associated work to set up beam lines and new laboratories cost a further £880,000. The contribution by Daresbury laboratory's own staff in installing and setting up the facility cannot be separately disaggregated.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will construct a table showing the capital investments in the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury, the year of those investments and the originally expected usable lifetimes of the major items involved.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The capital cost of the original nuclear structure facility was £13·6 million at 1980 prices. A programme of enhancements has been carried out since then and contained within the annual NSF operating budget which has varied within the range of £5·5 million to £6·6 million. The superconducting linear accelerator (LINAC) was transferred and installed at the NSF in 1990 at a capital cost of £1·2 million.
  40
  Although the NSF could be sustained in operation with the necessary maintenance for a further 10 years or so, SERC's 1989 corporate plan envisaged a change of scientific direction in this field from the mid-1990s. The NSF was expected to sustain a high quality programme of nuclear structure research at least until then.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the expected usable lifetime of the LINAC at Daresbury laboratory; and when it was first used.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Following transfer of the equipment from Oxford university to the nuclear structure facility, the LINAC was inaugurated in November 1990.

  Although the LINAC facility could be sustained in operation with increasing maintenance costs for 10 years or so, SERC's 1989 corporate plan envisaged a change of scientific direction in the field of nuclear structure physics from the mid to late 1990s. The LINAC facility was expected to sustain a high quality performance at least until then.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to how the SERC intends to put into action its plans to maintain the nuclear structure facility at the forefront of low-energy, nuclear physics worldwide as outlined in "The Laboratories in the 1990s".

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to him on 25 June 1991,Official Report, column 444.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the LINAC at Daresbury laboratory was inaugurated; and by whom.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The superconducting linear accelerator (LINAC) was inaugurated on 26 November 1990 by SERC's chairman, Sir Mark Richmond.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evaluation of the quality of the work emerging from the use of the LINAC at Daresbury laboratory SERC intends to undertake; and whether such evaluation will be published.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I understand that the SERC has no plans to conduct such a study.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the capital asset value of the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As a unique scientific facility with a single use, the nuclear structure facility has no meaningful commercial or market value.

  "The Laboratories in the 1990s"
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the report "The Laboratories in the 1990s" by SERC was submitted to him.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department saw the report that went to the SERC council in July 1990 and received the published version in June this year.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to how the SERC
  41
  intends to put into action its plans for other laboratories to build on its international roles as outlined in "The Laboratories in the 1990s".

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information on the SERC's plans is contained in its coroporate plans and other material made available to the Department.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what date the SERC report "The Laboratories in the 1990s" was generally distributed; and what its costs of publication were.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The cost to SERC of publishing the report was £2,682. It was distributed by it earlier this month.

  Scientific Research
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the expenditure in each of the last five years, from his departmental vote on the dual funding system for scientific research; and what is the provision for this in the current year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under the dual support system for funding scientific research, universities receive funds from the Department's vote both through institutional funding from UFC and specific project grants from the research councils.

  Funding from the UFC in support of research council projects is not separately identified in the UFC's allocations to universities. The estimated total UFC funding spent on scientific research over the period 1986–87 to 1989–90 was:

  £million

  1986–87

  655

  1987–88

  695

  1988–89

  725

  1989–90

  785

  Estimates for 1990–91 and 1991–92 taking account of outturn data on university spending are not yet available. However, the Government's plans provided for a year-on-year increase of some 10 per cent. in the total available public funding for universities through UFC recurrent grant and publicly funded tuition fees in each year. Within their overall allocations, it is for individual institutions to determine their spending on teaching and different types of research.

  Actual spending by research councils on grants for research in universities and other bodies was as follows. The figures include grants for research in polytechnics and other higher education institutions, expenditure on interdisciplinary research centres and a small number of grants to other bodies which are outside the dual support system.

  £ thousands

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  AFRC

  6,875

  7,618

  9,080

  15,001

  ESRC

  12,652

  14,205

  15,502

  18,950

  MRC

  35,164

  38,073

  44,512

  46,742

  NERC

  4,664

  6,924

  6,794

  8,624

  SERC

  99,507

  121,811

  123,010

  151,384

  Total

  158,862

  188,631

  198,898

  240,701

  42
  Source: Annual Appropriation Accounts.

  Estimated total grants in 1990–91 and 1991–92 on the same basis are as follows:

  £thousands

  1990–91

  1991–92

  AFRC

  15,679

  16,172

  ESRC

  21,378

  24,117

  MRC

  57,050

  59,067

  NERC

  12,237

  11,394

  SERC

  168,167

  168,330

  Total

  275,167

  279,330

  Source: Supply Estimates 1991–92.

  Teachers
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the average numbers of teaching staff in(a) nursery and primary schools, (b) middle schools and (c) secondary schools for each size of school, according to the group sizes defined in the "School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document".

  Mr. Fallon
  A table showing the average numbers of teachers in maintained schools in England by group size follows. The group sizes shown are those introduced with effect from 1 January 1991.

  Average numbers of full—time equivalent qualified teachers in maintained nursery, primary, middle and secondary schools in England by group size

  January 1990

  Maintained School

  Average number

  Nursery and Primary

  Group 1

  4·3

  Group 2

  10·4

  Group 3

  17·6

  Group 4

  26·8

  Group 5

  —

  Group 6

  —

  Middle

  Group I

  7·9

  Group 2

  13·1

  Group 3

  21·4

  Group 4

  35·0

  Group 5

  —

  Group 6

  —

  Secondary

  Group 1

  —

  Group 2

  14·8

  Group 3

  25·3

  Group 4

  37·4

  Group 5

  56·1

  Group 6

  80·5

  Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the numbers of(a) nursery and primary schools, (b) middle schools and (c) secondary schools in each region by size, according to the group sizes defined in the "School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document".

  Mr. Fallon
  A table showing the numbers of maintained schools in each region in England according to group size follows. The group sizes shown are those introduced with effect from 1 January 1991.
  43

  Numbers of maintained nursery, primary, middle and secondary schools in England by region and group size January 1990

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South East

  South West

  England

  Nursery and Primary

  Group 1

  565

  750

  780

  141

  661

  456

  235

  1,442

  1,024

  6,660

  Group 2

  767

  1,137

  1,759

  930

  1,229

  370

  1,586

  2,181

  936

  10,895

  Group 3

  111

  154

  242

  129

  230

  54

  278

  281

  103

  1,582

  Group 4

  —

  2

  5

  1

  6

  —

  1

  1

  1

  17

  Group 5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Group 6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Middle

  Group 1

  3

  25

  —

  —

  8

  3

  2

  7

  3

  51

  Group 2

  40

  167

  1

  15

  73

  52

  44

  261

  23

  676

  Group 3

  26

  69

  6

  20

  42

  42

  17

  103

  26

  351

  Group 4

  —

  2

  —

  5

  —

  2

  —

  3

  3

  15

  Group 5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Group 6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Secondary

  Group 1

  Group 2

  4

  2

  7

  6

  2

  —

  1

  2

  9

  33

  Group 3

  9

  17

  21

  49

  22

  9

  11

  17

  14

  169

  Group 4

  59

  94

  144

  108

  131

  52

  120

  200

  94

  1,002

  Group 5

  138

  171

  267

  136

  218

  58

  277

  447

  167

  1,879

  Group 6

  23

  60

  60

  35

  37

  21

  25

  75

  34

  370

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to place in the Library each month the number of student loans outstanding and the total value of the amount owed.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I am informed by the Student Loans Company Ltd. that, at 31 May 1991, 136,516 loans were outstanding. The total value of the amount owed was £54,109,897. Figures as at the end of June and each succeeding calendar month will be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.

  Training
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students there are in(a) non-vocational and (b) leisure-related classes, who have been given work release by employers to attend those classes for training purposes.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The number of students in PCFC institutions and further education colleges, excluding adult education centres, in England who were released by employers to attend identified non-vocational and leisure related classes was some 400 in 1989–90.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend launched a teacher recruitment campaign this morning which will include advertising on television.

  Other publicity campaigns costing more than £100,000 which are intended to be carried out in the current financial year are:
  — a campaign to provide parents with information about changes in the education system; and
  44
  — the professional, industrial and commercial updating (PICKUP) programme which continues to support and encourage colleges, polytechnics and universities to improve and increase their provision to meet the training needs of employers and their employees.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Sitting Flours
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answers of 25 March,Official Report, column 607–8, what proposals he had for reviewing the hours of sitting of the House.

  Mr. McGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the announcement I made to the House on Thursday 27 June at col. 1161.

HEALTH

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of beds available to the national health service for the treatment of mental illness in 1980 and in 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1989–90, the latest year for which information is available centrally, there were 59,290 average daily available mental illness beds in national health service hospitals in England, compared with 87,396 in 1980.

  The numbers of mentally ill patients staying in hospital for long periods has been falling since the mid-1970s. This is true not only for England but for most other developed countries. Over the last 30 years it has become clear from research that less reliance need be placed on in-patient care and better results can be achieved using more day-patient and community care. Additionally the advent of the major tranquillisers in the mid-1950s enabled many patients who previously needed long-term in-patient care to benefit from care on an out-patient basis.
  45
  This has been reflected in the steady improvement in community-based services for mentally ill people in the past 10 years. Gross spending on hospital and community health services for mentally ill people increased by 27 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1989–90 to £1,661·7 million. Gross spending on local authority social services for the mentally ill has increased substantially and will be further increased by the mental illness specific grant which came into effect on 1 April 1991. The number of community psychiatric nurses has more than trebled from 1,083 in 1981 to 3,380 in 1989.

  The number of mental illness day hospital places in England increased from 15,300 in 1981 to over 19,000 in 1988. Total provision of day centre places for mentally ill people, including places in mixed centres and those made available to local authorities by voluntary bodies, rose from 7,600 in 1981 to 10,400 places in 1988.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the British position where the European Commission's proposal for a Council regulation aimed at improving the protection of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry is concerned.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs gave my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) on 15 April at columns 32–33. We will continue to take part constructively in the discussions with other member states to reach an acceptable outcome.

  Health Authority Spending
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the spending per head of population served by Warrington district health authority in the latest available year; and what is the figure on the most nearly comparable basis for(a) England and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Figures for spending per head of resident population for 1989–90, the latest year available, are shown in the table:

  Revenue expenditure per head of resident population—hospital and community health services (HCHS)1

  £

  Warrington District Health Authority

  305

  England-average for all district health authorities

  271

  United Kingdom

  285

  1 Includes hospital, community health, patient transport (i.e. ambulance) blood transfusion and other services.

  Sources

  (a) 1989–90 annual accounts of district health authorities in England and those of the analogous health authorities and boards in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—as submitted to the central health departments in each country.

  (b) Mid-year estimates of populations—1989 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  Notes to the Table

  1. Expenditure by regional health authorities, special health authorities and all capital expenditure on HCHS is excluded. Expenditure on family health services (which cannot be strictly attributed to particular districts) and expenditure on personal social services (which in Northern Ireland is accounted for by Health and Social Services Boards) is also excluded.

  46

  2. Comparisons between the figures are influenced by a number of factors including:

  (a) people travel across district boundaries for treatment and resource allocations reflect the pattern of service provision locally;

  (b) the population figures used make no allowance for people resident in particular districts who receive treatment in others or for differences in morbidity and the age/sex structure of particular populations.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient waiting lists were in (i) England, (ii) the Mersey regional health authority and (iii) Warrington district health authority in 1979 and at the latest available date.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested on in-patients is given in the table. Out-patient waiting list information is not collected centrally. It is the time individual patients wait that matters, not the total numbers on the list. Numbers waiting more than one year for in-patient treatment have fallen by 7 per cent. in England since 1979. In Mersey they have fallen by 73 per cent. and in Warrington by 97 per cent. in the same period.

  Numbers treated have increased since 1979. In 1989–90 in the order of 38 per cent. more in-patients were treated than in 1979 in England as a whole, 40 per cent. more were treated in Mersey region and 65 per cent. more in Warrington health authority.

  Numbers on in-patient waiting list 1979 and 1989–90

  England

  Mersey RHA

  Warrington DHA

  March 19791

  752,422

  41,103

  3,360

  September 19901

  705,706

  29,609

  1,756

  1 Figures exclude self-deferred cases.

  Source:

  SM 12; 1979 SBH 203 return.

  1990 KH06, KH07, KHO7A returns.

  Medical Consultations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients paid for initial consultations for medical problems for each year from 1985 to date, both as a number and a percentage; and how many received further treatment from the NHS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority for the last 12 months, the number of national health service student nurses(a) who have graduated as registered general nurses and (b) the number still unemployed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the number of student nurses graduating from training in the last 12 months and not yet employed in the NHS is not collected centrally.

  The numbers completing first level training in each region during the year ended 31 March 1991 are shown in the table:
  47

  Region

  Number

  Northern

  1,215

  Yorkshire

  1,284

  Trent

  1,667

  East Anglian

  604

  North West Thames

  1,227

  North East Thames

  1,882

  South East Thames

  1,303

  South West Thames

  1,028

  Wessex

  1,000

  Oxford

  646

  South Western

  954

  West Midlands

  1,747

  Mersey

  1,019

  North Western

  1,652

  Source: English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress of the HIV/AIDS team inquiry at Leeds general infirmary.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are not aware of such an inquiry taking place.

  Grants
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the voluntary organisations that have received grants, and the level of grant received, up to the present date under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 within the current financial period 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  To date, approval has been given for the payment in 1991–92 under the section 64 general scheme of grants totalling £12,337,844. Details are shown in the table.

  Grants approved to voluntary organisations in 1991–92 Under Section 64 General Scheme

  Organisation

  £

  Access Committee (England)

  135,000

  Action for Dyphasic Adults

  29,172

  Action for Victims of Medical Accidents

  20,000

  Action on Smoking and Health

  241,500

  Adfam

  18,375

  Age Concern

  267,000

  Aid for Children with Tracheostomies

  5,278

  Aids Ahead

  40,000

  Aids and Housing Project

  29,000

  Aids Care Education and Training (ACET)

  150,000

  Alcohol Concern

  583,000

  Alzheimers Disease Society

  130,000

  Amarant Trust

  13,000

  Amnesia Association

  8,000

  Arthritis Care

  15,000

  Association for Stammerers

  15,000

  Association for the Psychiatric Study of Adolescents

  40,000

  Association of Disabled Professionals

  3,000

  Association of Professions for Mentally Handicapped

  5,000

  Association of Residential Care

  20,000

  Babylife Support Systems (BLISS)

  11,000

  Barnardos

  65,000

  Black HIV/Aids Network (BAHN)

  40,000

  Bobath Centre

  20,000

  Body Positive

  40,000

  Breakthrough Trust

  40,000

  Breast Care and Mastectomy Association of Great Britain

  31,900

  British Association for Services to the Elderly

  12,000

  48

  Organisation

  £

  British Association for Study and Prevention of ChildAbuse (BASPCAN)

  27,500

  British Association of Cancer United Patients (BACUP)

  11,000

  British Association of the Hard of Hearing

  60,000

  British Council of Organisations of Disabled People

  30,000

  British Institute of Industrial Therapy

  25,000

  British Institute of Mental Handicap

  35,000

  British Kidney Patient Association

  25,000

  British Organ Donor Society

  5,000

  Brook Advisory Centres

  65,000

  Cancer Help Centre

  25,000

  Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund

  20,250

  Cancerlink

  11,000

  Care and Repair Ltd.

  37,743

  Carers National Association

  97,500

  Catholic Child Welfare Council

  2,500

  Catholic Marriage Advisory Council

  42,200

  Centre for Accessible Environment

  70,000

  Chest Heart and Stroke Association

  71,891

  Child Care

  216,500

  Child Poverty Action Group

  18,000

  Child Psychotherapy Trust

  15,000

  Childline

  82,200

  Childrens Legal Centre

  45,000

  Childrens Society

  66,500

  Chinese Health Information Centre

  19,500

  Community Hygiene Concern

  10,000

  Community Network

  10,000

  Compassionate Friends

  10,000

  Contact

  32,000

  Contact a Family

  90,000

  Coronary Prevention Group

  87,500

  Cot Death Society

  5,000

  Council for Advancement of Communication with Deaf People

  50,000

  Crohns in Childhood Research Association

  5,000

  Crossroads Care Attendant Schemes

  130,000

  Cruse

  114,000

  Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust

  20,000

  Dark Horse Venture

  5,000

  Dial UK

  45,000

  Disability Alliance

  25,000

  Disabled Housing Trust

  17,000

  Disabled Living Centres Council

  20,000

  Disabled Living Foundation

  337,000

  Disabled Living Services Manchester

  9,000

  Disablement Income Group

  37,000

  Downs Syndrome Association

  15,000

  Dystonia Society

  9,916

  Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association (DEBRA)

  11.000

  East London Asian Counselling

  24,000

  Eating Disorders Association

  29,000

  Elizabeth Fitzroy Homes

  25,000

  Endometriosis Society

  10,000

  Enuresis Resource and Information Centre

  10,000

  Exploring Parenthood

  14,000

  Extend

  25.000

  Family Heart Association

  25,000

  Family Planning Association

  130,000

  Family Policy Studies Centre

  140,000

  Family Rights Group

  36,000

  Family Service Units

  240,000

  Family Welfare Association

  106,000

  Foundation for Conductive Education

  36,147

  Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths

  25,000

  Foundation for Womens Health Research and Development (FORWARD)

  20,000

  Friends for the Young Deaf

  10.000

  Frontliners

  50,000

  Genetic Interest Group

  12,000

  Gingerbread

  78,000

  49

  Organisation

  £

  Globe Centre

  29,000

  Good Practices in Mental Health

  80,000

  Guillain-Barre Syndrome Support Group

  10,000

  Haemophilia Society

  20,000

  Headway

  40,000

  Heartline Association

  5,000

  Herpes Association

  15,000

  Holiday Care Service

  15,000

  Home Farm Trust

  20,000

  Home Start Consultancy

  100,000

  Homes for Homeless People

  48,000

  Horticultural Therapy

  58,100

  Housing Campaign for Single Homeless (Char)

  36,500

  Hypogammaglobulinaemia Society

  8,000

  Impact Foundation

  20,000

  In Touch

  3,000

  Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence

  119,500

  Institute of Transcultural Health Care

  22,000

  International Social Service

  50,000

  Iris Fund

  2,500

  Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled

  1,100

  Jubilee Sailing Trust

  20,000

  Kids

  20,000

  Kids Clubs Network

  90,000

  Kings Fund Centre for Health Services Development

  28,000

  Leisure Link

  15,000

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  75,000

  London Chinese Health Resource Centre

  30,000

  L'Arche Ltd

  12,000

  Macfarlane Trust

  155,000

  Mainliners Ltd

  40,000

  Manic Depression Fellowship

  7,500

  Marfan Association

  4,000

  Marie Curie Memorial Foundation

  20,000

  Maternity Alliance

  37,000

  Menieres Society

  7,500

  Mental After Care Association

  50,000

  Mental Health Foundation

  295,000

  Mental Health Media Council

  30,000

  Migraine Trust

  5,000

  Miscarriage Association

  15,000

  Mobility Information Service

  8,000

  Motor Neurone Disease Association

  20,000

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association

  10,000

  NAFSIYAT

  15,000

  National Association of Children with Congenital Abnormalities of Lower Limbs

  5,000

  National Association for Maternal and Child Welfare

  15,000

  National Association for Mental Health (MIND)

  496,260

  National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO)

  270,000

  National Association for the Limbless Disabled

  22,500

  National Association for the Relief of Pagets Disease

  5,000

  National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital

  90,000

  National Association of Family Based Respite Care

  15,000

  National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends

  22,000

  National Asthma Campaign

  15,000

  National Childbirth Trust

  12,000

  National Childminding Association

  125,000

  National Childrens Bureau

  115,000

  National Citizen Advocacy

  15,000

  National Community Health Resource

  55,000

  National Council for One Parent Families

  150,000

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO)

  125,000

  National Counselling and Welfare Service for Sick Doctors

  2,300

  National Federation of Kidney Patients

  12,500

  National Information for Parents of Prematures (NIPPERS)

  10,000

  National Information Forum

  16,000

  50

  Organisation

  £

  National Institute for Social Work

  155,000

  National Joint Emergency Committee (Red Cross/St. John Ambulance)

  25,000

  National Meningitis Trust

  15,000

  National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents (NORCAP)

  8,000

  National Osteoporosis Society

  20,000

  National Playbus Association

  54,000

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  138,000

  National Self Help Support Centre

  40,000

  National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children

  150,000

  National Society of Non Smokers (QUIT)

  42,500

  National Stepfamily Association

  20,000

  National Toy Libraries Association

  55,000

  National Youth Agency

  69,000

  Neurofibromatosis Association (LINK)

  5,000

  New Horizons Trust

  10,000

  New Parent Infant Network (NEWPIN)

  32,500

  North Regional Association for the Blind

  71,768

  Northern Schizophrenia Fellowship

  27,500

  Outset

  25,000

  Overseas Doctors Association

  17,000

  Pain Relief Foundation

  8,500

  Parent to Parent Information on Adoption Service

  6,500

  Parentline Opus

  40,000

  Parents Against Injustice (PAIN)

  35,000

  Parents for Children

  30,000

  Parkinson Disease Society

  22,000

  Partially Sighted Society

  10,000

  Patients Association

  20,000

  Phobic Action

  20,000

  Phobics Society

  7,500

  Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied

  30.000

  Positively Women

  40.000

  Prader Willi Syndrome Association (UK)

  5.000

  Pre-Schooi Playgroups Association

  570,000

  Prince of Wales Advisory Group on Disability

  75,000

  Queen Elizabeth Foundation for the Disabled

  36,000

  Rainer Foundation

  26,700

  Rape Counselling and Research Project

  20,000

  Research Trust for Metabolic Diseases

  5,000

  Restricted Growth Association

  7,000

  Richmond Fellowship

  97,000

  Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR)

  225,000

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  100,810

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA)

  15,000

  Samaritans

  155,000

  Save the Children Fund

  30,000

  Schizophrenia A National Emergency (SANE)

  50,000

  Scoliosis Association United Kingdom

  2,000

  Sense (NADBRH)

  30,000

  Sequal

  25,000

  Sexual and Personal Relationships of People with a Disability

  36,000

  Sickle Cell Society

  35,000

  Skills for People

  11,000

  Society for Mucopolysaccharide Diseases

  5,000

  South Regional Association for the Blind

  132,084

  Standing Committee on Sexual Abuse of Children (SCOSAC)

  20,000

  Standing Conference Ethnic Minority Senior Citizen (SCEMSC)

  15,000

  Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Association

  8,000

  Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society

  27,000

  Support After Termination for Abnormality (STFA)

  10,000

  Tay Sachs and Allied Diseases Association

  4,000

  Tibbie Trust

  1,500

  Toxoplasmosis Trust

  10,000

  Tracheo Oesophageal Fistula Support (TOFS)

  2,500

  Tripscope

  4,000

  51

  Organisation

  £

  Tuberous Sclerosis Association

  2,000

  Turning Point

  110,000

  Twins and Multiple Births Association

  10,000

  United Kingdom Thalassaemia Society

  28,000

  United Response

  20,000

  Values into Action

  20,000

  Vision Aid

  15,000

  Vocal

  15,000

  Voice for the Child in Care

  7,500

  Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children

  60,000

  Voluntary Organisations Liaison Committee for Under Fives (VOLCUF)

  36,000

  Walsingham Community Homes

  10,000

  Wessex Rehabilitation Association

  5,000

  Westminster Pastoral Foundation

  50,000

  Widows Advisory Trust

  18,000

  Winged Fellowship Trust

  15,000

  Womens Aid Federation

  8,000

  Womens Aid Federation (England)

  136,650

  Womens Health Concern

  20,000

  Womens National Cancer Control Campaign

  30,000

  Womens Therapy Centre

  15,000

  Working Mothers Association

  35,000

  Young Minds

  10,000

  Residential Care Homes
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of beds provided in residential care for elderly people in(a) local authority residential care homes, (b) private residential care homes and (c) independent nursing homes, by district health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of nursing home beds by each district health authority is contained in "Private Hospitals Homes and Clinics Registered under Section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984". The number of residential care places for elderly and younger physically handicapped people by local authority is contained in "RA/89/2 Residential Accommodation for Elderly and for Young Physically Handicapped People: All Residents in Local Authority, Voluntary and Private Homes Year ending 31 March 1989 England". Copies of both these publications are in the Library.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department makes each year of the likely changes in numbers by region of children needing health services who are born mentally handicapped; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Responsibility for assessing the likely health service needs of the local population including children with learning disabilities (mental handicap) rests with individual district health authorities. The Department is, however, currently funding a research project led by Professor Alberman of the London hospital medical school to predict the incidence and prevalence of severe learning disability. It is hoped that this will lead to guidance which will assist authorities in the planning of local health, social and educational services over the next 30 years.
  52
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what weight is given in determining levels of funding to health authorities to the numbers of people moving into and out of an area in each year who are mentally handicapped adults and children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Regional health authority allocations are calculated by means of a weighted capitation formula which takes as its starting point the region's projected resident population for the year of allocation. The latest available figures, provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, are used in the formula. The projections data are based on the 1981 census and represent OPCS's estimate of population changes since then, together with assumptions for future mortality, fertility and migration. No specific allowance is made for the number of mentally handicapped people moving into and out of an area in each year.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many legal abortions have taken place in each of the 17 health districts in Yorkshire in each year from 1980 onwards; and on what grounds these abortions were granted.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Full information is available only at disproportionate cost. Readily available data for residents of the districts are given in the tables.

  Legal abortions Area of usual residence 1980–82

  Health districts in Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Area of usual residence

  1980

  1981

  1982

  Yorkshire

  7,574

  7,472

  7,600

  Hull

  607

  552

  606

  Beverley

  283

  312

  394

  Grimsby

  276

  297

  329

  Scunthorpe

  401

  376

  350

  Northallerton

  164

  177

  201

  York

  472

  432

  502

  Scarborough

  304

  315

  295

  Harrogate

  228

  259

  213

  Bradford

  730

  736

  707

  Airedale

  341

  328

  295

  Calderdale

  383

  361

  383

  Huddersfield

  466

  464

  452

  Dewsbury

  336

  300

  330

  Western (Leeds)

  961

  881

  937

  Eastern (Leeds)

  920

  974

  897

  Western (Wakefield)

  361

  325

  342

  Eastern (Pontefract)

  341

  383

  367

  Legal abortions Area of usual residence 1983–86

  Districts Health authorities in Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Area of usual residence

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Yorkshire

  7,461

  7,834

  8,087

  8,517

  Hull

  659

  728

  763

  833

  East Yorkshire

  224

  289

  314

  337

  Grimsby

  335

  309

  416

  432

  Scunthorpe

  388

  352

  396

  383

  Northallerton

  200

  214

  201

  202

  York

  484

  487

  496

  560

  Scarborough

  273

  258

  310

  291

  Harrogate

  214

  236

  227

  285

  Bradford

  723

  816

  857

  859

  53

  Area of usual residence

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Airedale

  324

  334

  333

  244

  Calderdale

  373

  436

  450

  458

  Huddersfield

  528

  545

  553

  590

  Dewsbury

  345

  372

  388

  388

  Leeds Western

  909

  1,009

  920

  1,027

  Leeds Eastern

  803

  804

  776

  852

  Wakefield

  333

  306

  332

  368

  Pontefract

  346

  339

  355

  408

  Legal abortions Area of usual residence 1987–90

  Districts Health authorities in Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Area of usual residence

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Yorkshire

  9,128

  9,567

  9,944

  110,221

  Hull

  859

  939

  1,001

  11,054

  East Yorkshire

  394

  422

  427

  1419

  Grimsby

  510

  495

  560

  1541

  Scunthorpe

  397

  466

  496

  1472

  Northallerton

  210

  248

  226

  1210

  York

  581

  626

  636

  1733

  Scarborough

  332

  326

  344

  1313

  Harrogate

  215

  155

  338

  1360

  Bradford

  902

  937

  933

  1918

  Airedale

  312

  376

  339

  1356

  Calderdale

  481

  558

  594

  1504

  Huddersfield

  598

  666

  676

  1669

  Dewsbury

  400

  461

  461

  1483

  Leeds Western

  1,101

  1,120

  1,118

  11,209

  Leeds Eastern

  946

  960

  963

  11,053

  Wakefield

  432

  393

  373

  1432

  Pontefract

  458

  419

  459

  1495

  1 Provisional

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Proposed publicity campaigns for 1991–92 costing more than £100,000 are as follows:

  Help with NHS Treatment Costs.

  Health Advice for Travellers.

  Organ Donation.

  Blood Donor Recruitment.

  Keep Keep Well.

  Information for Disabled People, advisors and carers.

  Children's Act.

  Community Care.

  AIDS.

  Drug misuse.

  Women's Health.

  Nursing.

  NHS Careers.

  'The Health of the Nation' Green Paper.

  Other campaigns may be included during the year.

  Decisions have yet to be taken on the use of television advertising.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been waiting for more than a year for an operation in East Birmingham district on(a) 31 December 1989, and (b) 31 March 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to the reply, 20 June, column 302]: I regret that there was an error in my previous reply. The number of people waiting for over a year for in-patient operations in East Birmingham district at 30 September 1990 should read 247.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the distribution of his consultation document on the future of local government.

  Mr. Key
  Copies of the consultation paper "The Structure of Local Government in England" were sent to all principal local authorities, local authority associations, Members of Parliament and major national organisations with an interest in local government and to other organisations and individuals on request.

  Waste Management
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to provide up-to-date waste management guidance on the implementation of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department is actively engaged in revising and developing its waste management papers series. This was stated in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance".

  Publication of these papers started in 1976 to provide authoritative technical guidance and codes of practice on waste handling and disposal methods. They are recognised by waste management practitioners and regulators as standards of good practice and are respected throughout the industry. We intend to build on this foundation to provide comprehensive backing for the high and consistent standards of waste management to be introduced under the Environmental Protection Act. Following public consultation, we have today published a new waste management paper (No.28) on the recycling of waste.

  Our proposed programme for further work on waste management papers is as follows:

  WMP

  Subject

  Consultation

  Issue of final document

  28

  Recycling

  out

  July 1991

  27

  Landfill gas

  July 1991

  October 1991

  1

  Evaluation of Options

  October 1991

  January 1992

  3

  Waste Disposal Plans

  February 1992

  June 1992

  4

  Waste Licensing

  May 1992

  December 1992

  25

  Clinical Waste

  August 1992

  December 1992

  26(A)

  Landfill Completion

  June 1992

  December 1992

  23

  Special Waste

  July 1992

  January 1993

  6

  PCBs

  September 1992

  March 1993

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what weight is given in determining grant levels to local authorities each year to the numbers of people moving into a council area for(a) all people, (b) school age children, (c) mentally handicapped adults and (d) mentally handicapped children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The amount of revenue support grant received by each authority depends on its standard spending assessment—the Government's view of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure for each local authority. The SSAs are based on a number of indicators including resident population, population aged under 18 56
  years and school pupils and students. Full details are given in the "Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England)" which is in the Library. No separate account is taken of the numbers of people who move between authorities each year, but the information used is the most up to date available on a consistent basis for all authorities.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what formula he accounts for revenue funding in each year for local authorities who have rising numbers of children and adults suffering mental handicap; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Revenue funding in respect of social services provided by local authorities for children and adults suffering mental handicap is based on the children's social services and the other social services standard spending assessments. Details of these formulae are given in he "Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England)" which is in the Library.

  3Ds Ltd.
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 394, on 3Ds Ltd., if he will list the shareholders referred to; and what examination he proposes to make of the suitability of 3Ds Ltd. as a recipient of a city grant.

  Mr. Key
  The shareholders of 3Ds Ltd. are Brian Peace, Paul Malkin and Old Court Ltd. If a full appraisal of the proposed development is undertaken, the Department will need to satisfy itself that 3Ds Ltd. has the experience, expertise and capacity to carry out and complete the project.

  Industrial Discharges
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the average levels of polychlorinated biphenyl in industrial discharges in the Rossendale and Darwen constituency; what is the highest level of measured discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl; and what is the maximum permitted discharge level.

  Mr. Trippier
  There are no consented discharges to water of polychlorinated biphenyls in the Rossendale and Darwen constituency.

  Civil and Marine Ltd.
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of the environmental impact of the proposed gravel extraction from the Thames estuary by Civil and Marine Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The decision to grant a licence for the extraction of marine sand and gravel rests with the Crown estate after consultation with those whose interests may be affected by the proposed dredging. My Department is responsible for co-ordinating these consultations and formulating the Government view. I understand that the Crown estate is at present considering the proposal made by Civil and Marine Ltd. and will take full account of all the environmental issues before any request for a Government view may be made.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table showing, separately for each year of the last five financial years, the allocation of resources to each urban programme authority and the level of spending achieved by each authority.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 27 June 1991]: The total amounts of (a) urban programme expenditure allocated to local authorities in England and (b) expenditure outturn achieved by those authorities, for each year from 1986–87 to 1990–91, were as follows:

  (a) Total allocation £million

  (b) Total outturn £million

  1986–87

  228·84

  220·42

  1987–88

  260·10

  234·59

  1988–89

  245·69

  226·58

  1989–90

  237·40

  229·57

  11990–91

  245·52

  227·79

  1 The figures for 1990–91 arc necessarily provisional at this stage.

  These figures do not include top slices for special initiatives or district health authority allocations and outturns.

  I enclose tables showing details for all the authorities. Copies of these tables will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Pentachlorophenol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he possesses concerning the current rates of discharge of the pesticide pentachlorophenol to the environment; and what are the primary sources of these discharges.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 27 June 1991]: Results of monitoring for pentachlorophenol are compiled by the National Rivers Authority and returned annually by my Department to the European Commission. These results are also held on the National Rivers Authority's public

  1991–92 area protection grant and 1990–91 equivalent by authority with political control

  Local authority and political control

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant £ million

  1991–92 area protection grant £ million

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant £ adult

  1991–92 area protection grant £ adult

  Greater London

  Greenwich (Labour)

  32·955

  29·423

  212

  187

  Hammersmith and Fulham (Labour)

  13·148

  10·307

  111

  86

  Lambeth (Labour)

  4·723

  0·410

  27

  2

  Lewisham (Labour)

  25·091

  20·325

  147

  122

  Southwark (Labour)

  26·352

  22·289

  160

  135

  Tower Hamlets (Social·Liberal Democrat)

  18·966

  17·171

  168

  143

  Wandsworth (Conservative)

  24·031

  18·084

  116

  91

  Barking and Dagenham (Labour)

  11·678

  9·015

  107

  82

  Bexley (Conservative)

  1·197

  —

  7

  —

  Havering (no overall control)

  0·934

  —

  5

  —

  Hillingdon (Conservative)

  7·361

  2·994

  42

  17

  58
  registers. Discharges containing pentachlorophenol occur mainly in the north-west and Yorkshire National Rivers Authority regions where pentachlorophenol has been applied as a rot-proofing agent in cloth used by textile finishing companies.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to publicise (i) the availability of the document "Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England and Wales: Review of MPG6" and (ii) the fact that his Department will take into account the views of interested parties on this document when revising mineral plan guidance note 6.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 17 June 1991]: Following the reply which I gave on 7 May, Official Report, column 401, about this report my Department issued a press release to announce its publication. This has received extensive media coverage. The report has also been made available to a number of interested organisations and individuals. We have made it clear in both the press release and report that we welcome the views of all interested parties on the forecasts. These will be taken into account in the preparation of the revised draft guidelines.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will show for each local authority(a) the gain or loss in area protection grant in million pounds and pounds per adult comparing 1990–91 with 1991–92 and (b) political control, for the current financial year.

  Mr. Portillo
  Area protection grant was not paid before 1991–92. However, it subsumes the safety net and the low rateable value areas grant which operated in 1990–91 and is payable to some of those areas which received help from both those sources, or through the safety net alone, in that year. The amount of area protection grant paid to any area is equal to the amount which it received in 1990–91 from these two sources less £25 per charge payer. Details are as follows:
  59

  1991–92 area protection grant and 1990–91 equivalent by authority with political control

  Local authority and political control

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RVgrant £ million

  1991–92 area protection grant £ million

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant £ adult

  1991–92 area protection grant £ adult

  Greater Manchester

  Bury (Labour)

  0–829

  —

  6

  —

  Oldham (Labour)

  2·582

  —

  16

  —

  Rochdale (Labour)

  11·438

  70·63

  72

  47

  Tamesidc (Labour)

  9·269

  4·735

  54

  29

  Wigan (Labour)

  15·949

  10·069

  69

  44

  Merseyside

  St Helens (Labour)

  2·931

  —

  22

  —

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley (Labour)

  25·120

  21·008

  150

  125

  Doncaster (Labour)

  22·956

  17·501

  105

  80

  Rotherham (Labour)

  22·704

  16·816

  113

  88

  Sheffield (Labour)

  44·876

  32·202

  107

  82

  Tyne and Wear

  Galeshead (Labour)

  13·439

  9·489

  86

  61

  Newcastle upon Tyne (Labour)

  4·165

  —

  21

  —

  North Tyneside (Labour)

  6·202

  2·365

  41

  16

  South Tyneside (Labour)

  8·608

  5·638

  72

  47

  Sunderland (Labour)

  14·002

  8·755

  65

  40

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford (Labour)

  17·861

  9·772

  55

  30

  Calderdalc (Labour)

  23·342

  19·751

  163

  138

  Kirklees (Labour)

  36·851

  29·886

  132

  107

  Leeds (Labour)

  7·356

  —

  14

  —

  Wakefield (Labour)

  26·617

  20·216

  111

  86

  1991–92 area protection grant and 1990–91 equivalent by authority with political control

  Local authority and political control

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant£ million

  1991–92 area protection grant £ million

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant £ adult

  1991–92 area protection grant £ adult

  Avon

  Bristol (Labour)

  6·644

  —

  23

  —

  Cleveland

  Hartlcpool (Labour)

  3·824

  2183

  57

  32

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees (Labour)

  3·560

  0·778

  32

  7

  Middlesbrough (Labour)

  4·077

  1·502

  40

  15

  Cornwall

  Kerrier (no overall control)

  0·745

  —

  11

  —

  Penwith (no overall control)

  0·145

  —

  3

  —

  Cwnhria

  Allerdale (Labour)

  8·185

  5·894

  106

  81

  Barrow-in-Furness (no overall control)

  7·814

  6·323

  136

  111

  Carlisle (Labour)

  3·472

  1·491

  44

  19

  Copeland (Labour)

  6·350

  4·924

  116

  91

  Eden (Independent)

  2·353

  1·483

  67

  42

  South Lakeland (no overall control)

  1·935

  —

  24

  —

  Derbyshire

  Amber Valley (Labour)

  5·052

  2·850

  58

  33

  Bolsover (Labour)

  7·244

  5·836

  133

  108

  Chesterfield (Labour)

  5·392

  3·409

  70

  45

  Derbyshire Dales (Conservative)

  0·775

  —

  14

  —

  Erewash (Labour)

  4·312

  2·179

  51

  26

  High Peak (no overall control)

  3·823

  2·263

  60

  35

  North East Derbyshire (Labour)

  4·665

  2·781

  62

  37

  South Derbyshire (Labour)

  0·865

  —

  16

  —

  Devon

  Mid Devon (Independent)

  0·739

  —

  16

  —

  North Devon (Social-Liberal Democrat)

  1·364

  —

  22

  —

  Torbay (Social-Liberal Democrat)

  1·224

  —

  13

  —

  Torridge (Independent)

  2·559

  1·562

  65

  40

  60 61

  Local authority and political control

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant £ million

  1991–92 area protection grant £ million

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant £ adult

  1991–92 area protection grant £ adult

  West Devon (Independent)

  0·052

  —

  2

  —

  Dorset

  Weymouth and Portland (no overall control)

  0·.012

  —

  0

  —

  1991–92 area protection grant and 1990–91 equivalent by authority with political control

  Local authority and political control

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant £ million

  1991–92 area protection grant £ million

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant £ adult

  1991–92 area protection grant £ adult

  Durham

  Chester-le-Street (Labour)

  1·793

  0·725

  43

  18

  Darlington (Labour)

  1·827

  —

  24

  —

  Derwentside (Labour)

  7·451

  5·720

  112

  87

  Durham (Labour)

  2·004

  0·460

  32

  7

  Easington (Labour)

  8·594

  6·574

  114

  89

  Sedgefield (Labour)

  7·957

  6·245

  117

  92

  Teesdale (Independent)

  1·242

  0·738

  65

  40

  Wear Valley (Social-Liberal Democrat)

  6·112

  4·837

  125

  100

  Gloucestershire

  Forest of Dean (Labour)

  0·044

  —

  1

  —

  Humberside

  Boothferry (Conservative)

  4·318

  3·021

  87

  62

  Cleethorpes (no overall control)

  2·388

  1·127

  46

  21

  East Yorkshire (no overall control)

  5·127

  3·391

  78

  53

  Glanford (no overall control)

  1·274

  —

  23

  —

  Great Grimsby (Labour)

  3·033

  1·374

  46

  21

  Holderness (Independent)

  1·341

  0·315

  33

  8

  Kingston upon Hull (Labour)

  18·861

  14·384

  99

  74

  Scunthorpe (Labour)

  2·954

  1·860

  65

  40

  Kent

  Dartford (Conservative)

  0·553

  —

  9

  —

  Lancashire

  Blackburn (Labour)

  4·895

  2·618

  52

  27

  Blackpool (Labour)

  4·079

  1·118

  35

  10

  Burnley (Labour)

  6·895

  5·074

  101

  76

  Hyndburn (Labour)

  5·190

  3·701

  89

  64

  Lancaster (no overall control)

  1·594

  —

  17

  —

  Pendle (Labour)

  6·655

  5·097

  106

  81

  Ribble Valley (Conservative)

  0·505

  —

  13

  —

  Rossendale (Labour)

  4·430

  3·188

  91

  66

  South Ribble (Conservative)

  1·057

  —

  14

  —

  Leicestershire

  Leicester (Labour)

  4·871

  —

  24

  —

  Lincolnshire

  Lincoln (Labour)

  0·621

  —

  10

  —

  1991–92 area protection grant and 1990–91 equivalent by authority with political overall control

  Local authority and political control

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant £ million

  1991–92 area protection grant £ million

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant £ adult

  1991–92 area protection grant £ adult

  Norfolk

  Great Yarmouth (Labour)

  0·598

  —

  9

  —

  Northumberland

  Alnwick (Social-Liberal Democrats)

  1·099

  0·533

  48

  23

  Berwick-upon-Tweed (no overall control)

  1·421

  0·911

  70

  45

  Blyth Valley (Labour)

  3·952

  2·494

  67

  42

  Tynedale (no overall control)

  0·952

  —

  22

  —

  Wansbeck (Labour)

  5·919

  4·752

  127

  102

  62 63

  Local authority and political control

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant £ million

  1991–92 area protection grant £ million

  1990–91 safety net receipt and low RV grant £ adult

  1991–92 area protection grant £ adult

  North Yorkshire

  Craven (no overall control)

  2·007

  0·970

  50

  25

  Hambleton (no overall control)

  0·328

  —

  6

  —

  Richmondshire (Independent)

  0·565

  —

  16

  —

  Ryedale (no overall control)

  2·079

  0·328

  30

  5

  Scarborough (no overall control)

  4·663

  2·658

  57

  32

  Selby (no overall control)

  2·109

  0·437

  32

  7

  York (Labour)

  5·432

  3·486

  69

  44

  Nottinghamshire

  Ashfield (Labour)

  4·888

  2·837

  59

  34

  Bassetlaw (Labour)

  1·527

  —

  19

  —

  Mansfield (Labour)

  3·754

  1 737

  48

  23

  Shropshire

  Oswestry (Independent)

  0·608

  —

  24

  —

  Staffordshire

  Newcastle-under-Lyme (Labour)

  1·032

  —

  11

  —

  Staffordshire Moorlands (Independent)

  0·535

  —

  7

  —

  Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

  6·327

  1·115

  33

  8

  Warwickshire

  Nuneaton and Bedworth (Labour)

  0·152

  —

  2

  —

  Wiltshire

  Thamesdown (Labour)

  0·232

  —

  2

  —

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the percentage change in income during the period 1979 to 1987(a) before and (b) after housing costs, of each percentage group from the households below average incomes data, published in July 1990.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is in the table:

  Real Percentage Rise in Each Decile's Median Income 1979–1987

  Decile

  Before Housing Costs

  After Housing Costs

  1

  8·5

  0·1

  2

  6·8

  2·4

  3

  8·6

  2·8

  4

  1·6

  7·9

  5

  13·1

  11·9

  6

  16·0

  15·4

  7

  16·7

  17·5

  8

  19·3

  21·4

  9

  25·7

  25·0

  10

  38·8

  40·3

  The income measures used are the same in all respects to those published in Tables A and D of Annex 1 to HBAI 1981–1987.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many cases were helped by local war pensions committees over the last five years; and at what cost;

  (2) whether he has any plans to increase resources available to local war pensions committees.
  64
  Miss Widdecombe
  The numbers of cases relating to war pensions and allowances which were heard by local war pensions committees over the last five years is as follows:

  1986 — 289

  1987 — 240

  1988 — 356

  1989 — 251

  1990 — 247

  In addition, members of the committees and their associated voluntary workers undertook a number of welfare visits to war pensioners in their own homes.

