Sitting of 12 June 1991

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

    Local Government Review
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the local government review will include possible structures for London.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The consultation document published on 23 April said that the Government have no plans to change the general structure of local government in London and the metropolitan county areas.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the late and unlamented Greater London council, when Labour dominated, doubled the rates, doubled the fares for Londoners on London transport in 1984, and continually increased the rates by huge margins as well as giving grants to deviant groups and all sorts of unworthy causes? Does he agree that we must not return to anything like the GLC?
    Mr. Heseltine: I think that my hon. Friend is right. The Government have no intention of recreating the GLC, which spent most of its time undermining the confidence and credibility of London as a great world city.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I must tell the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that he is now off the list for the first reception of the Greater London Authority.
    Has the Secretary of State had a chance to study the report which I understand came out yesterday showing that mayors in British towns work longer hours and put in more effort than mayors around the rest of the world? We all acknowledge the work that they put in. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was very much in favour of the idea of a directly elected mayor for London. Does he still favour that proposal? If he does, would he be prepared to meet me to study my completely worked up proposal and scheme, which includes the odd name that I have in mind for the job?
    Mr. Heseltine: The House will know that I spend a great deal of time thinking about the way in which we can improve and encourage the partnership between local and central government. It has been a source of some concern to me today to discover that three items on my desk consist of inquiries into corruption in Hackney, of Lambeth sending out bills including the £140 because it cannot collect the community charge, and of worries about
    890
    internecine warfare in the Labour party in Liverpool—hardly an encouragement to those of us trying to advocate the cause of local government in this country.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the local government reorganisation of 1963–64 was deeply resented in many Conservative parts of London which want to return to the original boundaries and that there is no way in which the right hon. Member for Brent, North, being guided by his constituents, can support the Government on local government until we are given the right to return to a separate Wembley and Willesden? The same applies to other areas of London where we are putting at risk Conservative seats under Labour authorities.
    Mr. Heseltine rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for Neasden!"] I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) feels strongly about these matters. Having looked at the reorganisation on which we were already embarked in the non-metropolitan areas and outside London, however, the Government felt that the task that we had set ourselves was a large one which would lead to the prospect of a larger number of unitary authorities and we did not want to extend those proposals at this time.
    Mr. Gould: I imagine that the Secretary of State is also concerned about the fraud squad inquiry into Conservative-controlled Bromley. May I press him a little harder on the question of London and give him a further opportunity to snub the people of London, who have shown by an overwhelming majority that they demand a London-wide voice for Londoners and their city? Will the right hon. Gentleman come to the Dispatch Box and explain why he insists on denying that to them?
    Mr. Heseltine: The most graphic example of why I am so sceptical of anything that smacks of the GLC is that it fell to my responsibility and to that of the Government to cope with the 6,000 acres of dereliction in the east end of London which were a direct product of the fact that the land was owned by nationalised industries and suffocated by a combination of east end Labour boroughs and the GLC.
    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the London unitary authorities, the London boroughs, will be the model to be followed in the rest of the country, and that that will probably be the view of much of the country when he has completed his consultations? Does he also agree that the so-called lean and hungry super-tier authority suggested by some people would soon become a fat and useless body?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, as he has much experience of this matter. I have another concern, however. The Labour party believes that it would control that authority, but it would use it not to enhance London's reputation, but to undermine it. It would use it as a source of continued controversy between local authorities and central Government, and would exploit every considerable disadvantage that it could find to diminish the reputation of the capital city and not to enhance it.

    Nuclear Waste Disposal
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to meet the chief executive of Nirex to discuss the strategy for disposal of nuclear waste.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): My right hon. Friend has no such plans.
    Mr. Wallace: May I suggest to the Minister that his right hon. Friend should make time available to see the managing director of Nirex, Mr. McInerney, especially in the light of the Secretary of State's recent statement that a decision will soon be made to use Sellafield for the disposal of intermediate and low-level waste? That being so, does the Minister agree that Nirex should wind up its operation at Dounreay, and end the blight that has been affecting the highlands and islands for so long? If the Minister is not prepared to do that, will he at least take this opportunity to knock on the head any suggestion that Dounreay is a potential site for high-level radioactive waste?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman's opinions are well known, and I have heard them expressed in the House on several occasions. I ask him to be a little more patient. Although he wishes to draw me on the issue, he knows that it is for Nirex to make proposals. No decision to abandon Dounreay in favour of a development at Sellafield can be taken until Nirex's reports are in the Government's hands and the results of the site investigations are obtained, which I understand will be at the end of this year.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the visitor centre at Sellafield, and the efforts of British Nuclear Fuels and Nirex to explain their policies on reprocessing and disposal, have gone a long way to dispel public anxiety? Does he also agree that much more should be done to explain the general proposals to the public so as to remove any fears in the future?
    Mr. Trippier: I have no difficulty at all in agreeing with my hon. Friend's second point. On his first point, I have visited the centre at Sellafield on three occasions and I, too, am impressed with the service that it provides.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that the atomic authorities are being forced to explore the possibility of an underground repository for spent fuel and nuclear waste in Sellafield because the Government find it politically embarrassing to allow those authorities to explore better geological sites for that purpose elsewhere in the country?
    Mr. Trippier: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It was perfectly clear that the two sites on what may be described as the shortlist were Dounreay and Sellafield. Much time and effort went into the work of producing that shortlist and carrying out the investigations. Both sites are being considered, and the report on the investigations should be in our hands by December.

    Rents-to-Mortgages Scheme
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans are being made to enable council tenants to convert rents to mortgages.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): Experimental schemes are
    892
    now in operation for new town tenants in Basildon and Milton Keynes. Primary legislation is needed to extend the rents-to-mortgages scheme to council tenants. We will consider this in the light of the results of the pilot schemes.
    Mrs. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that allowing council tenants to buy their homes under the right-to-buy scheme was a very popular piece of legislation? We have given tenants what they want, but some tenants need further assistance. I welcome the experiment to date, and I hope that as soon as possible we shall extend the provision so that all tenants will have the opportunity to buy their homes.
    Because of the Labour party's opposition to tenants, in often not wanting them to buy their homes, it has incorporated deplorable delaying tactics. Will the Minister ensure, if and when he introduces the legislation, that tenants can buy their homes immediately and that thousands of pounds of rent will not be wasted while the transaction is taking place?
    Mr. Yeo: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. I am sorry to say that, even today, in the boroughs of Lambeth and Hackney disgraceful obstacles are put in the way of tenants trying to exercise their right to buy.
    I am glad to say that the rents-to-mortgages experiment is going extremely well. I expect the first completions to take place later this month. It is an important extension of tenants' rights. I shall be interested to see whether the Labour party overcomes its hostility to allowing council tenants to become home owners more quickly under the rents-to-mortgages scheme than under the right-to-buy scheme.
    Mr. Soley: Given that one in nine homeless families are in that position as a result of mortgage repossession, would it not be more intelligent for the Government, having created the housing crisis and lost 1.5 million tenancies from the rented sector, to introduce a mortgage rescue scheme? That has been suggested not only by the Labour party but by many housing experts outside. In doing that, should not the Government reform housing finance to make it easier for tenants not only to step up to home ownership but to step down again to renting when they find themselves in difficulties? Why does the Minister not end his desperate search for a policy, adopt our policy and use it sensibly?
    Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman's grasp of housing issues is tenuous at the best of times, but this time he has allowed his prejudices to submerge his intelligence to an even greater extent than usual. It has obviously not occurred to him that the whole purpose of the rents-to-mortgages scheme is to avoid the circumstances in which tenants are tempted to enter into commitments that they cannot afford. The scheme will allow a tenant to purchase a share of his property, without increasing his weekly outgoings, by substituting for his weekly rental payment a weekly mortgage payment.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend consider suggesting to all housing authorities that they publish an illustrative list of flats and houses, with the prices that people would expect to have to pay, given the buyer's age, the valuation of the house or flat and the length of time for

    893
    which the buyer has been a tenant, as many people do not realise that they could buy their flats for less than £17,000 and save money by so doing?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point, and I shall certainly follow up his suggestion. It is clear that a significant number of people are still trapped in the tyranny of tenancy and would like to escape from it. If they understood the favourable terms on which the Government have made it possible for them to do so, I am sure that they would take advantage of the opportunity.

    Environmental Labelling
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when a system of green labelling approved by the Government will be operating in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Heseltine: An official eco-labelling scheme should become operational in 1992.
    Mr. Bennett: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people would like to buy products that are as environmentally friendly as possible, but find it difficult because of the wide range of supermarket claims that this or that product is environmentally friendly? Many people have been conned by some of those claims in recent years, and unless a national labelling system is introduced very soon their willingness to purchase such products will steadily decline.
    Mr. Heseltine: The public at large are, I think, well aware that significant retailers and manufacturers have taken advantage of the public's appetite for green, environmentally friendly products and introduced their own green labelling systems. It is appropriate that a standard system should operate across the European Community, and that known quality tests should be applied. That is why the British Government are pressing so hard, and why we hope to achieve a European eco-labelling system this year. If we do not, our determination is such that we shall have to proceed with our own national scheme.
    Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a standard labelling system is needed to indicate not just the contents of a package but the manufacture of the package itself? Does he also agree that the standardised system should extend to the composition of the contents? There may be considerable differences, and it can be misleading for the consumer reading the label, who may not realise that there is a percentage difference as well as a weight difference.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has made important but detailed points. They are precisely the sort of constructive suggestions that we shall wish to consider when preparing our proposals—or when implementing our determination to agree European proposals.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Will non-disposable plastic labels be used, or the more environmentally acceptable paper labels?
    Mr. Heseltine: As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, eco-labelling is not just a matter of the composition of labels but a means of conveying to a wide
    894
    public the contents of the products that those labels seek to describe, but it would, of course, be a major step forward if the labels were made of recyclable material.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Most people will be pleased to hear the Secretary of State today commit himself to introducing an eco-labelling scheme in 1992, but I remind him that many people will treat that with some scepticism, given that on 21 March 1990 in column 1114 of Hansard his predecessor promised that if an eco-labelling scheme was not in place on an EC basis or at least agreed by the end of that year we would go into action with one of our own. It is now June 1991 and we do not have an EC scheme or a national scheme. Will the Minister stress the fact that we shall indeed have a scheme at the end of the current year, or is that just a repeated bogus claim?
    Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman will discover that the original commitment was to introduce a scheme by the end of 1991, although he is absolutely right that we have not achieved that. The original commitment was for 1991, but the essence of the dilemma is simple—whether to proceed with a national scheme, with the risk that we shall have to change it all relatively quickly when a European scheme takes its place, or to use the good offices of the British Government to ensure that we get an eco-labelling scheme throughout Europe as quickly as possible.

    Local Government Review
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made on consultation with local authorities concerning reorganisation.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): The Government's consultation paper on local government structure has been circulated widely and comments are being received. I expect a large number of responses as the deadline approaches.
    Mr. Haynes: Will the consultation with local authorities on the setting up of the commission mean that local authorities will be properly consulted for their views? Bearing in mind the mess that the Government have made of the local economy—[Interruption.] It is a real mess, a right cock-up. When will that commission be reporting so that we know exactly what is to happen?
    Mr. Portillo: The consultation paper has been circulated to all the principal local authorities. I have no complaints about that, and they are responding individually and through their associations, so there is no problem with consultation. The local government commission will be established by a Bill which the Government will introduce in the autumn.
    Mrs. Roe: As my hon. Friend is aware, London's Metropolitan police authority boundary extends beyond the Greater London area into counties such as Hertfordshire. Will he ensure that when the local government commission reviews the structure of local government it will also consider whether the Hertfordshire constabulary boundary should include the whole of the county and not merely part of it?
    Mr. Portillo: It is important that the local government commission should consider that sort of issue, and that Ministers should not jump to conclusions before the

    895
    legislation to establish that commission has even been introduced. I know that when the commission is established my hon. Friend's important views on the matter will help to guide it as to the sort of questions that it ought to be considering.
    Mr. O'Brien: The review of local government proposed by the Secretary of State will overlap with some of the proposals in the Widdicombe report, especially the role of the elected member. How does the Secretary of State intend to resolve that and, in doing so, will he note and act on the views, observations and concerns expressed by local authorities?
    Mr. Portillo: A large number of recommendations in the Widdicombe report have already been brought into effect or will be shortly. There will be some overlap, although I think that the most important areas of overlap will be not so much with the Green Paper that has been published as with the Green Paper that is yet to be published on questions of internal management. The Government will wish to take careful account of the representations made in support of what has been done under the Widdicombe proposals and, conversely, the views of people who think that the Widdicombe reforms go in the wrong direction and believe that we can do better in future.
    Mr. Alton: In the discussions with local authorities, will the Minister say what rights of redress will be provided for the citizens of cities such as Liverpool, where in some areas bins have not been emptied for the past 13 weeks? What does he intend to do to assist community charge payers in places like Liverpool, who have been called to pay an additional £70·99 in poll tax for people who did not pay the poll tax last year? Does not that run contrary to any question of natural justice?
    Mr. Portillo: I am appalled by those local authorities that, through ineptness, inefficiency or lack of will, have failed to collect community charge and are now asking law-abiding citizens to bear that burden. Those citizens have every right to be angry with their local authorities and to express their feelings most strongly through the ballot box. We have tackled the question of the standards that we can expect from local authorities through the introduction of greater choice and competition for citizens within local authorities with the extension of compulsory competitive tendering. I agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's question, that we need to go further to enfranchise more citizens so that they can have redress against local authorities which underperform. That is an important part of the consideration of the citizens' charter to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is giving a great deal of attention.
    Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend hurry up and get on with the reorganisation, because those of us who live in Cleveland are fed up with a local authority in which the leader has thrown the chairman of the county council out of his civic suite to obtain greater aggrandisement, and in which today the council is trying to fiddle competitive tendering in order to charge an additional £2 million to the people of the county? The council has already wasted nearly £1 million—and it will continue to spend money —on a would-be light rapid-transport system. It has also gone out of its way to hurt a schoolboy's chances of playing football for his county.
    Mr. Portillo: To pick just one of the very justifiable complaints that my hon. Friend makes, the Government are extremely concerned about those local authorities that cheat on compulsory competitive tendering and try to deprive their residents of the benefits of competition and choice. One of the points on which we are strongly focused is ensuring that we provide a level playing field so that compulsory competitive tendering works effectively and brings the benefits of competition and choice to our citizens.