  Information on the cost of war pensions committees is not available. Expenditure on the committees is met from the overall budget for the war pensioners welfare service and is not recorded separately. We have no current plans to increase the resources available to war pensions committees.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the current budget available to the section of his Department which administers the war pensioners' welfare service; and what increases are planned for the next two years;

  (2) whether he has any plans to extend the scope and expand the services provided by the war pensioners' welfare service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The budget available for the administration of the war pensioners' welfare service for 1991–92 is £3.7 million. Budgets for the following two years have not yet been decided.

  The war pensioners' welfare service is available to all war disablement pensioners and war widows, and its services are kept under regular review. The war pensions directorate, which is responsible for delivering those services, is currently in the process of consulting ex-service

  65
  organisations about them. We shall review the services provided by the welfare service in the light of those consultations.

  Adjudication Regulations
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review or amend regulation 72 of the Social Security Benefit (Adjudication) Regulations 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We recently referred a proposed draft amendment to regulation 72 to the Social Security Advisory Committee. The committee has reported its findings, which we are currently considering.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the lowest level of war disablement pension paid to those suffering from asbestosis;

  (2) how many war disablement pensions have been and are being paid because of asbestosis arising from exposure to asbestos dust while in the forces; and how many of the asbestosis pensioners have died.

  Miss Widdecombe
  War disablement pensions are awarded where the degree of disablement due to service in the armed forces ranges from 20 to 100 per cent.; if less than 20 per cent. a gratuity may be awarded. These provisions apply to all disabilities.

  Information regarding war pensions awarded as a result of exposure to asbestos is not available.

  Benefits
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what forecast of the percentage take-up of widows' benefits has been used when estimating expenditure on these benefits for 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The planned level of expenditure on widows' benefits shown in table 1 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1991–92 to 1993–94, Social Security" (Cm. 1514), was based on the figures available in the autumn of 1990 on the number of recipients, the composition of their families and the level of awards, and on the trends in those figures and the effects of uprating. It was not based on any explicit view of future take-up, but, implicitly, on the established trend.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what forecast of the percentage take-up of disability working allowance has been used when estimating expenditure on this benefit in 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  Disability working allowance will not be introduced until April 1992.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what forecast of the percentage take-up of invalid care allowance has been used when estimating expenditure on this benefit in 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  The planned level of expenditure on invalid care allowance shown in table 1 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1991–92 to 1993–94, Social Security" (Cm. 1514), was based on the figures available in the autumn of 1990 on the number of recipients, the 66
  circumstances in which they are caring, the level of awards and changes in other benefits which affect entitlement, and on the trends in those figures and the effects of uprating. It was not based on any explicit view of future take-up, but, implicitly, on the established trend.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what forecast of the percentage take-up of family income supplement has been used when estimating expenditure on this benefit in 1991–92.

  Mr. Jack
  Family income supplement was replaced by family credit in April 1988. The planned level of expenditure on family credit shown in table 1 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1991–92 to 1993–94, Social Security" (Cm. 1514), was based on the figures available in the autumn of 1990 on the number of recipients, the composition of their families and the level of awards, and on the trends in those figures and the effects of uprating. It was not based on any explicit view of future take-up, but, implicitly, on the established trend.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he intends to take following the ruling of the European Court of Justice on Roger Newton's entitlement to mobility allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Mr. Newton's case will be referred back to the social security commissioner for determination in the light of the European Court's judgment. We are considering what other steps need to be taken to give effect to the court's judgment.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people living in other European Community countries who will be entitled to reinstatement of mobility allowance following the decision of the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We are considering the full implications of this judgment. We estimate that fewer than 100 people each year lose their mobility allowance when they move to live in another EC member state.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the case of Roger Newton applies to benefits other than mobility allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We are studying the full text of the judgment to consider its wider implications for non-contributory disability benefits.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department currently has no firm plans for television advertising. A publicity campaign connected with the Disability Living Allowance and
  67
  Disability Working Allowance Act is likely to involve expenditure in excess of £100,000 but firm media plans have not yet been concluded. We have not given approval for any other publicity campaigns with this level of expenditure.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received concerning the Disabled Persons (Services, Representation and Consultation) Act 1986 since March 1991; and how many have objected to the non-implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 and the delaying of section 7.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Between 1 March 1991 and 26 June 1991 we received 212 letters concerning our decision not to implement sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons Act, two of which also referred to section 7. One letter was also received on the matter of section 7 only. The Act was also the subject of seven parliamentary questions during this period.

  Young People (Benefits)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of increasing the personal allowance for young people under the age of 25 years who are in receipt of(a) community charge benefit and (b) housing benefit to £39·65 for 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 June 1991]: The latest estimates suggest that these measures would cost (a) £25 million, and (b) £25 million in Great Britain in 1991–92.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1986–87–88 Family Expenditure Surveys.

SCOTLAND

  Pensions
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the date of the announcement that public service pensioners had been underpaid due to an error in calculating the retail prices index; what was the amount of money due to national health service pensioners on that date in Scotland; what was the amount of money paid by his Department into the national health service pensioners trust and the date on which it was paid; and by how much that amount was adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to his questions given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 28 June.

  William Wallace Heritage Centre
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what requests he has received for funding of a William Wallace heritage centre at Elderslie; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am not aware of having received any request for funding for a William Wallace heritage centre at Elderslie. I would be willing to consider such a request.

  Judicial Appointments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received concerning the creation of a judicial appointments committee in relation to the selection and appointment of judges and sheriffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The present arrangements are kept under review to ensure that in respect of each vacancy the best-fitted candidate is appointed.

  Police (Civil Damages)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the total amount of money paid out by police authorities for civil damages since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not collected centrally and cannot quickly be obtained.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment training trainees(a) acquired full-time employment, (b) gained vocational qualifications, (c) failed to complete the training plan and (d) entered self-employment, expressed as a percentage since ET's inception.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is given in the table. Information is not available for the periods prior to July 1989 and is not yet available beyond December 1990. Many of those not completing their agreed training leave to enter jobs, self-employment or full-time education.

  Employment Training Trainee outcomes: July1989—December 1990

  Percentage of all leavers

  In full-time employment 3 months after leaving

  24

  In self-employment 3 months after leaving

  5

  Obtained a qualification or credit towards one

  24

  Did not complete training agreed with training provider

  54

  Source: ET national follow-up survey.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the report of his Department's survey of trainees on employment training was completed; and when it was made available to hon. Members.

  Mr. Jackson
  The survey of trainees on Employment Training is not yet complete.

  TUC (Training)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of departmental funding of the Trades Union Congress for educational purposes; what criteria determines the continuity of that funding; which section of his Department is responsible for vetting materials used on TUC training or education courses which use departmental funding; and if he will make a statement.
  69
  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has offered the TUC a trade union education and training grant of £1·734 million for 1991–92. The continuity of such funding is dependent on a satisfactory annual review of expenditure of the grant and on the overriding need to control public expenditure. Monitoring the expenditure of the grant to ensure that it satisfies the terms and conditions of the relevant memorandum of arrangements is carried out jointly by officials of the Department of Employment and the TUC with the assistance of Her Majesty's inspectorate.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps have been taken to monitor the use by the TICC (Lakin Consortium) of the £2·1 million transfer fee paid to it as part of the sale of four skill centres; and how much has been spent on the acquisition of non-training companies.

  Mr. Jackson
  Under the terms of the sale of the skills training agency there is no continued business relationship between my Department and any of the purchasers. TICC Ltd. is a private company and my Department has no responsibility for its business activities.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list any changes in(a) the numbers of staff, (b) the volume of training and (c) staff terms and conditions resulting from the transfer of four skill centres to TICC (Lakin Consortium).

  Mr. Jackson
  The four skill centres purchased by TICC Ltd. are now in the private sector and issues relating to staff numbers, volumes of training and changes of staff terms and conditions are matters for the company and its staff.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what monitoring he is undertaking of any proposals by TICC (Lakin Consortium) relating to(a) closure of any of the four skill centres, (b) the purchase of non-training companies, (c) reductions in staffing levels and (d) the honouring of contracts agreed with the civil service before the transfer of the four centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  TICC Ltd. is a private company and the four skill centres purchased by TICC Ltd. are now in the private sector. Any issues relating to the future business plans of TICC Ltd. or its staff numbers, are matters for the company and its staff.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list any conditions attached to the payment of £2·1 million to TICC Ltd. as part of the transfer of Ipswich, Cumbria, East Lancashire and St. Helens skill centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The payment of £2·1 million to TICC Ltd. was the negative consideration agreed after negotiation between my Department and the company and reflects the overall value that could be attached to the business at the time. No conditions were attached by either party to the sale.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether TICC (Lakin Consortium) was 70
  included in the submissions excluded from being allowed to tender for the skill centres; and on what grounds such decisions were made.

  Mr. Jackson
  At no point in the sale process were TICC Ltd. excluded from the tendering process. Bids were excluded only if they failed to meet the Government's six sale objectives, and TICC Ltd. met these at all stages of the sale.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps were taken to assess(a) the competence of the TICC (Lakin Consortium) to manage the four skill centres transferred to it and (b) the previous record of TICC in providing training.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Lakin Consortium (now TICC Ltd.) was formed with the intention of placing a bid for part of the skills training agency network. Thorough checks were undertaken by my Department's sale advisers into the background of the consortium members, the financial viability of the new company and its future plans for the training business. These were satisfactory and the bid placed by TICC Ltd. fully met the Government's six sale objectives.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the financial and training record changes which occurred between the initial submissions from TICC (Lakin Consortium) being rejected and his subsequently agreeing to the transfer of four skill centres to this consortium.

  Mr. Jackson
  TICC's original bid included a number of skill centres for which other bids were put forward. In the context of all the bids put forward, these provided a better match with the Government's sale objectives, so TICC's bid was rejected. The company subsequently submitted a bid for four of the skill centres which remained unsold at the end of the original sale period.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the staff terms and conditions agreed by the Government at the time of transfer of four skill centres to the TICC; and what steps he is taking to ensure compliance by TICC with the contract terms agreed.

  Mr. Jackson
  The general terms and conditions of former civil servants who transferred to the private sector were protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 so that on privatisation previous conditions still applied. Special arrangements were made to secure the transfer of pension rights which are outside the scope of the regulations. The terms and conditions of TICC's employees are now a matter between them and the company.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list any conditions attached to the payment of £800,000 to Training Businesses Ltd. as part of the transfer of Lambeth's skill centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The payment of £800,000 to the Training Business Ltd. was the negative consideration agreed after negotiations between my Department and the company and reflects the overall value that could be attached to the business at the time. No conditions were attached by either party to the sale.
  71
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assurances were given to the skill centres about future levels of employment training funding prior to their transfer being concluded.

  Mr. Jackson
  No guarantees of Employment Training income have been given to any purchaser of skill centres for the current or subsequent years.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the number of staff dealing with unemployment benefit claims in each of the standard regions, (b) the number of unemployed people claiming benefit in each of the standard regions and (c) the staff-to-claimant ratio in each of the standard regions, as at 1 March 1990 and 1 May 1991.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Detached Duty Workers
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of detached duty workers recruited and the numbers now operating in the south-east, south-west, London, East Anglia and east midlands dealing with unemployed people claiming benefit; what were the standard regions from which the detached workers were recruited; and what are(a) the total and (b) the additional costs of employing them including travel, overnight allowances, salaries and any other premium payments, for each month between 7 December 1990 to 31 May 1991.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Electricity Contracting Industry
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the official letter to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), dated 10 June, sent by the director of the Electrical Contractors Association, detailing the response by training enterprise

  Duration

  Title

  Location

  1 January 1986 to 31 May 1988

  Development of analytical methods for the analysis of dioxins in biological materials

  University of East Anglia

  1 October 1987 to 30 September 1988

  Production of affinity columns for dioxin analysis

  University of East Anglia

  1 January 1988 to 30 June 1989

  Production and characterisation of antibodies against dioxins use in their analysis

  AFRC Institute of Food Research Norwich

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  Evaluation of affinity columns for dioxin analysis

  MAFF Food Science Laboratory

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  Participation in WHO inter-laboratory study on methods for dioxin analysis in human milk and blood

  MAFF Food Science Laboratory

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  Development of methods of dioxin analysis in support of EC BCR certification of reference materials

  MAFF Food Science Laboratory

  72
  councils to future apprentice training in the electrical contracting industry; and what action he intends to take regarding the problems described in that letter.

  Mr. Jackson
  All 82 training enterprise councils in England and Wales have offered a youth training (YT) contract to Job Training Ltd. (JTL) which is the managing agency set up by the Electrical Contractors Association (ECA) in conjunction with the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union. JTL has signed, or is in the process of signing contracts with 80 of the TECs. The company has decided not to contract for places in the Dorset and Somerset TEC areas.

  I replied on 28 June to the letter dated 10 June from the director of the Electrical Contractors Association. All problems described in that letter have been addressed.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. Jackson
  Publicity campaigns costing more than £100,000 planned at this stage by the Department during the remainder of this financial year are press advertising for career development loans in the summer, and in support of the national training awards winners announcement in November.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Dioxins
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research funded or commissioned by his Department in the past 10 years regarding dioxins in foodstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  A list of the research in question is given in the table. The aim of this work has been to develop reliable analytical methods for the measurement of low levels of dioxins in food. The best of the procedures that have been identified so far have recently been used to survey the levels of dioxins entering the food chain in urban and rural food production areas. Some preliminary results from this work were described in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 26 June,Official Report, col. 500.
  73

  Duration

  Title

  Location

  1 March 1991 to 1 September 1991

  Development of immunoaffinity columns for dioxin analysis

  Biocode Ltd.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy in respect of testing milk for dioxins.

  Mr. Maclean
  Milk is a good medium for checking on the presence of airborne contaminants in the food chain and is, therefore, being used to build up a picture of dioxin levels in various rural and urban food production areas. Some preliminary results from this work were described in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire West, (Mr. Hind) on 26 June,Official Report, column 500.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the farms which supplied milk within 0·1 picogramme of his Department's safety level for dioxins.

  Mr. Maclean
  Some preliminary results from a study of dioxin levels in milk from urban and rural areas were described in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire West, (Mr. Hind) on 26 June,Official Report, column 500. It is not the normal practice, however, to name businesses from which samples have been taken for surveillance purposes.

  Blue-ear Disease
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the man hours spent in(a) the field and (b) the laboratory each month since 1 March on blue-ear disease in pigs at the Lincoln veterinary investigation centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The man hours spent in(a) the field and (b) the laboratory on blue-eared pig disease by staff at the Lincoln veterinary investigation centre since 1 March are:

  Month

  (a) In the field

  (b) In the laboratory

  March

  0

  5

  April

  0

  10

  May

  207

  132

  June1

  219

  144

  1 to 21 June 1991.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received(a) from the National Farmers Union, (b) from hon. Members and (c) from individual farmers on the health and environmental consequences of the use of organo-phosphorus sheep dips; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members, individual farmers and others on the health and environmental consequences of the use of organo-phosphorous sheep dips. I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) on 20 June(Official Report, column 449).

  Pigs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 24 June,Official Report, column 383, whether he intends to impose restrictions on the holdings in the counties listed that had received pigs from infected holdings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Restrictions have already been placed on holdings which have received pigs from premises with suspected or confirmed cases of blue-eared pig disease within a 56-day period prior to the day that suspicion of disease was reported.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of restrictions imposed on premises with suspected or confirmed cases of blue-ear disease in the past 72 hours; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Two suspect cases were reported and three cases confirmed within the 72 hours prior to midday on 28 June 1991. The suspect cases involve premises already under restriction, having received pigs from infected premises. One of the suspect cases is in the parish of Paull (Humberside), within the restricted zone; the other is in the parish of Saxilby with Ingleby (Lincolnshire) and is very close to the Humberside restricted zone which has now been extended to include this case. The confirmed cases are in the parishes of Beeford (Humberside), Burneston (Humberside) and Shelton (Norfolk). There are at present a total of 14 confirmed and 10 suspected cases.

  Veterinary Investigation Centres
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Ministry has yet received planning permission for the new veterinary investigation centres at Bury St. Edmunds and Warwickshire; at what stage his plans are for constructing the new centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Outline planning permission was granted by St. Edmundsbury borough council for a new veterinary investigation centre at Bury St. Edmunds on 18 February 1991. The plans for constructing the new centre are now at sketch plan stage. The building is on programme to be completed in mid-1993. For the new centre at Warwickshire a site has been identified on Ministry of Agriculture-owned land at Luddington and an outline planning application was submitted to Stratford-upon-Avon district council at the beginning of June, under the Department of the Environment circular 18/14. The plans for constructing this centre are also at sketch plan stage and the design is on programme for completion of the building in mid-1993.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the percentage of the total United Kingdom statutory salmonella work carried out at the veterinary investigation centre in Lincoln for each year since 1986; and if he will make a statement.
  75
  Mr. Gummer
  It is not possible to provide the information requested for the years prior to 1990. In the period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991, 3·6 per cent. of the total statutory salmonella work in Great Britain was carried out in the Lincoln veterinary investigation centre.

  Milk, Derbyshire
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will conduct a full investigation into the source of the dioxin contamination which is affecting milk in farms in Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am setting in hand a programme of further work in this area which is designed to throw light on the ways in which dioxins have come to be found in milk. This will include examinations of soil and grass. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will also be carrying out investigations. The results of the surveillance work will be published.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will name the farms in Derbyshire which have contamination of dioxin in milk above recommended levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Having received their agreement, I have passed the names and addresses of the two farmers concerned to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) but, as I have explained to him, they have indicated that they do not wish their names to be generally publicised.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. Curry
  MAFF has no plans to carry out television advertising campaigns. A touring exhibition is currently taking consumer information on a wide range of food safety and environmental issues to major shopping centres and agricultural shows; and plans are in hand to revise the Department's range of publications on food.

  Tri-service episodes of bedded sickness of 48 hours or snore due to training injuries (including deaths)

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Aircraft accidents

  38

  35

  31

  40

  38

  Motor vehicle accidents

  33

  41

  51

  33

  16

  Other land transport accidents

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Water transport accidents

  2

  2

  1

  4

  0

  Guns, explosives etc. accidents

  24

  22

  18

  17

  7

  Machinery, tools etc. accidents

  184

  170

  167

  113

  82

  Toxic and burning agents's accidents

  21

  17

  20

  26

  24

  Environmental factor accidents

  137

  202

  172

  105

  83

  Fall or jump etc. accidents

  519

  403

  428

  359

  332

  Other accidents

  149

  151

  183

  178

  126

  TOTAL

  1,107

  1,044

  1,071

  876

  708

  Note: Records of minor injuries which may have required medical attention are not held centrally and are only recorded in the individual personal medical files.

  Thames Gravel
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment has been made of the impact of the proposed extraction of gravel from the Thames estuary on(a) juvenile fish stocks, (b) cockles and (c) whiteweed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The proposal envisages the removal of a layer of silt material in order to extract aggregate from beneath it. In the Ministry's view this extraction process could create a plume of silt in the water column, which would be damaging to important commercial fisheries in the area.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the fishing industry on the proposed extraction of gravel from the Thames estuary by Civil and Marine Ltd.

  Mr. Curry
  I have received a number of representations objecting to the extraction of gravel from this area. I understand that in the light of consultations the company is not pursuing its application for a licence for experimental dredging.

DEFENCE

  Army Act
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what powers he has under the Army Act to reconvene a hoard of inquiry with revised terms of reference.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Secretary of State for Defence has no direct powers under the Army Act 1955 to convene any board of inquiry. If it is necessary for a particular matter to be investigated by a board of inquiry, it will be convened by the relevant military authorities under the rules laid down in section 135 of the Army Act.

  Training Exercises (Injuries)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for the last five years the number and type of injuries received by on-duty service personnel taking part in training exercises.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following table lists, by category, the total numbers by type of injuries received by all service personnel, including Gurkhas, on duty training exercises which required confinement to bed for a period of 48 hours or more, for each of the last five years.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) in each of the last 10 years what has been the cost of removing asbestos;

  (2) in how many Ministry of Defence establishments asbestos has been removed; and in how many establishments it is awaiting removal;

  (3) how many claims for compensation there have been against the Ministry because of exposure to asbestos dust since 1961; how many (a) have been rejected, (b) are being negotiated and (c) have been successful; and, for those successful what compensation was paid.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Thurleigh Airfield
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Research Agency to use the airfield at Thurleigh for non-flying purposes;

  (2) what will he the role of the Ministry of Defence towards development on the Thurleigh airfield during the transfer of facilities to Boscombe Down and Farnborough up to about 1993;

  (3) how he proposes to reconcile a maximum return to Her Majesty's Government on the disposal of land and assets at Thurleigh with the need to safeguard existing residents against loss of amenity and environmental despoliation;

  (4) what instructions he has given his consultants covering the next phase of consultations with local authorities and other interested parties over the use of the airfield at Thurleigh;

  (5) whether he proposes to agree planning use of the airfield at Thurleigh with Bedfordshire county council prior to the conclusion of any sale to prospective purchasers of the land;

  (6) if he will ensure that before any sale of the airfield at Thurleigh he will insist on an evironmental assessment being undertaken to cover the future use of the site;

  (7) whether he is prepared to compensate local residents against loss of amenity due to excessive noise in the event of a substantial increase in aircraft use of the airfield at Thurleigh;

  (8) if he will consider the disposal of the airfield at Thurleigh within a broad regional and national framework.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Following my announcement on 9 May concerning the collocation of research and experimental flying at Boscombe Down, detailed work has been set in hand to assess the options for disposal of the surplus airfields at Bedford and Farnborough.

  A specialist consultancy firm has been retained to assist in this phase and it will be continuing its discussions with local planning authorities and other interested parties with a view to submitting recommendations on the planning and marketing strategies to be adopted for the effective disposal of the airfield sites.

  As stated in my earlier announcement, our preliminary assessment is that Thurleigh airfield, Bedford could have potential as a commercial non-passenger airfield. It would be our intention to avoid a fragmented disposal of the site,
  78
  if this were possible, and to offer it for sale in its entirety—save for a small MOD enclave which we envisage will be retained to house a simulator facility. Any proposals for other uses by either the MOD or the Defence Research Agency will need to be considered against the need to make the most cost-effective use of the defence estate, while at the same time maximising the return to the defence budget from the sale of surplus land.

  In disposing of Thurleigh, it is our intention to agree a development brief with the local authorities concerned, prior to effecting the disposal of the site. This use of the planning machinery will ensure that any relevant regional and national factors are taken into account in so far as they relate to the disposal of the airfield. In addition, this will allow the maximum return to the MOD consistent with legitimate local requirements. We are considering the preparations of an environmental impact assessment once our future disposal plans are clearer. The environmental impact arising from further development of the airfield, after disposal by the MOD, and any question of compensation that may arise would, of course, he for a new owner of the airfield to resolve.

  The MOD will consider all proposals for development of Thurleigh airfield in the period leading up to disposal on their merits, subject to their not prejudicing the longer-term disposal strategy.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) of 20 June,Official Report, columns 314–15, whether any members of the armed services are serving in Iraq.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I can confirm that the answer I gave on 20 June at columns 314–15 did not include the members of the armed forces deployed to northern Iraq as a temporary measure to provide humanitarian assistance to Kurdish refugees. Members of the Royal Marines continue to operate in the areas providing reassurance and security to the Kurds.

  Service Men Overseas
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)Official Report, 20 June, columns 314–15, if he will set out (a) the number of members of the armed services who are currently serving in each of the countries listed in the 1991 columns and (b) the reasons for their deployment in each country listed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The latest detailed information available for deployment of United Kingdom manpower overseas, was at 30 June 1990, without incurring disproportionate cost, is as follows:

  Number

  Federal Republic of Germany (stationed forces)

  61,109

  Elsewhere in continental Europe (stationed forces)

  7,281

  Gibraltar (garrison)

  1,835

  Cyprus (garrison and UNFICYP)

  4,776

  Elsewhere in Mediterranean, Near East and Gulf

  21,267

  Hong Kong (garrison)

  2,118

  Elsewhere in Far East

  453

  Other locations (including Falklands and Belize garrisons)

  8,357

  Notes:
  79
  1. The figures include personnel on loan to countries in the areas shown and personnel at sea in each area. Defence attaches and advisers and their staffs are included under "other locations". The figure for the Federal Republic of Germany includes personnel serving in Northern Ireland on emergency tours of duty but remaining under the command of the Commander-in-Chief BAOR. The figures exclude non-United Kingdom manpower, including Gurkhas and locally engaged personnel.

  2. Around 1,200 personnel are currently serving in Iraq and some 340 in Kuwait. Loan service personnel are employed on a variety of military assistance tasks for the following overseas governments (as at 31 March 1991):

  Antigua

  Australia

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbadoes

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Brunei

  Colombia

  Dominica

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Grenada

  Hong Kong

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Lesotho

  Malaysia

  Mauritius

  Namibia

  New Zealand

  Oman

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  Fatalities

  12 February 1982

  RAF Harrier

  8 nautical miles South of Corwen

  1

  22 April 1982

  RAF Jet Provost

  Nant-y-Moch Reservoir

  0

  13 May 1982

  RAF Hunter

  2 nautical miles North West of Claerwen Reservoir

  0

  5 August 1982

  RAF Hunter

  4 nautical miles North West of Carmarthen

  0

  20 April 1983

  RAF Gazelle

  2 nautical miles North East of Snowdon

  2

  17 June 1986

  WGAF Tornado

  Near Claerwen

  2

  24 July 1986

  USAF Phantom

  St. Bride's Bay

  2

  24 June 1987

  RAF Jaguar

  3 miles South East of Builth Wells

  1

  26 August 1987

  RAF Phantom

  8 nautical miles South of Aberystwyth

  2

  6 February 1990

  USAF A10

  Capel-y-ffin

  1

  9 May 1990

  RAF Hawk

  2 KM North West of RAF Valley

  0

  10 May 1991

  RN Sea Harrier

  Near RAF Caerwent

  0

  Land Holdings (Scotland)
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the amount of land owned or leased by the Ministry in Scotland on a regional basis.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 1 April 1991, the total area, in hectares, of land and foreshore owned or leased by the Ministry of Defence in Scotland by region was:

  Hectares

  Highland

  5,210

  Strathclyde

  5,200

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,209

  Grampian

  2,207

  Tayside

  1,454

  Western Isles

  1,339

  Fife

  1,328

  Lothian

  1,160

  Central

  80

  Shetland Islands

  46

  Orkney Islands

  5

  Borders

  —

  80

  Qatar

  Saudi Arabia

  Singapore

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Swaziland

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  United Arab Emirates

  Details of tasks and numbers of loan service personnel are normally confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government concerned.

  "Panorama"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the BBC "Panorama" programme on weapons development and arms sales, broadcast on 24 June.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department has a copy of this programme.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the crashes and fatalities that have occurred in Wales involving low-flying military aircraft in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Between 1 January 1981 and 27 June 1991 there were the following aircraft accidents involving low-flying military aircraft in Wales:

  All areas of leased land included in the totals are subject to leases of three years or more: those of shorter duration are regarded as temporary and not recorded centrally.

  Vacant Property
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all those MOD properties in the Plymouth area, including Caradon, that are vacant at present; what is the length of time that they have been unoccupied; and what are his intentions for these properties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 March 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, 486 married quarters and seven Ministry of Defence civilian properties in the Plymouth area, including Caradon, were vacant. Of the married quarters 435 had been vacant for less than a year, 15 had been vacant for between one and two years and 36 had been vacant for over two years. The seven civilian properties had all been vacant for over six months. In addition, 130 dwellings were in the process of being sold. It is our policy to dispose of all housing which is surplus to our long-term requirements. However, not all empty
  81
  properties are surplus to requirements; many are either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation and some are already allotted to service families who are due to move in shortly.

  Injured Grenadiers
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 25 June to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), what action had been taken, or will be taken, to prevent the recurrence of the accident in July 1989 to the Grenadier Guardsmen, Hicks, Povey and Ray; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are comprehensive arrangements for ensuring the safety of soldiers during live-firing exercises. The board of inquiry into this tragic accident considered that"no amount of procedures, order, practices or briefings could have prevented the accident"
  and that
  "the accident represents one of the dangers associated with training with live ammunition on any training range".

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that the pension arrangements of Guardsman Hicks will be adequate for his housing, transport facilities and other capital needs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 June 1991]: Mr. Hicks is receiving a pension under the armed forces pension scheme and a war disablement pension at the 100 per cent. rate, plus clothing allowance and mobility supplement; the latter is to help specifically with the extra cost of getting about. In addition, constant attendance allowance and comforts allowance have been awarded. I understand that he is also receiving unemployment benefit. These payments total over £260 tax-free per week. He has also received lump sum payments under the armed forces pension scheme totalling £6,501·69.

  Stump Socks
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many special socks have been provided to Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray; and if he will make it his policy to supply such special socks free on demand.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 24 June 1991]: Further to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence on 24 June, supplies of stump socks are available from individual health authorities on request. 1 am pleased to say that the men in question have used this service fully.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has carried out or is planning to carry out television advertising and other publicity campaigns costing more than £100,000 on the following topics in the year ending 31 March 1992:

  Royal Navy

  Production of a television recruitment advertising and television advertising campaign.

  Army

  Production of a television/cinema recruiting advertisement and television/cinema advertising campaign.

  Territorial Army

  1. A combined TV/Press recruitment campaign highlighting the range of weekend activities in the Territorial Army.

  2. A press campaign to recruit specialist personnel.

  Tri-Service

  1. Press campaign to thank employers for releasing Volunteer Reserve Forces personnel for service during the Gulf crisis.

  2. Campaign to increase public awareness of Volunteer Reserve Forces and employers' support for them.

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

R&D Investment: Government's Role
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What specific measures they propose to encourage industry to invest more in research and development.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the prime responsibility for such investment lies with industry. Research and development funded by industry grew by over 50 per cent. in real terms between 1983 and 1989. The Government's role is to establish a climate which stimulates innovation. We seek to achieve this with a wide range of policies including taxation, employment laws and the development of a strong science base. In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry spends around £300 million per annum on various schemes to support R&D.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which is welcome so far as it goes. However, is he aware that industry financed R&D in this country runs at a much lower level than in the United States, Japan, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland? Is the Minister also aware that the British figure for registration of patents in the United States is only 37 per cent. of that for Germany? Is the Minister further aware that ICI is one of the few exceptions to the rule of low investment in R&D, and that ICI spends 18 times more than the figure Hanson plc spends on R&D? Is that factor alone not enough to persuade the Government to relinquish their "hands off" attitude to a potential takeover of ICI?
Lord Reay: My Lords, R&D expenditure is a matter for each individual company to decide through its own management. The decision will be determined, among other factors, by the needs of the sector in which the company operates. However, one cannot fail to be struck by the noble Lord's comments as regards the generally higher rates of investment in R&D shown by companies in Germany, Japan and the United States.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that two weeks ago a small parliamentary party from this House was invited to visit the Glaxo research laboratories at Brentford? I joined the visit and I was impressed to discover that this year Glaxo is spending £480 million on its research programme. That enables Glaxo to dominate the pharmaceutical markets of the world in specialised products. That
766
would seem to indicate that my noble friend's explanation of the Government's policy is fully justified.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be impressed by the figure which my noble friend has given. The Innovation Advisory Board of the Department of Trade and Industry has recently suggested the idea of an R&D scoreboard. That was published in the Independent earlier this month. The intention of that scoreboard is to stimulate all those who are interested in R&D to develop their interests in that area.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many skilled professionals who have worked in R&D for big organisations, along with a number of skilled artisans, are now unemployed? The first object of the Government should be to try to create jobs to enable people who are specialists in R&D to have something to research into.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper concerns R&D and industry. As I said in my original Answer, this is an area in which funding by industry has grown by over 50 per cent. between 1983 and 1989.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in spite of what the Minister said about the help being given by the Government to stimulate R&D in this country, the fact is proportionately we are lagging behind our major competitors. My noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham pointed this out. In these circumstances does not the Minister agree that we should review our policy, paying particular attention to further fiscal and other financial incentives that could be introduced to encourage British firms to accelerate their R&D programmes?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the United Kingdom Government spend close to £3 billion on civil R&D; that is 0.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. The percentage of GDP we devote to R&D is at least as high as in Japan and the United States. However, we are not complacent. We fully realise that there is a long way to go.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the expression used in the Question—
"to invest more in research and development"—
slightly misleading in that it pretends that the problem is a purely quantitative one? Is it not the case that all wise industrialists and science institutes know that effective R&D is not purely quantitative but depends upon two concurrent factors: the existence of promising leads and of first-class researchers? Therein lies the root of the problem.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am quite sure that my noble and learned friend is right. That is one reason why the Government concentrate their R&D on areas where industry may find it too risky to undertake R&D on its own. They leave it to industry to fund R&D close to the market where we believe that industry is best placed to take commercial decisions.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord agrees with his noble and learned friend. Is it not therefore of great importance for the Government to avoid the brain-drain of the able scientists from this country?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the policies which we have pursued over the past 10 years, and in particular our taxation policies, have done a great deal to reverse that trend.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's support for research and development in industry. Does the noble Lord remember the old adage that one can lead a horse to water but 20 cannot make it drink?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a wise remark.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us find his answers so far very disappointing? It is all very well for the Government to say that they will set the scene, and I support that view. However, it is obvious from the figures which have been given and which some of us know about that that policy is not working. Further, what has the Minister to say about the excellent reports on R&D which have been produced by the Select Committee of this House? If the Government had taken notice of them, the position now would have been very different.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am surprised at the remarks of the noble Lord. We published our response to the report on Thursday. In our response, we warmly welcomed the report. The committee highlighted the importance of innovation in manufacturing industry and argued that a cultural revolution was necessary to change national attitudes. We entirely endorse those views.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, following the point made by my noble friend Lord Dormand, perhaps I may ask this question. Is the Minister aware that the report to which he referred made two statements:
"Public expenditure on R&D in the United Kingdom is not growing in line with that in competitor countries"?
Furthermore,
"Failure by Government to maintain the national R&D budget gives the wrong signals to industry about the importance of R&D and the innovation process to the national economy".
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, of course I am reading. I am quoting from the report. Such silly interventions do not assist.
Is the Minister aware that those are the objective views that have been set? Are they not far more convincing than the PR exercise in which the Government engage in order to cover the real truth?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not in any way trying to cover the real truth. The total United Kingdom R&D budget for 1989–90 was £11.4 billion. That is an enormous figure by any standards. As a percentage of GDP it was higher than that of Italy and similar to that of France.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, have the Government noticed that they are almost alone in the country in not caring much to whom ICI belongs?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is a different Question.

British Rail: Investments
2.46 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
When, in view of their increased commitment to rail transport, they will approve the expenditure for British Rail's 188 class 465 coaches and for the Ashford international passenger terminal.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport approved investment of £127 million for 188 class 465 vehicles on 19th June. Further consideration of British Rail's proposals for Ashford international passenger station depends on British Rail's review of its investment priorities in the light of the increase in its external finance limit for 1991–92 announced on the same day.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and particularly for the welcome news about the investment in rolling stock. Does he agree that the recently announced Treasury freeze on British Rail investment will put crippling uncertainty on the prospects for Ashford international passenger terminal and investment which is crucial to our prospects for Europe in 1992 and will cause great uncertainty locally?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, rather than a freeze—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I assume that noble Lords do not wish me to make up the answers. I shall try not to do so. Rather than a freeze on investment the announcement on 19th June referred to an increase of £400 million in British Rail's EFL, which was an increase of 36 per cent.
The Government remain committed to the provision of Ashford international passenger station. However, in the light of the funds now available to British Rail, and its priorities, it must now consider whether works on the Ashford IPS could go ahead quickly if it were approved.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what seems to be singularly lacking from the Answer he has given is effective consultation between the Government and British Rail? Does he agree that this is a matter of great urgency? Delay can signal great disadvantages to the United Kingdom. In those circumstances will the Minister indicate the timescale that the Government have in mind for this critical issue?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must take issue with the noble Lord over the suggestion that this indicates a lack of consultation with British Rail. Many people in the Department of Transport spend all their working time consulting British Rail on such matters. It allows us to come to the conclusion we have reached—to announce the approval of the vehicle's mentioned in the Question. That means that over the past year or two we have given approval for a total of 674 new vehicles for this part of the world, which will give a greatly improved service.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the delay at Ashford is becoming extremely worrying and that, if steps are not taken to start to build that interchange within reasonable time, some ether method will have to be arrived at for dealing with passengers when the tunnel starts to operate in a few years' time?
Lori Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is possible that the station may not now be ready in time for the opening of the tunnel. Since the proposals for the station were first outlined, the possibility of the new fast rail link has arisen. That was not thought of when Ashford station was first proposed. That point must be taken into account. I must also point out that the matter is subject to the progress of the British Rail (No.3) Bill which at present is not making any progress in another place.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, when the British Rail (No.3) Bill was before your Lordships' House, we received a special report from a House of Lords Select Committee in which Kent County Council expressed great concern about Ashford station? That was after consideration had been given to a possible rail link and in view of the fact that it was responsible for the approach road to the station. The form of words satisfied Ashford District Council, but did not satisfy Kent County Council. The Select Committee accepted the form of words and it was on that basis that noble Lords, including myself, agreed to accept the report.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Bill is now stuck in another place. However, the Government appreciate the importance attached to the station by local authorities and others and we have confirmed our commitment, subject to it being a viable project.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, given the exigencies of public investment in British Rail, may we ask how the Government's investigation of the Ryrie rules is proceeding and what the prospects are for British Rail being allowed to go to the private market to raise capital?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have an answer to that question at present. It is slightly different from the Question on the Order Paper. I shall write to the noble Lord.

Westminster Council: Housing Policy
2.53 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the attempt by Westminster City Council to find homes in other local authority areas for homeless people in Westminster accords with government policy.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Westminster proposals offer homeless and other families the choice of housing outside London, through the creation of voluntary partnerships with other local authorities. Against the background of the high pressure of demand for housing in central London, those proposals appear to be sensible and they do not conflict with government policy.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that other local authorities, certainly those in the major conurbations, are faced with an ever-increasing number of homeless people and families, does not the Minister think it rather bizarre that one of the greatest contributing factors to the situation in Westminster was the policy followed by the city council, under its former leader Dame Shirley Porter, when it deliberately kept properties empty until blocks of flats became available to sell on the open market? Is not that one of the greatest contributing factors, if not the major contributing factor, to the present situation in Westminster?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, where any local authority agrees that an unoccupied dwelling could be made available and two local authorities are in agreement about the arrangements to bring that dwelling into use; and a homeless person or family is willing to be accommodated away from London; and that agreed action reduces the number of homeless people; and the arrangement does not disadvantage anyone; that can only be a good thing and an imaginative way of addressing the problem.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is a somewhat synthetic Question? Was not the party opposite a strong supporter of the Greater London Council, which had a policy of building, renting and buying blocks of flats in places other than London for the sole purpose of exporting elderly people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. The Question attacks a very good scheme which addresses a difficult problem for Westminster. The Labour Party's record in office is not very good.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Baroness reconsider her reply to her noble friend? The noble Lord makes no good point at all. There is no comparison between the scheme to which the noble Baroness referred and the scheme under the former LCC and the GLC. Does she agree that Westminster City Council is so obsessed with keeping down the rate

771
of poll tax that it cares neither about its responsibilities towards the homeless nor its respect for the dead?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord's remarks. I do not believe that Westminster's record is a bad one. It gives good value for money with its services. On the question of the sale of houses, Westminster council has sold 6,300 houses out of a total stock of 24,700 in the last 17 years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, how on earth does the noble Baroness expect local authorities such as Swindon—I mentioned Swindon the other day; it has a housing waiting list of seven years and all re-lets have to be used for its own homeless people—to help authorities such as Westminster which have failed miserably to make proper provision? If she believes in that policy, will she allow the release of hundreds of millions of pounds of funds which the local authorities have earned from the sale of council houses to be used for the building of houses?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord totally missed the point of my response to the first two questions. The scheme is entirely voluntary. If a local authority has no spare empty property, it will not enter into a voluntary agreement with Westminster. However, there are many local authorities throughout the country which have spare property, either through mismanagement or simply because they happen to have spare property, and in those cases the scheme would be a good use of those properties.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does the Minister endorse all the policies operated by Westminster in order to keep down its poll tax? Obviously, we have no respect for the dead there. In addition—this is unique to Westminster—it sacks people from the education service and it behaves appallingly. Do the Government also endorse the expenditure that was incurred by the Lord Mayor when entertaining the ex-Prime Minister the other day?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Question is about housing the homeless in Westminster.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House how many replies Westminster council has had from local authorities saying that they are willing to help it out? Will she also tell us which local authorities have all those empty houses to which the homeless people could go?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that there has not been a great deal of interest, although Calderdale is one of the authorities that has shown some interest. The policy is well-intentioned and the fact that only a few authorities have replied is no good reason for not at least trying to address the difficult problem of housing the homeless.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, we read in the papers some time ago that Westminster council sold a couple of cemeteries for a few pence. It is no good noble Lords saying, "Oh!". That happens to be the truth. I am asking just to make certain. Is it not now possible
772
that those cemeteries which were sold for 10p or 20p each will be used by those who purchased them to build expensive homes? Are we not at least entitled to have some comment on what the Government think of that kind of behaviour?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I can well understand her colleague rising from the Back Benches to defend her answers to me, bearing in mind the fact that he was a Minister in the department when all this nonsense was taking place? Is she also aware that he is completely off the ball given the fact that, when I was in Manchester for example, the council built 30,000 houses outside Manchester? We are not talking about the same situation. Will the Minister comment on the rather uncharacteristic and unsympathetic remarks made last week by the Minister for Housing, Sir George Young?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have every confidence not only in the past record of my noble friend, but in his prowess on the Back Benches. As regards my honourable friend, I am astounded that anyone could misinterpret his remarks. He has done a great deal to help the young people sleeping rough on the streets of London. He was drawing attention to the menace of professional beggars on our streets in London who have a home to go to and who prey on vulnerable youngsters who have nowhere to sleep, as well as on passers-by.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say how many homes Westminster has found in other local authorities and whether any other London boroughs are following the policy that Westminster has started?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the scheme has been announced only in the past few weeks, so I suspect that there have been no responses at this stage. However, I do not know precisely about that, nor do I know of any other local authorities that have started such a policy. There are empty properties in many local authorities and attempts are being made to ensure that the problem of the homeless is combined with bringing some of those properties back into use.

Heveningham Hall
3 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the present owner of Heveningham Hall, Suffolk, has yet been discovered; and what action is being taken to prevent further deterioration of the buildings.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the position is as it has been since 1981: Heveningham Hall is owned by ID Investment Development AG, a company registered

773
in Switzerland. The buildings are not deteriorating: though much remains to be done, good progress has been made recently, particularly with restoration work to the fire-damaged east wing and the lodges. English Heritage is monitoring the situation regularly.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. But is it not a fact that as this is a Grade 1 listed building, the owners are responsible for keeping it in good order? Is she serious in saying that they are doing so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. The owners are indeed responsible for keeping it in good order. English Heritage is monitoring the situation. Indeed, it is working alongside the people who are responsible for the restoration. To date, all our information is that it is proceeding satisfactorily. We have recently heard that some local people, including the Georgian Group, are unhappy about what is happening there. I have asked for an investigation to be made straight away by English Heritage to make sure that I am brought up to date with any falling down on the standards of restoration work.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Suffolk there is growing concern about the future of Heveningham Hall? There are two reasons why that concern has been increasing recently. First, an authoritative report has come into the hands of the Suffolk Preservation Society (of which I am a member) which reveals that many details of the restoration work have been carried out in an incomplete and incorrect way. Secondly, there have been rumours and reports in local newspapers that the property is up for sale. If that is the case, will the Government do everything possible to ensure that the conditions and covenants which they inserted into their original deed of sale 10 years ago are carried forward to the next proprietor so that the conditions and stipulations can in future be properly enforced? I regret to say that I do not think that they have been observed up to now.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am certainly aware that there is concern about the future of Heveningham Hall. I understand that there has been a report on the work. I have to say that it is an anonymous report. Nevertheless my department takes it very seriously. I have asked English Heritage to respond in detail to it.
We have no knowledge of the house being up for sale. The Government have pre-emptive rights for 21 years after its acquisition. Therefore if it were up for sale, we should have to consider the possibility of repurchase.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in view of the long-running and very sad story of this marvellous historic house, will the Government ensure that more care is taken in future over our historic houses and that they are not sold to offshore companies of a speculative kind?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my department has been diligent in making sure that the restoration work on this fine Grade 1 listed building is kept up to standard. That is my response to my noble friend. As recently as May 1991 an article in the Architects' Journal—which is not necessarily known for supporting government policies—stated:
"Now, to the great surprise of many sceptics, the repair of the two ground-floor rooms [at Heveningham] is not only nearing completion but promises to be a model restoration".
It goes on to say that there is:
"a group of craftsmen whose works prove that they are capable of dealing with the most difficult of tasks. It is now clear that the Wyatt interior will live again in all its glory".
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I visited Heveningham on 2nd June and perhaps my noble friend will take it from me that the house—indeed the whole property—is in a deplorable state. The garden is a wilderness. Does she agree that the Government have shown a most disappointing record of stewardship over the past decade? Will she encourage the Secretary of State to exercise the opportunity to reacquire this property, which was sold for a very low price on the basis that it would be cherished and made available to the public? It was sold for £726,000 in 1981, which is equivalent to £1.25 million now. Will my noble friend try to obtain more backing for public ownership and transfer into safer hands?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the only way that the Government could even consider repurchase would be if the house were up for sale. They have no power simply to make a compulsory purchase with no good reason for it. With regard to my noble friend's first point, English Heritage has been the agent of government in terms of overseeing the standards of work. All the information that I have indicates that the work is being done to a satisfactory standard. However, it has recently been brought to my notice that that is not the case. I immediately instigated a detailed report from English Heritage. Indeed, I understand that the Secretary of State for the Environment has been down to Heveningham to see the work for himself.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that English Heritage is doing the best that it can? It said in a report that people there want the work done in-house and it says that they have the necessary expertise. In fact, the curator of arts for English Heritage was very unhappy about it. Is the Minister aware that in a press notice of November 1981, it was reported that the then Secretary of State for the Environment (who is now again Secretary of State for the Environment) in his announcement talked only about completing the sale with Mr. Al-Ghazzi? There was no mention at all of the house going to a Swiss bank. Is she further aware that the transaction was carried out by issue of bearer shares and that therefore there is no way of knowing who owns the house? Is it not quite wrong that parts of our heritage should be allowed to be sold in that way?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there was nothing at all improper in the sale. As for the standards, I made

775
quite clear in a number of responses that I am asking English Heritage for a detailed report on the standards of the work that has been done so far.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, all good things must come to an end.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council in Luxembourg.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the standing orders relating to public business be amended as follows:

Standing Order 35
Paragraph (1), line 1, after "Debate" insert "or a time-limited debate"
Paragraph (2), line 2, after "Debate" insert "or a time-limited debate"

Standing Order 61
Insert a new paragraph (5A):
"(5A)The Committee of Selection shall also have power to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form any other body, not being a Select Committee, referred to it by the Chairman of Committees."—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (98) as. first printed by the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 2, page 4, leave out lines 4 to 15 and insert 'planning permission for carrying out any development of land has been granted subject to conditions.
(2) The local planning authority may, if any of the conditions is not complied with, serve a notice (in this Act referred to as a "breach of condition notice") on—

(a) any person who is carrying out or has carried out the development; or

(b) any person having control of the land,

requiring him to secure compliance with such of the conditions as are specified in the notice.
(2A) References in this section to the person responsible are to the person on whom the breach of condition notice has been served.
(2B) The conditions which may be specified in a notice served by virtue of subsection (2) (b) are any of the conditions regulating the use of the land.'.
2 Page 4, line 25, at end insert 'or any other conditions'.
3 Page 4, line 35, after 'notice', insert '(a)'.
4 Page 4, line 36, after 'with', insert 'and
(b) the steps specified in the notice have not been taken or, as the case may be, the activities specified in the notice have not ceased'.
5 Page 4, leave out lines 38 to 41.
6 Page 5, line 2, after 'prove', insert '(a)'.
7 Page 5, line 4, at end insert 'or
(b) where the notice was served on him by virtue of subsection (2) (b), that he no longer had control of the land'.
8 Page 5, line 8, after 'section' insert '(a)'.
9 Page 5, line 8, at end insert 'and
(b) references to carrying out any development include causing or permitting another to do so'.
10 Clause 5, page 7, line 29, after first 'land', insert 'by discontinuing any use of the land'.
11 Page 7, line 31, leave out 'removing or alleviating' and insert 'remedying'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 11. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 17 to 30, 47 to 49, 51 to 59, 61, 62, 64, 69, 71 to 75, 84, 86, 87, 89, 103 to 106, 135 to 142, 167, 168, 174, 191, 192, 194, 195, 197, 216, 228, 232, 233 and 240.
These amendments all relate to the enforcement provisions of the Bill, including the amendments to the parallel regimes for enforcement of listed building, tree preservation and hazardous substances control. As noble Lords are aware, those are some of the most complex provisions in the planning Acts. It is perhaps therefore not entirely surprising that as the Bill progressed in another place some technical requirements proved to be essential.
I do not intend to take your Lordships' time with a detailed explanation of all the amendments. However, I shall try to deal with any points that noble Lords wish to raise.
Moved. That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 11.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley cannot be present today. As regards Amendments Nos. 28, 30 and 136, he asks me to thank my noble friend and her department for bringing forward the amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
12 clause 5, page 7, line 35, leave out 'demolition or alteration' and insert 'alternation or removal'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 16.
These amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 37 which would alter the law relating to planning control over the demolition of buildings. We shall later debate Amendment No. 37 and Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I have been advised that we cannot debate the noble Lord's amendments in a group beginning with Amendment No. 12.
I believe that I am right to say that no one disagrees with the principle of what we propose on demolition. Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 to 16 make consequential changes in the planning enforcement provisions, in particular by defining what is meant by a "replacement building" where such a building is required by an enforcement notice following a demolition in breach of control. These amendments would be needed whether or not the House agreed to the noble Lord's amendments, which would alter the detail of the demolition provision, but not its underlying thrust.
On this basis, and in anticipation of our main debate on this subject, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 5, page 7, leave out line 39.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 5, page 7, line 44, at end insert:
'(5A) Where an enforcement notice is issued in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of demolition of a building, the notice may require the construction of a building (in this section referred to as a "replacement building") which, subject to subsection (5B), is as similar as possible to the demolished building.
(5B) A replacement building—

(a) must comply with any requirement imposed by any enactment applicable to the construction of buildings;

(b) may differ from the demolished building in any respect which, if the demolished building had been altered in that respect, would not have constituted a breach of planning control;

(c) must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection (including regulations modifying paragraphs (a) and (b)).'.

15 Page 8, line 20, leave out 'demolished' and insert 'removed'.
16 Page 8, line 25, leave out from 'granted' to end of line 28 and insert 'by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of the construction of the buildings or works or, as the case may be, the carrying out of the activities.
(10) Where—

(a) an enforcement notice requires the construction of a replacement building; and

(b) all the requirements of the notice with respect to that construction have been complied with,

planning permission shall be treated as having been granted by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of that construction.'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 16.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 16.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
17 Clause 6, page 9, line 21, at end insert 'or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach'.
18 Page 10, line 10, after, 'may', insert 'on such terms if any as the Court thinks fit (which may include terms requiring the local planning authority to give an undertaking as to damages or any other matter)'.
19 Page 10, line 28, at end insert:
'(6) In section 303(3) of that Act (fees payable to Secretary of State in respect of deemed applications for planning permission) for "to him of a fee of the prescribed amount in respect of an" there is substituted—

"(a) of fees of prescribed amounts to him and to the local planning authority in respect of any application for planning permission deemed to be made under section 177(5); and

(b) of a fee of the prescribed amount to him in respect of any other".'.

20 Clause 10, page 13, line 23, leave out 'building, engineering, mining or other'.
21 Page 13, line 42, leave out from 'force' to end of line 43.
22 Page 14, line 5, leave out from 'force' to end o line 6.
23 Page 15, line 3, leave out 'building, engineering, mining or other'.
24 Page 15, line 11, leave out 'were'.
25 Page 15, line 12, leave out from 'application' t second 'they' in line 13 and insert 'would be lawful if instituted or begun at the time of the application'.
26 Page 15, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert:
'(4) The lawfulness of any use or operations for which a certificate is in force under this section shall be conclusively presumed unless there is a material change, before the use is instituted or the operations are begun, i any of the matters relevant to determining such lawfulness.'.
27 Page 16, line 12, at end insert:
'(4A) A certificate under section 191 or 192 shall not affect any matter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted unless that matter is described in the certificate.'.
28 Clause 11, page 18, line 32, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or chattels'.
29 Page 18, line 33, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 34 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
30 Page 19, line 12, at end insert:
'(3) In section 325(6) of that Act (compensation in respect of damage caused in exercise of right of entry)—

(a) for "land is damaged" there is substituted "damage is caused to land or chattels"; and

(b) for the words from "in respect of" to "in the land" there is substituted "may be recovered by any person suffering the damage".'.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 30. I have spoken to Amendment No. 17 with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 30.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
31 Clause 12, page 19, line 43, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3A)'.
32 Page 19, line 49, leave out 'to the extent of his derivative interest' and insert:
'(3A) The instrument by which a planning obligation is entered into may provide that a person shall not be bound by the obligation in respect of any period during which he no longer has an interest in the land.'.
33 Page 20, line 2, leave out from 'injunction' to end of line 4.
34 Page 20, line 39, at end insert:
'(10A) Regulations may provide for the charging on the land of—

(a) any sum or sums required to be paid under a planning obligation; and

(b) any expenses recoverable by a local planning authority under subsection (5) (b),
and this section and sections 106A and 106B shall have effect subject to any such regulations.'.

35 Page 23, line 4, leave out from 'into' to end of line 11 and insert 'an obligation falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 106(1) (in this section referred to as a "planning obligation") enforceable to the extent mentioned in subsection (2A).
(2) A planning obligation may not be entered into except by an instrument executed as a deed which—

(a) states that the obligation is a planning obligation for the purposes of this section;

(b) identifies the land in relation to which the obligation is entered into;

(c) identifies the appropriate authority who are entering into the obligation and states what the Crown or Duchy interest in the land is; and

(d) identifies the local planning authority by whom the obligation is enforceable.

(2A) A planning obligation entered into under this section is enforceable—

(a) against any person with a private interest deriving from the Crown or Duchy interest stated in accordance with subsection (2) (c);

(b) by the authority identified in accordance with subsection (2) (d).

(2B) Subject to subsection (3), subsections (2), (3A) to (7) and (9) to (11) of section 106 and sections 106A and 106B apply to a planning obligation entered into under this section as they apply to a planning obligation entered into under that section.'.
36 Page 23, line 19, leave out from 'subsection' to end of line 30 and insert '(2B))'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 and 36. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 175.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me to intervene, I believe that she wishes to move Amendments Nos. 31 to 36.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I am moving Amendments Nos. 31 to 36 and the others that I mentioned.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 address a point made by my noble friend Lord Coleraine. The amendments
780
enable the instrument which creates a planning obligation to limit the liability of the original covenanter to the period before they cease to have an interest in the land. This enables someone entering into a planning obligation to cease to be bound by its terms once he has disposed of his interest in the land concerned.
The same will apply to successors in title. A successor in title will be bound, however, to meet any obligations which have not been carried out, or only partly so, by his predecessor in title. For example, periodical payments under a planning obligation may not have been made. Where someone purchases an interest in land in such circumstances, I would expect the purchaser to ensure that any outstanding commitments are met before the transaction is completed.
Amendment No. 33 removes the provision for recovery of sums due under a planning obligation via the magistrates' court. Instead, such sums will be recoverable via the county court or the High Court. My view is that the magistrates' court is not the appropriate forum in which to make decisions about the large sums of money which may be payable under some planning obligations. Nor should the magistrates' court deal with the complex legal issues that may arise.
Amendment No. 34 would empower my right honourable friend to make regulations specifying that money to be paid under a planning obligation shall be a charge on the land. This would strengthen the position of the local planning authority if the covenanter or his successor in title did not pay moneys due. The authority would then have a power of sale over the land, without the need to go to court to recover the money due. Any regulations made could also provide that the local planning authority had a prior claim over those of other mortgagees. I believe this amendment further strengthens the enforcement powers available under this clause.
Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 175 are essential drafting amendments, intended to ensure that new Section 299A in Clause 12(3) works properly.
Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 are consequential amendments to Clause 67. They amend Section 91A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 by adding references to planning obligations entered into by the Crown. The effect of this is that a restoration payment made pursuant to such an obligation will be allowable as a tax deduction.
I commend these amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 to 36.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I welcome this group of amendments. They will remove a number of doubts. In particular one should mention Amendment No. 35. That shows exactly where planning obligations may not be entered into and the requirement of the instrument executed as a deed laying down the conditions. That is important and we should not pass it by without a word of gratitude to the Government for what they have achieved on this point.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their indulgence. I welcome the Minister's comment on these amendments. However, does she believe it satisfactory that a developer who enters into a planning obligation can then avoid the obligation by selling on the land? While I appreciate the provisions for charges—and indeed first charges will take priority over others as the Minister has outlined—it surely cannot be right to leave it to the local authority to pursue; a purchaser (he might be a man or a company of straw) and to go through the rigmarole of enforcing the charge and selling the property with no recourse against the original developer.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true that if the local authority has overtly had difficulty pursuing repayment under an obligation on the part of an owner, and that owner sells on, the obligation will be well known. The obligation is sold on to the new purchaser.
There are two points on that. First, it ought to be made known at the point of sale that an obligation goes with the land. Secondly, the purchaser should make absolutely certain by taking proper advice that he is buying not only the land but an obligation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
37 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Demolition of buildings
'.—(1) In section 55 of the principal Act (meaning of "development") after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of this Act "building operations" includes—

(a) demolition of buildings;

(b) rebuilding;

(c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings; and

(d) other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder."

(2) In subsection (2) of that section after paragraph (f) there is inserted—
"(g) the demolition of any description of building specified in a direction given by the Secretary of State to local planning authorities generally or to a particular local planning authority."
(3) After section 108(3) of that Act (compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission formerly granted by development order) there is inserted—
"(4) Regulations made by virtue of this subsection may provide that subsection (1) shall not apply where planning permission granted by a development order for demolition of buildings or any description of buildings is withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers conferred by the order."'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. In doing so, I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 63, 65, 66, 67, 90, 129, 150, 153 to 156, 158 to 165, 169 to 171,176, 177, 178, 185, 198, 207, 211, 212, 214, 215, 222, 225, 229, 230, 234 to 236, 258, 260, 270, 271, 285, 288
and 289.
These amendments, together with Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 to 16, apply to England, Wales and
782
Scotland. I need to remind the House that with these amendments we shall discuss Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B.
During the earlier passage of the Bill in this House the noble Lord, Lord Ross, supported by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, proposed an amendment to include "demolition" in the definition of "building operations" and so bring all demolition within planning control. In a second proposed amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, argued that demolition should be regarded as development; she suggested that a way forward would be to extend to all areas the application of the special demolition consent procedures currently required in conservation areas.
The obvious concern that lay behind both proposed amendments was to prevent those examples of speculative demolition that pressured a local planning authority into granting planning permission for an out-of-character development for which planning permission should be refused. This is a concern that the Government share.
In replying to those debates at that time I said that we believed that general legislative control over demolition would be too sweeping a response to what seemed a relatively limited problem. The consultation paper had not produced systematic evidence of a general and widespread problem. A great deal could be done, however, to tackle the problem by the inclusion of appropriate policies in local and unitary development plans and by issuing new policy guidance. At the same time we wished to consider the High Court's decision in January this year in the case of Cambridge City Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment and Milton Park Investment Ltd which held that the demolition of certain semi-detached houses was development.
We listened carefully to the arguments put and the concerns expressed in those and subsequent debates on demolition. We also considered the High Court's decision in the Cambridge case. We concluded that the time was right to introduce selective controls on demolition and therefore introduced these amendments in another place.
The amendments look complicated but represent the best way forward. Subsection (1) of the new clause brings the demolition of all buildings within the meaning of "building operations" and hence within the definition of "development". The new clause also provides a direction-making power which will enable the Secretary of State to direct that the demolition of any specified type of building does not involve development. Subject to consultation that power will be used to exclude from planning control the demolition of all buildings that do not contain a dwelling house or a flat. In such cases, as I have said, there is no evidence of a need to extend planning control.
We shall then propose amendments to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 to grant permitted development rights for the demolition of houses in most circumstances. This would reflect the fact that most demolition is uncontroversial. It would be possible to control the

783
most damaging cases by, for example, making an Article 4 direction that would require a developer to submit a planning application for the demolition of a dwelling house in a particular case.
Planning authorities will be able to use such directions to prevent the demolition of houses where they see a particular risk, or in areas they regard as vulnerable to damage from speculative demolition. Demolition within conservation areas is already subject to control but there may be other circumstances where greater planning control is desirable. While it would not normally be appropriate to control the whole of a district in this way we should be prepared to look sympathetically at Article 4 directions covering particular buildings or small areas where there was a clearly demonstrable case for extending control for more than six months.
The amendments to the general development order will be subject to public consultation and we expect to issue the consultation document within a month. I cannot say at this stage exactly what those amendments will be but our aim will be to ensure that the controls are selective and to implement this measure as soon as possible. The aim will be to allow local planning authorities to control the worst excesses of demolition of dwelling houses without imposing extra demands in the large majority of cases on either developers or local planning authorities.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37.—(Baroness Blatch.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 37
37A Leave out subsection (2).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 37A and shall speak also to Amendment No. 37B. In speaking to an earlier amendment the Minister said that we are intent on the same purpose and are moving in the same direction to improve controls of demolition. That is right, but the trouble is that not all are willing to travel the same distance down that path. Amendment No. 37 is welcome because it is an improvement on the Bill which left this House. However, subsection (1) of that amendment is only a recognition of the law as it was laid down in the case of Cambridge City Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment and Milton Park Investment Ltd. It goes no further than that. We welcome the fact that "demolition" has been declared by the courts and now more explicitly by Parliament to be a building operation. That is right, but we begin to worry when we look at subsection (2) which provides that "demolition" is subject to a direction given by the Secretary of State. The Minister has made clear that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to interpret "demolition" under planning control as relating only to dwellings. Non-dwelling buildings will not be covered by the new definition.
I suggest that at the very least that departs from what is made explicit in subsection (1) which deals with the demolition of buildings. The subsection does not refer to the demolition of dwellings but to the demolition of all types of buildings. To make a written
784
commitment in subsection (1) of the amendment and then immediately in subsection (2) to withdraw that by fiat of the Secretary of State does not appear to make a great deal of progress.
The Minister then went even further by saying that subject to consultation there will be amendments to the general development order that will make it clear that virtually all demolition will be included as permitted development. In other words, almost all the protection that is provided in subsection (1) of Amendment No. 37 will be removed by the general development order. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that there is protection under Article 4. There has always been protection under Article 4 but the problem is that the local planning authority is required to step in when demolition is threatened and impose an Article 4 order before demolition takes place. The evidence that was produced time and again during the passage of the Bill through this House showed that unscrupulous developers simply arrive in the middle of the night and knock down the building. That is the end of the matter because then there is no chance to impose an Article 4 order.
The Minister qualified the reply by saying that under certain circumstances—and I should like to know what circumstances—the protection extends to buildings or small areas. What is a small area? I suspect that a large number of local authorities such as Cambridge City Council will seek to use the loophole which the Minister is now providing. However, they are not being given clear guidance about the extent of the additional protection.
We are on the same side and are trying to achieve the same objectives. I am sorry to say that the clause as drafted, particularly in the light of the Minister's comments, makes it clear that the additional protection to be provided by the clause will be minimal. I regret that having listened to the arguments and having paid lip-service to them in Amendment No. 37 the Government are not prepared to make them effective.
Moved, That Amendment No. 37A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 37, be agreed to.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sorry to detain your Lordships further but the point that I wish to make arises in a most extraordinary way. Today when I was driving to the House in my car I heard on the lunchtime news a report of the most appalling act of vandalism against listed buildings which is becoming more prevalent; namely, painting them in garish colours. It was said that such acts applied even to medieval buildings.
One's hopes are raised by the amendment. I am sorry that I have not had the opportunity of speaking to my noble friend about the matter. Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 37 includes in its definition of "building operations":
"(c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings; and
(d) other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder".
However, it is the builders who are carrying out the painting work. The new clause is a welcome improvement, so far as I can understand it, because it

785
contains many references to previous legislation. I hope that the other operations will refer to vandalism by painting. Having said that, I do not know whether it is even reasonable that I should ask my noble friend to comment. However, if she has a comment and says that she is sympathetic, that would be good for the record.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I sympathise with the la it comment about listed buildings. Anything which we can do to help local authorities and English Heritage to protect them will be welcome. However, I rise to speak in support of Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B.
I hope that the legislation will give teeth to what the public clearly wants. I say that because I have sat on many a development control committee where members of the public have expressed anguish at the prospect of buildings being pulled down and the local planning authority having no means to prevent it. I am referring to buildings outside conservation areas which are not listed but which, nevertheless, are valued by the local community. Article 4 directions exist, but they are very difficult and time consuming and one requires a lot of resources.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point raised by my noble friend on painting is outside the scope of these amendments. However, I note what he says and I shall write to him specifically about that.
As regards anxieties about the amendments, I shall argue why I believe the House should not accept Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B. I know there has been concern on the part of local authorities but, when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, considers not only the new impetus given to the use of Article 4 directions but their possible extended use, because they can now apply to local authority areas, I hope her faith will be restored.
Perhaps I may take your Lordships back to our first debate on this matter early in the year. In that debate I said that in the 175 responses to the consultation paper on the subject there was little evidence that the demolition of buildings was a general and widespread problem. Those problems that did arise were limited to dwelling houses. In the debates both in this House and in another place no further evidence has come forward to cast doubt upon that view. Indeed I believe it is generally accepted that the problem of speculative demolition is small-scale and limited, but when it happens I do not underestimate how distressing it can be.
However, where it occurs, the consequences can in some circumstances be very serious for neighbours and local amenity as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out. For that reason, the Government decided to introduce selective controls—that is, in order to tackle a problem that arose in particular cases. Ensuring that the controls are selective requires the direction-making power to limit control to particular types of building and the use of the general development order so that authorities are
786
not swamped with minor applications. The consequences of these amendments would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut—a degree of control quite out of line with practice in other areas of development.
Perhaps I may take the argument forward. There are already adequate controls on demolition in a number of circumstances. The Building Act 1984 provides controls over the demolition of delapidated or unsafe buildings. Special consent by the local planning authority is already required for about half a million listed buildings in the country and for all buildings in over 7,000 conservation areas that are larger than the size of a typical garage. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 provides controls to protect the health and safety of employees and the public in the case of demolition. The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987, the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 also provide further controls that protect the health of employees and the public, as well as the environment, in the circumstances of particular kinds of demolition.
A further consequence of these amendments, therefore, would be the addition of unnecessary and duplicate controls in all these circumstances. For example, any demolition of a building in a conservation area would need not only conservation area consent for being in a conservation area but also planning consent for being a demolition. Moreover, while conservation area consent would not be necessary to knock down a typical garage in a conservation area, planning consent would be necessary. That is just not logical, and your Lordships will not want to be responsible for introducing such an anomaly into planning control. In such cases we are using not just one sledgehammer to crack a nut; we are using two.
Particular concern arises from the amendment proposing that no demolition could be permitted through the general development order. The purpose of the GDO is to grant permission for smaller or uncontroversial development in order not to clog up the planning system. The GDO works well; it has been operating since the beginning of the planning system. It is kept under review and any amendments to it take place only after public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. Is it right that the GDO should allow a typical householder to build a limited extension to his house without a planning application, whatever its impact on local amenity, but not to knock it down; or to build a garage in most circumstances, or a greenhouse or kennels for the dog, but prevent him from knocking any of them down?
That would be the effect of this amendment. The typical householder would have to apply to the local planning authority for planning permission to knock down his old garage at the bottom of the garden. Just imagine the absolutely enormous extra demands on the local planning authority in terms of staff, time and money; imagine the resulting delays in deciding genuine applications for planning permission for development. Surely, to have such little faith in the general development order, which has served us so

787
well for so long, is to bring the whole system into disrepute. Neither planning authorities nor householders want it. They have not asked for it; we should not allow it to happen.
Contrary to the assertions by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, there has not always been the opportunity to use Article 4 procedures. Until now demolition has not been within the definition of development. Therefore, until now there have been no permitted development rights to withdraw. We need to look at each case on its merits.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Renton, I understand that there is already judicial authority to the effect that painting a listed building requires listed building consent. I understand that the case involves the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. That is not appropriate for this Bill but, as I promised, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that clarification. I just add that the particular complaint about which I heard related to some listed buildings at Penrith.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister bases her response largely upon the argument which she used as the Bill was proceeding through the House earlier this year; namely, that there has been no widespread demand for improved control of demolition. She confirmed me in my view that the Government are simply acceding to the judicial interpretation of the law in the Milton Park case. They are determined to go no further than that. They have no intention whatever of extending controls over demolition in any significant way.
As to whether there is a demand for greater controls, only time will tell. The important point about the legislation is that it includes demolition as a building operation and, therefore, without a change in legislation the possibility arises in future to strengthen the provisions. Regulations made by this Secretary of State which fail to advance the prohibition of demolition can be undone by a future Secretary of State.
I remind the House that demolition is not merely an aesthetic matter. Developers quite deliberately demolish buildings, whether dwellings or other buildings, not because of any need to demolish them because they are in a bad condition but in order to force the hand of a planning authority to make it easier to obtain permission for something which would otherwise be unacceptable.
The nature of the replacement building, which is dealt with in Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 to 16, is the significant consideration. However, on the basis that the law has now been changed in such a way that future action can be taken without further legislation, I do not believe that it is appropriate to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 37A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 37, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37B not moved.]
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 37 agreed to.

European Council, 28th-29th June
3.40 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the draft parliamentary Statement on the European Council. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Luxembourg on 28th/29th June. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom.
"It was clear from the events there that Yugoslavia must be the first item on our agenda. I discussed the overnight position with the Prime Minister Lubbers and with Chancellor Kohl before the Council opened. We were able to reach rapid agreement in the Council on invoking the emergency mechanisms of the CSCE, and a meeting is taking place in Vienna this afternoon.
"We also agreed to despatch to Yugoslavia the Foreign Ministers of troika—Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy. Their visit brought some respite in the conflict. But the situation was very fragile yesterday and the Foreign Ministers returned to Yugoslavia yesterday afternoon. They secured agreement to the appointment of Mr. Mesic of Croatia as the next President of Yugoslavia and to other measures to defuse the crisis. The situation remains very volatile and the Community will need to be closely involved over the coming weeks. In the meantime, Community aid to Yugoslavia has been suspended. British citizens have been advised to leave Slovenia. Steps have been taken to evacuate British subjects who could be at risk.
"The main item of scheduled business was to discuss progress in the two intergovernmental conferences launched last year, one on economic and monetary union and the other on political union. Discussion centred on the issues raised in a draft treaty text circulated by the presidency, though there was no detailed negotiation of the text itself.
"This European Council—as we had wanted—was a stocktaking. It was not the occasion to take decisions, but we have registered the considerable progress made in the Luxembourg presidency as well as our collective will to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December.
"The conclusions, which have been placed in the Library of the House, incorporate a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom. I made clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, though some other partners in the Community disagree with it strongly. The present text means that some things are done on the basis of the Treaty of Rome but others on the basis of intergovernmental action in which the Treaty of Rome does not apply and the Commission does not have the sole right of initiative.