    Severn Estuary
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent consultations he has had with the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council concerning the designation of the Severn estuary mudflats as a special protection area under the European Community wild birds directive.
    Mr. Trippier: None. My right hon. Friend is considering the case for the designation of the Severn estuary as a special protection area.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that it is nothing short of a scandal that, as a result of the Government's dithering, the proposed special protection area for the Severn estuary mudflats, along with another 160 proposed special protection areas, has been sitting in the Minister's pending tray for more than a year at vast expense in Ministers' and civil servants' time and in time spent in consultation with landowners? Yet still the Minister will not take the decision to designate the mudflats under a directive which is now 10 years old. Does he agree that if he does not do something soon, the Government's name in Europe will be "mudflats"?
    Mr. Trippier: I totally reject all that the hon. Gentleman has suggested—it cannot be dithering or time wasting. The hon. Gentleman has, probably unintentionally, misled the House, because the papers for the designation were submitted to us by the NCC only a few months ago.
    Mr. Soames: With regard to that designation, and to others from Europe, will my hon. Friend confirm that he and his colleagues in the European Community will be taking a good deal of interest in ensuring that it is understood that not every estuary in Britain is the same, and that great care and attention needs to be given on an individual basis and not just on a blanket one? Will he assure the House that he is using his best endeavours to ensure that the European departments involved are aware of those differences?
    Mr. Trippier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with every word that he said. In the past, I have had the opportunity to raise this very matter with other Ministers at the European Environment Council. It is a matter of record that I share my hon. Friend's views on this. No two estuaries are the same, and they cannot be treated in the same way for nature protection purposes.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern that the time it takes to make a designation that protects an estuary is so much longer than the time it takes for developers to work up an advanced plan that will ruin the estuary? Conservation interests do not appear to be properly upheld by the Government. Is it

    897
    true that when Ministers met the representatives of wildlife organisations a few weeks ago, Ministers made it clear that they were not interested in a common estuaries policy, which was a great disappointment to those whom they met.
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is totally wrong. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I attended the meeting to which he referred. My right hon. Friend asked the non-governmental organisations to submit in finer detail precisely what they expect from Ministers in the Department of the Environment. At no time did the Secretary of State suggest that we were prepared to go for a full-blown review of coastal policy. The matter now lies in the hands of the NGOs, which I am sure will respond positively.

    Estate Action Programme
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail the amount spent on the estate action programme in 1990–91 and the budget for 1991–92.
    Mr. Heseltine: The budget for 1990–91 was £190 million. We shall not know how much of this has been spent until local authorities finalise their end-of-year accounts. The budget for 1991–92 is £268 million.
    Mr. Squire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on figures which, at first sight, seem to show a 40 per cent. increase. Does he agree that some of the worst estates in the country, usually under the tender control of the Labour party, are being transformed by the expenditure? Some people in the worst possible housing conditions are having those conditions relieved. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a good example of a caring Government directing money to where it is needed?
    Mr. Heseltine: The whole House recognises that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made a significant effort to improve the allocation of those resources to the most acutely stressful estates. I am sure that the House will also recognise our determination to deal with the serious problems of those deprived estates, not the least of which is that systematically, year after year, they have been used to concentrate the most difficult families and allowed to deteriorate in the most appalling circumstances under Labour authorities.
    Mr. Lewis: Is not the Secretary of State aware that such programmes distort the whole business of planning in local authorities? Out-of-city estates, which share inner-city problems, have been totally ignored not by local authorities, but by the Secretary of State. Does he agree that his latest wheeze of a Dutch auction for funds will exacerbate the problems?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman does not completely understand the issue. The basis on which most of the revival policy is set was the restoration of the Cantril Farm estate, which is now Stockbridge Village Trust. That estate has been transformed by the policies of the Government.
    The hon. Gentleman took issue with the allocation of funds, but if any of the authorities eligible for our new city
    898
    challenge wishes to submit a proposal for restoring an out-of-town, overspill estate it will be eligible for treatment, as it is already through the estate action programme.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Littleborough and Saddleworth we have an estate called the Holts estate? Last year, it applied for some money through the estate action programme. It is desperately in need of help as it has been sorely neglected. It is within the metropolitan borough of Oldham. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when that application is resubmitted, he will give it serious consideration?
    Mr. Heseltine: I should find it impossible to resist my

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his proposed total standard spending for local authorities for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): My right hon. Friend expects to make this announcement, as usual, in July.
    Mr. Michie: What ceiling do the Government envisage for spending next year, bearing in mind the Government's commitment yesterday to placing the capped authorities and their alignment of money which the Government hope will match the council tax guesstimates for local community needs?
    Mr. Key: This year, total standard spending was £39 billion, which is an increase on 1990–91 of about 19 per cent. We are still considering the pressures that will fall on local authorities' spending in 1992–93. We have discussed the matter with local government representatives and we shall continue to do so.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When considering the standard spending assessment for 1992–93, will the Minister bear in mind the point that has repeatedly been made by me and Lancaster and Wyre borough councils—that the all-ages social index works very savagely against boroughs such as ours? Will he consider the composition of that index and the weighting within it?
    Mr. Key: Yes, I am delighted to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. We shall carefully consider that matter. We have already received representations from other councils and we shall listen carefully. If my hon. Friend has particular representations that she would like to make, I should be very glad to see her to discuss them.
    Mr. Blunkett: As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) said, yesterday the capping rules were spelt out in such a way that the proposed council tax figures that were guessed at a couple of months ago are to be applied to spending limits. Will the Government spell out how they intend to do that with the figures that they are to use for next year? In particular, can the Government say whether they intend to take on board the Audit Commission's correct analysis—that, at the very minimum, £800 million of spending that could have been engaged in next year is to be withdrawn from the British public because of the need to retain the poll tax instead of adopting our alternative?
    Mr. Key: I was pleased to receive the Audit Commission's endorsement—[Laughter.] Oh, yes. It was incorrectly reported in The Times this morning. The hon. Gentleman will discover that Mr. Howard Davies has already written to The Times to repudiate that. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what I will do. I shall give him further details of our plans if he will give us details of the announcement made yesterday to the House by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who said that the Labour party has decided on a new way of distributing grant. That was the first that anyone had heard of it.
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received to change the present arrangements for distributing revenue support grant to local authorities.
    Mr. Key: I have received a number of representations about the present method of distributing revenue support grant.
    Mr. Cran: When will my hon. Friend be able to respond to the various suggestions made by a delegation that went to see him recently—led by the borough of Beverley but representing the views of about 10 district councils—and in particular the suggestion that there should be a grant system for London on the one hand and for the rest of the country on the other? In so doing, will he accept the thanks of the members of that delegation for the constructive way in which he met and spoke to them?
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. On 22 May I received an important delegation from Beverley, but also represented were Broadland, Harborough, Holderness, North Kesteven, Rutland, Ryedale, Selby, South Northamptonshire and South Ribble. The very serious representations that they made are being considered by me and my colleagues. They proposed that there should be separate formulae for London and the rest of the country that would produce a relatively small gain for a large number of average and below-average need districts and a fairly substantial loss for the metropolitan districts and a small number of urban shire districts. That is the problem, but we shall look at it very carefully.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that in its representations on the changing of local government finance which the Audit Commission published this morning, the commission—set up in 1983 by this Government—recommends the total abolition of the 20 per cent. payment of poll tax rule? Is he further aware that four of the five people who are currently in prison and at least 13 of the 27 who have been in prison for non-payment of the poll tax have no income, or depend entirely on state benefits? Instead of the platitudes of the past few minutes, when will this Government listen to a body that they set up, abolish the 20 per cent. poll tax rule and stop punishing people for their only crime—that of being poor?
    Mr. Key: If I could drag the hon. Gentleman into the 20th century and, indeed, into this year, I would point out to him that we have listened. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made a number of announcements this year about proposals to introduce a council tax to replace the community charge. The point about the community charge relief systems that are in operation is that they are designed to help precisely those
    900
    people of whom the hon. Gentleman pretends to be a champion. One point that he should continually stress is the need for everyone to pay their community charge so that we do not have this scandal of the honest majority continuing to pay for those who will not pay.

    People Sleeping Rough
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his initiative for dealing with people sleeping rough in London.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): The initiative has made an encouraging start. My Department has made £96 million available over three years for permanent housing, direct access hostels and support for rough sleepers. So far, some 1,000 places have been provided in a mix of houses, flats and hostels and these are already occupied by people who would otherwise be sleeping out. This number should double within the next six months and reach a total of over 3,000 by the end of next year.
    The initiative has begun to have a significant effect on the numbers sleeping rough in central London and I hope that progress will continue as more accommodation becomes available.
    I pay tribute to the voluntary groups, the housing associations and the London boroughs for the part that they have played in ensuring the successful start of the initiative in central London.
    Mr. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that people working in that sector recognise the enormous progress that has been made since he became the Minister responsible for housing? Is he further aware that, as he suggested, as a result of the initiatives, substantial inroads have been made into the number of people sleeping rough in London?
    Does my hon. Friend share my view that the much smaller number of people now sleeping rough on the streets of London have multiple problems and are a hard core of people for whom accommodation will not necessarily provide the whole answer and who may therefore remain on the streets? Can he make progress in collaboration with other Departments to make available to such people the complicated care and help that they need?
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. The resources were put in place by a far-sighted predecessor. My hon. Friend is right that the numbers are down. The people whom it has been easiest to help are those most ready to abandon rough sleeping. The more progress one makes the more one reaches a different client group, for which rough sleeping is more of a culture. That group needs more help and support if it is to be persuaded to abandon that culture.
    In response to my hon. Friend's final question, 1 am happy to say that the Department of Health now plays a significant part in the initiative. It is providing hostels with high care, which can cope with some of the people who are mentally ill or have drink or drug problems. The first of those hostels was opened in April. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health

    901
    announced a further £2·7 million of revenue funding over three years, to provide further psychiatric support for people who sleep rough.
    Mr. Winnick: Is not it an appalling commentary on Government policies that, just a few yards from here, so many people are still sleeping out in alleyways and stations? It is almost impossible not to find such people on one's way home in the evening. Does not the Minister realise that, whatever provisions the Government are making, at long last, what is really required—and not in London alone—is that local authorities should once again be able to build accommodation? There are many people who may not necessarily be sleeping rough, but whom—this includes many of our constituents—are desperate for accommodation. Their problems will be resolved only when council house building begins again.
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman gives no credit to the many voluntary organisations that have worked hard over the past six months to make a real impact on the problem and reduce the numbers. The initiative relates not only to hostel spaces. For every hostel space there are two spaces in permanent move-on accommodation. This is not a short-term temporary solution but a long-term solution for people who have been sleeping rough for many years.

    County Structure Plans
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met Serplan—the South-East Regional Planning Committee—to discuss county structure plans; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment met the chairman of Serplan on 1 August last year and I met the chairman on 14 February this year. On both occasions the discussion covered a range of topics, which included county structure plans. In addition, both my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State and I addressed a Serplan conference on 6 March this year.
    Mr. MacKay: Has my hon. Friend seen the press release from Serplan, which says that the committee questions the demand forecast for aggregates and suggests that his Department's estimates are considerably exaggerated? If so, will he confirm to the House that Berkshire county council's draft mineral plan—it will considerably affect my constituency as there would be huge mineral developments in Crowthorne woods, which would be quite unacceptable to local people—can and should be thrown out? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no need to treat the Department's suggestions as absolute guidelines and that they will not affect future appeals?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right that the two matters should be regarded separately and that the first should not have a bearing on the second. I make it clear, however, that the forecasts of 7 May are not Government forecasts but independent forecasts put out for consultation and that the Government have emphasised that they would like to hear the views of the House and of local authorities about whether those forecasts are correct. We are also concerned about their potential environmental implications and are urgently considering other ways of getting the aggregates that the country needs.
    Mr. Bellotti: What will happen to the county structure plans when the counties are abolished? Is not this the time for the Government to consider that matter and—bearing in mind the very valuable role of Serplan—to look towards a regional tier of government so that these valuable matters can be properly addressed?
    Sir George Young: The Government have no plans at all to introduce another tier of regional government. On the hon. Gentleman's first question, any reorganisation is some years away. In the meantime, it is important to put the existing structure and local plans in place. If there is a need to adjust the planning machinery in the future, that will be the time to introduce legislation.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: When my hon. Friend met representatives of Serplan to discuss structure plans, did he give them any indication that his Department was reconsidering its policy of requiring district authorities to earmark a five-year supply of building land? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if that policy is continued, it will inevitably mean overdevelopment in home counties such as Berkshire?
    Sir George Young: I am well aware of the strong feeling of many Berkshire Members about the regional guidance housing figures. I emphasise that they are guidance figures. They are not inflexible and they remain to be tested in the process of the structure plan reviews. I think that I am right in saying that Berkshire is in the process of reviewing its structure plan. No doubt when we receive its revised plan later this year we shall have an opportunity to look at it—in particular in the light of fresh figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys which are due out shortly.

    Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many school-age children are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
    Mr. Yeo: This information is not available centrally, but it is estimated that about 65 per cent. of households accepted as homeless last year and found other permanent or temporary accommodation contained dependent children. The Government's homelessness initiative is intended to help local authorities in London and the south-east to secure more permanent housing as an alternative to using bed-and-breakfast and other temporary accommodation for homeless families.
    Miss Lestor: If the Minister is saying that the Government do not collect the statistics nationally, it is about time that they did. Research undertaken by Kim Greener at Brunel university has shown that 140,000 school-age children are now in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Is the Minister aware that those children suffer nutritionally because there are no proper cooking facilities in the accommodation and that that affects their educational attainment, because a hungry or malnourished child cannot learn properly? It is about time that the Government reversed their housing policy, because the selling of council houses has meant that all the council houses that could house large families have gone.

    903
    Many of the families concerned have been in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for 18 months and their children are suffering to a degree that should not be permitted.
    Mr. Yeo: I am astonished at the hon. Lady's question. Our figures show that there are about 11,000 or 12,000 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Unless each family has 12 children, the figure of 140,000 clearly bears no relation to reality. I was also interested to hear the hon. Lady say that the Labour party would abandon the policy of selling council houses.
    We have never suggested that bed-and-breakfast accommodation was a satisfactory form of housing, even on a temporary basis. I am glad to say that the figures show that the sharp increase in the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation some years ago has now come to an end and that today the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accomodation represents only a tiny fraction of the number of empty properties held by local authorities. The vast majority of such authorities are under Labour control and the price of the disastrous and incompetent management of the housing stock by Labour-controlled local authorities is paid every day by homeless families and their children.
    Mr. Leighton: Why are there so many thousands of children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation when there is so much underused accommodation available? Was not the market supposed to bring supply and demand into balance? As the Secretary of State is so well supplied in this respect and has several large houses, should not the Minister speak to the right hon. Gentleman and invite him to make a personal contribution to the solution of this grave problem?
    Mr. Yeo: That was yet another questioner who shows the Labour party's deep underlying hostility to home ownership. Not only could every homeless family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation be accommodated in a tiny fraction of the empty local authority properties, but every single family in the country currently in temporary housing could be accommodated as well, and there would still be 40,000 properties left over.

    Councillors
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory provisions covering the terms under which an employee of one local authority may serve as a councillor on another; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: Sections 1 to 3 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 set out the circumstances in which an employee of one local authority is disqualified from being a councillor in another, thus reinforcing the long-standing convention about the political impartiality of senior local government staff.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he comment on a situation that has arisen in my constituency where the chairman of Thurrock Labour party, which is the ruling party on Thurrock council, also works as the NALGO convener on the council at a salary package of £25,000? He has just negotiated a car leasing deal for senior officers which will cost ratepayers £500,000 a year, at a time when the council has sent notices to people
    904
    in the rural area saying that it does not have the money to clear sewage. If there is not a bad smell behind that, I should like to know where there is one.
    Mr. Key: The important question is not what the officer is paid, but what are his duties. If they involve regularly advising councillors on speaking to the media, the political restrictions must apply. If that is not included in his duties he is entitled to stand for another council. If my hon. Friend has reason to think that an officer whose duties regularly include these politically sensitive matters has not been subjected to the restrictions, she should draw the case to the attention of the independent adjudicator who has power, if the statutory conditions are met, to direct that the officer's post be added to the list of those that are politically restricted.
    Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend consider extending the statutory provisions to candidates? In my constituency the Labour candidate, who works for Leicester county council, appears to be electioneering on about four days out of five. That is a total scandal at the ratepayers' expense.
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend, with his excellent record of representing his constituents, should have nothing to fear from such a candidate.
    Mr. Skinner: Have not the Tories a cheek to talk about two jobs when 250 Tory Members have moonlighting jobs? Some of them have as many as six, but after the next election Tebbit will be running an agency for all the defeated Tory Members because they will be out of jobs here. The Minister should direct his attention to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) who, when elected to the House, was an officer of an authority and he kept both jobs.
    Mr. Key: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was a professional mushroom picker.

    Leasehold Property
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to reform the law relating to leasehold property; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Yeo: The commonhold proposals will have implications for the law in respect of leasehold flats, but we have no present plans for changes in respect of leasehold houses.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of my constituents face appalling treatment from a company called Munny Ltd. in the Prestwich part of my constituency? They recently formed themselves into a residents' association, but the law needs to be strengthened. We need to move forward urgently on the commonhold front and I ask my hon. Friend to consider including it in the Queen's Speech later this year.
    Mr. Yeo: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and join him in condemning the antics of certain bad freeholders in his constituency. My hon. Friend's constituents are extremely fortunate to have such a vigorous champion of their interests in the House. The ultimate protection in such cases is to be found in the right of all leaseholders of houses to purchase their freehold,

    905
    subject, of course, to the value of the property. Through the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 we have greatly strengthened the rights of leaseholders in houses.
    Mr. Flynn: I draw the Minister's attention to the case of some of my constituents, whose leasehold was sold by one company for £800 and then offered by another for £3,500, three months later. They had no help from the law. Is not it time that leasehold, which has been the scourge of south Wales housing for 150 years, was done away with, because it serves no useful purpose, except to allow speculators to make money out of people's homes?
    Mr. Yeo: As I said, the ultimate sanction lies in the right of leaseholders to purchase the freeholds of their houses if they fall within the right limits. Nothing in law prevents the freeholder from selling the freehold to another purchaser if he so wishes. That right is exercised by a large number of people under satisfactory circumstances and we have no plans to change the law.

    Local Government Review
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has had from the south-west on his consultation on the proposed future structure and functions of local government.
    Mr. Heseltine: We have so far received eight responses from the south-west to the consultative document on local government structure.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for his approach to this matter, which avoids a top down "Whitehall knows best" approach? Is he also aware that all parties in Taunton Deane, my local authority, want that authority to preserve its natural identity and do not want it extended to either Minehead or Bridgwater? Is he further aware that there may be a role for a slimmed-down county council covering planning, education and social services but that, above all, we do not want regional government?
    Mr. Heseltine: I can help my hon. Friend. We are under no illusions about the reluctance to adopt regional government, and we have no plans so to do. I hear clearly his views about his specific interest on the local structure of his authority. Doubtless, these matters will be put with equal eloquence to the local government commission when we set it up.

    Greater London Council
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations seeking recreation of the GLC.
    Mr. Portillo: I have not received any representations seeking recreation of the GLC.
    Mr. Dunn: I speak for the people of Dartford and north-west Kent when I tell the Minister that we are opposed to any move to recreate the GLC and to extend its boundaries to the M25, as is the policy of the Labour party. Is my hon. Friend aware that that would mean the end of Dartford as an independent borough in the county of Kent?
    Mr. Portillo: The extraordinary thing is that even the Labour party is so embarrassed about the record of the GLC that it has to say that it will not recreate it. We know that if a Labour Government were elected, they would try to recreate something similar, but with greater powers and more bureaucracy. They would like to give it powers over the police. I cannot imagine anything worse than the body that indulged in undermining the police being given such powers.

    Councillors' Allowances
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the review of local authorities' members' allowances will be included in the Government's review of local government; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to carry out consultations with local authority organisations on the councillors' allowances scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: My Department has worked closely with the local authority associations in drawing up the new system of members' allowances which took effect from 1 April this year. The new system will be reviewed after a year's operation in consultation with the associations.
    Mr. Battle: Is it the Government's intention to introduce allowances and full payments for councillors in line with the Secretary of State's proposals for new city-paid mayors? Is that the Government's policy, or do we have to wait for review after review?
    Mr. Key: The consultation paper on internal management will be published when we have given due consideration to the issue and the role of councillors will be examined in that context.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister realise that the dithering and delay that have been such features of this Government have extended even to the latest proposals for the compensation that is paid to councillors for attending council meetings? The present system, only recently introduced, is still unsatisfactory. There are many hundreds of councillors throughout the country who are giving their time—in many instances at their own expense—yet are being subjected to scorn and abuse, much of it being poured on them by Conservative Members and Ministers. Does the Minister recognise the work that councillors do for this country?
    Mr. Key: I have no hesitation in praising councillors for the work that they do. The best councillors work extremely hard in the interests of their constituents. The regulations, which we discussed in Committee some while ago, were agreed by hon. Members of all parties without a Division. I am sure that the regulations represent the best way forward.

    BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 28 JUNE
    Members successful in the ballot were:

    Mr. Ron Leighton

    Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo

    Mr. John D. Taylor

Points of Order
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it is the right of all Back-Bench Members to express their point of view in the Chamber or outside it, and that any attempt to stop Members doing that would be serious? It should be noted that there seems to be an attempt to stop one Member of this place from expressing a viewpoint. I refer to persistent reports—no doubt you have seen them, Mr. Speaker—that attempts are being made to muzzle the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). Yesterday, the Prime Minister said in answer to a question that all Members of this place have a right to express a point of view, yet there are persistent reports in various newspapers, including the Evening Standard, that attempts are being made—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with points of order one at a time. I can only subscribe to what the Prime Minister said yesterday. In any case, what is said outside the Chamber is not a matter for me.
Mr. David Ashby: Rather than that bogus point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a genuine point of order. I am concerned about the membership of Select Committees. I understand that hon. Members are allocated to the Committees according to the strength of the parties represented in the House. It is rumoured, on strong authority, that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) are threatened with expulsion from the Labour
908
party if they support the Militant candidate in the Liverpool, Walton by-election. If that threat were to be carried out—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is an equally bogus point of order. I cannot deal with rumours.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is this a genuine point of order?
Mr. Hughes: Yes, Mr. Speaker. You are, of course, the guardian of the reputation, in one sense, of hon. Members when they are in the Chamber. I have been grateful to you for protecting my reputation against that of another hon. Member who shares my name, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). It is said, Mr. Speaker, that there are candidates in the Liverpool, Walton by-election who claim that they represent the real Labour party and the genuine Labour party. If one of the two candidates happens to be elected, how should he describe himself in the record? How will we ensure that we know which bunch of thugs is represented as against the other bunch of thugs?
Mr. Speaker: I am surprised that the hon. Member cannot do better than that. I understand that there are also candidates in elections that call themselves loonie-this and loonie-that. I think that we had better get on.

WELSH AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question put .forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 98 ( Welsh Grand Committee),
Question agreed to.
That the Matter of the Welsh economy, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Welfare of Calves (Export)
3.34 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move, That leave he given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the export of calves where, after such export, they are to be kept in conditions which would be unlawful in Great Britain—notably, in veal crates. The Bill clears up an anomaly that has arisen since the Welfare of Calves Regulations came into force on 1 January last year. Of all the cruelties devised for the rearing of farm animals, the veal crates system is one of the most repugnant.
Infant calves are removed from their mother at the age of one or two days—a process that involves extreme distress to both—and within about a week they are sent to market. There then follows a gruelling journey to ports such as Harwich or Dover, a sea journey to the European mainland, and a further road journey. Some calves come from as far away as Scotland or Wales and some will not survive the journey. Those who do not are lucky.
Once the calves arrive at their destination, a terrible fate awaits them. They are put into a veal crate, a solid wooden box just big enough for the young animal to stand or lie down but not to turn around. As the calf grows larger it will not even be allowed to lie down in the normal, stretched-out position. It will remain in the crate for the rest of its short, miserable life of about 26 weeks. Throughout that time, it either stands or lies on the slatted wooden floor. It is given no straw or other bedding material because, were it to eat the straw its flesh might turn into a healthy red whereas European consumers want their veal to be pale pink—to such an extent that it is referred to as "white veal".
To achieve that, the calf is denied not only the roughage and fibre that it craves but is fed throughout its life on an all-liquid diet of milk powder mixed with water. The iron content is kept deliberately low in a further attempt to keep the flesh pale. Many calves are reckoned to be anaemic by the time they are slaughtered. In a desperate attempt to eat fibre, the poor animal licks at its wooden crate and its own hair. The post-mortem examination of a veal calls stomach often reveals balls of hair, which is evidence of the animal's futile attempts to feed itself with the fibre denied by its human owners.
Anyone who has ever seen calves playing in a field will know how beautifully they play together. These unfortunate animals glimpse other calves only at feeding time—once or twice a day when the front of their crates are opened to allow them to drink their miserable rations from a bucket. As they grow up in their crates, those deprived creatures are subject to infectious diseases of the respiratory and digestive systems. To control the infections they are often given repeated doses of antibiotics. As the calves grow larger, the calf shed often gets hotter and they frequently experience heat stress.
910
As long ago as 1981, the Select Committee on Agriculture described that system of rearing calves as "abhorrent". But it was not until the introduction of the Welfare of Calves Regulations in 1987 that veal crates were finally banned in this country. Even that ban did not come into force until 1 January last year. Although veal crates are banned in Britain, British farmers currently export about 1,000 calves a day to be reared in Europe in the very system we have outlawed here. Moreover, much of the meat—some 40 per cent. —is re-imported to this country. Last year, we exported 345,700 calves, mostly to the Netherlands and France, where the veal crate is in widespread use.
Under the Bill, that trade will be illegal. Some people will say that we have no choice because the treaty of Rome obliges us to submit those animals to lifelong degradation. I disagree; article 36 of the treaty enables a member state to impose restrictions on exports or imports where those can be justified on grounds of public morality or public policy, or on grounds of the protection of health and life of animals or humans.
If ever there was a case for taking a stand on grounds of morality, this is it. I look forward to the day when British Ministers go to Brussels, as they are about to do in the case of sow stalls, and take the initiative in persuading the EC to outlaw veal crates throughout the EC. I am confident that a Labour Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would do that.
Unlike you, Mr. Speaker, I am not a vegetarian, but the more that I find out about the way in which our farm animals are treated, the less meat I can bring myself to eat. I know that many people of all political persuasions take the same view. There is a growing revulsion in Britain against the way in which farmers and meat manufacturers rear meat. Farmers and meat manufacturers ignore that revulsion at their peril.
The Bill is only one of a number of recent measures designed to restore some morality to the meat industry. It has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chris Mullin, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Bob Clay, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Bowen Wells, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Ron Davies and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Welfare of Calves (Export)
  WELFARE OF CALVES (EXPORT)
  Mr. Chris Mullin accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the export of calves where, after such export, they are to be kept in conditions which would be unlawful in Great Britain: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

  Points of Order
  3.41 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not customary for a representative of the Department for which ten-minute Bills are being proposed to be present throughout its hearing? I can recall this question being raised before when a previous Speaker recommended that a Minister representing the Department concerned should be here—of course, the Government cannot be forced—as a matter of courtesy, interest and potential support. I regret to note that a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has not been present for an important Bill which is supported by me and many of my hon. Friends and Conservative Members.
  Mr. James Paice: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his junior Minister have been prevented from attending by other important duties. However, I am Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I shall ensure that he receives a full report on the Bill.
  Mr. Tony Banks: On a completely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would be useful to have it on record that the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) when question 17 was called earlier and about which Conservative Members made a number of comments, was due to the fact that his wife, Claudia, gave birth to a baby today and he is looking after her.
  Mr. Speaker: It was chivalrous of the hon. Gentleman to draw that matter to the attention of the House. I am sure that the House wishes the parents and the baby well.

Orders of the Day
  Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill

    SECOND DAY
    Considered in Committee. [Progress, 11 June]
    [Miss BETTY BOOTHROYD in the Chair]

    Clause 3

      VALUATION OF DOMESTIC PROPERTIES
      3.43 pm
      Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'a' and insert 'an individual'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 27, in page 2, line 48, leave out 'of all the domestic properties' and insert
      'comprising the values of each domestic property'.
      No. 28, in page 2, line 49, leave out from 'area' to end.
      New clause 12—Valuation—
      'There shall be maintained for each levying authority area in Scotland a valuation list showing the value of each property. This list shall be prepared and from time to time updated in accordance with arrangements to be prescribed.'.
      Mr. Blunkett: In moving the amendment it is appropriate for me to ask a number of questions. First, who, in June 1979, referring to the scrapping of the then valuation system, said, "Tear them up"? Who was it who started the shambles which has culminated in the proposed introduction of the council tax? Who, by delaying that valuation, ensured that the rating system became difficult to operate? Who cut the grants to local authorities in the early 1980s who ensured that that happened?
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
      Mr. Blunkett: No, it was not my right hon. Friend who made that remark; it was the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), now the Secretary of State for the Environment. He said "Tear them up" and the tearing-up process resulted in the infliction of the poll tax on the British people because it helped to discredit the rating system and, with the cuts in grant, made it very difficult for councils to operate in the environment in which the Secretary of State for the Environment had placed local authorities. The Bill is therefore the direct result of the first set of actions taken by the present Secretary of State.
      It must also be said that Conservative Members, and especially Conservative Back Benchers, are in great danger of being conned. Today decisions will be taken by the House on the nature of the valuation system and on the commitment to a banding process. As the media may not be aware of it any more than are many Back Benchers, it behoves us to state that, once this allegedly small Bill is on the statute book, many of the decisions about what the council tax will entail will have been decided.

      913
      What stands between the Back Benchers and a second round of public wrath and acrimony similar to that caused by the poll tax is a statutory instrument or negative order which is unamendable, unchangeable and eminently whippable. In other words, after tonight Conservative Members will have been conned. They will not be able to say that they did not know because this afternoon we are giving them the opportunity to change their minds. They might feel that it is a good idea to start the valuation system now, from the passage of the Bill, because that will give them a breathing space in which to tell people that the system is under way. However, they will not realise that they will get the banding system whether or not they like it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will outline later. They will be denied a return to the rates and art immediate abolition of the poll tax, which again my hon. Friend will shortly spell out.
      Conservative Members will be faced with the delay that the Audit Commission rightly mentioned in its submission today for the consultation exercise that finishes this Friday. It said that the cost—a minimum of £800 million a year—will have to be borne by the British people. We estimate that it will be considerably more than that. That money could be spent on saving essential services. It would clearly prevent any arguments in favour of capping; it would ensure that teachers had the books and equipment to do their job; it would mean that social services throughout the country would have the cash to ensure that home helps could be provided; and it would also ensure the maintenance of leisure facilities, libraries, the environment in general and decent transport, all of which are currently under threat. Such provisions could be continued with that money which, instead, will be used to continue the poll tax.
      It is even worse that today's debate is taking place just two days before the consultation period is due to finish. In other words, it is a farce that bodies such as the Audit Commission, the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, local authority associations and many others are submitting their evidence as part of the so-called consultation, which is to be completed by Friday, only to find that the horse has bolted before the stable door has even been opened. That adds insult to injury for all those who took seriously the Secretary of State's words earlier this year when he said that he believed in consultation.
      As my hon. Friends will remember, the Secretary of State chided us and said, "Come and see us. Consultation is a serious matter." He had the Liberals come to see him and told them that he would take them seriously. They presented their evidence for an alternative that would have abolished valuation, but what did the Secretary of State do? He added up their figures, and then used them against them. It did not do the Conservatives much good in local elections.
      The valuation process starts today, and it must involve an assessment of what sample properties mean. It is no good the Secretary of State saying, "We have a valuation system called banding." We need a system for assessing the actual value of the property. That value will then determine the bands into which similar properties will be placed. We need to know on what basis that will be done. Will it be capital value rating?
      The Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation has rightly raised clear questions about what the system will entail. It submitted evidence under the consultation
      914
      process, and the Secretary of State should be made aware of it because time is running out. Proceedings on this Bill will be finished late tonight, so further consultation will be irrelevant. In its evidence, the institute said:
      "There is no precedent, as far as the Institute is aware, for the grouping of properties into different tax bands for the purpose of a property tax. It is generally assumed, particularly in a capital value based system, that an exact valuation can be arrived at and defended in relation to other neighbouring values through an appeals system."
      That is important to the way in which people will perceive what they are charged, and also to their rights as individuals to challenge the valuation, and therefore the placing of their properties in particular bands. It will materially affect what they will pay, and on the margin that could be quite substantial. It could be 20 per cent. under the proposed banding system.
      The institute continued:
      "It is hard to imagine that properties can be placed in bands without the valuer going through at least the mental exercise of determining an exact or 'spot ' valuation."
      The system cannot operate unless there is an exercise such as that referred to by the institute. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham will later spell out the mental exercise carried out earlier this year when the Government invented the banding system. To move forward today, there must be some guess about the valuation system. What will it be?
      Mr. Dick Douglas: The House should be clear that the hon. Gentleman is referring to an entirely English practice. There is a new clause grouped with the amendment that refers to Scotland, although I do not propose to speak to it. I must make it clear that the Scottish Assessors Association has distinctly different views from those being expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Blunkett: We are discussing a clause that relates only to England and Wales, and I had presumed that the House would understand that. Our amendment relates to the valuation system in England. Other amendments will be discussed later that refer specifically to Scotland. We are talking about the way in which we want individual valuations to be undertaken.
      The problem is that nobody really knows what the system will be or what the professionals will be expected to do. The general secretary of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Mr. Michael Pattison, is quoted in today's Evening Standard as describing the system as likely to be a shambles. He said:
      "banding allocations will become unrealistic and unfair. This is the fast route to a discredited tax."
      It will be the fast route to the demise of Tory Members. Unless they take seriously what is being said, they will run into exactly the same problems that they experienced with the poll tax. A quick solution with easy answers ended up as one of the most complicated and difficult fiascos in the history of British politics.
      The Confederation of British Industry's rating and property manager, Mr. Sharman, who chairs its valuation committee, said:
      "From a professional point of view I don't like the banding system, it seems to go against the principles of valuation."
      It cannot do anything else, unless this afternoon we hear spelt out what that sampling or mental exercise system will be based on. From today, valuers will be asked to go out and do the job—to sample properties and select beacon properties which show how properties will fit into whatever number of bands we eventually end up with.

      915
      We have been asking whether there will be regular revaluations and Ministers have been responding. We understand not. On 24 May, in an interview with the Municipal Journal, the Minister of State said:
      "Once a property has gone into a band, we think it will stay in that band virtually in perpetuity."
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out at the end of the Second Reading debate, one cannot get more determined than "in perpetuity". That means that a property will stay where it is "virtually" for ever. Without constant revaluation and with the Secretary of State's words of June 1979, "Tear them up", ringing in everybody's ears, we shall run into exactly the same problems as we have had in recent years.
      People must be told of their rights of appeal. They must be given those rights. Again, I should be grateful for the Minister's clarification. I understand from the conclusion of the Second Reading debate that rights of appeal will exist. Will he confirm that they will exist not simply in Scotland, which was being referred to at the time, but in England and Wales? If rights of appeal do not exist, the British people had better know from today.
      People can make a judgment when the surveyor, estate agent or estate agent's agent, son or daughter has been sent round to do a spot check on their street. We have no guarantees of the professionalism of those doing that job. People will demand the right to know, first, what it is that their property is being valued on, and, secondly, whether they have a right to challenge the valuation. Unless there are individual valuations, the right of appeal will inevitably lead to mayhem. People will demand to know on what basis their property is assessed and how they can judge whether it is fair. The difficulty of dealing with appeals will become a nightmare.
      There are 23,000 outstanding valuations under the national business rate in west Yorkshire alone. As 1,000 valuations are made a year, they will be just about completed by the year 2015. It is an absolute farce. At least with individual valuations, one stands a chance of making a judgment, but without them, what is being argued about? It must be whether one has the same sort of house in the same street or same neighbourhood and what factors affect its value.
      One must be absolutely clear that the valuation must be on sale price, and sale price relates to capital values. That is what was described, when the Scottish Labour party first mooted it, as the roof tax. That is what Tory Members called it. The then chairman of the Conservative party and present Home Secretary described it in glowing terms as
      "the hammer of capital value rates".
      He said that it would
      "hit tenants as well as home owners. Instead of people benefiting from an increase in the value of their properties, they would be heavily penalised."
      My source for this information is the well known and reliable newspaper, the Daily Mail, in its edition of 19 September 1989—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) says that he will buy the paper—
      Mr. Irvine Patnick: I merely said that I was back.
      4 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman always lets me know when he is back. I should like him to buy the newspaper: when it gets off its propaganda, its articles are quite informative and extremely well written. I do not fall into the trap into which the Secretary of State for Education and Science falls. He attacks any newspaper that does not agree with his point of view.
      Be that as it may, Ministers appear to have changed their minds and to have decided that capital values—or sale price—are acceptable for the sampling process. After all, the Minister of State, a well-known opponent of property valuation and of a property tax, said as much himself:
      "property values are no proxy for wealth or income and any system based on property will repeat the injustice of the domestic rates."—[Official Report, 22 May 1990; Vol. 173. c. 186.]
      So it is on record that the Conservatives do not believe in property valuation or in capital values—sale price—but they intend to have a system which will in the end result in properties being placed in bands.
      Consultation exercise No. 2.21 says that
      "straightforward rental and capital values both have substantial disadvantages as a basis for local taxation".
      By way of an excuse for that, consultation exercise No. 2.22 states:
      "The Government believe that these problems can be overcome by a new approach: by adopting a banded system".
      A system of banding merely places properties relative to each other once a valuation has taken place, but the valuation has to take place first before the allocation to a band can happen. That is why we tabled this important amendment, and, in the months to come, many Conservative Members will greatly regret not voting for it.
      On the day when the Secretary of State made his announcement in the House, 23 April, I described this as the chip shop factor. Unfortunately, he misunderstood what I meant. He thought that I was having a go at chip shop owners, and he predicted that they would come down in force to put their point of view as part of the consultation process which ends this Friday. I did not mean what he thought. I meant that a person who lives next door to a chip shop and next door to a disco on the other side—[Interruption.]
      It has been suggested that some hon. Members do not understand what happens in Sheffield. Those who live in large houses worth £800,000 in Westminster and who will pay only £227 under the proposed council tax, and those who live in mansions in Oxfordshire, do not live next door to chip shops—and I am pleased for them. I do not want people to have to live next door to chip shops. It is bad for their cholesterol levels apart from anything else. It is also bad for the price of their house—and not because chip shops are bad or because their owners are malevolent. It is just that they bring down the price of a property, so people in similar property, with a garden of the same size, just down the road expect to pay more than the property next door to the chip shop.
      That was the rough and ready justice of the old rating system. The person whose house overlooks the local park at the end of the street, and has a wonderful environment in which to enjoy his garden and the quiet pleasure of his home, is in a completely different position from the person who lives next door to a small workshop where someone drills cars all day. Not to understand that is to