789
"I welcomed the concept of a common foreign arid security policy set firmly within the context of the Atlantic Alliance and stressed the need to work by consensus in this crucial area.
"There is agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law. That reflects a British proposal which would enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states which fail to comply with Community legislation. We have long argued for a level playing field, and for full respect of the rule of law, and we are determined to get it. We have a good record on implementation and we believe that all states that sign up to Community law should implement it.
"The conclusions call for early progress on the remaining legislation needed to complete the single market. This means in particular measures on insurance, and air, sea and road transport which are of importance to this country.
"The Council discussed the need to strengthen the community's external perimeter boundary if free movement of people is to be able to take place within it. We also agreed to better co-ordination in the fight against international drug trafficking and organised crime through the establishment of a Central European Criminal Investigation Office (EUROPOL).
"The conclusions also commit us to strengthening the community's links with the countries of Central rind Eastern Europe. This will initially take the form of association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Government hope that those countries—and probably others—will be ready for full membership in due course.
"I also made clear that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree arid it was understood that nothing could be agreed until everything is agreed. I explained that, even though, to many, federal union implies decentralisation, the term carried the reverse implication in this country and would not be acceptable in a text to be agreed at the end of the year.
"I explained our reservations about the existing text on the role of the European Parliament. We see a strong case for an increased role for the European Parliament in areas such as control over the Commission through audit of expenditure and measures to safeguard the rights of Community citizens, including the appointment of a European ombudsman. The text entirely reserves our position on the issue of co-decision. The present proposal, involving a complicated conciliation procedure, would not, in our view, improve Community decision-taking.
"In the discussion on economic and monetary union I maintained our reserve on a single currency arid a single central bank. We discussed the issue of economic convergence. The need for such convergence is increasingly recognised by our partners but the nature and extent of that convergence and its relationship with possible target dates for moves to Stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union are still for
790
negotiation. All other member states understand that there must in any case be a separate decision by the Government and this House on whether the United Kingdom would move to a single currency and, if so, when.
"The European Council has issued a number of political declarations which are also available in the Library of the House. The Council endorsed the initiative which I took in April to establish a UN register of conventional arms transfers and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the UN General Assembly.
"The Council also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the co-ordination of disaster relief within the UN system. We envisage the appointment of a high level co-ordinator, with direct access to emergency funding and with the authority to pull together the whole disaster relief operation. We are taking that initiative forward in the United Nations now.
"At British initiative, the Council agreed a text on human rights, the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. The Community will use its leverage to promote human rights through the economic and co-operation agreements which it makes with third countries.
"We welcomed the abolition in South Africa of the remaining legislative pillars of apartheid. We also declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case by case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been set up. The establishment of such an independent and non-racial body for cricket was announced on the same day.
"I believe this European Council was a good example of the Community at work. We took rapid action to respond to the crisis in Yugoslavia and will continue to work together for a peaceful settlement. We took stock in a businesslike way of the progress made under Luxembourg's chairmanship. There are difficult issues still to be resolved. As in any negotiation there will have to be give and take and a judgment will have to be made by the Government and by the House on the overall package at the end of the negotiation.
"There was a common determination in Luxembourg to work for an agreed outcome to the negotiations by the end of the year. I shall continue to argue for what I believe to be in the interests of our own country and the interests of the Community as a whole."
That concludes the Statement of my right honourable friend.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. The weekend meeting of Foreign Ministers was dominated also by events in Yugoslavia. We note that the Statement says that the three Community Foreign Ministers have returned for a second emergency mission. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will indicate whether that diplomatic pressure

791
has yet achieved any real success. Perhaps he will say also when its members are likely to report back to the EC.
The Statement refers to British citizens in Slovenia. Perhaps the Minister will outline the steps being taken to facilitate the evacuation of British holidaymakers wishing to leave Yugoslavia. Can he indicate also the number of UK holidaymakers thought to be at risk from the crisis at the present time?
Compared with some meetings in the past, this one was relatively peaceful. I believe that the House will agree that the reason was that the decisions on the main issues have been deferred until the Maastricht summit in December. It is then that the crunch—if there is to be a crunch—will come. Nevertheless, the Statement shows that useful proposals were agreed on. One is the agreement to set up the European security force known as EUROPOL. Can the noble Lord tell us what its precise functions will be and to whom it will be answerable? For example, may we assume that it will work closely with Interpol? What distinction should we draw between EUROPOL and Interpol?
We note the proposal to restrict immigration into the Community. We shall need to look at that very carefully. The Statement mentions the external perimeter boundary. Immigrations rules vary considerably from country to country within the Community. We must ensure that they are all equitable and that the results are equitable. As regards the relaxation of sporting links with South Africa mentioned in the Statement, can the noble Lord say whether that now means the repeal of the Gleneagles Agreement? In this regard we need to have a level playing field as well as in other areas. We also welcome the proposed Community register of arms sales. Can the noble Lord say when the draft resolution will be tabled? At the United Nations General Assembly the Government may be certain that we shall give them full support on that point.
The big issues will be decided at Maastricht. One of the central objectives is the central bank and the single currency. The Prime Minister reserved his position on those two matters in the Statement. Does the noble Lord agree that that means that we do not share the views of the great majority of the Community countries on these essential matters? Can the noble Lord say what he considers to be the prospects of achieving agreement on these crucial points? At the moment it appears that the prospects are not too good, although we wish the Government well. These are momentous decisions to take which will affect the lives of everyone in this country and in the Common Market generally.
Can the noble Lord say whether the hard ecu proposals are still Government policy or have now been abandoned? We welcome the summit communiques that economic convergence should govern any move towards EMU. Does the Minister accept that convergence is not simply defined in terms of inflation, but that it should also include rates of growth and employment levels as well?
792
Furthermore, does the noble Lord agree that it is also essential that social measures accompany further economic integration? Is it not in fact the case that social policy remains a key area of divergence between our country and our European partners? Does the Minister accept that that is one area in which the Government may, in the Prime Minister's own words, have to
"surrender something our partners wish to gain",
as we on this side have been urging for quite some time? Does the Minister agree that it is essential that the Government should seek to achieve unity between parties and people within the United Kingdom as well as in the Community as we approach this historic meeting, which will be probably the most significant since the end of the last war?
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his courtesy in repeating the Statement to us. I congratulate the Prime Minister on having achieved, so far as it went, a satisfactory European Council from his point of view and probably from the national point of view, too. The co-operation he received in his desire for a six months' pause for breath is an indication of the goodwill which he commands in Europe, largely perhaps by virtue of not being somebody else. It is also an indication that, if Britain shows a little co-operative spirit, it can easily be among friends rather than adversaries in the Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was right when he said that a great many crunch issues have been postponed until Maastricht. We recognise that the Government will want to take a separate decision on a single currency and have it endorsed by Parliament as is normally done with all major issues of policy. In passing, I must comment as regards the Statement that the sentence,
"nothing could be agreed until everything is agreed",
was rather sweeping by any standards. It may be that we shall want to look at the overall picture in December, but insistence on agreeing nothing until everything is agreed would frustrate most forms of human activity.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House two questions. A separate decision need not be a late one. Does he not recognise that there will be considerable advantages for Britain in not always being the reluctant partner at the end of the queue? On the question of the desirable need for convergence of the economies, will the noble Lord explain why, in view of the alleged economic miracle in the past 11½ years, it is frequently stated that we—perhaps in company with Portugal and Greece—are the only countries of the 12 which could not sustain the rigours of a single currency?
3.56 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for his congratulations to the Prime Minister on what I believe will be recognised by all impartial observers as a very satisfactory conclusion to the council meeting. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked a

793
number of questions about Yugoslavia. I wish that I was able to give him more positive replies than I can. Clearly, the position is very fluid. I do not think that there is anything much that I can add to what is in the Statement itself. There are a number of United Kingdom holidaymakers in Slovenia and they have been advised to leave. No doubt that advice is being communicated to them and they will be leaving at this time.
When one comes to the substantive matters concerning the European Community and the relations between the member states, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to EUROPOL. It is intended as an investigative agency. As I understand it, it is intended to be an organ of the Community where the member states will not just pool their intelligence but together will actually use the intelligence available. We shall have to see how that proposal develops. We in Britain have worked for a long time towards closer co-operation between the member states in the investigation of crime.
The noble Lord referred to external frontiers. We made well known our belief that there has to be a more secure external frontier and the same standard of security throughout the whole of the perimeter of the European Community before one can talk about being able to have completely free movement within the European Community. We have often made clear how foolish it will be for us to sacrifice our advantages of geography and the advantage that we gain as a result of having the ability to have checks at our ports to deal with crime, the drugs trade and immigration. When one looks at the proportion of drugs seizures where the drugs in question have come from other countries in the Community, that point is hammered home easily. As regards the register of arms sales, I gather that the resolution will be tabled at the outset of the incoming Dutch presidency.
I shall now deal with the question of the single currency. As the noble Lord has said, the Prime Minister maintained our reserve on the single currency and the single central bank. We made clear—and there was widespread support for this—that without convergence a number of member states could not cope with the economic consequences of moving to a single currency. The noble Lord is right: there are many measures of the strength of a country's economy which have to be taken into consideration in deciding whether there is sufficient convergence to make a single currency even a remote possibility. All other member states understood that there must be a separate decision by the Government and Parliament on whether the United Kingdom would move to a single currency. We shall not accept treaty changes that commit the United Kingdom to take part in a single currency.
There are differences within the Community on social policy. However, all are agreed on one thing: the Community has a social dimension. We are not prepared to see Community competence extended for instance into the field of industrial relations. Extending qualified majority voting would put at risk all the achievements of the past 12 years. We must not allow over-regulation to lead to extra cost to industry
794
and ultimately, job losses. That is not to say that we have not co-operated in the social action programme. Indeed, 12 proposals have already been agreed. In the 18 measures which were put in place before the beginning of the social action programme we are top of the league in implementing all 18. That is by far the best record of any country in the whole of the Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, is right to say that we should strive for unity in the Community and unity in this country. I can assure the noble Lord that our Prime Minister is fighting to get the most successful outcome of these negotiations in the interests of this country.
I shall now deal with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Certainly Britain found herself among friends in many of the discussions which took place. If one looks at the draft text, one will find many proposals which originated here in Britain; for instance, the proposal strengthening the supervision of Community finance and spending by the European Parliament.
The noble Lord referred to the phrase:
"nothing could be agreed until everything is agreed".
I am not quite sure that the author of that phrase can be found in this country. It seems to be one of those phrases which has become "Eurospeak". I am not claiming authorship for anybody in this country. However, it sums up quite nicely the attitude at this meeting which was a "take-stock" meeting. It was not a meeting where the Ministers arrive intending to negotiate and come to decisions on specific matters. The general attitude was, "We've got six months' hard work ahead of us. At the end of that six months, we must look at the package as a whole and see whether we can come to agreement on it".
4.5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it accepted within the Community that we have an immigration problem that is different in character and different in scale from the immigration problem of any other country in the Community? Will this be borne in mind when there is an attempt to assimilate immigration laws?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am not sure that other countries would accept that we have a bigger problem than they have. Indeed, illegal immigration and the tide of people claiming refugee status is a problem with which all the Community countries are faced. There is a recognition that we have a system of control that is based on our geography which it might be thought foolish for us to abandon.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that events in Slovenia over the past few days have shown that enforced federation simply cannot work? Should not that be a salutary lesson to those who want to stampede the Community into a premature federal state? The Statement refers to the British Government's view that there should be fines for countries who do not implement Community decisions. How are such fines to be enforced? The Statement also refers to the British Government and

795
the British people having to give and take. So far it seems to me that we have done all the giving and the other countries have done all the taking. What proposals are there to ensure that in the future they do some of the giving and we take some of the taking?
Finally, in relation to the central bank, the Prime Minister's view is—and I have just heard it—that this may be a long way in the future. However, he was quite sure—and indeed he is stating—that such a European central bank would have to be brought under the control of a directly elected body. Can the noble Lord tell the House what form that directly elected body would take? Would it be individual parliaments, or would it be the European Parliament?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it would not be right for me to try and draw any parallel between the events in Slovenia and progress in the European Community. The British Government have made their views quite plain on federalism. As I have made clear, this was not a drafting session. However, the Prime Minister made clear that we could not accept a text which included the concept of federalism, which to many people means a unitary state with a directly elected central executive.
So far as concerns the enforcement of Community law, the European Court would be able to impose fines on those countries which fail to implement directives. That seems the appropriate way to take the matter forward. I cannot see how, in the light of the Statement which I have just read, the noble Lord can say that it has been a question of giving and that there has been no taking. There was not a single sentence in what I said a few moments ago to suggest that our Prime Minister has abandoned any of the great interests of this country.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend the Leader of the House aware—and there is no reason why he should be—that I have spent more than 40 years studying and writing on federalism? Witness my edition of the standard text of federalist papers which is available in your Lordships' Library. From that I derive the inescapable conclusion that a great deal of misinformation is being deliberately spread by those who are trying to push this country into a totally unacceptable form of union. In this sense, though it is perfectly true—and this is where the play on words comes in—if one takes a unitary state, as the United Kingdom was, say, in 1900, and thinks of ways of diffusing power, one could end up in a federation. However, to put a sovereign state into a federation means depriving it of certain essential powers. The question then becomes: would the United Kingdom be better off in relation to a "European government" if it had the same status as South Dakota to the federal Government of the United States, or as Western Australia to the federal Government of Australia? The noble Lord will be aware that those are the only two successful federations—apart from Switzerland—that exist. Both of them have a homogeneity of language and culture which is absent, alas, from the European continent.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Certainly, this much must be common ground—different people have been arguing that "federalism" has different meanings. Some have said that federalism involves less concentration at the centre and more devolution; others have suggested precisely the opposite. If people have all these different views as to what federalism means, it seems to be a very insecure basis for putting the word "federalism" into any treaty.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord indicated that the Prime Minister stated most clearly his objection to the term "federalism". Are the Government satisfied that the explanation was concurred with by the Prime Minister of Italy, who, we understand, was asleep for a good deal of the time?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I made it plain when reading the Statement that the Prime Minister made Britain's position quite clear and made quite plain that Britain would not be able to agree to a treaty's text which included the word "federalism".
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I congratulate the Prime Minister on having secured six months in which we can look at this problem in more detail. Surely, it is essential that we should have the fullest possible information. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who spoke about a central bank, made it clear to me that he and I think quite differently about central banks. Can we not have a definition of what it would mean if there were a central bank? How much power would it have over credit policies, interest rates and so on?
"How easy is a bush supposed a bear!"
Most people in this country think of a central bank as a bear. But perhaps it is only a bush. No one will tell us.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I was guilty of discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in that I did not reply to his question. I did not reply to his question, first, because I forgot to do so; and, secondly, because when I look again at the Prime Minister's Statement I see that it would have been quite unnecessary for me to have done so. The Prime Minister said in his Statement:
"In the discussion on economic and monetary union I maintained our reserve on a single currency and a single central bank".
So there was certainly no giving there.
The correct reply to my noble friend Lord Eccles is that many of these issues are in the future. All the Prime Minister was saying is that he cannot agree to the text of a treaty at Maastricht in December of this year which will say that Britain is committed to a single currency and a central bank; and that we must see how we get on.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for rising to speak again, but there is one small point in the Statement on which I should be grateful for clarification from the Leader of the House. I quote:
"a judgment will have to be made by the Government and by the House on the overall package at the end of the negotiation".

797
I assume that means that there will not be a final agreement without the approval of the House. The right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister is of course referring to the House of Commons. Am I right in assuming that what he really means is Parliament, and that the approval of this House will be required as well as the approval of the House of Commons?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, what is made clear is that the treaty would have to be ratified and that there would have to be agreement by Parliament.
Lord Jay: My Lords, can the Leader of the House say whether an English version of this draft treaty which we are all discussing is now available to the British Parliament?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, there certainly was a draft text in the Library of the House. I just assumed, when I read my brief, that that draft text was in English, as I certainly have a copy in my papers here.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we have been told that decisions about a single currency and other issues have been postponed until December. Is not uncertainty in the meantime harmful to the ability of the country to cut interest rates rapidly? Questions of convergence have to be clarified before we enter a single currency. What kind of convergence are we talking about and in what matters? In the meantime, our dithering is leading to a doubt about our credibility in the exchange rate mechanism and is making it difficult for interest rates to be cut properly. Does the noble Lord not agree that it is necessary to clarify as early as possible what we mean by convergence? How rapidly will convergence be achieved, and what do we expect at the end of this process to converge and how?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, for the life of me I cannot see how what is going on can be described as dithering! When it was decided to have two intergovernmental conferences—one on economic and monetary union and one on the political side—it was always recognised that an important matter was being embarked upon by the member-countries; that the negotiations would take a long time; and that the IGCs were not to come to a conclusion until the end of 1991. No one, so far as I know, has ever thought for one moment that we would come to a conclusion on these matters until December of 1991.
One thing is certain—dithering cannot come into it for one moment. I should have thought that questions about convergence might better be addressed to quarters other than the British Government. I have made entirely clear what is the British Government's view about a single currency. Others say that it may be possible to have a single currency very quickly indeed and that we are very pessimistic about it. But they all agree that a single currency could not come about now because of the lack of convergence. How much convergence do they think will make a single currency a possibility within a year, two years, three years, four years, five years or six years? These are questions which can properly be addressed to others.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord has just said something extremely interesting about a common
798
currency. I take it that what he is saying is that the British Government accept that it is quite possibly going to happen in time. Does he not agree that some of the comments which were made about the common currency indicate that people have not fully understood the process of diplomacy in which we are engaged at the moment? It takes time. The Prime Minister has done extremely well in restoring an atmosphere of diplomacy. However, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, surely made a valid point when he said that the Government's apparent anxiety about this point is curious when so many other nations are perfectly willing to consider the principle and accede to it. Of course, the timing is another matter.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. We have gone into these negotiations intending to act sincerely and intending to get the best possible result for the United Kingdom. That can come about only as a result of sensible and honest negotiations. The House can remain confident that our Prime Minister will do the best for Britain.

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
Consideration of Commons amendments resumed.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
38 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Fish farming
'.—(1) After section 55(4) of the principal Act (meaning of "development") there is inserted—
"(4A) Where the placing or assembly of any tank in any part of any inland waters for the purpose of fish farming there would not, apart from this subsection, involve development of the land below, this Act shall have effect as if the tank resulted from carrying out engineering operations over that land; and in this subsection—
"fish farming" means the breeding, rearing or keeping of fish or shellfish (which includes any kind of crustacean and mollusc);
"inland waters" means waters which do not form part of the sea or of any creek, bay or estuary or of any river as far as the tide flows; and
"tank" includes any cage and any other structure for use in fish farming."
(2) This section does not apply to the placing or assembly of any structure before this section comes into force.'.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38.
In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Commons Amendment No. 91. These amendments fulfil a commitment I gave on Report. At present freshwater fish tanks and cages count as development if they involve an engineering operation to fix them to land but may not otherwise. Their visual impact can be significant irrespective of how they are moored, and we have recognised that the existing position is unsatisfactory. Under these amendments, the placing or assembly of any tank in any part of inland waters for the purpose of fish farming would constitute development, whether in England, Wales or Scotland. The carrying out on land of building and other operations for fish farming already constitutes

799
development. The amendments would ensure that all freshwater fish tanks counted as development, whether they were on land or in inland waters.
We discussed fish farming at some length during the earlier stages of the Bill. In view of that interest, it may be helpful for me to summarise and update the Government's position on planning controls over freshwater fish farming. In Scotland there are no permitted development rights for fish farm buildings or operations. In England and Wales certain permitted development rights are conferred by the general development order. We have announced that we will withdraw rights in the national parks, as recommended by the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place, and that we will require local planning authorities to consult the National Rivers Authority when dealing with planning applications for fish farms. We have also announced that, in parallel with Commons Amendment No. 38, we will introduce permitted development rights for floating freshwater tanks and cages in England and Wales outside the national parks. That is in line with the thinking of the Select Committee in its comprehensive report.
Since we last debated fish farming, the Government have announced changes to agricultural permitted development rights in England and Wales and introduced an amendment to this Bill on environmental assessment. We intend shortly to issue a consultation paper on permitted development rights for fish farming taking account of those developments. I trust that these remarks will serve to set Amendments Nos. 38 and 91 in their wider context and to show the importance which we attach to the subject of fish farming.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that this is another example of the Government appearing to make the right noises on the face of the Bill and then announcing, as the noble and learned Lord has just done, that they propose not to give effect to such changes. It is paradoxical that it should be the noble and learned Lord who makes the announcement. After all, as he said himself, there are no permitted development rights for fish farming in Scotland. However, what he did not say was that the permitted development rights in Scotland were withdrawn in March 1990 where they had existed before.
As I understand it, the position which is now proposed for England and Wales is that there will be permitted development rights, except in national parks. I put it to the Government that the situation in England and Wales ought to be closer to that which pertains in Scotland and that the powers which are provided by the amendment (which apply only to floating fish tanks, and of course there are existing controls which apply to those that require engineering works to connect them to the land) are still pretty
800
minimal and should be more widely extended beyond national parks; indeed, many other environmentally sensitive areas ought to be covered by the amendment.
I can only say that it was not worth tabling a further amendment to this amendment because the face of the Bill now makes it possible for the Secretary of State to exercise wider controls. It is possible that a future Secretary of State would wish to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
39 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Assessment of environmental effects
'After section 71 of the principal Act there is inserted—
"Assessment of environmental effects
71A.—(l) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the consideration to be given, before planning permission for development of any class specified in the regulations is granted, to the likely environmental effects of the proposed development.
(2) The regulations—

(a) may make the same provision as, or provision similar or corresponding to, any provision made, for the purposes of any Community obligation of the United Kingdom about the assessment of the likely effects of development on the environment, under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972; and

(b) may make different provision for different classes of development.

(3) Where a draft of regulations made in exercise both of the power conferred by this section and the power conferred by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, section 333(3) shall not apply.".'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39. In doing so, I shall speak also to Commons Amendment No. 98. These new clauses enable extensions to be made to the existing requirements for environmental assessment in respect of projects that require planning permission. They follow the extensive discussions which your Lordships had on this issue during the Bill's earlier stages. I am especially grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Norrie.
The annexes to Directive 85/337 set out the types of project that require assessment. Annex I lists types of major projects which must always be assessed, while Annex II lists the much larger number of types of project which must be assessed if they are likely to have significant environmental effects. The directive has been implemented by regulations made under powers granted by the European Communities Act 1972, but those powers do not permit implementing regulations to amend primary legislation in such a way that provisions are made which are not required by Community law. Primary legislation is, therefore, needed to extend categories of project for which environmental assessment is required. These clauses will enable such extensions to be made for projects which are subject to planning control.
I should say that the powers are likely to be used sparingly to cover types of project which are demonstrably likely to have significant environmental effects yet are not contained within either Annexes I or II to the directive. There will be full consultation with

801
all those concerned, including operators, local authorities and other interested parties, before any type of project is added to the list. That is to ensure that any new requirement for environmental assessment is imposed only where it is essential to do so and where the environmental benefits will exceed the economic cost. These are important amendments which I believe are widely welcomed. I hope that the House will agree to them.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Norrie: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I rise to welcome Commons Amendments Nos. 39 and 98. I can only hazard a guess at the number of times that I have urged the Government to introduce legislation along these exact lines —certainly throughout the passage of last year's Environmental Protection Act, as well as during previous stages of this Bill.
Given the sympathy shown to my amendments both in Committee and on Report, I am very pleased that the Government have honoured their promise to look at the matter sympathetically by introducing these amendments in another place. The amendment before us does exactly what my earlier amendments sought to achieve: it provides power for the Secretary of State to extend the influence of environmental assessment in this country beyond the strict confines of the European Community's directive. When regulations are made under the proposed new clause, it will for example, allow the Secretary of State to ensure that EAs apply to water treatment plants, fish farms, wind farms and other projects which have been left out of the EC directive for one reason or another. That is most welcome and will reassure all those who have expressed concern about projects which have damaging effects on the environment and which are not fully covered by the European Community's text.
However, the amendment does more than that: it brings EA into primary legislation for the first time. That is where it ought to be. That demonstrates the Government's support for the concepts and the practice of EA and sends a signal to everyone concerned about its importance. That is all the more welcome because some parts of the Government have in the past shown less than wholehearted enthusiasm for EA. I am sure that my noble friend had to work very hard to secure the agreement of other government departments to the amendment. I congratulate her on her success in so doing.
Finally, the amendment before us is simply an enabling tool. It allows the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to achieve its objectives. Therefore, can my noble friend say when we can expect these regulations to appear? I believe that she has already covered the point about consultation. However, I hope that the answer to my first question will be, "Very soon". I look forward to hearing her reply.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too should like warmly to welcome the amendment and pay tribute to my noble friend for achieving its introduction and also for
802
securing the new clause as proposed in Commons Amendment No. 98. It is rather strange that both amendments which introduce new clauses are set out in identical terms. It is rather a cumbrous way of drafting. It tempts me to say, following a previous attempt to consolidate this legislation to prevent it becoming voluminous, complicated and overlapping, that one hopes that there will be another attempt at consolidation when the Bill is passed. Those who have to obey the tenets of the law, whatever good guidance is provided by the departments, have a terrific task ahead of them in finding out what the law is and what are their obligations, responsibilities and rights. Having said that, I welcome the amendment.
In Committee, when my noble friend Lord Norrie, who is to be congratulated on his initiative, first raised the matter, I suggested that the acceptance of a provision along these lines would be a test of the Government's environmental credibility. Through her own efforts, my noble friend Baroness Blatch has proved the Government's environmental credibility. For those of us who are keen that Parliament should do all that it can to protect the environment, it is also satisfactory to note in passing that a broadly similar result was achieved only last Monday in the New Roads and Street Works Bill by the Department of Transport and my noble friend Lord Brabazon. That is all very splendid.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not much of a one for nice noises. As my last two speeches were not especially nice, it is only right that I should say how much we on these Benches echo the welcome given to the amendment by the noble Lords, Lord Norrie and Lord Renton. We supported their proposal when the Bill was in the House. We are glad that pressure, from whichever quarter, has succeeded and has achieved this result.
The reason that we sit silent when amendments are proposed is largely because we agree with them. The general thrust of Commons Amendments to the Bill is welcome. There are only a few points that we feel obliged to raise on Commons Amendments to the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is an example of an amendment in your Lordships' House going a bridge too far, which is something I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, did in Committee, yet having excellent results. He, too, should receive congratulations on promoting this matter and perhaps bullying my noble friend into achieving this satisfactory result.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for all the remarks that have been made. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has just said, I believe that everyone should bask in the glory of this achievement. I was a mere vehicle, but a willing one. My noble friend Lord Norrie asked about the timetable. It might help if I make a general comment upon the timetable. Clause 68(2) provides that the Bill shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes.

803
The Government's intention is that a first commencement order will bring as much of the Bill as possible into force two months after Royal Assent. It is practice to allow a period of two months after any Act is printed. We expect that the provisions to be commenced in the first order will include among others the new compensation provisions; the provisions relating to the status of development plans; and the IDO provisions. We also hope to bring in some of the enforcement provisions at that time. The Bill provides for some of the compensation provisions to have effect from the time of the Bill's introduction in the House last November.
The provisions in question are the home loss payment provisions. The new entitlement will apply mostly to people displaced from their homes on and after 16th November 1990. Some of the planning compensation appeals will apply in cases where the relevant planning application was made on or after that date. Other provisions cannot be brought into force as quickly. That is mainly because subordinate legislation will be required before they can be operative. It applies, for example, to the development plan and simplified planning zone provisions; those provisions relating to planning obligations; advertisement control and some of those relating to enforcement.
In addition, extensive amendments will be required to the GDO to implement the provisions on fish farming; notice of planning applications; and demolition. A great deal of planning guidance will also have to be re-written. I hope that that general statement on the implementation timetable will help all noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
40 Clause 13, page 23, line 42, at end insert:
'(1A) Provision shall be made by a development order for the purpose of securing that, in the case of any application for planning permission, any person (other than the applicant) who on such date as may be prescribed by the order is an owner of the land to which the application relates, or a tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in that land, is given notice of the application in such manner as may be required by the order.'.
41 Page 24, line 22, leave out from 'section' to end of line 23 and insert:
"agricultural holding" has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and
"owner" in relation to any land means any person who—

(a) is the estate owner in respect of the fee simple;

(b) is entitled to a tenancy granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than seven years remain unexpired; or

(c) in the case of such applications as may be prescribed by a development order, is entitled to an interest in any mineral so prescribed,

and the reference to the interests in the land to which an application for planning permission relates includes any interest in any mineral in, on or under the land.'.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 92, 93 and 96.
804
The purpose of this group of amendments is to retain in primary legislation a requirement that owners of land and tenants of agricultural holdings should be notified of applications for planning permission affecting their land. Amendment No. 41 defines "agricultural holding" and "owner" for this purpose. Amendment No. 96 makes parallel provision for Scotland.
Clause 13 originally sought to remove to secondary legislation the notification requirement. However, the Government recognise the paramount importance to owners of land, and to agricultural tenants, of being aware of development proposals submitted by other parties and have been persuaded that the fundamental principle of owner notification should be enshrined in primary legislation.
The Government recognise the implications for agricultural tenants of planning permission granted for non-agricultural use. Those implications were highlighted at earlier stages of the Bill in particular by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. It is clearly important, given the prospect of an incontestable notice to quit, that agricultural tenants should be aware of any relevant planning application. My officials have consulted the National Farmers' Union and the Tenant Farmers' Association about the practicability for applicants of satisfying a requirement to notify agricultural tenants. Their comments have been taken into account in formulating Amendment No. 40 which fulfils the Government's commitment to provide a notification requirement in primary legislation, but which leaves the procedural details to be dealt with in secondary legislation. Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 for Scotland make essential drafting changes to ensure the proper operation of the new Section 24 of the 1972 Act, as introduced by Clause 38.
My department and the Welsh Office will undertake public consultation about those procedural details shortly. The consultation paper will also invite views on the best way of ensuring that all planning applications in England and Wales receive some publicity—a step to which the Government are now committed, as my noble friend Lady Blatch announced to your Lordships on 9th May.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 and 41—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, as I said, my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is unable to be here today. He has asked me warmly to welcome the Government's agreement to continue the right of notification in primary legislation. He said that all owners and tenants will now be able to sleep in peace. He wants me to thank my noble friends for all the work that they have done. They had said that it could be achieved by secondary legislation, but my noble friend made the point that that could be altered on a ministerial whim. He is grateful for what the Government have done.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I wish to refer to the welcome promise that the Government made in another place about publicity in respect of planning

805
applications generally. The amendment proposes that agricultural tenants are to be notified when a planning application is made affecting their holding. During earlier consideration of the Bill, I advanced similar arguments in respect of neighbourhood notification with what must have seemed to my noble friend Lord Astor to be monotonous regularity. It is with some regret that I notice we still have no legislative provision for that matter. Nevertheless, during debates in another place, Ministers recognised the need to examine the extent to which publicity is given to all planning applications and have promised to bring forward proposals to improve and standardise the treatment given to planning applications. That will be of great benefit to third parties, whether neighbours or not. and I welcome it. I look forward to seeing the Government's further thoughts on that matter in the near future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
42 Clause 17, page 26, line 31, leave out from 'be' to 'the' in line 33 and insert 'determined by the authority concerned, by another interested planning authority or by'.
43 Page 26, line 36, leave out 'to' and insert 'falling to be determined by'.
44 Page 27, line 9, at end insert 'unless the application is referred to the Secretary of State under section 77'.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 en bloc. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 120, 151, 152, 157, 172, 173, 254, 256, 2,7, 259., 261 to 263, 267, 269, 272, 274 and 279.
The amendments in this group make essential minor changes to Clause 17, Schedule 5, Schedule 6 and Schedule 17. Amendment No. 120 removed the Privilege amendment. I should be glad to explain any of these amendments in more detail should your Lordships wish.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 en bloc —(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
45 Clause 18, page 27, line 22, after 'materials' insert 'and provides for altering the provisions relating to compensation for restrictions on mineral working and depositing mineral waste'.
46 Insert the following new clause:
Old mining permissions
'.—(1) In this section and Schedule (Registration of old mining permissions) to this Act, "old mining permission" means any planning permission for development —

(a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals, or

(b) involving the depositing of mineral waste,

which was deemed to be granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 by virtue of section 77 of that Act (development authorised under interim development orders after 21st July 1943).
(2) An old mining permission shall, if an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined, have effect as from the final determination as if granted on the terms required to be registered.
(3) If no such development has, at any time in the period of two years ending with 1st May 1991, been carried out to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the land to which an old mining permission relates, that permission shall not authorise any such development to be carried out at any time after the coming into force of this section unless—

(a) the permission has effect in accordance with subsection (2) above, and

(b) the development is carried out after such an application is finally determined.

(4) An old mining permission shall —

(a) if no application for the registration of the permission is made under that Schedule, cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made, and

(b) if such an application is refused, cease to have effect on the day following the date on which the application is finally determined.

(5) An old mining permission shall, if—

(a) such an application is granted, but

(b) an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is required to be served before the end of any period and is not so served,

cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which the application to determine those conditions may be served.
(6) Subject to subsection (3) above, this section —

(a) shall not affect any development carried out under an old mining permission before an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined or, as the case may be, the date on which the permission ceases to have effect, and

(b) shall not affect any order made or having effect as if made under section 102 of or Schedule 9 to the principal Act (discontinuance, etc., orders).

(7) This section and that Schedule, and the principal Act, shall have effect as if the section and Schedule were included in Part III of that Act.'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 en bloc. In moving these Amendments, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 100, 101, 102, 121 to 128, 130 to 134, 179, 181 to 184, 186 to 188, 264 to 266, 268, 283, 284 and 286.
I now come to the question of old mining permissions and particularly to those granted under interim development orders. This is a subject where we have all learnt a great deal in a very short time. It seems much longer ago than November that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, first raised this issue on Second Reading. Since then, as your Lordships will know, the subject of interim development order (IDO) permissions for mineral working has been debated several times during the passage of the Bill, and there has been extensive public consultation.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the concerns expressed here so well by noble Lords on these Benches and on those opposite have been very fully addressed in another place. Your Lordships will recall that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said in Committee that the Government were considering what action to take. Subsequently, I promised the House on Report that the Government would bring forward amendments during the passage of the Bill to deal with the problem of IDOs; and, after a widespread consultation exercise, my right honourable friend Sir George Young announced the

807
Government's proposals on 1st May. Amendments Nos. 46 and 134 (101 and 188 for Scotland) give effect to those proposals.
First, the Bill now provides that landowners or mineral owners with an IDO permission who wish to apply to the mineral planning authority to have their permissions registered must do so within six months of commencement of these provisions, or the permission will fall without compensation. Disputes over the validity of permissions will be determined by the Secretary of State. This will get the records straight and ensure that the extent and terms of IDO permissions are known.
Secondly, once it has been determined that there is a valid IDO permission, either by the MPA or on appeal, the holder must—within 12 months of that determination, or such longer period as may have been agreed with the MPA—submit a scheme of operating and restoration conditions for the MPA's approval, or the permission will cease to have effect. This will get active sites up to standard.
In response to concerns expressed that the time period for registration and submission of schemes set out in our consultation paper was too short, we have provided for longer time periods and separated the two processes. There will be six months from commencement instead of four to submit applications for registration. As the time period is now public knowledge, applicants will in practice have a much longer period. There will be a full year from the date the permission is registered for the submission of schemes. Indeed we have built in extra flexibility by providing that that period can be extended if the MPA agrees. This should provide a reasonable length of time for the industry to prepare itself and the flexibility to ensure that the system is not overloaded.
Thirdly, in the case of dormant sites, that is sites where there had been no working to any substantial extent for a period of two years preceding 1st May 1991, operations cannot recommence until the permission has been determined as valid and a scheme of operating and restoration conditions has been approved. This is an important proposal which meets many of the concerns expressed about the reactivation of IDO permissions on environmentally sensitive sites. There will be no compensation for the cost of complying with any conditions imposed. But there is provision for appeal to the Secretary of State against the imposition of unreasonable conditions, and for the Secretary of State to call in an application for his own determination.
I know that the industry has expressed concerns about some aspects of our proposals and is worried about the effect on asset values. The minerals industry is very important to the nation. Without the raw materials it supplies, the country would have no houses, no roads and hospitals. But the nature of the industry is that many of the operations go on for a long period of time. It is essential therefore that it keeps pace with the latest environmental standards. It must demonstrate its commitment to high environmental standards across the board if it is to win the future planning permissions necessary to meet
808
demand. I welcome the assurances that representatives of the industry have already given on this point.
Nevertheless, throughout the debates on IDOs, we have drawn a distinction between expropriation of the asset and working the asset in a way which meets modern conditions. We have made it clear that we shall issue full guidance on the preparation of schemes and model conditions and we are already discussing this guidance with representatives of the industry and MPAs with a view to publishing a draft for public consultation in September. That guidance will give clear advice to MPAs that, in the case of working sites, they should draw a distinction between, on the one hand, conditions which deal with the environmental and amenity aspects of working the site, which would not affect the asset value, and on the other hand, conditions which would fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation. Conditions which would significantly affect the asset value would be more appropriate for MPAs' reviews under the provisions introduced by the Minerals Act 1981.
Full modern conditions will be appropriate to truly dormant sites—that is, where no working has taken place for a number of years—and will generally be appropriate to large areas of unworked land covered by otherwise active permissions. However, I know that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who spoke to me prior to the consideration of the Commons amendments, is concerned about sites which have been recently mothballed for operational and economic reasons. Clearly the type of conditions that will be appropriate in any particular case will depend on the nature and extent of the working that has already taken place. We shall advise MPAs that where an applicant can demonstrate that an otherwise dormant permission has been active in recent years and that operations have been only temporarily suspended, they should consider the extent to which the imposition of full modern conditions would fundamentally affect the developer's ability to work the site in the future, and to apply a degree of flexibility.
These amendments will ensure that in a relatively short period of time the details of all valid IDO permissions will be known, that these permissions are brought up to an acceptable standard, and that dormant sites cannot be reactivated without warning and without proper conditions. This will bring IDOs within the embrace of a modern planning system.
But, that is just the first step. As was made clear in the response to my department's consultation exercise on IDOs and in debates in both Houses of Parliament, permissions for mineral working granted in the 1950s and 1960s may also have conditions attached which fail to meet today's standards. With regard to these permissions, or indeed to any minerals permissions which are now unsatisfactory, MPAs have existing powers to take action, including powers to prohibit the resumption of mineral working where a site has been inactive for several years. They have a duty to review mineral working sites in their area and to make such orders as they consider appropriate updating those sites to modern standards. However, there is no

809
time limit on the reviews, and orders can give rise to compensation. Progress has not been as fast as we would have hoped.
We therefore announced in the environment White Paper our intention to review MPAs' existing powers to take action to see whether any changes are necessary. That review is underway and that review is the rig:-it place to consider the problems of 1950s' and 1960s' permissions, whether active or dormant. We hope to consult on our proposals next year. I can assure your Lordships that we attach high priority to completing the review and we regard it as essential that any changes arising out of the review can be implemented quickly.
To that effect Amendments Nos. 121 to 124 provide a power for the Secretary of State to prescribe by order the periods in which MPAs must carry out their duty to review sites and the matters to be covered in such reviews. Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 make similar provision for Scotland. Amendments Nos. 125 to 128 and 130 to 133 replace the existing powers to make regulations abating compensation in relation to the winning and working of minerals, and those originally proposed in the Bill in relation to the depositing of mineral waste, with a single order making power to provide for the abatement of compensation following orders updating permissions for the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of minerals waste.
The amendments also remove the existing restrictions in Schedule 11 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the circumstances in which and the amount by which compensation may be abated, providing instead for the amount of abatement and the circumstances in which compensation can be abated to be set out in the regulations themselves. Regulations will be subject to consultation and to affirmative resolution in both Houses, and the existing provisions will be retained until the review has been completed and there has been consultation on any change3. Amendments Nos. 179, 181, 186 and 187 make similar provision for Scotland. Amendments Nos. 45, 264 to 266 and 268, and for Scotland Amendments Nos. 100, 283, 284 and 286, are consequential.
The Bill now contains a comprehensive package of measures which demonstrates the Government's commitment to raising environmental standards in the mineral s industry. Taken together they will ensure that there is a rigorous framework in place to enable all old minerals permissions to be brought up to an acceptable standard over the next decade. These are tough proposals but I believe that they are in the long-term interests of the industry and local communities.
I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45 and 46.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for her explanation of the new proposals which the clause contains. I think that they will be understood and accepted by the industry,
810
even if not welcomed with open arms exactly, for reasons which my noble friend will understand. I must declare an interest as I work for a company which is one of the largest quarry operators and aggregate producers, ARC. The recognition of the effect upon the asset value of the relevant dormant sites which is addressed by these proposed changes, with which my noble friend dealt, is generally to be welcomed, because there would have been serious effects upon operators if the asset value issue had not been recognised. I am grateful to my noble friend for confirming the position as concerns consultation with industry and to know that that consultation process should be completed by September and, if I understood my noble friend correctly, that the appropriate guidance will be issued.
I am also grateful to her for stating that to a considerable extent the matter of sites which may form part of another site and which are temporarily taken out of use and mothballed for economic reasons is also recognised.
I am sure that she made the point, although I shall have to study carefully what she said in the Official Report, that there is a recognition that the two-year cut-off point, while in general being accepted by industry, is somewhat different when it comes to the mothballed sites. Operations there may have been taken out of effect for economic reasons. Under the Bill, if I understand it rightly, the provision would not be interpreted under the MPA reviews as applicable under the Minerals Act 1981. I believe that my noble friend has given an assurance on that point, but I wish to study carefully what she said because she will recognise the clear concerns of the industry on the matter. If she is able to give further reassurance on that point I should be grateful, but I welcome the remarks that she made.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, interim development orders or old mining permissions, as Amendment No. 46 and the rest of the enormous block of amendments call them, have been a blot on the landscape for far too long. As my noble friend said, they have caused concern in all stages of the Bill, not only in this House but in another place. Quarries, for example, are capable of extension or even subject to new construction —if that is the correct word—under permissions granted as far back as 1948 which have been forgotten by local people and even in some cases the planning authorities themselves which granted the permissions. That fact means that in recent years, quite rightly, there has been a great public outcry.
I hope that the whole House will agree with me that the Government have taken a giant step in the right direction in moving this series of amendments. I was interested, as the House will be, in what my noble friend said from his viewpoint about the subject.
However, I have one or two anxieties. My noble friend has briefly told us what will happen between the end of the first six months when applications are due and the end of the following 18 months when they are either confirmed and put on a proper recorded basis or denied. But one of my worries is whether the planning authorities or the department have enough records to

811
ensure that they will be able to reject applications that have no basis in reality. The other side of the coin is that they will grant them where a record is supplied by the firm but not recorded by the local minerals planning authority. I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer these potentially serious questions when she comes to reply.
Having carried out a little research, I understand that a belief that an IDO was granted in the past will be sufficient reason for an application to be filled out and sent to the minerals planning authority. However, the proof will be in the mineral plans held by the authority. Thus I see a potential difficulty if there is a piece of paper, for example, from ARC, which my noble friend talked about, which proves that a permission was given in the past which is not in the local plan.
Although there is a potential difficulty—and I do not believe anyone pretends that this attempt at regulation and at restoring the position to what it should have been under the 1947 Act will be easy—the Government are to be congratulated on making this serious attempt to improve matters.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, perhaps we may turn from quarrying to peat extraction for a moment. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify some points. Can she confirm that the principal Act, as amended by Commons Amendment No. 121, allows for periodic review by planning authorities of planning permission for peat extraction? How often would she expect such reviews to take place? Can she also give the assurance that she will look urgently into the two cases of Thorne and Hatfield Moors? Will the Government be prepared to assist the minerals planning authority, which may be sympathetic to the idea of revoking planning permission for these sites? The amount of compensation required to do this may well be beyond the means of the authority. Would the amendments to the Bill, including Commons Amendment No. 125, facilitate such a process?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to the two amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has mentioned. First, I welcome the series of amendments which I believe will do an extremely useful job. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the importance of the peatlands in Great Britain. Most of our peatlands are of international importance, particularly the lowland raised mires, which are now in great danger because of old planning permissions which in many cases have been outstanding since the 1950s and in some cases earlier. It is very important indeed that they should be the subject of review, together with other mineral workings.
I know that the peat industry has given assurances in relation to sites of special scientific interest, but these sites can be severely damaged if the surrounding area is extracted in an unsympathetic way. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned Thorne and Hatfield Moors. These were dug out by Fisons under a licence granted in 1951. The company used traditional hand cutting methods until the mid-1960s. However, I
812
understand that it is now going back over those workings again with the new modern methods and stripping the moors to the bone. When that is done, the wildlife interest, not only of the bogs which are being stripped but of all the surrounding area, is severely damaged.
The peatlands campaign consortium, which comprises most of the conservation bodies in this country, is concerned that the peat extraction licences should also be subject to review and that where it is necessary for a local planning authority to give compensation, the Government should be sympathetic when the time comes. I hope that when the Minister answers the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, she will be able either to give a sympathetic answer or to promise that the matter will be looked at a little further.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that the Government are wise to have dealt with this old and complex problem in the way that is proposed in the Bill. I should like also to refer to Amendment No. 121 and to ask my noble friend about the periodic reviews. As I understand it, the mineral planning authority will decide the length of period after which those reviews are to take place and it could make the intervals very lengthy. I hope that my noble friend can give us an idea of how long it is envisaged the intervals will be. It may be that in this complicated mass of amendments of the existing law there will be some opportunity for the Department of the Environment, or perhaps the Department of Energy, to ensure that the reviews take place with reasonable frequency.
The issue impinges upon the question of coal mining subsidence about which we had some discussion in the House last week. But that is not within my noble friend's responsibility and we shall come to the Third Reading of that Bill quite soon. However, in relation to mining subsidence, the Department of Energy does not seem to show quite the environmental sensitivity that the Department of the Environment shows on all other matters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that we are back to modified rapture on these amendments. Much simpler and more far-reaching amendments which had been proposed were rejected in favour of what must be seen as a compromise. The Minister gave a long and comprehensive explanation of the amendments. I cannot claim to have followed everything that she said, although, if I understood her correctly, she promised fairly speedy implementation of the provisions and fairly speedy provision of draft guidance. I welcome what she said about draft guidance being available in September.
The critical point that must be resolved before we can be satisfied that the change goes far enough in the right direction is the issue of compensation. A review of the Minerals Act 1981 is taking place, but I do not think that mineral planning authorities will be satisfied that their position on compensation is clear until the review has been completed and incorporated in all the subsequent action that will be required as