      917
      misunderstand the wrath of thousands of people who will be put into the wrong band because the sampling process has placed their houses together with properties of the same type, but with higher sale value.
      The system will be damned unfair and everyone knows it. As we shall spell out later, it will be unfair between families and individuals, and between different parts of the country and different parts of the same street. It will be no good expecting to keep it quiet, because people will talk to each other. They will all understand which band their property is in, and the circumstances in which they live.
      What method will be used? If the sale price is used, it will be capital values. If not, we need to know what the basis will be. Ministers may spill the beans this afternoon. They may like to withdraw the Bill, even at this late stage, think again and talk to their Back Benchers about how to proceed. It may help Ministers if they do not have to stand on their heads and wave their legs in the air for the second time in 12 months. The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities—who is a very able politician—may even be able to hold down his job with some integrity if he does not have to contradict himself so regularly. Who knows, between now and the general election, there may be a change of Prime Minister and a different system may again be introduced. If so, the Minister will probably come back and say the opposite. I hope that he will tell us how he feels about that prospect.
      One thing is absolutely clear: the professionals do not think that the council tax is a good idea. The Audit Commission has considerable doubts about it. The public know that the delay that they are incurring is at their expense, and that the mess that we are in is of the Government's making. Perhaps the best way of getting the message across to the public is to ask them a little conundrum: when is a value not a value? When it is the value of someone else's property just down the road. That is what we are faced with. However, it will not happen.
      Valuations will be carried out during the summer. Expenditure will be incurred. If the general election is delayed until next spring, £250 million of our money will be spent on this system. Night after night throughout the winter, we will discuss the council tax in the unhealthy environment of the Committee Rooms; no one will be listening and no one will be watching. It will all catch up on the Government in the end, just as the poll tax did. In Committee, people laughed and sneered until 2 am. Some hon. Members joked when the Church of England Synod announced that it was against the poll tax. The poll tax and its aftermath will deal the Government a severe and irrevocable political blow.
      The council tax, like the poll tax, is ill thought out and is being introduced far too rapidly. We will replace it by amending whatever is on the statute book to make it fairer, more understandable and more acceptable to the British people.
      Sir Rhodes Boyson: I must come to the defence of chip shop owners. As a Lancastrian—I lived there for 35 years before I came to London—I mention every night in my prayers an aunt who had a chip shop. She remembered me in her will and I remember her in my prayers. I do not know what occupation she has in the afterlife, but no doubt it will be done as efficiently as her Lancashire chip shop.
      I would not necessarily wish to live next to a Lancashire chip shop, or certainly not in London because the gap
      918
      between us must be very wide. However, there is no doubt that the chip shop is part of the culture of Lancashire. There is no doubt that in the first and second world wars the Lancashire Fusiliers were part of the strength of our country, with a basis of those potato chips, which were mostly grown in Lancashire, and of the ordinary working-class life there.
      However, I do not speak in defence of Lancashire now but on behalf of London, which I represent. The banding system is better than individual rating. If one returns to a system in which everyone's house is looked at every year there will be more valuers and bureaucrats than people living in this country—certainly more than the number of chip shops. There will be valuers everywhere. When one puts in central heating the charge will go up, and we do riot want to return to that system.
      I welcome the Government's original idea of three bands, a band for Scotland—it is not my job to look after Scotland—and a brass band for England. Despite having a wife from Wales I am not very well up on that—
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): A pipe band for Scotland.
      Sir Rhodes Boyson: Yes, we agree. I am glad that I am taking the Committee with me; a pipe band for Scotland, a brass band, from "Bess's in the Barn" or elsewhere, for England and for Wales—
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: A male voice choir.
      Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am assisted by the Minister, and I am grateful for his shrewd intervention. I agree—a male voice choir for Wales.
      However, I must disagree to a certain extent as we need a fourth band. After all, there are four points to the compass and I think that things must be in fours if they are to work properly. One can factorise fours, although one cannot factorise threes. Therefore, if there is going to be a banding system, we need a separate band for London and the south-east, because property prices here are so different from those in the rest of the country.
      Presumably the three bands were set up because of the differences between prices in Scotland and Wales, so that the same would be charged for a three-bedroomed semi whether in Scotland with the pipe band, in Wales with the male voice choir or in Lancashire with the brass band. We have to do something like "The Lambeth Walk" for London. We have to do something for London, because prices are so much higher here than elsewhere.
      That is important because the amount of Government money coming in will obviously be related to the amount raised locally. My people in Brent, North and people in numerous other seats in London will look at this system and say, "Hang on, we weren't happy about the previous system and we wanted to be fair to the Ribble Valley, but the last thing we want is a reverse Ribble Valley factor whereby we lose out in the south of England."
      It is evident from studying the figures that 47 per cent. of houses in Barnet are in the top band of the seven. In my constituency, an overwhelming number are similarly in the top bands. However, only 1 per cent. are in the top band in the north-west of England, so they are not comparable. Presumably, the idea behind the bands was that people in a three-bedroomed semi would pay the same in Wales, Scotland and England and also in London, which is in England.
      Mr. William O'Brien: If the right hon. Gentleman reads amendment No. 29, which stands in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, he will realise that we are referring to regional banding, which is the very case that he is making now. When he refers to banding, would he not merely consider an appropriate band for the south-east? We should consider the position throughout the country on a regional basis.
      Sir Rhodes Boyson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am concerned to get a fair deal for my constituents, and I am sure that that wish is shared by all hon. Members.
      The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Sir Rhodes Boyson: The Minister is seeking to intervene; he will solve all our problems.
      Mr. Portillo: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend might be in danger of being too fair to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). He will be perfectly aware that the Labour party's policy is not to have regional bands, but to go back to the rating system. Under the rating system, the unfairness of those in more expensive properties paying much more—almost unlimited amounts more—than those living in less valuable properties would be manifest. There would be no improvement on the system that we abolished two years ago. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish the hon. Member for Normanton to get away with his comments.
      Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. I have no doubt that his oratory will be such in his reply that the Labour party's proposal for a rating system will die some time between his speech and the Division.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate the opportunity to repeat my point. I did not say that amendment No. 29 represents Labour party policy, but that it amends the Bill. It states that there are inequalities among the regions. I want to ensure that the record is correct because I am positive that the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) will support the amendment when we come to it.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is quite correct. We have not come to that amendment yet, so let us leave it for the moment.
      Sir Rhodes Boyson: I wait with interest to see whether my views influence the Minister's reply. I believe in the salvation of all men and the salvation of souls on the way. If that means that there may be two or three other bands elsewhere in the country that will satisfy people and lead to dancing in the streets this evening, I would not say no to that.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the right hon. Gentleman thinking of Rawtenstall?
      Sir Rhodes Boyson: Rawtenstall is near where I was born. It is nice of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to guess the place of my birth from my accent.
      I have obtained figures from the London Boroughs Association, which is by no means a Labour but a Conservative organisation, on the seven bands in the three areas. Of the 33 Greater London boroughs, 18 will be
      920
      worse off—most of them are Conservative-controlled—than under the community charge system. The residents will not like that, which is putting it gently. Most people look to a new system to make them at least the same, if not better off than before.
      The last thing I want—I have already referred to it—is a reverse Ribble Valley factor. To an extent, the system was changed because of what happened at the Ribble Valley by-election. I do not want the policy to go the other way because we would then have to r edeem the situation again by introducing an alternative policy.
      The people of London and the south-east have as much concern for paying their bills as people elsewhere. I do not think that one part of our society is any better or worse than another. They are the same. Because of the high price of mortgages in London, people are already paying a high price for living there. Most of them were born in that city and they want to continue to live there. They know that city and it is where their friends are. In contrast to the previous recession, this one is hitting the London area and people in London are seriously concerned. The proposal for a band to cover London to ensure that we are not depleted financially or treated unfairly is, to my mind, an important one for my constituents and those in the rest of London.
      The London Boroughs Association was right to work out an alternative system so that a three-bedroomed house in London should be charged the same, as far as possible, as those elsewhere in the country. That is how the decision should be made.
      Mr. Douglas: Much as I love and adore the right hon. Gentleman and his speeches, will he clarify how it would be possible to treat three-bedroomed houses the same throughout the country if capital valuation is based on arm's-length deals? Presumably the right hon. Gentleman believes in the free market—I know he does—so how can one use arm's-length deals to arrive at the capital value?
      Sir Rhodes Boyson: I recognise the force of that intervention, but this is a fallen world, even in Scotland. There is no perfect system. All that we can achieve is a reasonable system. The hon. Gentleman will see that I am in one of my most reasonable moods. We should move nearer the kindgom of heaven if we had four bands instead of three. We should hear the hallelujah chorus not only in Rawtenstall but in London if the Minister were to announce that there is to be a fourth band.
      I should have preferred the community charge to remain in place, but that is now history. My concern is that the new system will sadly disadvantage one area of the country, in just the same way as the community charge led to low-rated properties in the north being disadvantaged. Unless there is a fourth band for London, it will become a disadvantaged area. We are not prepared to accept that. Unless banding is fair, the people of London will wreak their vengeance in the ballot boxes.
      The amendment relates to banding and that is what we are really discussing. I have the greatest respect for the Minister, but I must tell him that between how and the introduction of banding he should provide at least four bands. If not, there will be a Ribble Valley backlash in the south of England if it finds that it is put at a disadvantage compared with the north. A fourth band would ensure that

      921
      chip shops in London did not have to pay more than chip shops in the north. People in the south would then be able to pay the same for their chips as people in the north.
      Mr. David Alton: The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) has made an interesting case for another bank for both chip shops and Brent, North. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) would provide for the valuation of each domestic property, chip shops or otherwise. Ultimately, the bands that apply to each individual householder must be seen to be fair, otherwise people will compare what they have to pay with what is paid by other people in the neighbourhood. If they do not like the comparison, they will be very dissatisfied.
      We have put forward various proposals since 1980. At that time I saw the then Secretary of State for the Environment, who is now back in that job, and put to him proposals for a local form of income tax, based on ability to pay. It is not a regressive form of taxation. It is fair and is based on individual banding. One day, the House will have to return to that question.
      Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 deal specifically with the compiling of a register of the values of all domestic property. If they accept the amendment the Government would be able to take action about empty housing. When revaluation takes place they would have the opportunity, in line with Shelter's proposals, to draw up a national register of empty properties. The Government argue against requiring every local authority in the country to draw up a list of all empty properties in the area. They say that it would be a cumbersome, bureaucratic and costly exercise.
      With 700,000 vacant properties, an exercise along those lines is long overdue, but the Government have set their face against it and say that they do not have the resources and that they do not wish to impose that responsibility on local government. The amendments and new clause would give us the chance, as we carry out a detailed valuation and at no extra cost, to establish the number and location of empty properties in the country today. I notified the Minister's office earlier today that I intended to raise this issue.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: Many people regard local authorities as the worst offenders in keeping properties empty for unnecessarily long periods. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a helpful start in establishing the register that he suggests if local authority figures were published, as the information is immediately available to all local authorities?
      Mr. Alton: That is a seductive argument, but unfortunately the facts do not bear out the hon. Gentleman's view. In my own city, for example, 5,289 properties owned by the local authority—8·8 per cent. of the housing stock—are vacant. That is scandalous when many people are without a home, but 6 per cent. of private properties in Liverpool—7,064—are vacant too, as are 931—4 per cent.—of those owned by housing associations.
      The situation is indeed horrifying. It is true that local authorities have empty properties—92,000 in all throughout the United Kingdom—which represent 2·5 per cent. of the entire housing stock. Housing associations have 19,700 3·5 per cent. of total housing stock. In the other part of the public sector—the Government's own properties—
      922
      some 31,000 properties are empty. But in the private sector there are a staggering 586,000 empty properties. That comes to a total of more than 700,000.
      There is a clear case for drawing up a register of such properties when the valuation is undertaken. Local authorities would then not have to make it a separate exercise, and we could see the scale of the problem and start to match that major asset of more than 700,000 empty properties with the 2 million people that Shelter estimates are in need of housing.
      Mr. David Clelland: I follow the logic of the argument about registering empty properties, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also necessary to outline why the properties are empty? Would it not be a cruel deception to tell the homeless, as Conservative Members often do, that properties are standing empty waiting for someone to move in? We know that the majority of empty properties, especially those in local authority hands, are empty for good reasons. They are being refurbished or repaired, or perhaps waiting to be re-let. There are reasons why property stands empty, and it is not always available for people simply to move into.
      Mr. Alton: That is true, but one answer could be provided by the sweat equity schemes, whereby people put their own efforts and resources into renovating and doing up property currently out of the market. I would like all property which has lain empty for six months, whether it be in the public or private sector, to be submitted to the district valuer for a valuation, placed on the market and made available for families.
      I agree that properties are often vacant because resources have not been made available to do them up. Rather than wait for ever for the necessary resources, it would be a better recognition of reality simply to make the properties available for families to get on with the job of improving them.
      The situation is pretty grim in a number of cities. In Newcastle, as the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) will know, there are 6,790 empty properties; in Sheffield there are 8,810, in Birmingham 10,900 and in Manchester 10,760.
      Mr. Blunkett: I advise the hon. Gentleman to use such statistics cautiously. Statistics are often produced using figures incorporating houses under improvement, houses that have just been demolished and houses that are being held for other purposes. In Sheffield, for example, properties are being held for the world student games.
      Mr. Alton: I know that, and it is fair enough to put it on the record, but I know of properties in my own constituency which have now been earmarked by the local authority for demolition when during the previous two years they have been massively improved, at great expense.
      In March, Liverpool city council admitted that its outstanding debt on property demolished in the previous year was £1,255,000, and that was purely on the repayment of loan charges. For a city whose current debt is a staggering £800 million, that is a crazy way to proceed.
      4.30 pm
      We should not spend all our time simply attacking local authorities or the private sector. I recently wrote to a private landlord in Birmingham and in his reply he admitted that he did not know that he owned a property that had been vacant for some years. Having had this