813
part of these amendments. Sir George Young, who is to be congratulated on the part that he played in the matter, distinguished between what would be reasonable conditions for the working of those rights and what he called expropriation of the asset. The trouble is that in many cases some of the working that would be permitted by interim development orders is totally unacceptable, regardless of the working conditions. We were therefore bound to find ourselves with expropriation of the asset. That will continue to concern mineral planning authorities until they are satisfied that they can do what is environmentally necessary without running the risk of exorbitant compensation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again I am grateful for the qualified welcome for these amendments. I can give ray noble friend Lord Glenarthur the assurance that I, e seeks regarding his point about multiple sites. We are looking at the terms of the guidance concerning types of conditions and different types of sites. Those issues will be addressed and there will be full public consultation which will include the industry.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale questioned how we shall deal with spurious claims to register IDO permissions. The amendments provide that only owners, tenants and persons with an interest in the minerals may apply to register a permission. They must certify that they have notified any other owner when applying to the mineral planning authority. The mineral planning authority must be satisfied that there is a valid permission or the application will be refused and disputes will be determined by the Secretary of State. The guidance that we propose to issue will spell out the procedures and advice on the evidence to be submitted with applications. We hope to consult on the guidance in September, as has already been said. As regards the absence of records, the purpose of registration is to get the records straight. If no application is made within the six-month period, the permissions will fall.
My noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Renton and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, were all concerned about peat extraction. The Government fully recognise the desirability of conserving peatlands and are actively considering the ways and means of resolving the apparent conflict between peat extraction and major conservation issues. Officials have held extensive discussions with interested parties in the public and private sectors, including conservation bodies and the Peat Producers Association, which represents the majority of the companies involved in peat extraction. We hope to develop a common understanding of the problems and an agreed approach for future policy development. Our broader review of the provisions of the Minerals Act 1981, which has also been of concern to your Lordships, and the provisions that we have introduced in the Bill to ensure that the outcome of that review can be implemented quickly will deal with the issue of compensation and provide a sound planning framework for dealing with those problems.
Amendment No. 121 applies to all mineral working, including peat. It enables us to implement
814
the outcome of our review of the 1981 Act quickly. We shall consider the correct period, which was a concern to my noble friend Lord Renton, for reviews to be carried out by the MPAs as part of our review of the Act. We cannot pre-empt the outcome of the review, but we hope to consult on proposals next year. With regard to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton, MPAs are currently under a duty to carry out reviews, but there is no time limit. Amendments Nos. 121 and 124 allow us to prescribe a time limit. We shall therefore look at whether we should prescribe time periods and what they should he as part of our general review.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend referred to Amendment No. 124, but the provision is not absolutely express there. It states:
"If regulations so require, the reviews shall be undertaken at prescribed intervals and shall cover such matters as may be prescribed".
Does that mean that, when making regulations, the Secretary of State shall say how often the reviews shall take place?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend's interpretation is right. There is at present a power to review, but there is no power to prescribe periods between reviews. That will now be a power for the Secretary of State. It will be a judgment as to specifically what that time limit should be, but the power is enshrined in Amendment No. 124.
On the point about compensation made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the distinction between the type of conditions will be covered in guidance. We shall look at the question of restricting working rights and compensation in our review of the 1981 Act and we shall consult, but we shall always make it clear that we shall not expropriate assets as part of IDO amendments.
Perhaps I may now turn briefly to Scotland. The available information on IDO permissions suggests that they are rare in Scotland and, to my knowledge, no representations for urgent change have been made. Nevertheless, we believe that it is prudent to take equivalent powers in Scotland so that they may be used to control troublesome IDO permissions, should they surface. A letter has been sent to all Scottish planning authorities and the minerals industry explaining the provisions added to the Bill and seeking to improve the available information on IDOs in Scotland. The provisions will not be commenced in Scotland until that further survey is completed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
47 Clause 19, page 29, line 22, leave out 'subsections (2) and (5)' and insert 'subsection (2)'.
48 Page 30, line 26, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or chattels'.
49 Page 30, line 27, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 28 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 which were taken with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 49.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Before Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
Status of development plans
'. At the end of Part II of the principal Act there is inserted—
"Chapter III General
Status of development plans.
54A. Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise".'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50, and in doing so I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 107, 143 to 149, 166, 255 and 273. All but the first two amendments in this group are technical ones. I should like to focus on Amendments Nos. 50 and 107. These are two new clauses dealing with the status of the development plan in the decision-making process. The first relates to England and Wales and the second makes equivalent provision for Scotland.
Your Lordships will recall that several noble Lords raised this issue during earlier considerations of the Bill in this House. The purpose of the new clauses is to make clear what is meant by having regard to the development plan in all places where the planning Acts require regard to be had to it. For example, in future when a planning authority deals with an application for planning permission the new provisions will mean that the determination will have to be in accordance with the plan unless other considerations indicate otherwise. Thus it will be clear how the authority should go about making the decision. As my honourable friend said in another place, if the development plan has something to say on a particular application the starting point would be that the plan should be followed unless the weight of other considerations tells against it. There would thus be a presumption in favour of the development plan, but it would still allow appropriate weight to be given to all other material considerations.
The new clauses, which have been widely welcomed, reflect our view that the system should be plan-led. It is all the more important, if the development plan is to carry its full weight, that it is up-to-date and consistent with national and regional policies as well as relevant to the proposal concerned. I commend this group of amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, obviously we on this side very much welcome the new clause and the consequential amendments. I believe it to be one of the more important amendments to the Bill. I would
816
wish to praise it enthusiastically were I not afraid that in the process the Government might go careering off in the other direction.
What the Minister has said must be right. The amendment finally makes clear, as many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pressed in Committee and at Report stage, that in future planning and development will be plan-led and therefore not market-led, appeal-led or Secretary of State-whim-led. We have all had examples of those processes in the past. The amendment will also ensure that planning is placed firmly at local level. It will help to clarify the framework within which not just developers but residents, neighbours and local authority members can seek to work. In particular, it will signal to developers that the local plan, subject to it being up-to-date, will no longer be subject to guerrilla warfare or attrition by automatic or simultaneous appeals, as has happened so often in the past. In that sense, it will help to alleviate some of the concerns expressed on this side about the imbalance in favour of developers with unilateral undertakings, twin-trackings and the like. I believe that at the time the Minister said that she hoped that by restating the weight of the local plan some of our objections and worries in that sphere would be met. I think that has been achieved.
One point which I believe should be emphasised —and with which I am sure the Minister will also agree—is that the amendment will mean that in drawing up local and development plans the process of consultation, itself the subject of a series of amendments all round the House both in Committee and at Report stage, will become much more significant because the greater the weight of the development plan the more important it should bear the authority of informed consent. We look to the Minister for support and articulation on that. Given all that, on our side we welcome the amendment very much indeed. Obviously, we recognise that considerations such as an out-of-date plan are relevant, but it will now firmly clarify the weight, status and significance of the development plan in ways we hoped to see.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I also congratulate the Minister. This amendment does more than any other to demonstrate the Government's commitment to a strong and firm planning system. I would go as far as to say that I believe it to be the most important clause in the Bill. Members of the House may recall that I raised this issue repeatedly during our consideration of the Bill. My concern was that while the Government were doing a great deal to improve the planning system in this country it would be worthless if the development plan was ignored when it came to taking decisions on individual planning applications. The Government repeatedly reassured me that they did not intend the planning system to be firm and plan-led. To honour that intention they have brought forward their own amendment to ensure that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan.
The past 10 years have been difficult ones for the planning system. Certain signals from central

817
government coincided with a development which led to the creation of a speculator's paradise in which the planning system was left to try to pick up the pieces. Developers quoted government policy of a presumption in favour of development which led to the most outrageous proposals. Planning authorities were besieged by unprecedented numbers of planning applications and appeals. All of that has now changed, and this amendment confirms the extent of that change.
In their White Paper of September last year, reinforced by the Bill, the Government nailed their colours firmly to the mast of good planning. Their decision to maintain strong county structure plans and provide full coverage of district-wide local plans was welcomed by all consumers of the planning system, conservationists and developers alike. The amendment makes clear that those plans will now be implemented. It has been welcomed by a very wide range of interested parties.
I should like to have clarification from my noble friend on two vitally important matters. First, the new weight to be attached to the development plan needs to be reflected in government guidance on planning matters in the form of planning and policy guidance notes, or PPGs. PPG1 states the Government's previous policy of a presumption in favour of all development. That must now be changed to reflect the new cause in the Bill. Can my noble friend assure me that a revised version of PPG1 will be issued, stating a presumption in favour of development that is in accordance with the development plan? I hope that is so, and that the new guidance will be issued soon.
The second (and more alarming) point is that there is much debate about possible reforms of the structure of local government. Ideas are now being formulated. Although I am by nature an optimist, I do not think the planning system is at the centre of that debate. It ought to be. I cannot believe it is the Government's intent ion to undo all the good things provided by the Bill by reform which throws a strong two-tier planning system out of the window. Can my noble friend reassure me that whatever the Government decide to do the, Planning and Compensation Bill provisions will remain intact?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome all of the comments which have been made on these amendments. I refer specifically to the two questions. PPG will indeed be updated. All of the points which have been raised by my noble friend will be addressed. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the details, but the points made by my noble friend are certainly noted.
On the question of local government restructuring, I not only hear what my noble friend says but understand the importance of the statement he makes. The panning system and the measures in the Bill will remain central in the Government's thinking as they work towards reform of local government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 Clause 29, page 35, leave out lines 15 to 26 and insert 'planning permission for carrying out any development has been granted subject to conditions.
(2) The planning authority may, if any of the conditions is not complied with, serve a notice (in this Act referred to as a -breach of condition notice") on —

(a) any person who is carrying out or has carried out the development; or

(b) any person having control of the land, requiring him to secure compliance with such of the conditions as are specified in the notice.

(2A) References in this section to the person responsible are to the person on whom the breach of condition notice has been served.
(2B) The conditions which may be specified in a notice served by virtue of subsection (2) (b) of this section are any of the conditions regulating the use of the land.'.
52 Page 35, line 36, at end insert 'or any other conditions'.
53 Page 35, line 46, after 'notice' insert '(a)'.
54 Page 35, line 47, after 'with' insert 'and
(b) the steps specified in the notice have not been taken or, as the case may be, the activities specified in the notice have not ceased'.
55 Page 36, leave out lines 1 to 4.
56 Page 36, line 14, after 'prove' insert '(a)'.
57 Page 36, line 16, at end insert 'or
(b) where the notice was served on him by virtue of subsection (2) (b) of this section, that he no longer had control of the land'.
58 Page 36, line 21, after 'section' insert '(a)'.
59 Page 36, line 21, at end insert 'and
(b) references to carrying out any development include causing or permitting another to do so'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 51 to 59 were spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move those amendments en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 59.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
60 After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
'After section 260 of the 1972 Act there is inserted —
"Interdicts restraining breaches of planning control
260A.—(1) Whether or not they have exercised or propose to exercise any of their other powers under this Act, a planning authority may seek to restrain or prevent any actual or apprehended breach of any of the controls provided for by or under this Act by means of an application for interdict.
(2) On an application under subsection (1) of this section the court may grant such interdict as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of restraining or preventing the breach.
(3) In this section "the court" means the Court of Session or the sheriff.".'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60. Also covered in this grouping are Amendments Nos. 68, 70, 76 to 83, 85, 88, 94, 95, 97, 99, 180, 189, 190, 193, 196, 199 to 206, 208 to 210, 213, 217 to 221, 223, 224, 226, 227, 231, 237 to 239, 241, 245, 282 and 287.
Amendment No. 60 introduces a power to allow planning authorities to seek interdict in cases where a breach of planning control has taken place or is expected to take place. The provision provides a Scottish equivalent to Clause 3 of the Bill, which

819
provides for planning injunctions in England and Wales and which your Lordships have already approved.
The other amendments in this large group make various minor technical and drafting amendments to the Scottish clauses of the Bill. I propose that they be agreed to en bloc, although I shall of course be happy to explain any particular amendment if so required.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
61 Clause 31, page 38, line 30, after first 'land' insert 'by discontinuing any use of the land'.
62 Page 38, line 32, leave out 'removing or alleviating' and insert 'remedying'.
63 Page 38, line 36, leave out 'demolition or alteration' and insert 'alteration or removal'.
64 Page 38, leave out line 40.
65 Page 38, line 45, at end insert:
'(5A) An enforcement notice issued in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of demolition of a building may require the construction of a building (in this section referred to as a "replacement building") which, subject to subsection (5B) of this section, is as similar as possible to the demolished building.
(5B) A replacement building —

(a) must comply with any requirement imposed by or under any enactment applicable to the construction of buildings;

(b) may differ from the demolished building in any respect which, if the demolished building had been altered in that respect, would not have constituted a breach of planning control;

(c) must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection (including regulations modifying paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection).'.

66 Page 39, line 20, leave out 'demolished' and insert 'removed'.
67 Page 39, line 25, leave out from 'granted' to end of line 28 and insert 'under section 29 of this Act in respect of development consisting of the construction of the buildings or works or, as the case may be, the carrying out of the activities.
(10) Where —

(a) an enforcement notice requires the construction of a replacement building; and

(b) all the requirements of the notice with respect to that construction have been complied with,

planning permission shall be treated as having been granted under section 29 of this Act in respect of development consisting of that construction.'.
68 Clause 32, page 40, line 3, leave out from 'specified' to 'as' in line 5 and insert 'in the notice'.
69 Page 40, line 23, at end insert 'or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach.'.
70 Clause 35, page 42, line 20, leave out 'subsection (1) or.
71 Clause 36, page 43, line 42, leave out 'building, engineering, mining or other'.
72 Page 45, line 12, leave out 'building, engineering, mining or other'.
73 Page 45, line 20, leave out 'were'.
74 Page 45, line 21, leave out from 'application' to second 'they' in line 45 and insert 'would be lawful if instituted or begun at the time of the application'.
75 Page 45, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert:
820
'(4) There shall be an irrefutable presumption as to the lawfulness of any use or operations for which a certificate is in force under this section unless there is a material change, before the use is instituted or the operations are begun, in any of the matters relevant to determining such lawfulness.'.
76 Page 45, line 41, after 'regulations', insert 'under this Act'.
77 Page 45, line 43, after 'by', insert 'such'.
78 Page 45, line 44, after 'under', insert 'such'.
79 Page 45, line 46, after 'by', insert 'such'.
80 Page 46, line 1, after 'particular', insert 'such'.
81 Page 46, line 4, after 'by', insert 'the'.
82 Page 46, line 8, after 'under', insert 'the'.
83 Page 46, line 21, after 'by', insert 'such'.
84 Page 46, line 22, at end insert:
'(4A) A certificate under section 90 or 90A shall not affect any matter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted unless that matter is described in the certificate.'.
85 Page 46, line 33, after 'by', insert 'such'.
86 Clause 37, page 48, line 37, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or moveable property'.
87 Page 48, line 38, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 39 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
88 Page 48, line 41, at end insert:
'(3A) The provisions of section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under subsection (3) of this section as they apply in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Act.'.
89 Page 49, line 9, at end insert:
'(2) In section 266(4) of the 1972 Act (compensation for damage caused in exercise of right of entry)—

(a) for "land is damaged" there is substituted "damage is caused to land or moveable property"; and

(b) for the words from "in respect of to "in the land" there is substituted "may be recovered by any person suffering the damage".'.

90 Before Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
Demolition of buildings
'.—(1) In section 19 of the 1972 Act (meaning of "development") after subsection (1) there is inserted —
"(1A) For the purposes of this Act "building operations" includes —

(a) demolition of buildings;

(b) rebuilding;

(c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings; and

(d) other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder."

(2) In subsection (2) of that section after paragraph (f) there is inserted—
"(g) the demolition of any description of building specified in a direction given by the Secretary of State to planning authorities generally or to a particular planning authority."
(3) After section 154(3) of the 1972 Act (compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission formerly granted by development order) there is inserted—
"(3A) Regulations made by virtue of this subsection may provide that subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply where planning permission granted by a development order for demolition of buildings or any description of buildings is withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers conferred by the order.".'.
91 Insert the following new clause:
Fish farming
'.(1) After subsection (3A) of section 19 (meaning of "development") of the 1972 Act there is inserted—

821
"(3B) Where the placing or assembly of any tank in any part of any inland waters for the purpose of fish farming there would not, apart from this subsection, involve development of the land below, this Act shall have effect as if the tank resulted from carrying out engineering operations over that land; and in this subsection—
"fish farming" means the breeding, rearing or keeping of fish or shellfish (which includes any kind of crustacean or mollusc);
"inland waters" means waters which do not form part of the sea or of any creek, bay or estuary or of any river as far as the tide flows; and
"tank" includes any cage and any other structure for use in fish farming."
(2) This section does not apply to the placing or assembly of any structure before this section comes into force.'.
92 Clause 38, page 49, line 13, leave out from 'regulations' to 'any' in line 17 and insert 'under this Act shall make provision—
(a) as to the notice of any application for planning permission to be given to any person (other than the applicant) who at the beginning of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application was —

(i) the owner of, or

(ii) the tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which was comprised in,

any of the land to which the application relates; and
(b) requiring'.
93 Page 49, leave out lines 23 to 30.
94 Page 49, line 31, after 'or' insert 'such'.
95 Page 49, line 36, after 'or' insert 'such'.
96 Page 50, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert:
'(8) In this section—
"agricultural holding" has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991; and
"owner" in relation to any land means any person who—

(a) under the Lands Clause Acts would be enabled to sell and convey the land to the promoters of an undertaking and includes any person entitled to possession of the land as lessee under a lease the unexpired period of which is not less than seven years; or

(b) in the case of such applications as may be prescribed by a development order or by regulations, is entitled to an interest in any mineral so prescribed,

and the references to the interests in the land to which an application for planning permission relates includes any interest in any mineral in, on or under the land.'.
97 Page 50, line 24, after 'regulations' insert 'under this Act'.
98 After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
Assessment of environmental effects
'. After section 26 of the 1972 there is inserted—
"Assessment of environmental effects.
26B.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations under this Act make provision about the consideration to be given, before planning permission for development of any class specified in the regulations is granted, to the likely environmental effects of the proposed development.
(2) The regulations—

(a) may make the same provision as, or provision similar or corresponding to, any provision made, for the purposes of any Community obligation of the United Kingdom about the assessment of the likely effects of development on the environment, under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972; and

(b) may make different provisions for different classes of development.

(3) Where a draft of regulations made in exercise both of the power conferred by this section and the power conferred by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, no statutory instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment by virtue of subsection (2) of section 273 (regulations and orders) of this Act.".'.
99 Insert the following new clause:
Agreements relating to Crown land
'.—(1) In subsection (2) of section 50 (agreements regulating development or use of land) of the 1972 Act, after "Sasines" there is inserted "or, as the case may be, registered in the Land Register of Scotland,".
(2) In subsection (1) of section 254 (agreements relating to Crown land) of the 1972 Act—

(a) after "agreements" there is inserted "(a)": and

(b) after "thereto" there is inserted—

"and
(b) for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land,
either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement."
(3) After subsection (1) of that section there is inserted—
"(1A) Subject to Subsection 1B of this Section an agreement made under subsection (1) (b) of this section may, if it has been recorded in the appropriate Register of Sasines or, as the case may be, registered in the Land Register of Scotland, be enforceable at the instance of the planning authority against persons deriving title to the land from the appropriate authority.
(1B) An agreement made under subsection (1) (b) of this section shall not be enforceable against a third party who has in good faith and for value acquired right (whether completed by investment or not) to the land prior to the agreement being recorded or, as the case may be, registered as aforesaid or against any person deriving title from such a third party.".'.
100 Page 51, line 40, after 'materials' insert 'and provides for altering the provisions relating to compensation for restrictions on mineral working and depositing mineral waste'.
101 After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
Old mining permissions
'. After section 49G of the 1972 Act there is inserted
"Old mining permissions.
49H.—(1) In this section and Schedule 10A to this Act, "old mining permission" means any planning permission for development—

(a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals, or

(b) involving the depositing of mineral waste, which is deemed to have been granted by virtue of paragraph 77 of Schedule 22 to this Act (development authorised under interim development orders after 10th November 1943).

(2) An old mining permission shall, if an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined, have effect as from the final determination as if granted on the terms required to be registered.
(3) If no such development has, at any time in the period of two years ending with 16th May 1991, been carried out to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the land to which an old mining permission relates, that permission shall not authorise any such development to be carried out after the coming into force of this section unless—

(a) the permission has effect in accordance with subsection (2) above; and

(b) the development is carried out after such an application is finally determined.

(4) An old mining permission shall—

(a) if no application for the registration of the permission is made under that Schedule, cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made, and

823

(b) if such an application is refused, cease to have effect on the day following the date on which the application is finally determined.

(5) An old mining permission shall, if—

(a) such an application is granted; but

(b) an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is required to be served before the end of any period and is not so served,

cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which the application to determine those conditions may be served.
(6) Subject to subsection (3) above, this section—

(a) shall not affect any development carried out under an old mining permission before an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined or, as the case may be, the date on which the permission ceases to have effect; and

(b) shall not affect any order made or having effect as if made under section 49 or 49A to 49F of this Act (discontinuance, etc., orders).".'.

102 Insert the following new clause:
Transitional provision as to compensation regulations
'. Without prejudice to section 17(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978, any regulations made, or having effect as if made, by virtue of section I 67A (regulations as to mineral compensation) of the 1972 Act shall, to the extent that they are in force on the coming into force of paragraph 10A of Schedule 7 to this Act, have effect as if made under section I 67A of that Act as substituted by that paragraph.'.
103 Clause 42, page 53, line 15, leave out 'and 164'.
104 Page 53, line 22, leave out 'subsections (2) and (5)' and insert 'subsection (2)'.
105 Page 54, line 30, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or moveable property'.
106 Page 54, line 31, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 32 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
107 After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
Status of development plans
'At the end of Part II of the 1972 Act (development plans) there is inserted—
"General Status of development plans.
18A.—Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.".'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 were spoken to with Amendment No. 1. Unless there is an objection from any Member of the House, with the permission of the House I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 107 en bloc.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we on these Benches have no objection whatever.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 107 en bloc.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
108 Clause 51, page 60, line 4, leave out from 'for' to end of line 6 and insert 'use for or in connection with the construction of a highway, or
(b) the use of the relevant land for or in connection with the construction of a highway is being considered by a highway authority,'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
824
Amendment No. 108. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 109 to 116, 119, 242 to 244, 246 to 253, 275 to 278, 280, 281 and 290.
These amendments relate to the land compensation and compulsory purchase provisions in the Bill. Many of them are of a purely technical nature. For example, Amendments Nos. 108 to 110 and 113 to 115 clarify the provisions in Clauses 51 and 59 in respect of the assumptions to be made in valuing land acquired for highway purposes. Amendments Nos. 248, 249, 252 and 253 add further items to the list of compensation provisions which will in future attract interest. I shall be happy to explain any of those amendments in more detail if noble Lords would find it helpful. I would, however, particularly like to draw the House's attention to the amendments that we have brought forward in respect of home loss payments.
When the Bill was previously before your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, moved an amendment to extend entitlement to a home loss payment to include a deserted spouse with a right of occupation under the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983. The noble Lord argued that to deny a payment in the event of the spouse being displaced is unfair, since in such circumstances the property must be regarded as a genuine home, even though the occupant has no legal interest in it.
We gave an undertaking to look into this matter further and, having done so, came to the conclusion that the noble Lord's point was a very fair one. Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 are accordingly designed to bring the deserted spouse case within the scope of the home loss payment scheme.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 116 and 199 is to permit the extension to Northern Ireland, by the negative resolution order in council procedure, of the home loss payment provisions in the Bill. This will be the quickest means of ensuring that people in Northern Ireland are treated no less favourably than those in Great Britain in the matter of home loss payments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I always thought that we had a stronger case about deserted spouses than the Government have admitted. I always felt that there was a measure of misunderstanding rather than when our amendments were not successful in this House. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks. I am glad that the Government have been able to do justice in this case.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
109 Page 60, line 10, leave out from 'that' to end of line 15 and insert 'if the relevant land were not so used, no highway would be constructed to meet the same or substantially the same need as the highway referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (5) of this section would have been constructed to meet'.
110 Page 60, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert:
'(8) The references in subsections (5) and (6) of this section to the construction of a highway include its alteration or improvement".'.
111 After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
Home loss payments: spouses having statutory rights of occupation
'.After section 29 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 there is inserted—
"Spouses having statutory rights of occupation.
29A.—(1) This section applies where, by reason of the entitlement of one spouse ("A") to occupy a dwelling by virtue of an interest or right to which section 29 above applies, the other spouse ("B") acquires rights of occupation (within the meaning of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983).
(2) So long as—

(a) those rights of occupation continue,

(b) B is in occupation of the dwelling and A is not, and

(c) B is not, apart from this section, treated as occupying the dwelling by virtue of an interest or right to which that section applies,

B shall be treated for the purposes of that section as occupying the dwelling by virtue of such an interest (but not an owner's interest within the meaning of section 30 below).
(3) References in this section to a dwelling include a reference to a substantial part of it.".'.
112 After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
Home loss payments: spouses having statutory occupancy rights
'. After section 27 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 there is inserted—
"Home loss payments: spouses having statutory occupancy rights.
27A. (1) This section applies where, by reason of the entitlement of one spouse ("A") to occupy a dwelling by virtue of an interest or right to which section 27 above applies, the other spouse ("B") acquires occupancy rights (within the meaning of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981).
(2) So long as—

(a) those occupancy rights continue;

(b) B is in occupation of the dwelling and A is not; and

(c) B is not, apart from this section, treated as occupying the dwelling by virtue of an interest or right to which that section applies,

B shall be treated for the purposes of that section as occupying the dwelling by virtue of such an interest (but not an owner's interest within the meaning of section 28 below).
(3) References in this section to a dwelling include a reference to a substantial part of it.".'.
113 Clause 59, page 71, line 28, leave out 'the purpose of and insert 'use for'.
114 Page 71, line 31, leave out 'its use for that purpose or' and insert 'that use, or its use'.
115 Page 71, line 36, leave out from 'that' to end of line 41 and insert 'if the relevant land were not so used, no public road would be provided, altered or improved to meet the same or substantially the same need as would have been met by the provision, alteration or improvement of the public road referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (5) of this section.'.
116 After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
Home loss payments: Northern Ireland
An order in Council under paragraph 1(1) (b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (exercise of legislative functions for Northern Ireland) which states that it is made only for purposes corresponding to the purposes of sections 55 and 56 of this Act—

(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution procedure and procedure in cases of urgency), but

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

117 Clause 67, page 75, line 44, at end insert ', or under section 299A of the Act of 1990'.
118 Page 76, line 3, after '1991', insert 'or to section 299A of the Act of 1990'.
119 Clause 68, page 76, line 24, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections (Home loss payments: Northern Ireland) and'.
120 Page 76, line 26, leave out subsection (10).
121 Schedule 1, page 77, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'mining' in line 39 and insert 'For section 105 (duty of mineral planning authorities to review mineral workings) there is substituted—
"Reviews by mineral planning authorities.
105.—(1) Every mineral planning authority shall undertake periodic reviews about the winning and working of minerals and the depositing of mineral waste in their area.
(1A) Subject to regulations made by virtue of subsection (2A), the duty under this section is, at such intervals as they think fit—

(a) to review every'.

122 Page 77, leave out line 43.
123 Page 78, line 1, leave out 1(1) and insert '(1A)'.
124 Page 78, line 10, at end insert:
'(2A) If regulations so require, the reviews shall be undertaken at prescribed intervals and shall cover such matters as may be prescribed".'.
125 Page 78, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'with' in line 17 and insert 'For section 116 (special basis for compensation in respect of certain orders affecting mineral working) there is substituted—
"Modification of compensation provisions in respect of mineral working etc.
116.—(1) Regulations made by virtue of this section'
126 Page 78, line 20, at beginning insert 'consisting of the winning and working of minerals or'.
127 Page 78, line 22, at beginning insert 'winning and working or'.
128 Page 78, line 41, leave out from 'Part IV)' to end of line 42 and insert 'for "under paragraph 1 of Schedule 11" there is substituted "by virtue of section 116".'.
129 Page 79, line 2, leave out paragraph (a).
130 Page 79, line 8, leave out 'definition' and insert 'definitions'.
131 Page 79, line 9, leave out 'is omitted' and insert 'and "mineral compensation modifications" are omitted'.
132 Page 79, line 11, after "'substances"' insert:
'(da) the definitions of "relevant order", "restriction on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations" are omitted'.
133 Page 82, line 21, leave out paragraph 16 and insert:
'16.—(1) Schedule 11 (compensation in respect of certain orders affecting mineral working) is omitted.
(2) Without prejudice to section 17(2) (b) of the Interpretation Act 1978, any regulations made or having effect as if made by virtue of Schedule 11 to the principal Act shall, to the extent that they are in force on the coming into force of this paragraph, have effect as if made under section 116 of the principal Act as substituted by paragraph 9 of this Schedule.'.
134 After Schedule I, insert the following new Schedule—
'SCHEDULE
Registration of Old Mining Permissions Application for registration
1.—(1) Any person who is an owner of any land to which an old mining permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which such a permission relates, may apply to the mineral planning authority for the permission to be registered.
(2) The application must specify the development which the applicant claims is authorised by the permission, including the land to which the permission relates, and the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject.
(3) The application must be served on the mineral planning authority before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Schedule comes into force.
(4) On an application under this paragraph, the mineral planning authority must—
(a) if they are satisfied that (apart from section (Old mining permissions)(3) of this Act) the permission authorises development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste, ascertain—

827

(i) the area of land to which the permission relates, and

(ii) the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject,

and grant the application, and
(b) in any other case, refuse the application.
(5) Where—

(a) application has been made under this paragraph, but

(b) the mineral planning authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority),

the application is to be treated for the purposes of section (Old mining permissions) of this Act and this Schedule as having been refused by the authority.
Determination of conditions
2.—(1) The conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject—

(a) may include any conditions which may be imposed on a grant of planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste,

(b) may be imposed in addition to, or in substitution for, any conditions ascertained under paragraph 1(4) (a) above, and

(c) must include a condition that the winning and working of minerals or depositing of mineral waste must cease not later than 21st February 2042.

(2) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission has been granted, any person who is an owner of any land to which the permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which the permission relates, may apply to the mineral planning authority to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject.
(3) The application must set out proposed conditions.
(4) The application must be served on the mineral planning authority—

(a) after the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below, and

(b) except where section (Old mining permissions)(3) of this Act applies, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with that date or such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority.

(5) The date referred to in sub-paragraph (4) above is—

(a) the date on which the application for registration is granted by the mineral planning authority, if no appeal is made to the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 below, and

(b) in any other case, the date on which the application for registration is finally determined.

(6) On an application under this paragraph—

(a) the mineral planning authority must determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject, and

(b) if, within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority) the authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination, the authority shall be treated for the purposes of section (Old mining permissions) of this Act and this Schedule as having determined that the permission is to be subject to the conditions set out in the application.

(7) The condition to which an old mining permission is to be subject by reason of sub-paragraph (1) (c) above is not to be regarded for the purposes of the planning Acts as a condition such as is mentioned in section 72(1) (b) of the principal Act (planning permission granted for a limited period).
(8) This paragraph does not apply to an old mining permission which has ceased to have effect since the application under paragraph 1 above was granted.
Registration
3.—(1) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission is granted, the permission must be entered in the appropriate part of the register kept under section 69 of the principal Act and the entry must specify the area of land ascertained under paragraph 1(4) (a) above.
(2) Where an application to determine the conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject is finally determined, the conditions must be entered in the appropriate part of that register.
(3) The matters required to be entered in the register under this paragraph must be entered as soon as reasonably practicable.
General provisions about applications
4.—(1) An application under paragraph I or 2 above is an application which is—

(a) made on an official form, and

(b) accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

(2) The applicant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.
(3) Where the mineral planning authority receive an application under paragraph I or 2 above, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give to the applicant a written acknowledgement of the application.
(4) Where the mineral planning authority determine an application under either of those paragraphs, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give written notice of their determination to the applicant.
(5) An appropriate certificate is such a certificate—

(a) as would be required under the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) or, as the case may be, (7) below to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or, as the case may be, involving the depositing of mineral waste, but

(b) with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this Schedule.

(6) For the purposes of paragraph 1 above, the provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (5) above are—

(a) sections 66 to 68 of the principal Act (notification of owners and agricultural tenants) and any provisions of a development order made by virtue of those sections, or

(b) where section 13(1) of this Act is in force, any provision, corresponding to the provisions referred to in paragraph (a) above, of section 65 of that Act (notice etc. of applications) and of a development order made by virtue of that section.

(7) For the purposes of paragraph 2 above, the provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (5) above are—

(a) sections 65 to 68 of the principal Act (publicity for applications) and any provision of a development order made by virtue of those sections, or

(b) where section 13(1) of this Act is in force, section 65 of that Act and any provision of a development order made by virtue of that section.

(8) Section 68(I) or, as the case may be, 65(5) of that Act (offences) shall also have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be an appropriate certificate.
Right of appeal
5.—(1) Where the mineral planning authority—

(a) refuse an application under paragraph 1 above, or

(b) in granting such an application, ascertain an area of land, or conditions, which differ from those specified in the application,

the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(2) Where on an application under paragraph 2 above, the mineral planning authority determine conditions that differ in any respect from the conditions set out in the application, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made by giving notice of appeal to the Secretary of State.
(4) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (I) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of three months beginning with the determination or, in the case of an application treated as refused by virtue of paragraph 1(5) above, beginning at the end of the period or extended period referred to in paragraph 1(5) (b).
(5) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (2) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of six months beginning with the determination.
(6) A notice of appeal under this paragraph is a notice which—

(a) is made on an official form, and

(b) is accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

(7) The appellant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.
(8) Paragraph 4(5) to (8) above shall apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) above as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 4(1) above.
Determination of appeal
6.—(1) On an appeal under paragraph 5 above the Secretary of State may—

(a) allow or dismiss the appeal, or

(b) reverse or vary any part of the decision of the mineral planning authority (whether the appeal relates to that part of it or not),

and may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance.
(2) Before determining such an appeal the Secretary of State must, if either the appellant or the mineral planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
(3) If at any time before or during the determination of such an appeal it appears to the Secretary of State that the appellant is responsible for undue delay in the progress of the appeal, he may—

(a) give the appellant notice that the appeal will be dismissed unless the appellant takes, within the period specified in the notice, such steps as are specified in the notice for the expedition of the appeal, and

(b) if the appellant fails to take those steps within that period, dismiss the appeal accordingly.

(4) The decision of the Secretary of State on such an appeal shall be final.
Reference of applications to Secretary of State
7.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions requiring applications under this Schedule to any mineral planning authority to be referred to him for determination instead of being dealt with by the authority.
(2) The direction may relate either to a particular application or to applications of a class specified in the direction.
(3) Where an application is referred to him under this paragraph—
(a) subject to paragraph (b) and sub-paragraph (4)
below, the following provisions of this Schedule—

(i) paragraph 1(1) to (4),

(ii) paragraph 2(1) to (6) (a), (7) and (8),

(iii) paragraphs 3 and 4, and

(iv) paragraphs 8 to 10,

shall apply, with any necessary modifications, as they apply to applications which fall to be determined by the mineral planning authority,
(b) before determining the application the Secretary of State must, if either the applicant or the mineral planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose, and
(c) the decision of the Secretary of State on the application shall be final.
(4) Where an application under paragraph 1 above is so referred to him, paragraph 2(5) above shall apply as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted "the date on which the application for registration is finally determined".
Two or more applicants
8.—(1) Where a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission—

(a) he may not serve any further application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission, and

830

(b) if the application has been determined, whether or not it has been finally determined, no other person may serve an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission.

(2) Where—

(a) a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission, and

(b) another person duly serves an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission,

then for the purpose of the determination of the applications and any appeal against such a determination, this Schedule shall have effect as if the applications were a single application served on the date on which the later application was served and references to the applicant shall be read as references to either or any of the applicants.
Application of provisions of principal Act
9.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 above, section 69 of the principal Act (registers of applications, etc.), and any provision of a development order made by virtue of that section, shall have effect with any necessary modifications as if references to applications for planning permission included applications under paragraph 1 or 2 above.
(2) Where the mineral planning authority is not the authority required to keep the register under that section, the mineral planning authority must provide the authority required to keep the register with such information and documents as that authority requires to comply with paragraph 3 above and with that section as applied by this paragraph.
(3) Sections 284 and 288 of the principal Act (validity of certain decisions and proceedings for questioning their validity) shall have effect as if the action mentioned in section 284(3) included any decision of the Secretary of State on an appeal under paragraph 5 above or on an application referred to him under paragraph 7 above.
Interpretation
10.—(1) In this Schedule—
"official form" means, in relation to an application or appeal, a document supplied by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for use for the purpose in question, and
"owner" in relation to any land means any person who—

(a) is the estate owner in respect of the fee simple, or

(b) is entitled to a tenancy granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than seven years remain unexpired.

(2) For the purposes of section (Old mining permissions) of this Act and this Schedule, an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above is finally determined when the following conditions are met—

(a) the proceedings on the application, including any proceedings on or in consequence of an application under section 288 of the principal Act, have been determined, and

(b) any time for appealing under paragraph 5 above, or applying or further applying under that section, (where there is a right to do so) has expired.'.

135 Schedule 2, page 85, line 2, after second 'may', insert 'on such terms, if any, as the Court thinks fit (which may include terms requiring the local planning authority to give an undertaking as to damages or any other matter)'.
136 Page 86, line 32, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or chattels'.
137 Page 86, line 36, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 37 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
138 Page 87, line 33, at end insert:
'13A. After section 26(2) of that Act (transitional exemptions) there is inserted—
"(2A) This section shall have effect until the end of the transitional period".'.
139 Page 89, line 3, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or chattels'.
140 Page 89, line 7, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 8 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
141 Page 89, line 31, leave out '38A'.
142 Page 90, line 22, leave out from '5' to first '(b)' in line 24.
143 Schedule 3, page 103, line 34, leave out from 'section' to end of line 35 and insert '45 (approval of proposals by Secretary of State), in subsection (3) (a) after "with" there is inserted "the".
(2) After subsection (4) of that section there is inserted—
"(5) Subject to section 287, proposals approved by the Secretary of State under this section shall become operative on such day as he may appoint.".'.
144 Page 105, line 8, after 'section', insert "'repeal and" is omitted and'.
145 Page 105, line 12, leave out 'and'.
146 Page 105, line 17, at end insert 'and
(c) in paragraph (b) "and they may do so as respects any part of that area to which the proposals relate" is omitted.'.
147 Page 105, line 32, at end insert 'and for "38" there is substituted "39".'.
148 Page 105, line 34, leave out from 'operation' to 'shall' in line 36 and insert:

'(a) of proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan prepared jointly by two or more local planning authorities; and

(b) of a local plan or proposals for its alteration or replacement so prepared.'.

149 Page 113, line 42, at end insert:
'Joint plans
48A.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions applying with modifications the provisions of this part of this Schedule to cases where—

(a) any plan has been or is being jointly prepared; or

(b) any proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of such a plan have been or are being jointly prepared.

(2) Any such directions may be of a general or particular character.'.
150 Schedule 5, page 118, line 7, leave out paragraph 11.
151 Page 121, leave out lines 20 to 22.
152 Page 121, line 23, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990'.
153 Schedule 6, page 122, line 3, at end insert:
'Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (c.80)
3A. In section 33(4) of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 for the words from "section 63(2) (b)" to the end there is substituted "section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990".'.
154 Page 122, line 41, leave out '56(3)' and insert '56, in subsection (3)'.
155 Page 122, line 41, at end insert:
'(2) In subsection (4) of that section after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
"(aa) any work of demolition of a building;".'.
156 Page 122, line 42, leave out 'In section 63(5) "65, 71(1) or"' and insert 'Section 63'.
157 Page 123, line 1, at end insert:
'11A. In section 69—

(a) in subsection (1) "made to that authority", and

(b) in subsection (3) "made to the authority", are omitted.'.

158 Page 123, line 6, at end insert:
'13A.—(1) After section 73 there is inserted—
"Planning permission for development already curried out.
73A.—(1) On an application made to a local planning authority, the planning permission which may be granted includes planning permission for development carried out before the date of the application.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to development carried out—

(a) without planning permission;

832

(b) in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period; or

(c) without complying with some condition subject to which planning permission was granted.

(3) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

(a) the date on which the development was carried out; or

(b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period."'.

159 Page 123, line 8, leave out 'and (2)" there is substituted "70"' and insert 'and (2), 72(1) and (5) and 73" there is substituted "70, 72(1) and (5), 73 and 73A".
160 Page 123, line 12, leave out '71(2)" there is substituted "70"' and insert '71(2), 72(1) and (5) and 73" there is substituted "70, 72(1) and (5), 73 and 73A".
161 Page 123, line 15, at end insert:
'16A. In section 91(4) (b), for the words from "granted" to the end there is substituted "granted for development carried out before the grant of that permission".
16B.—(1) In section 102, for subsections (4) and (5) there is substituted—
"(4) The planning permission which may be granted by an order under this section includes planning permission, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, for development carried out before the date on which the order was submitted to the Secretary of State under section 103.
(5) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

(a) the date on which the development was carried out; Or

(b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period."'.

162 Page 124, line 10, at end insert:
'(2) For section 177(3) there is substituted—
"(3) The planning permission that may be granted under subsection (1) is any planning permission that might be granted on an application under Part III."
(3) In section 177(5) for "for the development to which the notice relates" there is substituted "in respect of the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control".'.
163 Page 124, line 13, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 31 and insert 'Where, after the service of?

(a) a copy of an enforcement notice; or

(b) a breach of condition notice,

planning permission is granted for any development carried out before the grant of that permission, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as inconsistent with that permission..
164 Page 124, line 41, leave out '181(5) (b)' and insert '181—

(a) in subsections (1) (a), (4) (b) and (5) (b) for "demolition", in each place where it occurs, there is substituted "removal";

(b) in subsections (3), (4) and (5) for "demolished", in each place where it occurs, there is substituted "removed"; and

(c) in subsection (5) (b)'.

165 Page 125, line 4, after 'relevant activity"' insert:
"(aa) in subsection (1) (c) the words from "or for its retention" to "granted" are omitted;'.
166 Page 125, line 10, at beginning insert 'and'.
167 Page 125, line 37, at end insert:
'29A. In section 216(6) for "£40" there is substituted "one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale".'.
168 Page 125, line 39, at end insert:
'31A. In section 224(3) for "£40" there is substituted "one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale".'.
169 Page 127, line 27, at end insert:
'(aa) at the end of the definition of "buildings or works" there is inserted "and references to the removal of buildings or works include demolition of buildings and filling in of trenches"; and

833
(ab) for the definition of "building operations" there is substituted—
"building operations" has the meaning given by section 55;".'.
170 Page 127, line 30, leave out 'and'.
171 Page 127, line 33, at end insert 'and
(e) in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end are omitted.'.
172 Page 128, line 3, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 5 and insert 'For paragraph 8 there is substituted—
"8.—(l) A local planning authority who have the function of determining applications for planning permission".'.
173 Page 128, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert:
'(1E) A development order may require a local planning authority which is dealing with an application of which a council is entitled to be notified—

(a) to give the council an opportunity to make representations to them as to the manner in which the application should be determined;

(b) to take into account any such representations;

(c) to notify the council of the terms of their decision or, where the application is referred to the Secretary of State, the date when it was so referred and, when notified to them, the terms of his decision.'.

174 Page 128, line 42, leave out 'For paragraph 20(3)' and insert 'In paragraph 20, in sub-paragraph (1), for "100(3), 104(3) or 202(1)" there is substituted "100(3), 104(3), I96A(3), 202(1) or 214B(6)".
(10) For sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph'.
175 Page 128, line 44, leave out from 'into' to 'may' in line 45 and insert 'a planning obligation under section 106 or 299A'.
176 Page 129, line 22, leave out "'64" there is substituted "63"' and insert "'to 64" there is substituted "and 62"'.
177 Page 129, line 25, at end insert:
'(bb) after the entry relating to section 72(1) to (4) there is inserted—
"Section 73A."'.
178 Page 130, line 22, at end insert:
'Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9)
51.In section 59(4) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 for "£40" there is substituted "one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale".
52. For section 67(8) of that Act there is substituted—
"(8) In this section references to planning permission do not include references to planning permissions falling within section 73A of the principal Act."—
53. For section 73(2) of that Act there is substituted—
"(2) In this section references to planning permission do not include references to planning permissions falling within section 73A of the principal Act."
54. For paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to that Act (distribution of functions: National Parks) there is substituted—
"3. Where an application for listed building consent under section 10 relating to land in a National Park falls to be determined by a county planning authority, that authority—

(a) shall send a copy of the application, as soon as practicable and in any event not later than seven days after they have received it, to the district planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; and

(b) shall before determining the application consult the district planning authority.".'.

179 Schedule 7, page 133, line 28, leave out paragraph 10 and insert:
'10. Sections 153A, 159A and 159B are omitted.
10A. For section 167A there is substituted—
"Regulations as to compensation in respect of orders relating to mineral working.
167A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made with the consent of the Treasury provide, in relation to orders made under—
834

(a) section 42 of this Act modifying planning permission for development consisting of the winning or working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste; or

(b) section 49, 49A or 49B of this Act with respect to such winning and working or depositing,

that sections 153, 159, 167, 226 and 227 of this Act shall have effect subject, in such cases as may be prescribed, to such modifications as may be prescribed.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, regulations made by virtue of this section may make provision—

(a) as to circumstances in which compensation is not to be payable;

(b) for the modification of the basis on which any amount to be paid by way of compensation is to be assessed;

(c) for the assessment of any such amount on a basis different from that on which it would otherwise have been assessed,

and may also make different provision for different cases, and incidental or supplementary provision.
(3) No regulations under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) Before making any such regulations, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be representative—

(a) of persons carrying out mining operations;

(b) of owners of interests in land containing minerals;

(c) of planning authorities.".

10B. Sections 167B and I67C are omitted.'.
180 Page 134, line 3, at end insert:
'10A. In section 251(1 A) (power to modify Act in relation to minerals) the definition of "development consisting of the winning and working of minerals" is omitted.'.
181 Page 134, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'mining' in line 6 and insert:
'11. For section 251A (duty of planning authorities to review mineral workings) there is substituted—
"Reviews of mineral workings by planning authorities.
251A.—(1) Every planning authority shall undertake periodic reviews about the winning and working of minerals, and the depositing of mineral waste, in their area.
(1A) Subject to regulations made by virtue of section (2A) of this section, the duty under this section is, at such intervals as they think fit—

(a) to review every'.

182 Page 134, leave out line 10.
183 Page 134, line 11, leave out '(1)' and insert '(1A)'.
184 Page 134, line 20, at end insert:
'(2A) If regulations so require, the reviews shall be undertaken at prescribed intervals and shall cover such matters as may be prescribed.'.
185 Page 134, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).
186 Page 134, line 29, at end insert:
'(ca) the definition of "mineral compensation modifications" is omitted;'.
187 Page 134, line 31, after '"substances";' insert:
'(da) the definitions of "relevant order", "restrictions on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations" are omitted;'.
188 After 7, insert the following new Schedule—
'SCHEDULE
Registration of old mining permissions
The following Schedule shall be inserted as Schedule 10A to the 1972 Act—
"Registration of old mining permissions
Application for registration
1.—(1) Any person who is an owner of any land to which an old mining permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which such a permission relates, may apply to the planning authority for the permission to be registered.
(2) The application must specify the development which the applicant claims is authorised by the permission, including the land to which the permission relates, and the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject.
(3) The application must be served on the planning authority before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Schedule comes into force.
(4) On an application under this paragraph, the planning authority must—
(a) if they are satisfied that (apart from section 49H(3) of this Act) the permission authorises development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste, ascertain—

(i) the area of land to which the permission relates, and

(ii) the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject,

and grant the application; and
(b) in any other case, refuse the application.
(5) Where—

(a) application has been made under this paragraph, but

(b) the planning authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority),

the application is to be treated for the purposes of section 49H of this Act and this Schedule as having been refused by the authority.
Determination of conditions
2.—(1) The conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject—

(a) may include any conditions which may be imposed on a grant of planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste,

(b) may be imposed in addition to, or in substitution for, any conditions ascertained under paragraph 1(4) (a) above, and

(c) must include a condition that the winning and working of minerals or depositing of mineral waste must cease not later than 21st February 2042.

(2) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission has been granted, any person who is an owner of any land to which the permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which the permission relates, may apply to the planning authority to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject.
(3) The application must set out proposed conditions.
(4) The application must be served on the planning authority—

(a) after the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below, and

(b) except where section 49H(3) of this Act applies, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with that date or such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority.

(5) The date referred to in sub-paragraph (4) above is—

(a) the date on which the application for registration is granted by the planning authority, if no appeal is made to the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 below, and

(b) in any other case, the date on which the application for registration is finally determined.

(6) On an application under this paragraph—

(a) the planning authority must determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject,
and

836

(b) if, within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority) the authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination, the authority shall be treated for the purposes of section 49H of this Act and this as having determined that the permission is to be subject to the conditions set out in the application.

(7) The condition to which an old mining permission is to be subject by reason of sub-paragraph (1) (c) above is not to be regarded for the purposes of the planning Acts as a condition such as is mentioned in section 27(1) (b) of this Act (planning permission granted for a limited period).
(8) This paragraph does not apply to an old mining permission which has ceased to have effect since the application under paragraph 1 above was granted.
Registration
3.—(l) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission is granted, the permission must be entered in the appropriate part of the register kept under section 31 of this Act and the entry must specify the area of land ascertained under paragraph 1(4) (a) above.
(2) Where an application to determine the conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject is finally determined, the conditions must be entered in the appropriate part of that register.
(3) The matters required to be entered in the register under this paragraph must be entered as soon as reasonably practicable.
General provisions about applications
4.—(1) An application under paragraph I or 2 above is an application which is—

(a) made on an official form, and

(b) accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

(2) The applicant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.
(3) Where the planning authority receive an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give to the applicant a written acknowledgment of the application.
(4) Where the planning authority determine an application under either of those paragraphs, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give written notice of their determination to the applicant.
(5) An appropriate certificate is such a certificate—

(a) as would be required under sections 23 or 24 of this Act to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste; but

(b) with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this Schedule.

(6) Sections 23(3) and 24(6) of this Act (offences) shall also have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be an appropriate certificate.
Right of appeal
5.—(l) Where the planning authority—

(a) refuse an application under paragraph 1 above, or

(b) in granting such an application, ascertain an area of land, or conditions, which differ from those specified in the application,

the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(2) Where on an application under paragraph 2 above, the planning authority determine conditions that differ in any respect from the conditions set out in the application, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made by giving notice of appeal to the Secretary of State.
(4) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of three months beginning with the determination or, in the case of an application treated as refused by virtue of paragraph 1(5) above, beginning at the end of the period or extended period referred to in paragraph 1(5) (b).
(5) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (2) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of six months beginning with the determination.
(6) A notice of appeal under this paragraph is a notice which—

(a) is made on an official form, and

(b) is accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

(7) The appellant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.
(8) Paragraph 4(5) and (6) above shall apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) above as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 4(1) above.
Determination of appeal
6.—(1) On an appeal under paragraph 5 above the Secretary of State may—

(a) allow or dismiss the appeal, or

(b) reverse or vary any part of the decision of the planning authority (whether the appeal relates to that part of it or not),

and may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance.
(2) Before determining such an appeal the Secretary of State must, if either the appellant or the planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
(3) If at any time before or during the determination of such an appeal it appears to the Secretary of State that the appellant is responsible for undue delay in the progress of the appeal, he may—

(a) give the appellant notice that the appeal will be dismissed unless the appellant takes, within the period specified in the notice, such steps as are specified in the notice for the expedition of the appeal, and

(b) if the appellant fails to take those steps within that period, dismiss the appeal accordingly.

(4) The decision of the Secretary of State on such an appeal shall be final.
Reference of applications to Secretary of State
7.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions requiring applications under this Schedule to any planning authority to be referred to him for determination instead of being dealt with by the authority.
(2) The direction may relate either to a particular application or to applications of a class specified in the direction.
(3) Where an application is referred to him under this paragraph—
(a) subject to paragraph (b) and sub-paragraph (4) below, the following provisions of this Schedule?

(i) paragraph 1(1) to (4),

(ii) paragraph 2(1) to (6) (a), (7) and (8),

(iii) paragraphs 3 and 4, and

(iv) paragraphs 8 to 10,

shall apply, with any necessary modifications, as they apply to applications which fall to be determined by the planning authority,
(b) before determining the application the Secretary of State must, if either the applicant or the planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose, and
(c) the decision of the Secretary of State on the application shall be final.
(4) Where an application under paragraph 1 above is so referred to him, paragraph 2(5) above shall apply as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted "the date on which the application for registration is finally determined".
Two or more applicants
8.—(1) Where a person has served an application under paragraph I or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission—

(a) he may not serve any further application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission, and

838

(b) if the application has been determined, whether or not it has been finally determined, no other person may serve an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission.

(2) Where—

(a) a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission, and

(b) another person duly serves an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission,

then for the purpose of the determination of the applications and any appeal against such a determination, this Schedule shall have effect as if the applications were a single application served on the date on which the later application was served and references to the applicant shall be read as references to either or any of the applicants.
Application of provisions relating to planning permission
9.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 above, section 31 of this Act (registers of applications, etc.), and any provision of regulations under this Act or a development order made by virtue of that section, shall have effect with any necessary modifications as if references to applications for planning permission included applications under paragraph 1 or 2 above.
(2) Where the planning authority is not the authority required to keep the register under that section, the planning authority must provide the authority required to keep the register with such information and documents as that authority requires to comply with paragraph 3 above and with that section as applied by this paragraph.
(3) Sections 231 and 233 of this Act (validity of certain decisions and proceedings for questioning their validity) shall have effect as if the action mentioned in section 231(3) included any decision of the Secretary of State on an appeal under paragraph 5 above or on an application referred to him under paragraph 7 above.
Interpretation
10.—(1) In this Schedule—
"official form" means, in relation to an application or appeal, a document supplied by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for use for the purpose in question, and
"owner" in relation to any land means any person who under the Lands Clauses Acts would be enabled to sell and convey the land to the promoters of an undertaking and includes any person entitled to possession of the land as lessee under a lease the unexpired portion of which is not less than seven years.
(2) For the purposes of section 49H of this Act and this Schedule, an application under paragraph I or 2 above is finally determined when the following conditions are met—

(a) the proceedings on the application, including any proceedings on or in consequence of an application under section 233 of this Act, have been determined, and

(b) any time for appealing under paragraph 5 above, or applying or further applying under that section, (where there is a right to do so) has expired.".'.

189 Schedule 8, page 135, line 2, after 'both' insert '; and in determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court shall in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to him in consequence of the offence.'.
190 Page 135, line 14, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 16 and insert 'and, subject to section 93(3) of this Act, shall take effect on that date, and'.
191 Page 138, line 5, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or moveable property'.
192 Page 138, line 6, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 7 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
193 Page 138, line 9, at end insert '; and section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under this subsection as it applies in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Act.'.
194 Page 139, line 40, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or moveable property'.
195 Page 139, line 41, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 42 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
196 Page 139, line 44, at end insert '; and section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under this subsection as it applies in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Act.'.
197 Page 140, line 25, leave out '92A;'.
198 Schedule 10, page 144, line 14, leave out paragraph 8.
199 Page 144, line 27, leave out 'VII' and insert 'XII'.
200 Page 145, line 1, leave out 'section', and insert 'Act'.
201 Schedule 11, page 149, line 35, at end insert:
'2A. In subsection (3) (a) of section 5 (preparation of structure plans), after "measures for" there is inserted "the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land,".
2B. In subsection (3) (a) of section 9 (preparation of local plans), after "fit for" there is inserted "the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land,".'.
202 Page 50, line 11, after 'regulations', insert 'under this Act'.
203 Page 150, leave out line 16 and insert:
'4. In section 23 (publication of notices of applications—
(a) in subsection (1)'.
204 Page 150, line 18, at end insert:
'(b) at the end there is inserted—
"(4) A planning authority shall not entertain any application for planning permission unless any requirements imposed by virtue of this section have been satisfied.
(5) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought at any time within the period of two years following the commission of the offence.".'.
205 Page 150, leave out lines 19 to 21.
206 Page 150, line 29, leave out 'regulations or an order' and insert 'such regulations or the order'.
207 Page 150, line 32, leave out paragraph 7 and insert:
'7. For section 29 there is substituted—
"Planning permission for development already carried out.
29.—(1) On an application made to a planning authority, the planning permission which may be granted includes planning permission for development carried out before the date of the application.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section applies to development carried out—

(a) without planning permission;

(b) in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period; or

(c) without complying with some condition subject to which planning permission was granted.

(3) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

(a) the date on which the development was carried out; or

(b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period.".'.

208 Page 150, line 40, leave out 'regulations or an order' and insert 'such regulations or the order'.
209 Page 150, line 42, leave out 'by regulations or an order' and insert 'by such regulations or the order'..
210 Page 150, line 45, after '26' insert '(1) to (3A)'.
211 Page 150, line 46, leave out 'and 28A"' and insert', 28A and 29".
212 Page 151, line 9, after 'omitted' insert:
'(ia) for "26(1) and (3)" there is substituted "26(1) to (3A)";
840
(iia) for "and 27A" there is substituted ", 27A and 29"'.
213 Page 151, line 19, leave out 'any' in both places where it occurs.
214 Page 151, line 22, at end insert:
'10A. In subsection (3) (c) of section 38 (limit of duration of planning permission), for the words from "granted" to the end there is substituted "for any development carried out before the grant of planning permission".'.
215 Page 151, line 24, at end insert:
'11A. In subsection (2) of section 40 (provision as to date when development begun), after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
"(aa) any work of demolition of a building;".
11 B. In section 49 (orders requiring discontinuance of use etc.), for subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) The planning permission which may be granted by an order under this section includes planning permission, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, for development carried out before the date on which the order was submitted to the Secretary of State under this section.
(3A) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

(a) the date on which the development was carried out; or

(b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period.".'.

216 Page 151, line 25, at end insert:
'13A. In subsection (3) of section 55 (acts causing or likely to result in damage to listed buildings), for "£40" there is substituted "one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale".'.
217 Page 151, leave out line 26.
218 Page 151, line 26, at end insert:
'14A. In section 84A (power of regional planning authority to take enforcement action) in subsection (2) for the words "84 (except subsection (1," there is substituted "83A, 83B, 84 (except subsection (1, 84AA, 84AB,".'.
219 Page 151, line 28, after '(4)' insert '(i)'.
220 Page 151, line 28, after '(a)' insert 'in subsection (2B) (d) for the words from "being" to "situated" there is substituted "to such persons as may be specified"; (b)'..
221 Page 151, line 34, after 'authority;";' insert 'and
(ii) in paragraph (b) for "84(5)" there is substituted "84(2)".'.
222 Page 152, line 18, at end insert:
'(ca) in subsection (6), for the words from "and any planning permission" to the end there is substituted—
"(6A) The planning permission which may be granted under subsection (5) of this section is any planning permission which might be granted on an application under Part III of this Act.
(6B) Where the Secretary of State discharges a condition or limitation under subsection (5) of this section, he may substitute for it any other condition or limitation."
(cb) in subsection (7), for "for the development to which the notice relates" there is substituted "in respect of the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control".'.
223 Page 152, line 23, after 'activity";' insert:
'(ba) in subsection (6) for the words "activities which constitute or involve the breach of planning control alleged" there is substituted "the relevant activity specified".'.
224 Page 152, line 25, after 'notices),' insert 'for the words "waste land notices" there is substituted "notices under section 63 of this Act" and'.
225 Page 152, line 29, leave out paragraph 20 and insert:
'20. In section 89 (enforcement notice to have effect against subsequent development)—

841

(a) in subsection (1), for "demolition" there is substituted "removal"; and

(b) in subsections (3) and (4) for "demolished" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "removed".

20A. For section 89A there is substituted—
"Effect of planning permission, etc., on enforcement or breach of condition notice.
89A.—(1) Where, after the service of—

(a) a copy of an enforcement notice; or

(b) a breach of condition notice,

planning permission is granted for any development carried out before the grant of that permission, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as inconsistent with that permission.
(2) Where, after a breach of condition notice has been served, any condition to which the notice relates is discharged, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as it requires any person to secure compliance with the condition in question.
(3) The fact that an enforcement notice or breach of condition notice has wholly or partly ceased to have effect by virtue of this section shall not affect the liability of any person for an offence in respect of a previous failure to comply, or secure compliance, with the notice.".'.
226 Page 152, line 36, leave out 'subsections (2) and (3)' and insert 'subsection (2)'.
227 Page 152, line 37, after '90A";' insert:
'(aa) subsections (3) and (5) are omitted;'.
228 Page 152, line 42, at end insert:
'20A. In subsection (2) of section 101 (enforcement of control as to advertisements), for "£40" there is substituted "one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale".'.
229 Page 153, line 12, after 'section' insert '—(a)'.
230 Page 153, line 19, at end insert; and
(b) in paragraph (c) the words from "or for its retention" to "granted" are omitted.'.
231 Page 153, leave out from beginning of line 32 to '(2) (a)' in line 33.
232 Page 153, line 39, after '(1) (c)' insert:
'—(i) after "Part IV" there is inserted "other than sections 58 to 60"; and
(ii)'. .
233 Page 153, line 43, at end insert:
'(f) in subsection (6) after "other than section" where it first occurs there is inserted "163 or".'.
234 Page 154, line 11 at end insert:
'(aa) at the end of the definition of "buildings and works" there is inserted "and references to the removal of buildings or works include demolition of buildings and filling in of trenches";
(ab) for the definition of "building operations" there is substituted—
"building operations" has the meaning given by section 19 of this Act;'.
235 Page 154, line 12, leave out 'and'.
236 Page 154, line 15, at end insert 'and
(d) in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end are omitted.'.
237 Page 154, line 20, at end insert:
'(1A) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule, in subparagraph (2), after "85(2)" there is inserted "to (2D)" and after "93(2)" there is inserted "and (2A)".'.
238 Page 154, line 22, at end insert:
'(2A) In paragraph (3A) of that Schedule, in subparagraph (2), for "26(3) (a)" there is substituted "26(3A)".
34A. In paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 (control of works for demolition etc), in subparagraph (1)—

(a) for the words "or other of those described in section 24(1) (a) to (d)" there is substituted "prescribed under section 24"; and

(b) for the words "24(2) to (4) and 26(3)" there is substituted "24 and 26(3) and (3A)".'.

239 Page 155, line 7, at end insert:
842
'(3) In subsection (5) of section 179 (reference of applications to regional planning authority), for the words "23(1) (f) and (h), 24(2B), (2C), (2D) and (4)" there is substituted "23, 24".'.
240 Page 155, line 9, leave out from beginning to 'the following' in line 10 and insert:
'40. In subsection (3) of section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (fees for planning applications), for the words "to him of a fee of the prescribed amount in respect of an" there is substituted—

"(a) of fees of prescribed amounts to him and to the planning authority in respect of any application for planning permission deemed to be made under subsection (7) of section 85 (appeals against enforcement notice) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; and

(b) of a fee of the prescribed amount to him in respect of any other".

40A. In Part I of Schedule 30 to that Act.'.
241 Page 155, line 11, leave out 'and 87AA' and insert ', 87AA and 260A'.
242 Schedule 13, page 166, line 33, after 'management"' insert:
'(aa) in subsection (2) after "shall" there is inserted "direct the acquiring authority to",
(ab) after that subsection there is inserted—
"(2A) Notice under subsection (2) above shall be given in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct".'.
243 Page 166, line 39, after 'land"' insert:
'(aa) in sub-paragraph (3) after "shall" there is inserted "direct the acquiring authority to",
(ab) after that sub-paragraph there is inserted—
"(3A) Notice under sub-paragraph (3) above shall be given in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct".'.
244 Page 168, line 16, at end insert:
'21A.—(1) Section 29 of that Act is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (ii) "passed the resolution" is omitted;

(b) "and" following paragraph (iii) is omitted;

(c) after paragraph (iv) there is inserted "and"; and

(d) in paragraph (v) after "(e)" there is inserted "above".

(3) In subsection (3A) the words from "of the service" to "(1) (b) above" are omitted.
(4) In subsection (4)—
(a) for paragraph (b) there is substituted—
"(b) a right to occupy the dwelling—

(i) as a statutory tenant within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or the Rent Act 1977, or

(ii) under a contract to which section 19 of the Rent Act 1977 (restricted contracts) applies or would apply if the contract or dwelling were not excluded by section 19(3) to (5) or 144 of that Act", and

(b) for paragraph (e) there is substituted—
"(e) a right to occupy the dwelling under a licence where—

(i) it is a right to occupy as a protected occupier within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976,

(ii) Part IV of the Housing Act 1985 (secure tenancies) applies to the licence, or

(iii) the licence is an assured agricultural occupancy within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1988."

21B. In section 32(7B) of that Act for "the person giving up possession" there is substituted "any person giving up possession or occupation".'.
245 Schedule 15, page 178, line 12, leave out 'then' and insert 'and'.
246 Page 178, line 13, at end insert:
'2A. In paragraph 11 of that Schedule (purchase of open space)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2), after "shall" there is inserted "direct the acquiring authority to"; and

(b) after that sub-paragraph there is inserted—

843
"(3) Notice under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph shall be given in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct.".'.
247 Page 182, line 6, at end insert:
'18A.—(1) Section 27 of that Act is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (ii), "passed the resolution" is omitted;

(b) "and" following paragraph (iii) is omitted; and

(c) after paragraph (iv) there is inserted "and".

(3) In subsection (4), for paragraph (b) there is substituted—
"(b) a right to occupy the dwelling-house—

(i) as a statutory tenant within the meaning of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984; or

(ii) under a contract to which Part VII of that Act applies or would apply if the contract or dwelling-house were not excluded by section 63(3) to (5) or under section 64(3) respectively of that Act; and".'.

248 Page 183, line 15, at end insert:

'Section 9 of that Act

Date works ceased to be authorised'.

249 Page 183, line 17, at end insert:

'Section 31(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1961

Date of withdrawal of notice to treat'.

250 Page 184, line 32, after 'case', insert 'of loss or'.
251 Page 184, line 34, after 'the', insert 'loss or'.
252 Page 184, line 36, at end insert:

'Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 20 to that Act

Date of claim

Paragraph 8(2) or (3) of that Schedule

In the case of loss or damage sustained by reason of expenditure, the date on which the loss or damage is sustained; otherwise the date of claim

Paragraph 8(4) of that Schedule

Date loss is caused or damage done.'.

Page 186, line 9, at end insert:

(1)

(2)

'section compensation (Scotland) act 1963

Date of withdrawal of notice to treat'

254 Schedule 17, page 188, line 25, leave out 'section 12(3) "other" and, in'.
255 Page 188, line 42, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections (4) and'.
256 Page 188, line 44, leave out 'and'.
257 Page 189, line 2, at end insert 'and in paragraph (b) "and they may do so as respects any part of their area to which the proposals relate".'.
258 Page 189, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert 'Section 63.'.
259 Page 189, line 19, at end insert:

'In section 69, in subsection (1) "made to that authority" and in subsection (3) "made to the authority".'

260 Page 189, line 29, at end insert 'In section 186(1) (c) the words from "or for its retention" to "granted".'.
261 Page 189, line 50, leave out '284(3) (g)' and insert '284, in subsection (1) (a) "repeal" (in both places) and in subsection (3) (g)'.
262 Page 189, line 53, after '285', insert 'in subsection (1) "Subject to the provisions of this section".'.
263 Page 190, leave out line 2.
264 Page 190, line 11, leave out 'and'.
265 Page 190, line 13, after 'certificate"' insert 'and "mineral compensation modifications"'.
266 Page 190, line 16, after '71)"', insert 'in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end, the definitions of "relevant order", "restriction on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations"'.
267 Page 190, line 20, column 3, at end insert 'In Schedule 2, in Part I paragraphs 3, 5 and 6, and in Part II paragraphs 3 to 16 and 18'.
268 Page 190, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert: 'Schedule 11'.
269 Page 190, line 36, column 3, at end insert 'In Schedule 13, Notes (2) and (5) to paragraph 2, in Note (3) to paragraph 2 "also", in Note (1) (b) to paragraph 3 "or under section 22", in Note (2) to paragraph 3 "13(7) or", in Note (1) (b) to paragraph 4 "or under section 22" and in Note (2) to paragraph 4 "13(7) or".'.
270 Page 191, line 11, leave out 'and 35(1) (b)' and insert '35(1) (b) and 38. In Schedule 4, in paragraph I, in the Table the entry relating to section 9(4) of the 1971 Act and paragraph 2 of the Schedule, and paragraph 2 of the Schedule.'.
271 Page 191, column 3, leave out line 24.
272 Page 192, line 13, at end insert 'and'.
273 Page 192, line 33, column 3, at beginning insert 'In'.
274 Page 193, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert 'In section 5, in rule (3), "the special needs of a particular purchaser or".'.
275 Page 193, line 6, column 3, leave out 'Section 29(5)' and insert:

'In section 29, in subsection (1) "passed the resolution" in paragraph (ii) and the "and" following paragraph (iii), in subsection (3A) the words from "of the service" to "(I) (b) above" and subsection (5).'.

276 Page 193, line 9, at end insert:

'1973 c. 56.

Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973.

In Part II of Schedule 2, the entry for section 33(4) of the Land Compensation Act 1973.

1980 c. 65

Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

Section 114(2).'.

277 Page 193, line 11, at end insert:

'1985 c. 71.

Housing (Consequential paragraph Act 1985

In Schedule 2, paragraph 24(2) (c).

1986 c. 63.

Housing and Planning Act 1986.

Section 9(3) (c).'.

278 Page 193, line 14, at end insert:

'1990 c. 11.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990.

In Schedule 2, paragraph 29(4).'.

279 Page 193, line 20, column, 3 leave out 'customer' and insert 'purchaser or'.
280 Page 193, line 28, column 3, leave out 'Section 27(5)' and insert:

'In section 27, in subsection (1), the words "passed the resolution" in paragraph (ii), and the word "and" following paragraph (iii); and subsection (5).'.

281 Page 193, line 30, column 3, at end insert:

'In Part II of Schedule 2, the entry for section 33(4) of the Land Compensation Act 1973.'.

282 Page 194, leave out line 6.
283 Page 194, line 39, at end insert:

'Section 153A.'.

284 Page 194, line 53, at end insert:

'Section 159A.Section 159B.'.

285 Page 194, line 54, at end insert:

'In section 166(2) (c), the words from "or for its retention" to "granted".'.

286 Page 194, leave out lines 55 to 57 and insert:

'Section 167B.Section 167C.'.

287 Page 195, line 15, column 3, at end insert:

'In section 251(1A), the definition of "development consisting of the winning and working of minerals".'.

288 Page 195, line 31, after 'certificate', insert: 'and'
289 Page 195, line 32, leave out 'and' and insert:

'; in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end; and the definition of '.

290 Page 195, line 47, at end insert:

'1980 c 65

Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

Section 114(2).

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether I dare challenge the indulgence of the House and suggest that Commons Amendments Nos. 109 to 290 are taken en bloc. If there is any objection I shall go through them individually. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 109 to 290 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 109 to 290 en bloc.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Coal Mining Subsidence Bill
5.26 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 28 [Subsidence damage to which Act applies]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 21, line 27, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2) below")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10.
British Coal introduced compensation for tenant farmers in its 1976 code of practice. Where the owner of land receives a depreciation payment British Coal will pay the tenant compensation based on Section 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. Section 12 provides that, in the event of compulsory purchase, the tenant will receive four times his annual rent by way of compensation. In the case of subsidence damage, British Coal pays a proportion of this based on the degree of depreciation. For example, in the case where the holding suffers 25 per cent. depreciation, and the tenant is not responsible for making good the damage, British Coal would pay the owner 25 per cent. of the value and the tenant 25 per cent. of his entitlement under Section 12; in other words, the equivalent of one year's rent.
There are two points to note. First, payments to tenant farmers apply only when British Coal makes a depreciation payment to the owner of the land in question instead of undertaking full repairs. As noble Lords will be aware, the main thrust of the Bill is to encourage repairs, and depreciation payments in respect of land will only be possible in exceptional circumstances. In fact, I understand from British Coal that it can only recall about 10 or so payments to tenant farmers in the past 10 years.
The second point to note is that in the majority of cases what happens is that the holding overall suffers a degree of depreciation. So, in the case of 25 per cent. depreciation, this is unlikely to mean that 25 per cent. of the farm is rendered unusable and the remaining 75 per cent. is untouched. It is more likely to mean that all of the farm suffers some degree of damage to the extent that the value of the whole is depreciated by 25 per cent. In other words, with subsidence damage it is quite possible that the overall acreage remains unchanged. This is clearly different from the compulsory purchase situation where land is completely lost. This is one of the reasons why it is not always sensible to try and treat subsidence damage as exactly analogous to compulsory purchase situations. The amendments I now propose go as far down this route as we feel is realistic.
These amendments do three main things. First, they move the basis for compensation from Section 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 to Section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
Let me say a few words about the way that Section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 operates. Under Section 20, as read with Section 12 of the 1968 Act, the tenant gets a minimum of four times his annual rent. This is a non-taxable payment. However, should the value of the tenant's unexpired term or

847
interest be greater than four times annual rent payment, the Section 12 payment will be "topped up" to reflect the added value of his security of tenure. What this means for the purpose of this Bill is that the tenant will get at least as much as he does at present and the possibility of more, depending on the precise circumstances of the case.
The second improvement achieved by these amendments is to remove the old Clause 28(2) which prevented a tenant farmer from receiving a Clause 28 payment if he had received any of the depreciation payment. As amended, the tenant will be able to receive both a depreciation payment (based on the extent of his liability to make good any damage) and a Clause 28 payment.
Thirdly, the new clause now entitles the tenant farmer to compensation for loss or injury in the event that he is displaced from the whole or sufficient part of his land. "Sufficient part", noble Lords will note, is no less than 0.5 hectares, and that figure can be varied by order of the Secretary of State.
In summary, Clause 28 will improve the present arrangements in three ways. The tenant may receive more compensation than before and, as I have indicated, cannot receive less than he would have done under the present arrangements. He will now be eligible for compensation for loss or injury in certain circumstances and will not be prevented from receiving a Clause 28 payment just because he received a depreciation payment in respect of the same damage.
It is also important not to consider the clause in isolation. I remind noble Lords that the Bill enacts British Coal's provisions for compensation for loss of crops (Clause 27) and also introduces new provisions for consequential loss. These provisions will also operate to the benefit of tenant farmers whose farms are affected by subsidence damage.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for raising the question of compensation available to tenant farmers by tabling an amendment at Committee stage which he graciously withdrew when I undertook to consider the matter further. I hope that he will agree that the amendments that I now propose will achieve much the same effect as his would have done and represent a helpful improvement in the terms of compensation available to tenant farmers. I commend the amendment to the House.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I rise briefly to express support for the amendment. In the formula in Clause 28 as drafted no account is taken of the value of the tenancy to the tenant. The amendment rectifies that and will result in a much fairer settlement to tenant farmers affected by coalmining subsidence. The amount able to be claimed under the clause as amended should be a fair reflection of the tenant's losses as the established principle of the statutory compensation code of compulsory purchase is taken on board to a degree.
At Committee stage, in response to the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Stanley, the Minister gave an undertaking to consider again the
848
matter of compensation to tenant farmers affected by subsidence. If he thought that the Bill as drafted did not adequately compensate tenant farmers he stated that he would bring forward an amendment. That he has done. We are grateful to my noble friend for doing so and for the sympathetic way in which he has recognised the problems suffered by owners and occupiers of land when affected by subsidence damage. I hope that the amendment will find favour with your Lordships.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may also briefly say how pleased we are that the Government have been able to move in this direction. The NFU is obviously greatly interested and is now much happier with the outcome.
As I understand it, the essential compensation point is the inclusion of "S" as part of the formula; that is, the additional contribution. Clearly "S" cannot be a negative number. As the Minister points out, either farmers do as well or, more likely, do better. We are happy to support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief in view of the acclamation that the amendment has already received.
Compensation is a difficult and complex subject. I believe that the Government and the Minister ought to be congratulated upon having made a difficult assimilation between the statutory provisions on compensation and the way in which, under Clause 28 as amended, they propose to deal with coal subsidence damage to tenant farmers. That was not an easy thing to do. The two concepts do not totally equate for reasons which your Lordships well know. By and large it is a fine piece of work and one on which I believe the Minister is to be congratulated.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank noble Lords. I believe that my noble friend Lord Wise spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who could not be in his place.
It was indeed difficult to draft the amendment. I am very pleased that we have been able to achieve the right balance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 21, leave out lines 31 to 47 and insert—
("P = (C+S) x D/V
where—
P is the amount payable under this subsection;
C is the compensation which, on the assumptions mentioned in subsection (2A) below, would have been payable to the tenant for the value of his unexpired term or interest in the land;
S is the sum which, on those assumptions, would have been payable to the tenant under section 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 (additional payments on compulsory acquisition of agricultural holdings);
D is the amount of the depreciation payment made to the owner of the land;
V is what would have been the value of the land at the relevant time if it had not been affected by the subsidence damage.
(2) Where the Corporation make a payment under subsection (1) above to a tenant who has been displaced from the whole or a sufficient part of the land affected by the subsidence damage, they

849
shall also make to him a payment equal to the compensation which

(a) on the assumptions mentioned in subsection (2A) below; and

(b) on the further assumption that the displacement had been caused by the compulsory acquisition mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection,

would lave been payable to him for any loss or injury sustained by him.
(2A) The assumptions referred to in subsections (1) and (2) above are —

(a) that the land had been compulsorily acquired at the relevant time;

(b) that the tenant had no greater interest in the land than as tenant for a year or from year to year; and

(c) that the land had not been affected by the subsidence damage.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lard Cavendish of Furness Lard Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No: 3:
Page 22, line 8, leave out ("for the purposes of paragraph 3 of that Schedule").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No.4:
Page 22, line 10, at end insert—
("(4) In this section—
"the relevant time" means the relevant time for the purposes of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to this Act;
"sufficient part" means not less than 0.5 hectares or such area as the Secretary of State may by order specify;
and any reference to compensation is a reference to compensation
under section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or section 114 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 145 (compensation to be made to tenants for a year
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendment No. 4 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Land drainage systems]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 30, line 30, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are many places in the Bill where the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations or give directions. These are discretionary powers. Where matters can proceed sensibly without regulations I can see no need to make them. Should arrangements cease to work well, then it is important that the Secretary of State should have a reserve power with which to remedy matters. In my view, the existence of a reserve power will allow sensible and flexible arrangements to develop.
The only exception to this general approach is in this clause, and the only reason for that is that we have carried over the corresponding provision from the 1957 Act. In fact, so far as we are aware, British Coal and tie drainage boards have evolved sensible and equitable working practices over the years. Rather than make regulations for the sake of it, we should prefer to see these arrangements continue to evolve sensibly. We therefore propose making the regulation power in this clause discretionary, as is the case everywhere else in the Bill. I can, however, assure
850
noble Lords that this power will be used should it prove necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Reimbursement of successful claimants' expenses]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 32, line 23, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7.
During Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Peston, sought to increase to six years the period prior to the making of a claim within which it would be possible for a claimant to recover the costs associated with the preparation and prosecution of that claim. In reply, I agreed to consider this further on the grounds that, at least where records of condition are concerned, three years might be considered ungenerous. Having done so I am now bringing forward two government amendments which I hope it will be agreed fairly address this point.
The effect of Amendment No. 6 is to increase the period to four years. As I indicated in Committee, the problem is that beyond a certain point records of conditions will be too out-of-date to be of any use in the resolution of a claim. I have also explained that, because the standard of repair is to the claimant's reasonable satisfaction rather than the pre-damaged condition, such records of condition are by no means essential. Nevertheless a prudent householder may well commission such a survey on receipt of a Section 46 notice and, because of the delay in damage occurring, find himself unable to recover the costs. As I have indicated, Amendment No. 6 will increase the time period to four years, which I believe should be adequate in the vast majority of cases.
Amendment No. 7 enables the Secretary of State to go further than that should it prove necessary. It would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe different time-scales for different types of expenditure. For example, it would be possible to allow expenses for expert advice to be recoverable in the period three years prior to the making of claim, while at the same time allowing the claimant to recover expenses associated with a record of condition incurred at any point after the receipt of a Clause 46 notice related to the mining which caused the eventual damage. For the moment, however, a single four-year period would seem to be the least confusing for all concerned and this would be the immediate effect of these amendments, which I commend to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for fulfilling his promise to consider whether he could move in my direction. Four years is better than three years and I thank him for that amendment.
It is always difficult to understand such complicated clauses but I gather that in principle the Secretary of State could vary the number further. One hopes that that would be upwards rather than downwards.