      923
      pointed out to him, he has now agreed to take out a restoration and improvement grant for the property. We should not entirely blame the Government either, although, as I have said, there are more than 30,000 Government-owned empty properties.
      A general valuation will enable us to prepare a public register that will cost nothing because it will be done as part of the valuation already taking place. I hope that the Government will seriously consider my plea to carry out such a survey and to publish the figures.
      Empty houses not only represent a loss of a resource, but are often tinder boxes and a breeding ground for vermin. Like a cancer, decay spreads throughout a terrace or a neighbourhood. Hon. Members are well aware of the curse that an empty property can become. Many families would like to make use of such properties and could turn them into homes.
      As part of the same valuation there should be an assessment of properties, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Brightside, which are listed as likely to be demolished. In the Bull Ring in St. Andrew's gardens in my constituency, several hundred properties are empty, and many of them would make prefectly good homes. I do not accept the logic of demolition for such properties. Close to that tenement is a similar one which used to be called Myrtle gardens but is now known as Minster court. It was taken over and improved by a private company, Barratts, and every flat was sold. There are creative ways to proceed, and we should not resort to demolition.
      There are other ways in which the register could be positively used. For instance, when arriving at valuations for individual householders, we should bear in mind the services that they receive. That is another reason for supporting the amendment. When I look at the museum of horrifying examples, in my city and at the failure to provide services, I can think of good reasons for people to receive substantial rebates and a reduced assessment.
      For 13 weeks, some of my constituents have not had their bins emptied. Those areas are festering and piled high with rubbish. I wrote to a junior Minister, who suggested that I should contact the Keep Britain Tidy group asking it to run a local campaign. Many parts of Liverpool are now a public health hazard. There are rats as big as cats; a stench from noxious refuse; and even children's playgrounds piled high with rubbish. I am sure that the Minister will agree that people are entitled to better than that.
      The Environmental Protection Act 1990 contains powers enabling the Government to bring contractors into areas in which people are not receiving services. If Horse Guards parade, the streets around Buckingham palace or even Marsham street itself were piled high with refuse, those powers would undoubtedly be used to remove it. Ministers should think seriously about intervening and not leave community charge payers to stew in their own juice.
      The valuation should take account of demography and social structure. Whole communities should not be penalised because of the attitudes of a minority. I hope that this time next year my constituents will not be sent bills for £70·99 in lieu of charges that should have been levied against people who did not pay last year. That is contrary to every principle of natural justice. People who paid their full bill last year should not have to find almost £71 this year to pay for other people's services. If the local
      924
      gas board arrived at my home and asked me to pay for gas that I had not consumed and threatened to cut me off if I did not pay, I would feel extremely aggrieved.
      Labour's non-payment campaign has led to a great deal of hardship for many ordinary honest people in the city of Liverpool. They have been caught up like world war one soldiers in the trenches, while the generals fire across their heads. No doubt this is also true of many other cities. That is why I am anxious that, before we proceed any further with the Bill, the Minister gives us a categorical undertaking that there will be a right of redress for citizens. In future, residents should not be forced to pay double bills to make up for those who refused to pay in the previous year. That includes Members of Parliament, who have not paid but are perfectly able to meet their bills. I am not talking about people who are unable to pay but about those who, for political reasons, refused to pay and who have left a legacy of accumulated debts that have to be made good by those who have paid.
      A valuation that does not take those factors into account will be as worthless as the unfair system that it will replace. The amendment now before the Committee would require information on the estimated value of each property. The unamended clause would only give us a list of all properties, with minimal details of the band in which they appear. That would not be enough information. The rating system advocated by the hon. Member for Brightside is not one that I would advocate, but his amendment comes closer to what I should like to see happen than would the unamended clause. Therefore, I commend it to the Committee.
      Mr. Richard Tracey: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) I speak primarily with London in mind. He has quite rightly drawn the attention of the Committee to the wide disparities that may occur if one simple valuation is conducted across the whole of England, particularly when Scotland and Wales are to be treated differently. I speak for my right hon. Friend as well in paying tribute to the London Boroughs Association for the hard work that it has done in pointing out the many questions that need to be answered by my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment before this goes ahead. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give the House a number of detailed answers.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has already covered a lot of ground in a tour d'horizon. He quoted a number of the briefs that he has been sent not only by local government associations but by the likes of the Confederation of British Industry. Clearly, valuation and how it is to be conducted are at the core of the policy for local government finance that the Government are proposing.
      When this alternative to the community charge was suggested by the Government, I felt that a valuation that would work, and would even out many of the regional differentials, would be one based on rebuild costs. One of the big problems in London, which causes disparity in values, is high land value. The properties do not cost that much more to build or rebuild. We all know that insurance companies are happy that valuation for properties is done by the occupiers. We are sent a chart of costs carefully worked out by expert surveyors and valuers from which we calculate, according to the number of rooms, or the size of

      925
      the rooms, how much it would cost to rebuild our homes. Last time that I renewed my house insurance, my insurance company asked me to employ that method.
      If we followed that form of valuation, it would be possible for the public to be much involved in the process. They would feel, given the questions that they were asked, that they were producing a fair valuation. If necessary, the valuers appointed by the commissioners would be able to check specific valuations to ascertain whether people were giving incorrect information. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities will be able to hint whether that is an avenue down which we might be going.
      I ask my hon. Friend to tell the Committee what the thinking is within the Department of the Environment about the current prospect of regional disparities. The London Boroughs Association has produced charts—I know that copies have been sent to the Department in the consultation process—that show that in greater London 0·9 per cent. of properties would be in band A, whereas 15·7 per cent. would be in Band G. There is no especially good and acceptable distribution across the bands. As has been said by the association and reported to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, in the north 46·6 per cent. of properties would be in band A and only 1·8 per cent. in band G. The most stark example of the extraordinary banding in London is provided by the borough of Barnet, where 47 per cent. of houses would fall into band G. That cannot be acceptable to London Members for various reasons which I shall spell out.
      The only region where there is an acceptable spread across the bands which does not change under the calculations made by the LBA is the south-west. In band A there would be 8·9 per cent. of properties. There would be 16·1 per cent. in band B, 24·4 per cent. in band C, 20·8 per cent. in band D, 15·2 per cent. in band E, 7·9 per cent. in band F and 6·7 per cent. in band G. The south-west is the LBA's model because in its new plan for regional banding the percentages remain the same.
      The result of the LBA's new plan is that 6·8 per cent. of properties in greater London would be in band A. There would be a spread of properties across the bands, with 7·8 per cent. coming into band G. With regional banding, it is possible to come close to having 7 per cent. of properties in band G and 7 to 8 per cent. in band F without the enormous disparity that currently occurs when we come to band A.
      It is important to those of us who represent London constituencies and who speak for the London boroughs to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us at least that the Government are not ruling out the possibility of regional banding. There should not be only one English band. There should not be a London band and then a band for the rest, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North was suggesting. There is an argument for perhaps five or six bands for the English regions.
      The amount of Government grant that local authorities will receive under the new finance system that is introduced by the council tax will depend on the moneys that they are able to raise locally. In areas such as London, where house prices are high, more money will be raised through the new tax under the suggested banding system, and I assume that the boroughs will receive less in grant. As a result, London taxpayers will be subsidising the services that are enjoyed by their counterparts further north.
      926
      4.45 pm
      The LBA's argument should be accepted by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). The borough within his constituency is one of the sensible Labour-controlled authorities. Barking and Dagenham are still fully participating members of the LBA, as are the boroughs that are controlled by the Liberal Democrats in London.
      The suggestions that have been made by the L BA during the consultation process should be taken seriously by the Government, who should respond to them. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister shedding more light on the direction in which the Government will be heading to correct what are clearly possible disparities.
      Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities will be visiting Southampton on Friday and I wish to suggest one or two points that could be made when, I hope, he radiates to the public. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) talked about the extra charges that are the result of non-payment of the community charge. In Southampton, that charge is £50·95 per person. Part of that sum reflects the interest charges on the moneys that had to be borrowed to enable the authority to make its budget. My hon. Friend can make great play of that.
      It is clear that amendment No. 27 is a wrecking amendment. If every individual house and outbuilding and every individual piece of land has to be valued, the task will not be completed before it is necessary to start again. Simplicity will be the answer. I even think that a seven-band system will have one band too many. In a city such as Southampton there could be duplication of styles, so that entire council estates could be valued simply by obtaining plans from the local authority and making a valuation on that basis instead of setting out with tape and measure. If valuations are not carried out on that basis, we shall be faced with overwhelming costs and we shall not be ready for 1993.
      Mr. Portillo: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), I am astonished when he tells me that the Southampton local authority has had to levy a £50 non-collection charge. I understood that that authority liked to posture as a model of modern Labour Kinnockite government. For that local authority to be so inefficient and inept at collecting the community charge says much about its administration.
      If I were a citizen of Southampton I should be angry at having to pay £50 to compensate for the fact that other people had not paid, which must be largely attributable to the failure of the city council.
      Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the Minister of State recall the Prime Minister describing the poll tax as uncollectable? Is not the fault implicit in the poll tax and nothing to do with efficient, hard-working local authorities struggling with an unworkable system?
      Mr. Portillo: No, it is not implicit in the community charge. The collection figures for last year have already reached 86 per cent. and will rise further. Some local authorities, including inner-city and even Labour-controlled authorities, have managed to make a fair fist of collecting the community charge, while others, including Southampton, have failed dismally to collect it.
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend the Minister of State was recently in the

      927
      city of Nottingham. To illustrate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), may I point out that the city of Nottingham is charging every resident £44·70 because of the iniquitous slip-up of not collecting last year, whereas the Conservative-controlled neighbouring authority of Gedling is charging only £3·40? Neighbouring Rushcliffe council was to charge £9 as a result of non-collection and other financial clauses, but made savings of £9, so that the residents of Rushcliffe have not a penny more to pay. That is the difference between Labour-controlled Nottingham city council and two neighbouring Tory-controlled councils.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps we can now return to the amendments before us.
      Mr. Portillo: The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South are, none the less, revealing. The most remarkable example is Lambeth, where the charge for non-collection is £140, compared with Wandsworth, where the total charge is £36.
      Mr. Allen McKay: Before the Minister leaves that point, he should think more carefully about what he is saying about local government. The Secretary of State quoted my local authority as one of the best collectors of the community charge. It is charging £19·77 for non-collection, of which £14·80 is interest charges for money that it had to borrow simply because the community charge was so much more difficult to collect than the rates.
      It is apparent from local authorities throughout the country that the charge is being made not because people have not paid—they have paid—but because they have paid at the end of the year, whereas they used to pay rates every month. That is the main cause of the problem. People have been taken off the register because they have died or left the district and the local authority's calculations have been unable to take that into account. The fault lies not with the local authority or the collectors, but with the silly system under which they have had to work.
      Mr. Portillo: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he makes my point for me. In Southampton, the full year—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have been very tolerant, but I shall not allow a debate that does not relate to the amendments before us.
      Mr. Portillo: In that case, Madam Deputy Chairman, the point will have to remain for another day.
      Although the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who opened this debate, made a clever speech, by his own high standards it was not outstandingly honest. He made a series of claims which, on reflection, he might regret. For example, he said that, as from today, valuers would value property on the basis of the Bill. He knows that that is not true and that the Bill must make progress to another place and receive royal assent, which will all take time. He also knows that valuers will not be able to make valuations before they know many of the important details to which he referred.
      928
      The hon. Gentleman tried to make the House believe that there was some inconsistency between the Bill's introduction and a consultation period on the exact details of the council tax. There is no inconsistency between those two points. We have always said that we want to introduce the council tax by 1 April 1993. To make that possible, we need Parliament's authority to spend money to start the valuation process. Clearly, all the details of that valuation have not yet been worked out.
      I say that perfectly straightforwardly—moreover. I make a virtue of it, because we are in a consultation period. We have made firm proposals for the outlines of the tax, but have never claimed that all the details of the tax were already in place or should be in place, because we have always recognised that the tax will be run by local authorities to collect their own revenue. We must have the opinions of local authorities and experts.
      The hon. Member for Brightside seemed to imply that the Audit Commission opposed the council tax. In an interview on the "Today" programme this morning, Mr. Peter Hobday asked Mr. Howard Davies whether he was suggesting that the tax was unworkable, and he said that he was not. Mr. Howard Davies has now written to The Times and said:
      "You reported that the Audit Commission believes 'the Government's new council tax is unworkable in its proposed form'. This is not so."
      That could not be a clearer denial of the points that the hon. Gentleman sought to attribute to the Audit Commission.
      Mr. Blunkett: I, too, heard Howard Davies on the "Today" programme. He said that the system proposed by the Government could not be worse than the poll tax.
      Mr. Portillo: The way in which I quoted Howard Davies was perfectly accurate.
      The hon. Member for Brightside then seemed to imply that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors was against the new tax. I had a private lunch with members of the RICS yesterday and am not at liberty to divulge exactly what was said. They have not yet put in their representation but will do so by the end of this week. Without betraying a confidence, I can reveal that they were supportive of the council tax, in particular the principle of a tax that allocates properties to bands, as they could see the immense administrative advantages in such a system. As professionals in that area, they had no difficulty with the concept that large swathes of property could be readily allocated to bands, which appealed to them as administratively simple and straightforward. Naturally, they will have detailed comments to make on the council tax and I shall welcome those. 1 am anxious that my officials should develop a close working relationship with professional bodies like the RICS, because I am determined that we should get the details of the Bill right.
      The speech of the hon. Member for Brightside was not outstandingly honest because he tabled an amendment that sought to bring about a return to the rating system and then chose not to speak to it. He made a great speech about the council tax, but his amendment was about returning to the rating system. I am not surprised that he chose not to talk about that. If he intends to do so under the next amendment, I shall give my riposte then—or one of my hon. Friends will do so if they have the good fortune to wield the mallet.

      929
      Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that the council tax will be based on a banding system of values. For that reason, it will not be susceptible to the treatment that he should like to give it. It will not necessitate detailed knowledge of every property but will be much more broad-brush that the old rating system. Many properties will not have to be inspected because they will clearly fall into one band or another. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's idea of having a register of empty properties, although ingenious with merits in its own right, does not flow well from the Bill.
      As the hon. Gentleman comes from Liverpool, I understand that he should want to raise that important issue. One is outraged not only by the non-payment—to which I shall not allude further—that has occurred in Liverpool but by the empty properties there. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said that there may be reasons for empty properties, there are tremendous disparities between local authorities. Liverpool's performance on empty properties has been lamentable.
      Some of the ideas of a citizens' charter which the Conservative party is developing seemed to run through the hon. Gentleman's speech. Yes, people have a right to better service from local authorities and the indicator of empty properties is important. It is a scandal that local authorities are keeping properties empty when there are people in temporary accommodation. We shall want to pursue directly some of those issues in our proposals for a citizens' charter. I rather doubt whether the Government would be in favour of a national register of such properties, but I shall refer that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his consideration. However, we need to look carefully at requiring local authorities to deliver decent standards of service against objective criteria.
      5 pm
      Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to refer that matter to the Secretary of State, and I hope that he makes progress on it. He will recall that I also asked him about the right of redress where there are discrepancies in services provided in different banded authorities, so that, for instance, in areas where bins have not been emptied for 13 weeks citizens would have the right of redress. Will the Minister ensure that something is done to put some teeth into the legislation and that it is enforced? I referred to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which has not been enforced with regard to councils in Liverpool.
      Mr. Portillo: The Environmental Protection Act gives the citizen the right to take action against a local authority. Citizens may not yet have availed themselves of those rights, perhaps because they are not aware of them, but the rights are there. The citizen is already enfranchised, but we may wish to look further at other ways in which to enfranchise the citizen.
      Where I might to some extent part company with the hon. Gentleman is that I would put more emphasis than he would on the desirability of arming the citizen with choice and competition, whereas he might put more emphasis on—if I might describe them as such—bureaucratic solutions to such problems. However, we are on the same ground in saying that the citizen needs to be enfranchised,
      930
      needs to have defence and needs to have redress against local authorities which fail to deliver the services to which people are entitled.
      I come with pleasure to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). He and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) raised difficult issues to which the Government have given serious thought. My right hon. Friend was right to describe this as a fallen world and cautioned us against looking for perfection in these matters.
      One is faced with two possibilities. If we went for regional bands, someone in the north-east of England might ask why he, living in a £50,000 house, should pay as much in council tax, which has a property element within it, as someone living in the south-east in a £150,000 house. I think that my right hon. Friend would agree that that question would cause considerable difficulty. My right hon. Friend raised the other point, which is why a person in the south-east living in a three-bedroomed house should pay more than someone living in a similar house in the north-east.
      We have given considerable thought to those matters. We have put forward the firm proposal that we should base our council tax on a national banding system and, furthermore, that there should be seven bands, and we have suggested what the values of those bands should be. We are in a consultation period and we have made a firm proposal. I anticipate that the Government will continue to find that attractive. But it would be absurd to go through a consultation period without listening carefully to all the representations made, not least from someone who speaks with the authority and experience of my right hon. Friend. Therefore, we shall have to consider carefully what he said. But I am bound to say that we gave much thought to the matter before introducing the proposals.
      Sir Rhodes Boyson rose—
      Mr. Portillo: After I have given way to my right hon. Friend, I will put some other points to him that I should like him to consider.
      Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am grateful to hear that the Minister is still in the consultation period, and I shall be interested to see how much today's debate influences the outcome. I remind my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said that, if we adopted rebuilding values rather than capital values, the great discrepancies which the price of land gives rise to in London compared with elsewhere would be largely minimised.
      Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend is right in that respect, but then another problem arises. My right hon. Friend should remember how, under the rating system, one of the great problems was the obscurity of the rateable value. People could not relate to a rateable value. They would never be in the business of renting their properties, on which the rateable value was based. There was scarcely any market in rented housing, so people were left with entirely synthetic spurious values. The same problem arises with rebuilding costs or anything like that. Those are synthetic, spurious values which the average person would not recognise. Under the council tax that we propose, they will be able to see clearly the relationship between the

      931
      value on which they are paying the tax and the value of the house as they recognise it—as, for example, it might appear in an estate agent's window.
      Mr. David Bellotti: In the light of the comments that the Minister has just made, I remind him of some comments that he made on 19 October last year, the day after my election to the House. I am informed that he said:
      "Taxes on people's homes are unfair. Property values bear little relation to people's ability to pay."
      Have you done a U-turn, are you standing on your head or do you have some other information to give us?
      Mr. Portillo: I am sure that you, Miss Boothroyd, to whom those questions were addressed, are doing none of those things, and it is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should suggest it.
      I have frequently expressed my disappointment that we were unable to convince people of the fairness of the community charge. However, I am deeply satisfied that we are now proposing a council tax which has two elements—a property and a personal element. What makes me unhappy about the Labour party's proposal is that it still makes no distinction between households with one person and those with a larger number of people. One of the strengths of the council tax is that different rates of tax will be applied depending on the number of people in the household and that rate will vary according to what the local authority is spending.
      Mr. Tracey: Let me bring my hon. Friend back to the question of valuation based on capital values as opposed to rebuilding costs. I cannot accept that a rebuild cost valuation is spurious in the way that the old rateable value based on some theoretical rent was. He is right to say that nobody could recognise that theoretical rent, but people could certainly recognise the rebuild cost. The insurance companies recognise those rebuild costs and if an owner is unfortunate enough to have his house burnt out or severely damaged, the insurance company rebuilds it on those values. Therefore, it is relevant and recognisable by the people.
      Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend and I may not entirely agree on that point. I think that there is a real problem in telling people that they will be taxed on a value which is not the value that they think of as the value of their house—the value for which they can sell it if they so choose. Rebuilding costs have many problems. For example, pre-1920 houses have different rebuilding costs from houses built after that date. One just introduces another area of dispute when one goes for something such as rebuilding costs. One then ends up with the problem that within, for example, the borough of Westminster, the rebuilding cost of a small penthouse in the most salubrious part of Kensington is rather low because it is only a small property, whereas the rebuilding cost of a five-bedroomed dilapidated house in north Kensington, perhaps under the flyover, is much higher. It would be difficult to convince people that that was a fair system.
      I return to the defence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, who said that it was difficult to achieve perfection in these areas, but I am concerned to protect the taxpayers in my right hon. Friend's constituency and in my own. Let us face it, that is why we
      932
      have done a number of important things. For example, we have suggested that, within the council tax, the maximum variation in the tax that households of equal size should pay would be that those at the top end should pay about two thirds more than the average and those in the least valuable properties should pay about two thirds of the average. That provides protection, and it is a great improvement on the rating system.
      We have taken £140 off the community charge and put it on value added tax. In doing so, we have massively altered the balance between what is raised locally and what is raised nationally. The proportion of nationally and locally raised taxation will continue under the new system, which will provide a great deal of protection for my right hon. Friend's constituents. I should not be surprised—indeed, I would lay odds on it—if many of his constituents were not better off under the council tax than they were last year under the community charge or under the rating system the previous year.
      Although people will compare the difference between what they were paying in the last year of the community charge and the first year of the council tax, it is a robust defence to say that we have made an important change in what we seek to take from local people. That will be continued under the new council tax, and we shall seek to raise from people sums of money that we believe are sustainable and fair.
      For all those reasons, the Committee would be right to give Parliament the authority outlined in the clause to provide the funds so that we can begin the valuation process. As the Audit Commission said, it would he desirable to introduce the new tax by 1 April 1993. The Labour party has claimed that it would like the community charge to go as fast as possible, but it now seems unwilling to co-operate in ensuring the means to replace it by 1993.
      The consultation period on the council tax has not ended. We shall take seriously the points made by my right hon. Friends, by the professional bodies and by local authorities. The fact that we are today seeking authority to begin the process of financing the valuation process in no way touches the consultation period, nor does it seek to prejudge it. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that it is right that we should settle the details as quickly as possible and be able to start the valuation process. Despite the important doubts that my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed today, I hope that they will accept the clause and reject the amendments.
      Mr. Blunkett: I should like to make it clear to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that those of us who have worked hard and long to establish the idea of a citizens' charter, of quality and of the individual's right to redress are committed to ensuring that people's bins are emptied regularly and that houses are let so that people on the housing waiting list or who are homeless have a roof over their heads. We are also committed to ensuring that that is done in a participatory way which enhances the working of local democracy. It is certain that no citizens' charter from any political party will prevent in an industrial dispute problems such as those that have arisen in Liverpool. A financial penalty on a local authority would mean merely that it would be in the authority's interests to settle at whatever rate was

      933
      demanded by those taking action against it, whatever the circumstances and whatever the long-term cost to the community. That would be farcical and untenable.
      Mr. Alton: Surely the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that, in a city where every local authority employee's redundancy notice from the political masters was delivered in a fleet of private hire cars on one occasion, and in a city which is currently awash with refuse and rubbish because of the local authority's failure, there must be not merely a right of redress but direct intervention—if necessary by the use of private companies—to remove the refuse. That would ensure that people did not become the victims, which is what is happening in Liverpool at the moment.
      Mr. Blunkett: Some of us are in the business of trying to settle rather than exacerbate disputes, and of finding solutions for the people of Liverpool rather than scoring petty political points. We shall continue to try to do that. I put it on record that everyone in the country expects local Government to ensure that houses are let and that people on the waiting list who are in desperate need of decent accommodation get it. We shall do our best to ensure that that happens through the quality commission.
      I shall deal briefly with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). Although they dealt with the wrong amendments, we share their worries and feelings. I shall encourage them to vote with us on this and a later amendment.
      With reference to the comments made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), one cart hardly blame a local authority that is taking people to court because of the cost of interest rates incurred last year. Those interest rates were occasioned by the Government. Local authorities have had to recoup last year's losses, to predict this year's and face another two years of continuing losses because of the poll tax. Everyone has accepted that, not least the Audit Commission, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will no doubt state in a moment.
      I was entertained by the idea that people would be happy with a system that took a couple of sample properties and applied its findings to the whole of a housing estate. I do not think that people would be too pleased about that if it were carried out in practice. They may have one or two things to say about it in the run-up to the general election.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Hill: First, several well-known Labour supporters still have not paid their community charge in Southampton. Secondly, I did not suggest that there would be two valuations for the whole of the city. I said that seven bands were sufficient and that for many properties—certainly those used for council accommodation—blueprints in the civic centre could be used for valuation without even a site visit. That is common practice in an overall valuation, which is not detailed.
      Mr. Blunkett: I respect the fact that estate agents—I know that the hon. Gentleman knows all about this—will be able to make a spot guess at a sale price in a given area. I ask the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to ponder whether individuals who are charged on that basis will be happy that someone is sitting behind a desk taking
      934
      a spot guess at the market price of a property. That is no way either to value a property or to impose a tax which will be based on the value of the property in a particular band.
      I am grateful for the Minister's compliments, and I shall meet head on his charge of dishonesty. I accept that valuers will not go out next week—they went out last week and in April. They were instructed to make valuations from the desk top from 22 February to I March, and they were then asked to do a quick spot check in April but without letting anyone know. It was only when we revealed that fact that the system changed—following our revelation on 26 April, the valuation process that had just begun was stopped. The valuers were working and will work as soon as the House of Lords has given its approval—presumably next week—and as soon as the royal assent has been gained. I accept that the dishonesty will not take place tomorrow, but in a fortnight's time. The difference is so spurious that it shows how the Minister has had to scrape the barrel to accuse me of dishonesty.
      On 26 April and again on 29 April, the Secretary of State vehemently denied that there would be a move away from the seven bands. In fact, he repeated 10 days later that there was no question, whatever the consultation produced, of moving away from them. Therefore, for the Minister to tell his Back Benchers tonight that the consultation between now and Friday is serious is extremely misleading and, to use his word and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham, dishonest. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors can speak for itself, but if that is dishonest, it will be surprised to hear what the Minister said, because placing properties in bands for a rolling continuing valuation is different from using bands as a method of valuation in the first place.
      The Minister's other charge of dishonesty was that I should have been arguing for a return to the rates. I rest my case by saying that the next group of amendments deal precisely with that issue. The case that we have made this afternoon is unanswerable, and if Conservative Members do not vote for the amendment, they will live to regret it.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 278.