851
Should the Secretary of State make such an order, your Lordships would have an opportunity to talk about the issue because I understand that these orders are debatable. I repeat my thanks to the Minister for amending the Bill in this way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 32, line 28, at end insert—
("(6) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) substitute for the period specified in subsection (4) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection) such other period as he thinks fit; or

(b) direct that that subsection shall not apply in such circumstances as may be specified in the order.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Service of documents]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No.8:
Page 39, line at beginning insert ("Except as otherwise provided by regulations made by the Secretary of State,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 9. It is a minor amendment which benefits the claimant. As presently drafted the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying how a notice should be served. The amendment sets out on the face of the Bill how a notice should be served. We have deliberately allowed the claimant to serve a notice on any British Coal office. Should there be an exchange of correspondence I should imagine that in practice the claimant would simply send notices back to the British Coal office that originated the matter. However, I would not wish to have a situation in which the claimant lost the original correspondence and was penalised for writing back to the wrong office. Hence the onus will be on British Coal rather than the claimant to ensure that notices reach their proper destination. Amendment No. 8 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations amending these arrangements should it prove to be necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No.9:
Page 39, line 3, leave out from ("Corporation") to end of line 4 and insert ("by leaving it at, or by sending it by post to, any office of the Corporation").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Farm Loss Payments]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No.10:
Page 53, line 40, leave out ("has received") and insert ("is entitled to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
I wish to thank noble Lords for the careful consideration given to this Bill and for the constructive spirit with which it has been debated. I thank my noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Wise and Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Peston, for making the conduct of my first Bill through your Lordships' House a pleasant experience.
The Bill is the culmination of a long process of review and consideration which properly began with the report of the Waddilove Committee in 1984. I should like again to pay tribute to Lewis Waddilove and all the other members of his committee. Since its report we have had many discussions with outside bodies and have listened carefully to the comments made here and in another place. As a result, the Bill has been amended, most noticeably to improve the provisions dealing with blight, stop notices and consequential loss. Further changes have been made today, the most important of which concern compensation for tenant farmers and the claiming of expenses. As a result of these changes I believe that what started out as a good Bill is now a better Bill which will make a significant difference to those people whose properties and lives are affected by coal mining subsidence damage.
It is important to recognise that subsidence affects people. Where there are people there are sure to be problems. It is simply not possible to legislate for every single eventuality. This is where attitudes matter. I am pleased to say that British Coal has adopted a positive and constructive attitude to the formulating of this Bill and I am sure that this new attitude is as important as anything that can be achieved through the Bill. An example of this is British Coal's decision to introduce voluntarily a low-cost, speedy arbitration scheme for householders which will, I hope, satisfactorily resolve the great majority of disputes which arise. British Coal has also undertaken to make the operation of the new regime as open and transparent as possible.
I do not wish to sound complacent—attitudes can, after all, change—and I would remind noble Lords that we have taken regulation-making powers in many key areas and will use them if necessary. However, I am confident that the provisions of the Bill, together with the positive attitude of the corporation, will mean that subsidence damage will be dealt with sympathetically and, above all, fairly.
It has been rightly said that this is a well thought out and well drafted Bill. My final thanks go to the parliamentary counsel and the officials in the Department of Energy for their work on the Bill and for the help that they have given to me.
There is one final point that I should like to make. This Bill is in many ways a tidying up and consolidating measure. There is therefore one loose end which ought to be addressed. It is an issue which crosses party lines and on which individuals seem regularly to change their minds. I am talking of course about the vexed question of pronunciation: is it sub sidence or sub sid ence? I have consulted widely on the issue and noble Lords will be

853
pleased to know that I have the final, definitive answer. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that both are right. It is on that note of consensus that I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am able easily to join the Minister in the atmosphere of consensus. It is a rare occasion, because all noble Lords liked the Bill and enjoyed the proceedings. No animosity needs to be expressed during this stage of the Bill. I too thank the Waddilove Committee and its chairman. The Bill was a model of consultation and shows what can be done. I agree with the Minister that both here and in another place a good Bill has been made better. Search as I might, I can find no party political side to it.
I agree with the Minister that attitudes are important and I am pleased that British Coal has strongly indicated that it will act sympathetically in all cases. As the Minister said, placing oneself in the position of a person who has suffered from subsidence, one realises that there is a great sense of personal loss and that something has gone wrong which needs to be put right. The Bill will help to achieve that. This might be the only occasion during my career in this House that I warmly support a Bill. I am glad to know that the Bill will soon pass.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the Bill ought not to pass without a word of appreciation for the quality of the draftsmanship. It has been mentioned but it is so greatly appreciated that it should be marked specifically. In addition, there has been a wide measure of co-operation and open-mindedness from my noble friend. As a result, two precedents have been set. First, care was taken not to over-legislate. I hope that the precedent will be followed in future Bills. The second is Amendment No 9, which relates to the sending of notices. I hope that in other Bills the interests of the subject will receive similar consideration. I thank my noble friend for his conduct of the Bill.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, when I was at the Coal Board over a decade ago, the largest amount of correspondence which I received was on the subject of subsidence. Incidentally, as regards pronunciation, I am glad to learn that both pronunciations are correct. But I find that on these Benches we tend to say sub sidence and on those Benches they tend to say sub sid ence. I do not know whether there is significance in that. However, most of the correspondence which I received was on the question of subsidence. I do not believe that that was due to any reluctance on the part of the Coal Board, as it then was, to deal with the matter but due more to a number of uncertainties in the legislation. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to see this measure going through after a good deal of thought has been given to the subject not only by the Waddilove Committee but also by British Coal, whose code of practice is largely incorporated in this new provision.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in saying that the Bill has been handled extremely effectively.
854
There has been a rare degree of consensus. That is due not only to the way in which it has been presented but also to the way in which it has been handled by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. He has shown courtesy and a painstaking concern for the issues throughout.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who admitted that he came to the subject knowing nothing about it. When he started to move amendments in Committee it seemed to me that he had now become an expert on subsidence. If he is looking for another job, no doubt a consultancy is awaiting him.
We have done a useful job of work. I hope that those in the future who may unfortunately suffer from subsidence will find that their redress is more effective than it has been in the past.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank noble Lords most warmly for their remarks, and commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1991
5.52 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 3rd June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, under which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. In presenting the draft order to the House I owe the House an account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the past year, including the progress made in seeking a way to end the need for direct rule and to return a wide degree of responsibility to local elected representatives for their own affairs.
I should like first to turn to the security situation. The bald figures of death from terrorism are that last year 76 people were killed and this year to date the number is 40. However, the terrorists will not succeed because of the resolve of the majority of decent people in Northern Ireland and because of the Government's determination to maintain the rule of law. Once again I should like to take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to the security forces, who, with continuing courage and professionalism, face the unremitting threat to their lives in order to protect the people of Northern Ireland. These men and women deserve the support of everyone in the Province, particularly now when terrorists wish to disrupt the efforts being made to achieve political progress.
The Government will do all in their power to assist and support the security forces. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which was recently debated in this House and is now on the statute book, creates a number of new offences and additional powers which will materially assist in the defeat of terrorism. As safeguards for individuals, the Act provides for statutory codes of practice on the exercise

855
of its powers, and creates the new office of Independent Assessor of Armed Forces Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland to help enhance public confidence in the way non-criminal complaints are dealt with.
The Government also remain determined to improve security co-operation with the Irish Government. Much has been achieved since 1985, but more needs to be done if both Governments are to defeat the terrorist threat to the entire island of Ireland.
Before leaving security related issues, I should like to say a few words about a development in the prison service, which of course has to deal with convicted terrorists. The primary function of the prison service in Northern Ireland is to protect the community from those who have offended against it; but the service recognises also the need to balance security with humanity of treatment and the need to prepare prisoners for return to the community.
During the past 12 months, the prison service engaged in a major consultation exercise involving staff at all levels and representatives of groups with a particular interest in prisons and prison issues. This resulted in the production of a new strategic plan which I was pleased to launch on Friday last. The plan consolidates and builds on the significant progress which the service has made in the past few years and the title of the document—Serving the Community—establishes clearly the wider context within which the service will work to the end of the century.
The debate on the Northern Ireland Appropriation Order last week provided the House with an opportunity to discuss economic matters and I do not propose to repeat now what I said then. At this stage I simply stress the importance of economic development as a factor in promoting a stable society in the Province.
In that, education has a significant role to play. Education standards in Northern Ireland are commendably high. A-level results are better than those in England and Wales and a higher percentage of Northern Ireland pupils achieves good GCSE results. In fact, participation rates in higher education are higher. In the past, an unacceptably higher proportion of school leavers has left with no qualifications but this gap has closed significantly.
The Northern Ireland common curriculum arrangements will ensure that all pupils from five to 16 years old have a broad and balanced curriculum which includes science and technology. There must, however, be clear routes of progression to post-16 opportunities, whether they are in schools, colleges or recognised training organisations. I will be bringing forward proposals later in the summer aimed specifically at curricular provision for the 14–19 age group.
Community divisions are one of the obstacles to establishing a peaceful and stable environment in Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to eradicating the inequality and disadvantage which
856
foster these. To that end, targeting social need is now one of the Government's principal priorities for their expenditure in the Province.
In practical terms, the level of funding for Making Belfast Work—a major initiative which we launched in 1988—has been increased by 22 per cent. to £27.5 million in this financial year. The total allocated to the project over six years will be £123.6 million. This funding is additional to the extensive resources which Northern Ireland departments continue to put into these areas through their normal mainline programmes.
The programme of community relations work undertaken by the Central Community Relations Unit and the Department of Education is another example of our commitment to tackle Northern Ireland's problems. The Government have increased support for community relations through those two channels from £4 million last year to £5.5 million in this financial year for projects designed to create equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all parts of the community, to promote cross-community contact and to increase mutual respect and understanding of the different cultures and traditions in Northern Ireland. Those policies and many other practical measures will, over time, I believe help both to ensure Northern Ireland's prosperity and to reduce community divisions.
I should now like to turn to the issue of political development. As noble Lords will be aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been engaged in consultations with the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government for some 18 months. Plenary discussion between the British Government and the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland got under way in Parliament Buildings, Stormont on Monday 17th June. I know that your Lordships will want to join me in welcoming this important development. It is far too early to start making claims about where this process might lead us, but the mere fact that, for the first time in 16 years, the main parties in Northern Ireland have come together around the same table to discuss their common future, represents an important step forward.
The talks are designed to focus on three main relationships: those within Northern Ireland, those among the people of the island of Ireland and those between the two Governments. This will ensure that all the relevant issues are properly aired. Strand One is under way. It is also a pleasure for me to confirm in the House that Sir Ninian Stephen, an eminent Australian with a distinguished history of public service in that country, including as Governor General, has agreed to chair the discussions in Strand Two.
I can assure your Lordships that substantive work is being conducted and that all the participants remain fully engaged in the process. It will be self evident that, although it has taken an immense effort on the part of all concerned to reach the current stage, many different issues remain to be addressed. The Government's main preoccupation will be to continue to work towards consensus in the hope that agreement

857
will emerge. In the meantime, the business of government must go on and it is inescapable that the present arrangements for direct rule must be renewed. The order before your Lordships is therefore essential and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Belstead.)
6 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the meaning and significance of this thinnest of orders would not be apparent to the casual reader. But the Minister explained it fully. It renews the arrangement for the government of Northern Ireland by direct rule for the next 12 months.
Direct rule was introduced to the Province by the Northern Ireland Act 1974; it was introduced initially for an interim period of 12 months beginning with the passage of the Act. At that time hardly anyone would have envisaged that the interim period would extend for 17 years, and for the people of the Province they have been long years.
It is common ground that direct rule is unsatisfactory. It is not good enough for the government of England, Wales and Scotland respectively and should not be good enough for the government of Northern Ireland. Direct rule usually means government by edict which is unamendable by Parliament. It is also unsatisfactory because it means government by a regional executive doing the best it can but nevertheless not accountable to a locally elected representative body.
With reluctance we must accept that at least for the time being there is a need to renew the current arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland. The whole House will be grateful to the Minister for his review of the background and the main policies pursued by the Government during the past 12 months. As the Minister explained, they are designed to defeat terrorism, to strengthen the economy and, particularly last year, to find a sound basis for political agreement. I shall come to the latter in a moment.
During the past 12 months there have been a number of cross-community achievements which I was glad to acknowledge and welcome in the course of the appropriation debate last week. There have been general improvements in Belfast and Londonderry, and the Minister referred to those in the debate last week. I was glad to hear from the Minister this afternoon that the Government propose to pay special attention to those young people in Northern Ireland who leave school without obtaining qualifications. That has been a problem area and I am glad that it is now receiving the attention of the Government.
On the other hand, it is fair to say that there have been disappointments. For my part I was saddened that the Government found it necessary to introduce one or two of the new emergency powers without stronger safeguards. It is also bitterly disappointing that the grim catalogue of violence, suffering and disrupt ion of family life mentioned by the Minister continued throughout the year.
858
We are always conscious of the contribution of the security forces. On behalf of the official Opposition I want to join with the Minister in paying a special tribute to the courage and determination shown by members of the security forces in the discharge of their duty. I pay tribute also to the civilians of Northern Ireland, who have suffered grievously, and I express sympathy for the families of soldiers and policemen who have been lost, and the families of the victims of violence. There has been immense suffering, which, sadly, is being added to as each week goes by. It is therefore not lost on us that the renewal of direct rule, notwithstanding the best efforts of the security forces, has not led to normalisation.
The Minister dwelt at some length on the current political talks in search of a workable and durable political framework. We recall that the talks were launched in the face of suspicion and scepticism. The fact that they have survived is due primarily to the present Secretary of State, his determination, patience, hard work and profound desire to help the people of Northern Ireland. But I believe we all agree with the Minister that the fact that the talks are continuing is itself a sign of progress.
We should be foolish if we did not recognise that the going may get even tougher as further unforeseen questions and problems surface—as they almost certainly will. Some may do so before this week is out. Yet it is barely conceivable that the talks should be allowed to collapse. I echo the hope expressed by all right-thinking people that the leaders of all the constitutional parties will ensure that the talks go forward to a successful conclusion.
I believe that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom, the Republic and throughout the world want the leaders of the constitutional parties to go a long way to meet the Secretary of State and to make accommodation. We hope that, with the support of the two governments and with the guidance of the eminent Sir Ninian Stephen during the Strand Two talks, they will do so.
It has often been said in your Lordships' House that the only people who would gain from the failure of the talks are the paramilitary organisations. In every passing week they have shown their ruthless determination to undermine and subvert the talks. We must show that terrorism will be denied its victory.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I warmly thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the order. He is never less than careful and courteous to the House, but today his exposition of the need for the order was particularly interesting and welcome. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It is my misfortune to follow him from these Benches, in that he often says before me what I had planned to say rather better than I had planned to say it. I shall content myself with what is left after his exposition.
Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, have gone out of their way—as is quite right—to thank the security services. From these Benches I should like to say how strongly we associate ourselves with the thanks that are due to the soldiers and policemen in Northern Ireland, who, in extremely

859
difficult and dangerous conditions, pursue their lonely duties in an extremely steadfast way. The vast majority, for the greater part of the time, show the greatest possible patience and control in a difficult situation, and they have our gratitude.
On this occasion I wish to say something about the question of human rights in Northern Ireland. We all know and acknowledge that the Government have an extremely difficult balance to strike between the claims of security on the one hand and the maintenance of a civil society based on liberty and a respect for human rights on the other. We are fortunate indeed in the thoroughness and vigilance of Northern Ireland's watchdog, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, and its chairman, Sir Oliver Napier. Most of the time the Government listen when the dog barks, but not invariably. We have just received the report of the commission for 1990–91.
In most areas the Government have followed the recommendations of the commission, but in some we have yet to see what their attitude will be. It is a pity that the Government have dismissed the commission's views both on the video recording of interviews with terrorist suspects and on the new clause in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act on directing activities against terrorist organisations. Both those points were made in the debate in this House from the Labour Benches and from these Benches.
I particularly commend to your Lordships Chapter 4 of the excellent report from the Standing Advisory Commission on the problem of disclosure of confidential information obtained under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. I look forward very much to seeing the Government's amendment to the Act, which I gather they propose to bring forward as an order in council.
Over and above the work of the standing commission there is the question of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. I hope that this question will form part of the talks and that any new constitution Act for Northern Ireland will include some provision for an enduring canon of human rights in Northern Ireland. In that respect I commend the appendix to the report and Sir Oliver Napier's paper. Why should we not consider the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law? I understand it is one of the matters on which all parties in Northern Ireland agree.
That brings me to the question of the talks themselves. I join in the congratulations to the Secretary of State. He brings to these talks qualities which might be described as both imaginative and phlegmatic. That is a useful combination when dealing with the situation in Northern Ireland. He deserves our thanks and congratulations for having got so far and our good wishes for what lies ahead.
I wish to make two points about the talks. The Minister is right to say what an historic step forward is the mere fact of the talks. I believe that in many ways it is the role of public opinion operating on the parties in Northern Ireland which is the key to the parties staying in the room and moving ahead
860
constructively with the process that has started. It is public opinion not only in Northern Ireland but in the Republic also which shows a new determination for peace and a new flexibility as to the means of achieving it. I hope that public opinion will be enabled by these talks fully to express itself so that those who take a more traditional and rigid view than the parties can feel the hot breath of public opinion down the back of the neck.
As regards the terrorists and paramilitaries, they will intensify their efforts. The more they see the possibility of constitutional and peaceful resolution to the problems of Northern Ireland the more they will intensify their wretched efforts. I believe that they will be seen increasingly to be spitting into the wind of history as the agenda moves away from any possibility of violence providing a solution.
As the British general election approaches we must be vigilant to see that the domestic concerns of a Westminster election do not spill over into the delicate process of the talks. There is multi-partisanship both in another place and in this House on these issues. However, in 1974 we saw the effect that a British general election can have on the parties in Northern Ireland. The greatest possible effort is demanded from all of us in order to make sure that that is not repeated.
In the context of economic development, about which the Minister spoke—he talked wisely about that and also about education and skills—the whole of the island, including the Republic, is part of the European Community and 1992 approaches fast. In planning the economy, which is an option open to the Government in Northern Ireland in a much more proactive way than is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom, I hope that they will bear in mind how greatly the transport and telecommunication needs of Northern Ireland require attention as we move closer to economic integration in Europe. Northern Ireland must not become one of the less developed outlying parts of the European Community. It must be given every help to become firmly integrated with the right infrastructure into the European dream.
I hope that the day will come before too long when the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, can do for themselves what we in this House and the Government are now doing on their behalf.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for their response to what is a crucial order. If your Lordships and the other place agree to it, it is the order which will continue direct rule in Northern Ireland. Both noble Lords are assiduous in always being here when the considerable amount of Northern Ireland legislation is taken. I am extremely grateful to them for the way in which they have responded to the order. I say that not out of mere politeness. Both noble Lords have made extremely pertinent points this evening.
In a gentle way the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said what a pity it is that we deal with legislation in this way and also what a pity it is that we have direct rule

861
in Northern Ireland. I thoroughly agree with him. These arrangements are temporary and therefore each year the Government have to return to Parliament for their renewal. As regards the orders they are laid in draft there is considerable consultation in Northern Ireland so that politicians there can give their views before they come to both Houses of Parliament. That does lot alter the fact that the noble Lord is quite right in the points that he made.
Both noble Lords were extremely generous in their remarks not only about the security forces but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, about the long-suffering general public of Northern Ireland. When one looks at society in general there, it is quite remarkable how much generosity of spirit there is in Northern Ireland. Let us hope that it will be rewarded in the end.
Both noble Lords were extremely generous to my right honourable friend concerning his efforts in the talks. In different ways both noble Lords made the point that public opinion is having its effect. I thoroughly agree; public opinion in different ways and in different parts of the islands of the British Isles is having its effect on the thoughts process. I join with the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme, in hoping that that will have its effect in a fruitful ending to the talks.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, made points about the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. There are issues which still arise from the report of my noble friend Lord Colville which still need looking at for the future. We continue always to keep under review even things which we have already looked at in the House. I say that in the context that I know that there was no agreement between the Government and the noble Lord on the two issues that he raised concerning the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. The noble Lord said that he would be interested to see the next move on the fair employment aspect of the draft order. We hope to lay this before Parliament as soon as possible.
What has been particularly helpful and valuable about the short exchange which we have had this evening is that both the noble Lords who responded have given support and encouragement in the talks. This is also a clear signal to people outside this Chamber—in Northern Ireland and elsewhere—that there is a common resolve underlying a shared commitment to the democratic process. I hope that that will bring home to those who use other means to try to impose their opinions and aspirations how brutally wrong they are. The right way to influence people is by persuasion and not by coercion.
Today we have been considering government stewardship of Northern Ireland over the past year. Our aim, as has been the aim of other governments who have formed direct rule in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years, has been to try to provide good, fair and effective government for all people in Northern Ireland. It is widely understood, however, that the best government of all will be delivered when the local people play a leading part in their own affairs. It has been with that thought in mind that successive
862
governments have tried to return greater accountability to political representatives in Northern Ireland and why we all hope that the current talks will continue to make progress. For the present, however, direct rule has to continue. The order before your Lordships' House will give effect to that. I therefore once again commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health (Detention) (Scotland) Bill
6.24 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill was steered through the other place by my honourable friend Sir Russell Johnston, the Member of Parliament for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber. He asked me whether I would introduce the Bill in this House with the assurance that the Government backed it, and that the legal luminaries in Scotland were all in favour of the Bill, although they might criticise small points.
The Bill makes a number of desirable amendments to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. It seeks to overcome a gap in the 1984 Act highlighted in an appeal case heard in this House. The Bill introduces provisions which permit a patient's further short detention in a mental hospital in certain circumstances until a full application for admission can be determined by the sheriff. The Bill further amends existing applications for admission procedures in the Act effectively to require the sheriff to deal with all applications promptly.
Before describing the provisions further, it might be helpful to your Lordships if I were to say something about the existing law and the appeal case which identified the gap, which I have already spoken about. Briefly, Sections 24 and 26 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 provide for the detention of mentally disordered persons who are in urgent need of hospital treatment for their own health or the safety of other people. Detention under Sections 24 and 26 can last for three days and 28 days respectively, but to prevent any abuse of the system the Act stipulates that on expiry there can be no immediate reimposition of either Sections 24 or 26. Instead, in cases where it is necessary to detain a patient for a longer period, Section 18 has to be invoked.
An application for admission to hospital under Section 18—the person may already be in hospital if under Sections 24 and 26—has to be made by the person's nearest relative or a mental health officer. The application has to be accompanied by two medical recommendations in prescribed form and submitted to and approved by the sheriff. This procedure works satisfactorily in the vast majority of cases, but occasionally a patient detained under Section 26 may initially make good progress then suddenly and unexpectedly deteriorate towards the end of the 28-day period. This is what happened in the case of B v. Forsey. In such cases there may be insufficient time for the parties concerned to obtain a

863
Section 18 approval from the sheriff before the 28-day detention expires. This leaves the hospital with no authority to detain the patient in the interim, yet he may be very much in need of treatment in hospital and may be unwilling to remain a voluntary patient.
In the case of B v. Forsey, (B was a patient in the Argyll and Bute Hospital at Lochgilphead) the doctors involved took a deliberate decision to continue the patient's detention after the expiry of the 28-day period of Section 26. They made recommendations and reports which purported to authorise further the detention of the patient under Sections 24 and 26. However, this was contrary to the provision in the 1984 Act that there should be no immediate reimposition of Sections 24 and 26. They also prompted an application to the sheriff for B's admission under Section 18. This was not authorised until almost three weeks after the expiry of the original 28-day period. The subsequent appeal which B made to the Outer House of the Court of Session brought a finding that the doctors were covered by the common law. However, when B then appealed to the Inner House, all three judges found in his favour stating that his purported detention at the end of the original 28 days was illegal.
The health board next appealed to this House who upheld the decision of the Inner House but accepted that there was a gap in the legislation. This House expressed the hope that Parliament would make good that gap. This short Bill now seeks to do so and to make some minor associated amendments to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. It was included as a clause in a very similar form in the Government's Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill last year and as such was accepted by this House. However, it subsequently foundered in another place through lack of parliamentary time.
Clause 1 of the Bill inserts a new Section 26A into the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 which will enable a medical practitioner to lodge with the sheriff clerk a report on the patient's condition, in the circumstances of a late relapse or no change, which I have described, indicating that in his opinion the patient requires to be further detained. Once lodged, such a report will have the effect of extending detention for a further three days from the date of lodging to enable a Section 18 application for admission to be made. There are a number of safeguards included in the clause including the provision that such a report should not be lodged unless where practicable the consent of the nearest relative or a mental health officer has been obtained. The patient also has a right of appeal against the continued detention.
The clause described is not, however, quite enough to cover the full potential gap. For example, it might have been possible for the parties to have lodged an application under Section 18 before the expiry of the 28 days allowed by Section 26, or before the three days allowed by Clause 1, that is the new Section 26A, but not for the sheriff to have determined the application before the end of the 28-day or three-day period. Clause 2 therefore makes certain minor amendments
864
and additions to the 1984 Act which will rectify this further potential gap and tighten up procedures in general. It specifies that all Section 18 applications for admission to hospital, whether or not the person is already in hospital, must be determined or heard by the sheriff within five days of being lodged. It also provides that where a patient is already detained under Section 26 or 26A the application will be sufficient authority to continue to detain him for the five days, and that where the sheriff adjourns a hearing the authority will be further continued until the application is finally determined.
Clause 3 makes a number of necessary consequential amendments to the 1984 Act as a result of new Section 26A and the further amendments that I have described.
This is a necessary and important measure. I hope that it will receive the support of the House. We all know of unfortunate instances of this kind. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Mackie of Benshie.)
6.31 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for reintroducing this provision which, as I think he indicated, was a casualty of the negotiated settlement in another place of the provisions of the ill-fated Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
There never has been any dispute about the need for this reform. It came from the other place with only one amendment, which related to the timescale for dealing with applications under the new clause. The Bill has the effect of legitimising further detention of a patient who may require to be kept in hospital due to relapse or deterioration in his or her condition close to the time of release. We all recognise that mental illness is a volatile area of life which causes great strain and stress to all persons involved—patients, families, doctors and carers —and one in which compassion and protection are the two key ingredients. The protection is what one might call a two-way street, involving the individual patient on the one hand and the public on the other.
We all accept as a matter of principle that unwarranted detention of any individual in any place, whether in prison or hospital, is not to be condoned. This short and valuable measure achieves the purpose of having the issues judicially determined with, wherever possible, the involvement of relatives of the patient. It will eliminate the premature release of patients, as in the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred, who may be a danger not only to themselves but to their families and in the wider aspect to any member of the public with whom they may come into contact after release.
As the case referred to demonstrated, doctors faced with the responsibility of dealing with such a situation may be placed in what was described in another place as moral, legal and ethical dilemmas and may take decisions in the public interest which in law they are not allowed to take. These dilemmas should in the main be removed and resolved by the use of this

865
clause. It is welcomed from this side of the House as a progressive measure which will no doubt be found to be a useful process for those involved in this difficult area of medical practice. The provisions provide for interaction between the patient, the doctor, the local authority, relatives and the courts in an effort to create a balance of the interests, private and public, involved in determining a patient's future in this area of medicine.
Mental illness has acquired the reputation in the public mind of being the poor relation of the medical family. It is locked away from the public gaze. It is a subject which not many of us, fortunately, have to face up to. It has none of the so-called glamour or magic of the heroic surgery and advances in other medical fields. To be brutal, while it is away from the public gaze, not many people care. This Bill will give the patient who is suffering mental illness or disease a medical, legal and social status which perhaps, unfortunately, he or she has not enjoyed to date. It has all-party support and from this side of the House we wish it well in its progress.
6.34 p.m.
Lard Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on introducing it. I tabled an amendment to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Thereafter the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate took it over, redrafted it to suit the parliamentary draftsman and it was approved by this House. The only reason that I can see for it eventually being dropped from the Bill is that no one was against it and that therefore it did not fit with the rest of the Bill. It was a pity that it was dropped and it is good that a provision is now to be put through.
My only regret about this Bill is that it does not include the other amendment which I moved to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act and which the Government accepted. It would have dealt with the problem of the function of the nearest relative being carried out by someone else when the nearest relative of the person suffering from mental disease is unsuitable to act, as, for example, where he is implicated in the abuse of the patient. That amendment was included in the Bill as it left this House.. It was then dropped along with a good many other non-contentious and useful measures. It is unfortunate that, because of the procedures of the House, it is not possible to add the provision to this Bill without killing it off. With that regret, I support the Bill.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for his willingness to take the Bill through your Lordships' House after its progress through another place. I congratulate him on the skilful way in which he handled this small, important and really quite complex measure. He has provided the House with a full and lucid explanation of the background to the Bill and of its provisions. It is clear that there is a gap in the law which ought to be rectified. As the noble
866
and learned Lord, Lord Morton, pointed out, your Lordships indicated support for the measure on a previous occasion. It is a pity that the provision has not yet reached the statute book.
With those antecedents, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will not be surprised to hear that the Government support all the provisions which he seeks to introduce and would welcome the Bill's enactment. I thank him for bringing the Bill before the House and I, too, commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in this Second Reading debate. In some of the material that I read I picked up the point to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, referred of the nearest relative perhaps being unstable himself. The Bill as it stands has been supported by three of the noblest legal eagles in Scotland as well as by the medical profession. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill
6.40 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I shall explain later something of the background and the purpose of the Bill. But, before doing so, I should like to pay tribute, first, to the honourable Member for Perth and Kinross in another place who introduced the measure and skilfully steered it through its various stages in that place, subject to proposed amendments which he countered with answers that were accepted by the Members who put forward the amendments. Secondly, I should like also to pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Law Commission, the work of which goes very much unrewarded in the legislative sense in some cases. The commission has no constituents and acts in the best interests of the community and the legal system of Scotland.
The main purpose of the Bill is to simplify the existing law of Scotland on the legal capacity and responsibility of young people. In introducing the Bill, I believe it is important, for the avoidance of doubts, that we should look to the Long Title. I say that because a great deal of misapprehension has been brought about by persons who have, perhaps not looked to see what the Bill says it will do. I make no apology for reading to your Lordships the Long Title:
"An Act to make provision in the law of Scotland as to the legal capacity of persons under the age of 18 years to enter into transactions, as to the setting aside and ratification by the court of transactions entered into by such persons and as to guardians of persons under the age of 16 years; to make provision in the law of Scotland relating to the time and date at which a person shall be taken to attain a particular age; and for connected purposes".
That Long Title clearly indicates that the Bill relates to issues arising in the field of private law and transactions, with one or two other provisions. The provisions are concerned primarily with the capacity

867
of young people to enter into contracts; for example, to make a will, to take part as litigants in court proceedings and to give valid consent to medical treatment.
The Bill also provides for an adjustment to the rules relating to the time and the date at which a person is regarded as having attained a particular age. That provision deals with the question of someone who was born at the end of February in a leap year. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, may have something to say about the way in which the work of the Scottish Law Commission is dealt with legislatively. I do not intend to enter into that field at this particular stage.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill clearly indicates the purpose of the legislation. The measure has eight clauses. Clause 1,
"replaces the existing classification of young people under the age of 18 as pupils and minors with a new 2-tier system whereby young people under 16 years of age will generally"—
I emphasise the word "generally"—
"have no legal capacity while those aged 16 and 17 will have full capacity, subject to certain safeguards.
Clause 2 sets out the exceptions to the general rule of incapacity of those under 16 and the legal consequences of it.
Clause 3 gives a right to a person under the age of 21 to apply to the court to have set aside prejudicial transactions entered into when 16 or 17 years old.
Clause 4 provides for judicial ratification of transactions proposed to be entered into by 16 or 17 year olds".
Clause 5,
"makes a number of consequential changes to the law of guardianship, abolishes"—
for the purposes of this Bill, and under reference to the Long Title—
"the concept of curatory of a minor and prohibits future appointments of factors loco tutoris".
Clause 6,
"relates to the time of attainment of a person's particular age in years".
Clause 7 deals with the acquisition of "an independent domicile"; Clause 8 makes "transitional" provisions; and then there are two schedules to the Bill.
I believe it is fair to say that over the years probably even lawyers, who like to say that they understand the law, have had difficulty with the concept of pupils and minors and tutors and curators. The existing rules governing the legal capacity of young people under the age of 18 are at present complex. They represent an historical and outmoded concept, dating back hundreds of years, and are based on a distinction between "pupils" and "minors". In the law of Scotland, pupils are girls under the age of 12 or boys under the age of 14. Minors are girls aged 12 to 18 years or boys aged 14 to 18 years.
Broadly speaking, pupils have no capacity to act for themselves and legal transactions must be entered into on their behalf by their tutor; that is, a "guardian" who will usually be the pupil's parent. The capacity of a minor—that is, a girl aged 12 to 18 years or a boy aged 14 to 18 years—varies according to whether he or she has a guardian who is known as a curator. If a minor has no curator (perhaps because both parents are dead, or the minor is married or living an independent life) transactions which he or she enters into will be valid and binding, except that
868
any transaction which is substantially prejudicial to the minor may be set aside by a court before the young person reaches the age of 22 by another antiquated process known as reduction on grounds of minority and lesion. If, however, he or she does have a curator, most transactions require the curator's consent; but even that consent does not prevent a prejudicial contract being set aside by a court of law.
Apart from its innate complexity, the present law may be viewed as unsatisfactory in a number of respects. First, it discriminates between the sexes by having different ages of minority for boys and girls. I believe it was stated in another place that there was some biological reason therefor. However, I did not intend to go into that aspect of the matter because, on any view, it is discriminatory. It may be argued that the present law gives too much capacity to children of 12 to 15 years, yet does not sufficiently recognise that in these modern times young people in the 16 to 17-year age group can be economically and, indeed, sexually active. It also seems out of touch with reality to apply the same rules to children of 12 and to young people of 17 years of age.
Therefore, the intention behind the Bill is to replace what is an extremely complex system with a more rational and simplified two-tier system. Under the Bills' provisions, which I outlined earlier, young people under the age of 16 will in general have no legal capacity, subject to certain specific exceptions; for example, the right to make a will and the right to consent to medical treatment. Those young people of 16 and 17 years of age will have full legal capacity to enter into binding transactions but, as a protection against their relative immaturity, they will enjoy the limited protection of being able, before they reach the age of 21 years, to seek a court order to set aside transactions which, in terms of the legislation, are prejudicial to them.
The provisions in the Bill are based on recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission in its report on the legal capacity and responsibility of minors and pupils. In preparing its report, the commission followed its customary procedure of issuing a consultative memorandum with provisional proposals in order to obtain views from interested parties. Additionally, the commission took into consideration the results of two opinion surveys: one covering adult opinion and the other covering the opinion of school pupils and school-leavers. If my recollection is accurate, the process involved interviewing about 4,000 people within the latter category. The commission's final recommendation that a two-tier system should be established is a departure, reflecting the weight of public opinion, from its earlier more radical preference for a clear-cut distinction between young people under the age of 16 who would have no legal capacity and those of 16 years and over who would have full capacity.
The modified recommendation recognises widespread concern (shared by many young people) that 16 and 17 year-olds need some protection from their relative immaturity, particularly as regards the possibility of their getting into debt by obtaining, for example, credit beyond their means. On the other

869
hand, the possibility of introducing a single-tier system to apply at the age of 18 years was rejected by the commission as being overprotective. In its view, it would require an extensive array of exceptions to prove workable.
I did not wish to suggest to your Lordships for one moment that the views of consultees were unanimous; indeed, it would be surprising if they were. Inevitably, when dealing with such complex issues a diversity of opinion arose. However, the majority of consultees favoured a two-tier system, and I believe that such a system, which recognises the importance of 16 as an age of some significance in young people's lives—it is for example, the age at which they can marry, leave school or take up full-time employment—and that they require some protection from their comparative immaturity, represents a pragmatic solution to a difficult problem.
I re-emphasise that, apart from its general provisions concerning the time and date of attainment of age, the Bill is limited to questions of capacity in the private law field. It deliberately leaves untouched statutory age limits—for example, the age at which one can be tattooed, if one fancies that type of thing; the law relating to firearms, driving licences and so forth. It also leaves deliberately untouched the question of delictual or criminal responsibility.
I should like to emphasise, because it is an area which has caused a great deal of comment, that the Bill does not affect parental rights. A parent would still be entitled to exercise parental rights in relation to any child of his or hers, and could be appointed guardian to the child by will or by court order.
The range of interests consulted was extremely wide. [t included legal, medical, educational, financial and trade institutions, local authorities, the voluntary sector and youth organisations. The Bill's provisions reflect a broad general consensus of opinion, and I hope that it will receive the support of the House. I hope that, before anyone comments adversely about the report, they will have taken care to read the paper upon which the Bill is based, because it closely argues and balances the various views expressed before reaching the preferred option in each area.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, took the trouble to write to me. He has raised an important point in relation to Clause 2(4), which deals with consent to medical treatment. I am grateful to him for his courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to raise the point. I apologise for not replying to him due to lack of time.
Before I attempt to answer the noble Lord's point I should like to say a few words about Clause 2(4) generally. The clause provides that a person under the age of 16 years shall have capacity to consent on his or her own behalf to any surgical, medical, or dental procedure or treatment where, in the opinion of a qualified practitioner attending him, he or she is capable of understanding the nature and possible consequences of the procedure or treatment. Of the commission's provisional proposals for reform, those concerning consent to medical treatment generated much the largest response and the most controversy.
The noble Lord is especially interested in abortion policy, religious education and family life. It is understandable that he should express reservations about the clause. The commission considered a range of possibilities which it discusses in detail in paragraphs 3.61 to 3.83. The commission concluded that the best solution was that which appears in Clause 2(4). That formula is sufficiently flexible to cater for the requirements of a very young child and, say, those of a 15 year-old.
The noble Lord is particularly concerned that the clause does not clearly distinguish between parental rights and children's rights, and that the Bill would give the right to a girl under 16 years to consent to the provision of contraceptives or to the termination of a pregnancy without consulting her parents, provided she was capable of understanding the nature and consequences of the treatment.
It is of course true that the Bill leaves untouched the question of whether any treatment given with the effective consent of a child infringes on parental rights. The commission acknowledges (para 3.80) the relationship between a child's own capacity to act and that of his parents to act for him. However, that question is more consistent with the related topic of guardianship, upon which the commission consulted recently. Under the current law in Scotland, 16 has no particular legal significance in relation to consent to medical treatment. A minor already has capacity in Scotland to consent to his or her own medical treatment, at least where such treatment is accepted as therapeutic. It must also be borne in mind that a doctor's conduct is governed not by statute or the common law alone; it is governed by the General Medical Council's guidance on professional conduct and discipline. Following the case of Gillick, which was, of course, an English case, paragraph 4 of the General Medical Council's leaflet requires that:
"Where a child below the age of 16 requests treatment concerning a pregnancy or contraceptive advice the Doctor must particularly have in mind the need to avoid impairing parental responsibility or family stability."—
This is the nub of the matter—
"The Doctor should seek to persuade the patient to involve the parents (or guardians or other persons in loco parentis) from the earliest stage of consultation".
The Department of Health issued guidance after the Gillick case. Recognising the importance of parental responsibility and family stability, it requires a doctor to try to persuade a patient under 16 years to involve his or her parents when contraceptive advice or treatment is sought. The guidance made clear, however, that, exceptionally and in specified circumstances, advice on treatment may be given without parental knowledge and advice. I understand that the Scottish Office Home and Health Department has it in mind to issue a guidance note concerning the treatment of young people in Scotland.
The provisions concerning young people's ability to consent on their own behalf are without prejudice to the existing law on parental rights. Of course, the fact that effective medical consent is given by the child does not require a doctor to proceed with any treatment. The question was raised as to whether the test should be that the treatment was in the child's best interests.