      Division No. 167]

      [5.20 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Caborn, Richard

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Alton, David

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Carr, Michael

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cartwright, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Clelland, David

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Barron, Kevin

      Cryer, Bob

      Battle, John

      Cummings, John

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Beith, A. J.

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Bell, Stuart

      Darling, Alistair

      Bellotti, David

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

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

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dewar, Donald

      Blair, Tony

      Dixon, Don

      Blunkett, David

      Dobson, Frank

      Boyes, Roland

      Douglas, Dick

      Bradley, Keith

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Eastham, Ken

      935

      Edwards, Huw

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Martlew, Eric

      Fatchett, Derek

      Meale, Alan

      Faulds, Andrew

      Michael, Alun

      Fearn, Ronald

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Flynn, Paul

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foster, Derek

      Morley, Elliot

      Foulkes, George

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fraser, John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Mullin, Chris

      Galbraith, Sam

      Murphy, Paul

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Nellist, Dave

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      O'Brien, William

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      O'Hara, Edward

      Gordon, Mildred

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Gould, Bryan

      Parry, Robert

      Graham, Thomas

      Patchett, Terry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hain, Peter

      Prescott, John

      Hardy, Peter

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Haynes, Frank

      Radice, Giles

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Randall, Stuart

      Henderson, Doug

      Redmond, Martin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Reid, Dr John

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Richardson, Jo

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Home Robertson, John

      Rooney, Terence

      Howells, Geraint

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Salmond, Alex

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Illsley, Eric

      Short, Clare

      Ingram, Adam

      Skinner, Dennis

      Janner, Greville

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

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

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Soley, Clive

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Lambie, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lamond, James

      Strang, Gavin

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Leighton, Ron

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Lewis, Terry

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Litherland, Robert

      Turner, Dennis

      Livingstone, Ken

      Wallace, James

      Livsey, Richard

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      McAllion, John

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      McFall, John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      McKelvey, William

      Winnick, David

      McLeish, Henry

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      McMaster, Gordon

      Worthington, Tony

      McNamara, Kevin

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      McWilliam, John

      Madden, Max

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mr. Allen McKay and

      Marek, Dr John

      Mr. Robert Wareing.

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Ashby, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Allason, Rupert

      Atkinson, David

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Amos, Alan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Arbuthnot, James

      Beggs, Roy

      936

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bendall, Vivian

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Benyon, W.

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gregory, Conal

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Body, Sir Richard

      Ground, Patrick

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Grylls, Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hague, William

      Boswell, Tim

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hannam, John

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Bowis, John

      Harris, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hayes, Jerry

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hayward, Robert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bright, Graham

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

      Hill, James

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Holt, Richard

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Butcher, John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Butler, Chris

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Butterfill, John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hunter, Andrew

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cash, William

      Irvine, Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jack, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Jackson, Robert

      Churchill, Mr

      Janman, Tim

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Jessel, Toby

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Key, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Kilfedder, James

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Couchman, James

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Cran, James

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

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

      Knowles, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knox, David

      Day, Stephen

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Devlin, Tim

      Latham, Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dicks, Terry

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dover, Den

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lord, Michael

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Favell, Tony

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Maclean, David

      Forman, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Madel, David

      Franks, Cecil

      Malins, Humfrey

      French, Douglas

      Maples, John

      Fry, Peter

      Marland, Paul

      Gale, Roger

      Marlow, Tony

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Mates, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      937

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Mills, Iain

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Squire, Robin

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Moate, Roger

      Stevens, Lewis

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Sumberg, David

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Summerson, Hugo

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mudd, David

      Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Thorne, Neil

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thurnham, Peter

      Page, Richard

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Paice, James

      Tracey, Richard

      Patnick, Irvine

      Tredinnick, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Trippier, David

      Pawsey, James

      Trotter, Neville

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Portillo, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Price, Sir David

      Walden, George

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Rathbone, Tim

      Ward, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Watts, John

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Whitney, Ray

      Rost, Peter

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Wilshire, David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Shelton, Sir William

      Yeo, Tim

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Shersby, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sims, Roger

      Mr.David Lightbown and

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Gould: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 35, leave out 'all' and insert 'new'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 26: page 2, line 47, leave out from 'of' to end of line 49 and insert—

      (a) in the case of England and Wales, updating the valuation list in respect of domestic hereditaments on 31st March 1990 by adding to that list existing domestic hereditaments not included in the list; and

      (b) in the case of Scotland, updating the valuations roll in respect of domestic subjects on 31st March 1989 by adding to that roll existing domestic subjects not included in the roll'.

      Mr. Gould: The amendment is designed to offer the Government a means of getting off a hook of their own creation. The hook arises because of the Government's insistence on introducing, as a condition of getting rid of the poll tax, a whole new system of valuation. That in turn gives rise to a large number of uncertainties, which gives
      938
      rise to further delays and problems and calls into question the Government's ability to implement a council tax by their stated target date of 1 April 1993.
      I offer this amendment as a means of helping the Government, although I have little expectation that they will accept it. The amendment is a gesture to reinforce an offer we made some time ago that we would co-operate on a short Bill which would get rid of the poll tax within a year by means of returning to the existing 1973 valuation list. That would enable us to implement something like our fair rates scheme by 1 April 1992 and then concentrate on a sensible revaluation to bring the list up to date.
      Although I renew my offer of help through the amendment, I have little expectation that the Government will be any more welcoming to it than they were on the previous occasion. Nevertheless, I advance the amendment because it gives me an opportunity to vent some of the concerns which have been expressed by a wide range of people about the achievability of the Government's timetable and because it gives the Under-Secretary of State a chance to allay some of those fears.
      As the Under-Secretary of State will know, ever since the proposals and the timetable were advanced, genuine doubts have been expressed—not just on our side of the House, although we have certainly expressed them—by a range of experts and people who are directly affected, about whether the timetable can be met. I cite only the local authority associations and the professional associations of valuers who have been sceptical about the Government's chance of hitting that target.
      This morning I listened to Radio 4, as I am sure many hon. Members did, and I heard the treasurer of Huntingdon—the Prime Minister's constituency—express great scepticism. He said, fairly and directly, that he doubted whether the timetable could be adhered to unless it could be established as a condition that everything that needed to be done was done at least a year before the target date. That compression of the timetable is a point well taken and shows that there are genuine doubts about the Government's timetable.
      The body most recently to express anxiety about the timetable was the Audit Commission, in an excellent response to the Government's consultation paper which it published today. The report is pleasant reading to us because it deals in detail with some points that we have been arguing in recent months. It confirms each one in turn, so we welcome the report on that ground alone.
      The Audit Commission is, rightly, more circumspect about the timetable. It does not say that the timetable is unachievable. It recognises, as we do, that given the tremendous political will behind the proposal, if everything goes well and we are prepared to take tremendous risks with the viability of the scheme, we might just about hit the target. It is unlikely, great risks are involved and all sorts of assumptions favourable to the Government must be made, but it would be a foolish person who said that the timetable could not be met.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gould: I shall complete this point, then I shall certainly give way.
      However—this may help the Under-Secretary of State with his intervention—any fair reading of the Audit

      939
      Commission's response recognises that, having conceded that theoretical point, the Commission is full of scepticism about the chances of meeting the timetable.
      Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman gently slid sideways from his interpretation of what the Audit Commission is alleged to say to his view. This morning he will have heard the controller of the Audit Commission say on the "Today" programme:
      "So we're saying that councils must try to introduce by April 1993. Many of them say it can't be done, we think it can be done and furthermore, it must be done."
      Mr. Gould: The Under-Secretary of State has only confirmed what I said. He also gave the authentic flavour of Mr. Howard Davies's remarks: it was imperative to meet that date and would be extremely dangerous—that is the whole thrust of the paper—if it were not met, because of all the unfortunate consequences, which he goes on to explain and which I shall detail to the House. Naturally, he is obliged to say, "Yes, we must hit the target date because the consequences of failing are so appalling." That is precisely his message.
      Anyone who reads the Audit Commission's response objectively will recognise its great doubts on that score and the important, difficult conditions which it sets if that target date is to be met. The Audit Commission, local authority associations, valuers and the treasurer for Huntingdon all say that the following must be in place if that target is to be met.
      First—let us bear in mind that, if we accept the arguments of the Huntingdon treasurer, this is all a year in advance—the legislation must be completed and on the statute book. I have not yet heard the legislative timetable from Ministers, but it would be pushing things a bit to complete the legislation by 1 April next year. We shall have to see, but it will be a major Bill. It would be extremely unwise to rush these matters, given the unfortunate experience of the Government's earlier essays in this field. If the Government are saying that they expect to have the Bill by I April, that shows how cavalier they are prepared to be about dismissing the warnings offered to them by the experts.
      There will not just have to be a Bill; there will also have to be regulations. They will determine the sort of software that will have to be obtained. One aspect that made the introduction of the poll tax so difficult was the unreliability and unpreparedness of the software to which local authorities were forced to turn to deal with these great problems. The software cannot be obtained without the regulations or without detailing the valuation. A valuation list will have to be in place; so will details about how the personal discounts are to work. There will need to be details about how the rebate system is to work. All that has to be achieved well in advance of 1 April next year so that the local authorities can order and obtain the necessary software and so that they will have a fair run at meeting the Government's timetable.
      One does not need to be a genius to recognise that in all this there is a great deal of uncertainty and to understand, therefore, why the prevailing tone of the Audit Commission's response is one of continuing and marked scepticism.
      Mr. Douglas: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the interim period in England. We are in an intense pre-general election period. Assuming that there will not be an election until the spring of 1992, what would the Labour party do between then and April 1993? I understand the quick fix proposed in the amendments, but they are not necessarily in Labour's electoral gift. How would the Labour party bridge the gap between the demise of the poll tax and the introduction of "fair rates"?
      Mr. Gould: In one sense the matter is within our gift, in that we have made the Government an offer that they have turned down. When we return to power, as most people now accept is likely—
      Mr. Key: I do not.
      Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman has a notably bad record on a number of these issues—including his support until recently for the principle of the poll tax.
      To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), we shall have to look at the position that we inherit, but we have the great comfort of knowing that since last year we have had a fair rates proposal which can be implemented within a year of our taking office. We shall have to see where the Government have got us by the time they finally face the electorate.
      As the Audit Commission and others have pointed out, only two years are allowed to elapse between the Government's publication of their consultation paper and their target date for implementing the new tax—based on the totally new valuation—which no one has ever tried before. So, within two years of the consultation paper, the Government claim blithely, everything will be in place and working satisfactorily. As the Commission points out, four years were allowed for the poll tax and they proved inadequate. We can only conclude that two years is a stupidly over-ambitious target. That is why we believe that the Government are foolish to turn down our offer of help to get themselves off the hook.
      These delays—the delay of two years is bad enough, but if the Audit Commission and others are right, at least a further year's delay is involved—matter considerably. They matter to the poll tax payers who, having been led to believe that the poll tax has somehow been brought to an end will be disconcerted, to say the least, to discover that the poll tax, with all its unfairness and unworkability, is still hanging around. The bills will keep on coming. They will become fairly alarmed and they will also be aware that for as long as the poll tax survives they will be paying bills that are unnecessarily high. Our calculation, which has not been seriously challenged, is that bills for the average household will unnecessarily be £140 higher than they should have been under a fair rates scheme—
      Mr. Hind: Not so.
      Mr. Gould: It is certainly so.
      It is not just the poll tax payers who will be in difficulties. The Audit Commission is rightly concerned about the viability of local government having to administer for another two or perhaps three years a system which no longer has a single friend to support it.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman spoke a few minutes ago about Labour's scheme being in place within a year. Will that involve merely going back to the old

      941
      rating system, or will it be the new "fair rates" system? If the latter, how can he criticise the Government for taking two years to move to the council tax?
      Mr. Gould: As I have said on previous occasions, it is always astonishing that Conservative Members—in this case, a Minister—should come into the Chamber to intervene in debates with points that reveal their abysmal ignorance of what they are supposed to be talking about. If the hon. Gentleman had bothered for a moment—I understand why he did not; he chose to avert his gaze from things that displease him—to read our fair rates proposals which we published nearly a year ago, he would see that they describe in great detail exactly what