871
That, as those of your Lordships who have read the commission's report will see, raised other problems. One doctor might say that it was in the child's best interests and another might say that it was not. That could lead to court actions and might put the doctor off treating the child in those circumstances in these modern times. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
6.58 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I speak on the Bill with great diffidence because I have never been a lawyer's clerkess let alone a lawyer and the Bill's promoters are distinguished lawyers. I should not be doing so were it not for the fact that my attention has been drawn to one or two aspects of the Bill which worry the Scottish Child Law Centre. Those worries seem to me to be well-founded. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who is unable to speak this evening owing to a previous engagement, shares those worries.
Since the present law seems to be working well, I wonder why it should be changed. The concept of pupillarity up to the age of 12 for girls and 14 for boys, followed by minority up to the age of 18, is eminently sensible and founded upon common sense. It recognises the desirability of introducing children to adult responsibilities gradually. I agree that it is discriminatory, but so was the good Lord when he made girls and boys different.
The Scottish Law Commission wants to make the law more comprehensible and to tidy it up. It seems to me to be comprehensible as it is and has been for hundreds of years. I was brought up with it, and so it is familiar to me. I suspect that tidying up really means bringing the law in Scotland as nearly as possible into line with the law in England. I can see no reason for doing that, except to make it easier for the English to understand. That is not a good reason for changing the law of Scotland. Finally, the fact that the Law Commission for Scotland wants to change it is not necessarily a recommendation.
I am not saying that the Bill has no good points. It extends to children of all ages the right to enter into small transactions, for example to make purchases in shops, which of course pupils do, possibly illegally —I am not quite sure about that—as soon as they are old enough to receive pocket money. The Bill standardises at the age of 12 a child's right to make a will or consent to adoption. It provides that at any age a child may consent to surgical, medical or dental treatment provided he is capable of understanding what is involved. I believe all those provisions are good provisions. However, there are areas where the Bill is unclear as regards what a child's rights will be, or where it erodes existing rights.
I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a few questions. It seems to me that the Bill abolishes the status of minority. Is that the case and, if not, what will the implications of minority be? At present a minor can apply for legal aid in order to consult a solicitor. If this Bill is passed, will it still be
872
possible for him to do so? Under the Bill a child can consent to medical, surgical or dental treatment, but could he refuse it?
It is possible in Scottish law to steal a pupil child. That crime is called plagium. Will the Bill have the effect of extending up to the age of 16 the application of the law of plagium? If it does, it will erode the right which a minor has at present to decide within reason with whom to reside without having to be adopted by that person.
At present a minor has freedom of religion, but what will be the position under this Bill? At present a minor has freedom of association, but what will be the position under the Bill? How will a minor's right of access to information be affected? Am I not correct that all guardianship will cease at the age of 16, leaving 16 to 18 year-olds bereft of the protection they now enjoy against entering into contracts contrary to their best interests? The answers to those questions will determine what amendments, if any, I table in Committee.
I wonder why we are in such a hurry over this matter. The Scottish Law Commission has produced a discussion paper on parental responsibilities and rights, guardianship and the administration of children's property. I believe the law regarding children in Scotland needs to be looked at very carefully for in some particulars the Children Act does not apply in Scotland, and recent events have pointed to the need for a review of some aspects of the situation. Would it not be better to discuss this Bill, to amend it and then to put it aside and incorporate the best of its recommendations with amendments in a government Bill which will deal with all the problems?
I remind your Lordships that in another place the Bill received only a formal Second Reading and a brief Committee stage in which a few amendments were moved, none of which were accepted or pressed. Many of the amendments were probing amendments. There was a formal Report stage and Third Reading. Therefore the Bill has received little real scrutiny so far. I rather suspect that that is because it is a Private Member's Bill concerning Scotland and therefore it has not been of much interest to the majority of Members in another place. However although it is a small Bill, it is an important one which would enact fairly far-reaching changes in the legal status of children. This is too important a matter to be the subject of a Private Member's Bill. I implore the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to consider these matters and to consider withdrawing the Bill.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, on bringing forward this Bill. It is one of many produced in draft by the Scottish Law Commission, whose report on this subject was published in 1987. The commission produced its report after its usual careful research and after producing a consultation paper and consulting as widely as possible.
I wish to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to question the apparent inability of Parliament

873
nowadays to take the work of the Scottish Law Commission and its English equivalent the necessary final step into legislation. In the great majority of situations the Law Commissions produce reports and recommendations as a result of having matters referred to them by the Government. Usually the subject matter is not an issue of party political moment and is a matter of bringing the private law or legal procedure up to date to take account of changes in the way we live and the way we earn our livings. The reports of the Law Commissions, both Scottish and English, are. as one would expect, invariably well researched and well thought out. They are generally welcomed, even by the government of the day. I wish to make it clear that I am not criticising this Government but the governments that have been in office since the Law Commissions were set up.
Having reported and having produced a draft Bill, all too often nothing then happens, except on a few occasions such as this one when someone introduces a Private Member's Bill in this House. It is said that no action is usually taken on these draft Bills because of lack of parliamentary time and the pressure on the Government to get their own legislation through. I emphasise again that I am not criticising this Government but rather all governments. I suspect that there is also an inherent Civil Service inertia in that if the Civil Service feels that the Government do not want to change something there is no incentive to bother with such a measure. Surely, it is a complete waste of time to have what is in effect two Royal Commissions sitting permanently, considering matters that are referred to them by governments and other bodies, only for the Government in the majority of cases to forget all about the results. It is also a waste of the time of judges, law societies, consumer bodies and others who respond to consultation papers and believe the measure they are considering is serious as the Government have referred the matter to them if nothing then happens.
Could not this House give some consideration to whether these draft Law Commission Bills from both Law Commissions should follow a different procedure? For the past couple of years I have been present in this House on fewer occasions than I would wish. However, in the short time I have been in the House I have noticed that there are times when this House does not appear to be fully occupied, especially at the beginning of a parliamentary Session. There are occasions when Bills that are non-contentious from a party political point of view could be seriously considered by this House line by line and then sent to another place. Surely it is not beyond the wit of this House and the Members of another place to find some procedure to deal properly with the useful work that the two Law Commissions carry out in order to bring into effect reforms of the law that are non-contentious in a party political sense. It is a great pity that so many Law Commission reports produced by the Law Commissions both north and south of the Border simply sit gathering dust on some ministerial shelf.
I have little to say on this Bill. I, and no doubt other noble Lords, have received the comments of the Scottish Child Law Centre. Until this country, or
874
these countries—whichever one prefers—the United Kingdom, takes into account what I understand is now to be called the doctrine of subsidiarity, time in Parliament is restricted. It is not possible as a matter of practicality, however much one would welcome a general all-embracing children's Bill, for it to be the answer to the problem. It is necessary for Scottish legislation, however unfortunate this may be, to proceed step by step and little by little. I am not convinced that a total children's Bill is the answer. One would require to put into such a Bill what is already in or should be amended in the social work legislation, the education legislation and the family law legislation. It would cause as much confusion to take all the children provisions out of that legislation and put them into one Bill as to do it step by step as is suggested.
On the points that my noble friend Lady Saltoun raised, I suggest that nothing in the Bill would disqualify a minor from applying for legal aid. The question of theft of a child would not arise at all. One is either in the state of theft of a child because the child cannot make a decision of his or her own—that is the case of a child under five or six—or the charge is one of kidnapping. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate knows this perfectly well and has taken steps before. He does not consider that somebody cannot be kidnapped merely because they are over 16. One could well see that the crime element in what would otherwise be plagium involving a very young child could be dealt with perfectly easily, whichever way the House takes the Bill.
There is a difficulty about Clause 2(4) in regard to medical treatment. The Law Society of Scotland has suggested that the Bill should be amended to include a reference to the child's best interests. I should be very sorry indeed to believe that any doctor could ever under his professional rules feel that he was recommending any operation or medical treatment for anyone if he did not consider that it was in the child's best interests. I suggest that that argument is unnecessary. On the whole, I commend the Bill to the House as another example of the useful work of the Scottish Law Commission.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I hesitate to speak on a Bill that is concerned with Scottish law when I am neither a lawyer nor a Scottish Peer. However, I served for 20 years in a Scottish regiment and that is my excuse for speaking. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, for answering the points on which I wrote to him. I apologise if I appear to ignore them; I have not had time to rewrite my speech accordingly, and I hope that I shall not make any unnecessary comments.
My reason for speaking is to ask for clarification of the effect of Clause 2(4), which gives a child of any age the capacity to consent to medical treatment provided that the doctor is satisfied that the child understands the nature and the possible consequences of the treatment or surgery. In particular, I feel that clarification is required of the relationship between a child's capacity to act for itself and the right of its

875
parents to act for it. This vital question had apparently not been studied by the Scottish Law Commission before it issued the report which is the basis of the Bill. I understand that it has studied the question since then.
My understanding of the Bill is that it seeks not only to change the law on the various ages of capacity but also to clarify it. The Law Commission report certainly indicates that the law on the age of consent to medical treatment badly needs clarification. Paragraph 3.65 of the report of the Scottish Law Commission quotes some doctors as believing that the age of consent to medical treatment is 14; some believe it is 16; some 18. And the figure of 12 has been used in other connections.
Unfortunately, Clause 2(4) raises more questions than it answers. Taken literally—and we have to take Bills literally—it appears to allow doctors to carry out hazardous operations or non-essential treatment like cosmetic surgery on children of any age without the parents even being consulted. This reduction of parental rights is extraordinary, especially at a time when the Government have been rightly anxious to get parents to take more, not less responsibility for the upbringing of their children.
What worries me most is how the Bill will affect important ethical matters on which parents and children sometimes disagree, such as contraception and abortion. On the face of it, the Bill would allow a girl, however young, the right to consent to receiving contraception or to have an abortion without reference to her parents. It merely requires the doctor to satisfy himself that the child,
"is capable of understanding the nature and possible consequences of the procedure or treatment".
How can a child possibly understand the nature of an abortion, let alone the possible consequences? They can be physical, psychological or spiritual. Furthermore, is it right to burden the medical profession with such a great responsibility?
Your Lordships' House will know of the recent case in England where Mr. Justice Hollis reached a decision that a 12 year-old girl should have an abortion, against the wishes of her mother. I do not agree with that decision, but I am glad that the important arguments involved were settled in a court of law rather than at the discretion of an individual doctor. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, what the position in Scotland will be in relation to a case of this nature if the Bill is passed. Will a 12 year-old be able to consent to a termination of her pregnancy against her parent's wishes without the parents having any recourse to a court of law?
There appear to be conflicting views on how the Bill will affect parental rights. Paragraph 3.81 of the Scottish Law Commission's report states that the legal proposals do not,
"affect the right of a parent or guardian to consent to medical treatment on behalf of a child or to be consulted about proposed treatment".
The Bill seems to be inconsistent with this and the discussion on this clause in the other place implied that parental rights could be overridden.
876
The sponsor of the Bill in the other place went even further when he indicated that if the doctor decided that the child needed treatment of any kind then it would not matter what his parents thought. That is a drastic statement and it would be interesting to know from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether this view is in line with government policy.
My own view is that the parents' right to act in the interests of their child should be paramount. However, my view is not important. What is vital is that the law should be made clear on an important point of principle—too important and perhaps too controversial to be dealt with in a Bill such as this. I felt it was right that it should not pass through your Lordships' House unnoticed.
I should be most grateful therefore if the noble Lord could make a clear statement on what the impact of the new clause will be so that parents, children and the medical profession in Scotland will know where they stand in relation to each other.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I apologise to the House for intervening without putting down my name. I had a particularly disagreeable forenoon today and by the time I had extricated myself from a series of boring meetings the list had closed. I therefore telephoned the Lord Advocate's Office and told him of my intention to intervene. He was gracious enough not to rise to his feet too speedily, thus allowing me in, as it were. For that I am most grateful.
I share the hesitation of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in speaking in a debate on a Scottish Bill, particularly as I have not even had the benefit of serving in a Scottish regiment. However, I believe the matter is so significant that a brief intervention is called for. In spite of the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I too am concerned about the implication of Clause 2(4) of the Bill. Arrangements for consent to medical treatment, especially when they involve the treatment of children, are very important. It is essential that the law and procedures are clear. I do not think it is good enough to leave it to the judgment of doctors alone. Like the rest of us, a doctor can make a mistake and there will be the occasional bad apple in the barrel. Surely, the clause should at least make some mention of consulting parents. In this day and age when the Government are trying to promote the taking by parents of more responsibility for their children, it seems strange to me that the clause is silent on the matter.
It may be that the rights of parents are protected by some other piece of legislation. If so, should there not be some reference to it? The clause as drafted is too vague and open to misinterpretation. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, to think again about this aspect of the Bill and either drop Clause 2(4) or amend it to spell out more clearly the role of parents.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, responds to the many questions put to him it may be helpful if on behalf of

877
the Government I indicate our stance on the Bill. Perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord for his part in bringing this legislation before us. As he made clear, it is a useful measure which we hope will clarify and simplify the law on the legal capacity and responsibility of young people in Scotland. Like the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, I should also like to congratulate my honourable and learned friend the Member of Parliament for Perth and Kinross upon his introduction and skilful handling of the Bill in another place.
As your Lordships will have appreciated, the Bill is based upon a report by the Scottish Law Commission. I believe I am right in saying that the order for publication of that report goes back to December 1987. Thus, it does not come fresh from the press and has been available for some time to be carefully considered by those concerned about this very important part of our law.
The report which has been prepared represents the first stage of a major project by the commission on the law on children. In due course there should be reports on the, related topics of custody and guardianship and, more generally, the scope of parental rights and duties, which are the matters that most obviously concern the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. Your Lordships will be reassured to know that the Government consulted various interests on the commission's proposals and found substantial support from those interests for the recommendations in the report.
In view of a number of the questions posed, it may be helpful if I indicate answers as best I can on behalf of the Government. First, perhaps I may take up the interesting set of observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton. I understand what he is driving at but am bound to say that I think he will find on reflection that a number of the reports of the Scottish Law Commission, which he might rightly indicate carried no particular overtones of party political controversy, engendered a certain amount of heat when they came to this House. Perhaps I may take one short but recent example. During the passage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Government included a provision on divorce based on a proposal emanating from the Scottish Law Commission which at the time when it was first made apparently attracted no interest or controversy whatsoever. However, it was very clear not only in this House but in another place that once the proposals came before the legislature attitudes might change suddenly and dramatically.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I believe that the heat generated by that particular amendment was mere tepidity compared with some of the other measures contested in that Bill. It was merely tepid on divorce compared with some of the other measures for which the noble and learned Lord was trying to argue.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord must take his bath hotter than I do. I felt there was quite a lot of heat generated on the matter of divorce. I do not wish to re-run that debate but, after
878
all, the Churches in Scotland suddenly appeared to be taking an interest and expressing concern about it. They had not done so hitherto.
However, I understand that the Scottish Law Commission may from time to time feel a sense of frustration, in that they have no very clear idea whether what they have suggested is acceptable to government. It is my intention to talk to the chairman of the commission this summer to give him some indication of those Bills which I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland think should be implemented if an appropriate time can be found. While I understand their frustration, I believe the law commissioners themselves appreciate that it is for this House and another place to determine, however well thought out their proposals may be, whether or not to accept the policy that lies behind the proposals they have put forward.
I am not sure I can answer all the questions which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, put to me. I believe the first question she asked was whether, if the Bill was enacted, the status of minority in Scots law would be abolished. The status of minority as such will not be abolished. The Scottish Law Commission in its report took the view that in relation to capacity to enter into legal transactions there was no longer any significance in the common law ages of puberty (12 for girls and 14 for boys), which derive from Roman law. Scots law has seen the pre-Reformation significance of the age of puberty hugely altered. Where once minority (the age of puberty) was the age at which girls and boys could, among other things, get married, now both marriage and the age at which legal sexual intercourse may take place is 16 years. This has been achieved by express statutory provision. The process is a continuing one. The freedom open to a minor on becoming forisfamiliated—that is, the freedom to act on his own outwith his father's curatory—is further curtailed by other age limits: for example the law now requires him to remain at school until he is 16.
The Bill is in effect another step in that process. An age limit of 16 will be superimposed upon minority, and the freedom of a minor under the age of 16 to enter into contracts and other transactions having legal effect will be limited to actions through his guardian, with certain important exceptions, but minority itself will not be abolished.
The noble Lady then asked in a related way what would be the implications for minority following the passing of the Bill. The implications for minority will be that minority itself will have no continuing significance in relation to the capacity of minors to enter into legal transactions. After the Bill is enacted minors over 16 will have complete freedom to enter into contracts subject to the protection conferred by Clause 3.
The noble Lady was also concerned that without guardians there would be no protection whatsoever for an individual after 16. If she looks at the clause she will appreciate there are opportunities provided for that to be set aside.
Other questions were asked by the noble Lady in relation to the effect of the Bill on the availability of legal aid. I would advise her that current provision is

879
made which enables a minor child to be legally aided. The effect of the Bill is to require all children under the age of 16 to act through a guardian. That in any case will not be a problem where consent is readily available. Where the child does not have consent but needs to act with legal aid, the provisions of the Bill at Clause 1(3) (f) (i) ensure that any existing rule of law or practice whereby civil proceedings may be brought, defended or entered into by any person under the age of 16 is not to be affected by the Bill. So, if a young person under 16 requires to have legal aid to achieve that purpose, Clause 2(1) will assist him in respect of such legal aid applications as are commonly entered into in similar circumstances.
I appreciate also that another concern, which has been expressed in Scotland and reflected here by the noble Lady, is that the Bill might mean that the law of plagium or child theft would be extended up to 16. I can advise her that the crime of plagium relates to victims who are under the age of puberty only. This has been determined as including only girls below the age of 12 and boys below the age of 14. If the noble Lady looks at Clause 1(3) (c) of the Bill, she will find there that it is provided specifically that the delictual or criminal responsibility of any person shall not be affected by the provisions of the Bill.
A number of interesting questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, relating to the position of children in relation particularly to medical matters. The sponsor of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has already dealt with that matter. In a sense, I believe that it was apprehended that he had pre-empted the questions by answering them before they were asked, and perhaps I may leave the matter there. I have no doubt that very careful consideration will be given to what was said.
I hope that some of the answers I have given will be helpful to those who might consider tabling amendments. I appreciate that a number of other questions have also been asked and, if I can help in the interval before Committee stage, I shall be very glad to do so.
I conclude by saying to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that in a somewhat suspicious fashion she was concerned that what lay behind this provision was an effort to bring Scots law into line with English law. I suggest that if she would like to attend upon the Scottish Law Commissioners at Causeway Side in Edinburgh, she will find that, although they are always interested in securing the useful harmonisation of our laws, they are not now, and I suspect that they never will be, driven by the desire to see Scots law subjected to the law of England.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I am grateful to all Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part. Many of the questions raised have been answered by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate but perhaps I could add a word or two before we leave the subject.
880
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked why there should be change. The report of the commission sets out very clearly why we should change. The reason is that the law is out of date. It is little understood even by lawyers, as I mentioned when I spoke earlier. As regards consultation, the majority of persons and institutions which were consulted or made observations to the commission was in favour of change.
The noble Lady also suggested that the Bill had been brought forward in order to bring Scots law into line with the law of England. With respect, I do not think that on a fair reading of the Law Commission's approach to the matter that is a fair criticism. As has been pointed out more than once in correspondence and in the observations made on this Bill, it deals with a very limited area of the law. It deals with the question of transactions and one or two allied topics. It does not set out to reform the law of parent and child. That is a matter which is under active consideration by the Law Commission and a paper on guardianship has already been circulated. I understand that the consultation period is now over and in due course proposals will be brought forward by the Law Commission arising out of the view adopted as a result of consideration of the representations made.
The noble Lady also raised the matter of legal aid, a point which was answered by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. On the 20th June 1991, the Scottish Legal Aid Board wrote to the Scottish Child Law Centre. I quote from the letter:
"If the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill becomes law, there will obviously require to be certain consequential amendments to the Legal Aid Regulations to take account of the abolition of the concepts of curators and tutors".
That would mean the substitution of guardians for the purposes of legal aid. The letter goes on:
"At present … for the purposes of legal aid, a child is a person under the age of 16 years. An application on behalf of a child is made by the parent or guardian or by any person in whose care the child is or by a person acting for the purposes of any proceedings as the child's tutor or curator".
The writer goes on to make other observations and I can let the noble Lady have a copy of the letter. Most importantly he says:
"For these reasons, I think it unlikely that the passing of the Bill will have any radical effect on legal aid".
In fact, at least one instance has been brought to my attention of a pupil child being involved in a court process in a sheriff court in Scotland. I do not believe that the fears about legal aid have any real foundation. Certainly the status of young persons affected by the Bill with regard to legal aid will not be diminished.
The House has already heard explained that the status of minority will not be abolished. It still exists. However, one has to turn to the Long Title and Clause 5(1) of the Bill to find the nub of this piece of legislation. It is not an all-embracing piece of legislation. It is the start of a review of the situation of children in modern society.
The noble Lady asked whether a child could refuse medical attention. Of course a child could refuse it. But what happens after the refusal? That is another matter. We are not dealing with refusal in this Bill; we are dealing with consent. It is a very difficult problem raised by the noble Lords, Lord Robertson of Oakridge and Lord Ashbourne. It is a community

881
problem which we must all examine and ask whether that is the way in which society should be run. As an individual, look at it that way. My first reaction is to say that if any person is under 16 the parents must know before anything happens to the child. Unfortunately that is not the way of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, indicated in a letter to me that he had read very fully the section on this matter in the Law Society report. It is clear that detailed consideration was given to all the arguments for and against the involvement of parents. After detailed consideration the commission decided in favour of Clause 2(4). If a young girl of 15 is to have an abortion and her parents do not know, that is perhaps the way things are. If the parent finds out, the parent is still the guardian of the child and can take such action as the parent sees fit to deal with that situation. It is a difficult area of life these days. I am afraid that we have to face up to the realities of life and say that if the child consents and is capable of understanding the consequences, it is up to the doctor to consider what should be done.
Although the best interest test has not been adopted by the commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said, most doctors would look to the best interests of the child. A doctor would not sign a form authorising abortion unless it complied with the provisions set out in the Abortion Act.
The question of plagium has been raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. The issues of religion and freedom of activity—raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun—have bedevilled consideration of this fairly simple piece of legislation arising out of detailed consultation. We are dealing with transactions that have legal effect. It does not involve a transaction having legal effect if one's 15 year-31d son or daughter says, "I'm going to be a Moonie as from tomorrow"—or a Catholic, Protestant, atheist, or whatever it may be. That could never be said to be a transaction. That is why I emphasise again that we must consider the skeleton of the Bill which deals with transactions having legal effect as defined in the Bill, and with the exceptions provided.
The same considerations apply to freedom of association. If a child says that he wishes to go to the youth club tomorrow night and sets off, the parent can either clip him round the ear if he considers it a not very good youth club, or he can do as he sees fit. But he cannot stop the child going unless he takes certain procedures perhaps involving the courts. However, such matters have nothing whatever to do with legal transactions. That is why I say—with great respect to those who have raised the issues—that they have gone off at a tangent and have not considered the core of the Bill as spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate. We are dealing with legal transactions as they affect minors under the provisions of the Bill.
I hope that with those explanations and those given by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, we have covered the issues raised sufficiently to persuade any noble Lord who is considering putting an amendment down at Committee stage perhaps to think again and consider the greater good of the
882
young people of Scotland in connection with commercial transactions. We live in a changing world where people enter into commercial transactions at earlier ages. They become involved in social matters such as abortion and so on. We, as the senior people in Scotland and England, must consider the reality of life today and try to trim the legislation to protect young people from their own immaturity in an ever-changing world with all the pressures that are put on them by salesmen and so on. I do not need to go into that. No doubt all noble Lords have had good examples of such pressures.
With those observations, I commend the Bill to the House. I ask that the House give the Bill a Second Reading. In so doing, I again express my gratitude for the interesting contributions made by Members of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Smoke Detectors Bill
7.44 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [New dwellings to be fitted with smoke detectors]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.1.
Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("offence") to ("in") and insert ("in respect of each occasion on which the dwelling, or a part of the dwelling, is not fitted with a smoke detector").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we anticipated this amendment when moving a somewhat different amendment at Committee stage. I moved then that, instead of having the limit on scale 3, which is at present £400 but will increase to £500, fines for an offence against the Bill should be extended to scale 5. In response to my arguments, the sponsor of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, first reminded the Committee that the fine under scale 3 was to increase to £1,000. Secondly, he stated that there would be two fines for a house on two floors which, under the Bill, would have to have two smoke detectors, and fines of £20,000 to £30,000 relating to a housing estate. Unfortunately for the noble Lord, he was then contradicted by the Minister, who pointed out that the fine was per dwelling and not per smoke detector or per floor. The noble Baroness stated in a helpful letter to me—for which I thank her—that the fine is per dwelling and therefore there would be a fine for an offence on each dwelling in a housing estate. In that sense we are half way there.
We consider that for the provision to apply per dwelling is not good enough. We consider that there would be advantage in having a fine per detector. That is the unit of exchange in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that minor amendment. It is an amendment which helps the enforcement of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, in responding to the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord

883
McIntosh, I agree that I was a little misled, though I still contend that in a housing estate fines of several thousands of pounds could be involved.
The difficulty with the amendment is that there is nothing in the Bill which lays down how many smoke detectors are to be fitted or indeed where they should be fitted. That matter is left to the guidance document which the Secretary of State is to approve and issue under Clause 3 of the Bill.
The noble Lord's amendment refers to,
"a part of the dwelling … not fitted with a smoke detector".
There are many parts of a dwelling where it is unnecessary and even undesirable for a smoke detector to be fitted. I presume that the noble Lord has in mind that it should be an offence not to fit a smoke detector in those parts of the dwelling where the guidance in the approved document indicates that one should be fitted.
However, that would make the guidance in the approved document mandatory and that is the opposite of what is intended. Clause 3(3) states explicitly that,
"a failure on the part of any person to comply with an approved document does not of itself render him liable to any criminal proceedings".
The noble Lord's amendment runs counter to that important principle. I hope that on reflection he will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Wade are entirely consistent with the manner in which the provisions of the Building Act 1984 relating to approved documents operate, and the Government support them.
I simply add that the amendment appears to be an attempt to increase in an indirect way the maximum penalties provided for under the Bill. It remains the Government's view that the penalty already provided —namely, a maximum fine level at level 3 for each dwelling which is not fitted with one or more smoke detectors—is the appropriate one. I should remind the House that level 3 is about to be increased from £400 to £1,000.
I support the reply given by my noble friend and hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will accept that the guidance will meet some of his anxieties.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find that a rather legalistic and indeed contradictory response from the noble Lord and from the Minister. The noble Lord reminds us that Clause 3(3) states that:
"a failure … to comply with an approved document does not of itself render him liable to any criminal proceedings".
He did not remind the House that in any proceedings for an offence a failure to comply with an approved document may be relied on as tending to establish liability; and proof of compliance with such a document may be relied on as tending to negative liability. Clearly, approved documents have some significance.
I hope that there is no doubt that the approved documents will specify a smoke detector on each floor of any dwelling. Unless each floor has a smoke detector one might as well not have smoke detectors. The purpose of the Bill is that there should be a smoke
884
detector on each floor and that the alarm should be sounded not only on the floor on which it is located but on all other floors. If I am wrong about that, the Bill will be less effective than I had expected.
To rely on the lack of strict enforcement by criminal proceedings of the details of the approved document is to be less than confident in the good sense of those who will draw up the approved document and the effect of the amendment. I shall not pursue the issue. It is desirable that the Bill should proceed, if possible unamended or amended only by agreement. Failing that agreement I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Enforcement]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert:
("(1A) Any person duly authorised in writing by the local authority may on any occasion when not otherwise empowered to do so for the purposes of building control at any reasonable time enter any land for the purpose of exercising his functions under this Act.
(1B) A person authorised under subsection (1A) above to enter any land shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before so entering.
(1C) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1A) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to the issue of rights of entry as a result of what was said in Committee. It was then suggested that rights of entry for local authority officers should be as powerful in respect of the implementation of the Smoke Detectors Act, as it will be, as for building control. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, said:
"After all, he is not likely to be making his inspection solely for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Bill".—[Official Report, 21/6/91; col. 409.]
I am sorry but I must disagree with the noble Lord. It is likely that the installation of smoke detectors will be one of the last acts in the construction of a dwelling. It may well be that on final inspection the building inspector will see that everything has been done except the installation of smoke detectors. It would be somewhat farcical if he were unable to regain entry to ensure that the smoke detectors had been fitted and that the provisions of the Bill had been complied with.
It is an anomaly that under the Bill there will be powers separate from the general powers of building control. However, it is desirable that the standard of enforcement for the provisions of this Bill should be as high as for any other aspect of building control. The only provision that would make me feel differently about the matter would be if the inspector were allowed to refuse the final building control certificate solely on the ground that the smoke detectors had not been fitted. I cannot see how that could be the case because, strictly speaking, all other building control regulations would have been complied with. Only this aspect would not have been complied with.
If the noble Lord chooses not to accept the amendment, I hope that he will persuade the Government that some provision must be made for a

885
final inspection, if necessary by using rights of entry to deal with a single outstanding issue—that of the installation of smoke detectors. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, when this matter was debated at Committee stage I expressed my reluctance to add a power of entry to the provisions of this Bill unless it was absolutely necessary to do so. I still do not believe that it is.
The Building Act 1984 contains powers of entry which can he exercised at any time by a local authority which believes that it is necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of the building regulations. These regulations apply where building work is being carried out. Building work is defined to include the provision of a dwelling either as a new const ruction or the reconstruction or conversion of an existing building. I cannot see any circumstances where a dwelling which is subject to the requirements of this Bill would not also be subject to requirements under the building regulations.
I am satisfied that for all practical purposes these closely related powers provide adequate rights of entry to enable the requirements of this Bill to be enforced. After all, these requirements have to be met by the time the construction of the dwelling is completed. Until that point is reached the authority will in practice still have a right of entry for building control purposes. It is theoretically possible that a local authority might be satisfied that the requirements of the building regulations had been met but not that adequate detectors had been fitted, although I have to say that it does not seem very likely. Even in this case, however, the authority would in practice ask the builder to install the necessary detectors before commencing legal proceedings under Clause 1 of the Bill. In such a situation I find it difficult to believe that the builder would refuse to allow the authority to verify that the work had been done.
The noble Lord's amendment is wide in its effect. It would enable local authorities to authorise those enforcing the provisions of the Bill to enter an occupied dwelling to see whether smoke detectors had been installed by the builder. That would worry me greatly. I know that from the beginning of our debates on the Bill it has been accepted that we do not wish to give rights of entry to occupied premises and clearly the responsibility became that of the builder. The amendment would widen that right and I believe that it is not necessary to do so. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have listened with care to the noble Lord's arguments but ask him to look at Clause 5(3) of the Bill. There provision is made for an approved inspector to be empowered not to issue a certificate unless a smoke detect or is in place. In other words, the powers of an approved inspector appear to be wider than the powers of a local authority inspector. Does the noble Lord consider that his arguments against, for example, inspecting premises that are occupied apply equally strongly to Clause 5(3)?
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, under Clause 5(3) action would still fall under the arrangements with the local authority regarding the building period during which the inspector would have the right of entry. The certificate would not be issued until the building had been completed and handed over. Those powers relate only to the period during which the building is taking place and not when the final certificate has been issued and the building handed over as complete to the owner to take occupation. There is nothing in Clause 5 that will give the right of entry when the occupier is in possession of the building. That is the purpose of the Bill and the reason why I asked the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the promoters of the Bill have clearly had to be selective in deciding which of the supporting provisions from the Building Act 1984 should be included in it. I can understand and sympathise with my noble friend's reluctance to create a new power of entry, particularly one which would extend to occupied dwellings.
I accept that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is technically correct. But for the reasons that my noble friend has given I do not believe that in practice there will be a problem. The powers already available under the Building Act 1984 will provide an adequate power of entry to enforce the provisions of this Bill.
I recognise that it is normally unacceptable to use a power of entry for a purpose which is different from the one for which it was granted by Parliament. However, the Bill is intended to operate in parallel with building control and it therefore does not seem to me to be objectionable to rely on the power of entry which is already available under the Building Act 1984.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is reassured that in practice it is not necessary to create a new power of entry to enable the provisions of this Bill to be properly enforced and that he will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the assurance that my amendment is right in principle. I have listened carefully to the argument that it will make no difference in practice. I do not understand the argument; I believe that at the final inspections under building control regulations it will be common to find that all the requirements of those regulations have been complied with but that the installation of the smoke detector is outstanding. Obviously the detector will be installed last; for instance, one does not install a smoke detector and then plaster around it. I believe that in practice the cases will be more common than the Minister believes. If we cannot amend the Bill, a solution will have to be found. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Effect of initial notice under Part II of Building Act 1984]:
8 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 30, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, cannot be present this evening and she has asked me to move this amendment on her behalf. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6, which are consequential.
These amendments have been tabled because there is a danger that the Smoke Detectors Bill may interfere with the smooth running of the control system established by the Building Act 1984, referred to during our discussions on the previous amendment.
The amendments tabled are an attempt to reduce the scope for any fragmentation of the system by ensuring that the value of the Building Act's final certificate is not reduced. If that were done, it would reduce the anomaly which my noble friend Lord McIntosh mentioned as regards the general powers of building control, which are part of the Building Act 1984, and this new Bill.
As it stands the Bill places an obligation on an approved inspector to issue a second certificate for each house; that is, a certificate relating to the installation of smoke detectors. That is an unnecessary and cumbersome obligation which establishes a precedent for additional final certificates if further building regulation-type matters are covered by separate statutes in future.
By relying solely on subsection (3) to implement the terms of the Smoke Detectors Bill—and to my mind it seems that it could be quite easily adapted to do so —an efficient, cost-effective method can be achieved while maintaining the overall integrity of the Building Act's final certificate which would, therefore, include the requirements of this Bill with regard to the installation of smoke detectors. I shall be interested to hear the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wade on that suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for raising this point on behalf of my noble friend Lady Gardner. I fully share the desire to maintain the existing system of building control established under the Building Act 1984, and I should not wish to do anything which would make the work of an approved inspector more cumbersome.
Clause 5 is based on the existing legislative requirements relating to final certificates under Part II of the Building Act 1984. This is a complex but well understood procedure, under which approved inspectors inform the local authority that the building work under their supervision has been completed and that they have discharged their prescribed functions. The Bill does not contemplate a second final certificate but a simple statement which could be written or typed at the end of the Building Act final certificate. This statement would declare that the approved inspector had taken such steps as are reasonable to satisfy himself that the requirements of Clause 1 had been met. In my view it should be no more cumbersome or complex than that.
888
I do not believe, therefore, that there is any difficulty with Clause 5 as drafted. The amendments would give rise to some drafting problems, and, in view of what I have said, I hope that it will not be necessary to press them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's interpretation of Clause 5 as drafted. It may be helpful if I add that, if there should at any time be problems of inconsistency or duplication between the requirements of this Bill and the building regulations as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, Clause 6 is always available to enable us to deal with that situation.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness. It still seems to me that these amendments would be logical and that Clause 5(4) is not necessary provided one or two words in subsection (3) are altered.
I do not wish to press the amendment. However, perhaps the noble Lord will ponder as to whether he may wish to bring back an amendment on Third Reading which gives effect to the proposed simplification, which will lead to a reduction in additional bureaucracy. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7.
Page 4, line 27, leave out first ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this is a matter which we raised in Committee. I return to it in this form largely because of a very helpful response given to me by the Minister in a letter of which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has a copy. She clarified that in the Government's view a flat above a shop or office would be covered by the definitions in Clause 1. She went on to say:
"Caravans are another matter. They are not constructed in the same way as buildings, and we do not consider that they fall within the normal meaning of the term 'house or flat'. They are manufactured products and, in our view, it would not be appropriate or practical to use this Bill to control the way in which they are constructed".
Of course caravans are not the same as houses or flats in the ordinary sense. That is why we are proposing the amendment. If they were the same the amendment would not be necessary. The point about caravans is that people live in them. They are constructed in such a way that many of them are peculiarly vulnerable to fire and they are used by people whose cooking and heating methods are also peculiarly vulnerable to fire. In that connection I am thinking particularly of bottled gas and the way in which many bottled gas appliances, both for heating and cooking, are constructed and are included in caravans, very often in a confined space. That means that the risk of fire is much greater than it would be in a real house or flat. However, caravans are used as dwellings and this Bill should be about dwellings because it should be about protecting people at home.
My amendment deals only with caravans used as dwellings. They are perhaps more vulnerable than ordinary dwellings and I contend that they should be included within the scope of the Bill.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I have tremendous sympathy for everything that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said on this issue. I agree with him that a caravan is a very vulnerable place.
The difficulty with these amendments is that this Bill is intended to operate in parallel with the building control system, and caravans and mobile homes are exempt from the provisions of the Building Regulations 1985. While I sympathise with what the noble Lord has said, I have regretfully concluded that this Bill is not the right way to provide the additional protection which he seeks for those living in permanently sited caravans.
The advice which I have received—and because of my sympathy for what the noble Lord said I have taken a lot of advice—is that if the Bill were to be extended in that way, it would then also be necessary to extend the building regulations to cover caravans of this type. That would be a significant extension of regulatory control. If that were not done, we should finish up with a free-standing provision to which none of the procedural requirements which are set out in the Building Act 1984 and which are essential to make the building control system work would apply. I take just one example. There would be no requirement to notify the building control authority that a new non-mobile caravan was being brought onto a permanent site. But, unless the caravan can be inspected before the occupiers move in, we shall be back to the problem that enforcement could only be achieved through the building control officer entering a family's home to check that they are protected by smoke detectors.
As I have said, I sympathise with the thinking behind the amendment. But caravans are manufactured products and, if it is thought necessary to lay down requirements about how they should be constructed, I believe that that should be done through consumer protection legislation. It does not seem to me to be appropriate to use legislation whose purpose is to regulate the way that buildings are constricted on site.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take on board the points that both I and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised. I am sure that the Government will be able to consider ways in which our anxieties may be resolved, notwithstanding the difficulties at present before us.
Bareness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is raising an important issue. I accept that it is important for people who live in permanently sited caravans to have the protection which a smoke alarm provides, and the Government certainly do not take lightly the concerns he has expressed. But I share the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Wade that it would not be appropriate to try to deal with this issue in the present Bill. As he said, the Bill is about buildings, and is intended to operate in parallel with the requirements in the building regulations relating to how buildings are designed and constructed on site. A
890
caravan is not a building; it is not constructed on site; and it is not controlled under the building regulations. It is a manufactured product.
Clearly we would not want building control officers to have to go into factories to check the construction of caravans. If they were to be brought within the scope of the Bill, it would be necessary to regard the stationing of a non-mobile caravan on a permanent site as a building operation. But would the requirements relate solely to smoke detectors? Or would all the other requirements of the regulations have to follow? There is also the question of powers. Is a caravan a building for the purposes of the Building Act 1984? If not, this route would not be open to the Government and we could then be left with a requirement which could not be enforced because none of the machinery provided by the Building Act 1984 could be applied.
The Government recognise the importance of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord. I do not believe, however, that they can be met under this Bill. If we are to lay down standards for manufactured products such as caravans, the issue needs to be tackled in some other way, such as in consumer protection legislation.
I hope the noble Lord will accept that, for all the reasons given, this is not the right Bill for such an amendment and that the Bill should not be compromised or even delayed by looking for ways to accommodate these amendments. I can say to the noble Lord, because I share his anxiety, that on his behalf and on behalf of anyone else who is concerned about the issue, I shall make inquiries into whether there exists a provision in some other Act of Parliament which would allow the objects of the amendment to be achieved without the use of primary legislation. If that cannot be done, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this Bill is an inappropriate one in which to incorporate the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had hoped that the Minister would be able to go further than that. I understand the restrictions placed on a Private Member's Bill. It must be fairly uncontroversial to go through both Houses, particularly the other place, without having government time. I realise that to extend the scope of a Bill of this kind often means to condemn it to death. I shall certainly not pursue the amendment.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will explore whether there is any scope under other legislation to achieve the objective that we all want to achieve without the need for primary legislation. Perhaps the noble Baroness can go a little further and say that if it is not possible, she will urge on the appropriate department that the objectives should be included in legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that it is difficult for me to be specific in that regard. I can say that his anxiety is properly registered. We share the concern that the objective of the amendment should be achieved. We will go as far as we can to achieve it without primary legislation. If that fails, it remains a candidate to be contained in some other legislation in the future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that those words will be heeded by those who determine the Government's legislative timetable. I can imagine how sick we shall all feel if, in the coming months or even years, as is quite likely, children die in a fire in a caravan used as a mobile home. The caravan is by far the most dangerous kind of home; it offers by far the most dangerous conditions that can exist for risk of death by fire.
We are stuck with the restrictions of the Private Member's Bill procedure. However, that does not
892
mean that we should not use every effort available to government to try to do something about it quickly. I should perhaps say that it is not my intention to table amendments for Third Reading. With those not very hopeful words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past eight o'clock.

  ECGD: PRIVATISATION
  ECGD: PRIVATISATION
  WHITCHURCH JUNIOR SCHOOL
  WHITCHURCH JUNIOR SCHOOL
  PRISONS: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  PRISONS: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  PRISONER PLACES: EFFECT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  PRISONER PLACES: EFFECT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  PRISONS: REFUSAL TO ADMIT PRISONERS
  PRISONS: REFUSAL TO ADMIT PRISONERS
  PRISONERS UNDER INTERMITTENT SUPERVISION
  PRISONERS UNDER INTERMITTENT SUPERVISION
  WANDSWORTH: HEALTH VISITORS
  WANDSWORTH: HEALTH VISITORS
  WANDSWORTH: ABORTIONS
  WANDSWORTH: ABORTIONS
  WANDSWORTH: SCHOOL NURSES
  WANDSWORTH: SCHOOL NURSES
  WANDSWORTH: CHILD MORTALITY
  WANDSWORTH: CHILD MORTALITY
  MENTAL ILLNESS STATISTICS
  MENTAL ILLNESS STATISTICS
  ROYAL ORDNANCE PLC: MILITARY ASSISTANCE, KUWAIT
  ROYAL ORDNANCE PLC: MILITARY ASSISTANCE, KUWAIT
  GULF WAR CASUALTIES
  GULF WAR CASUALTIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION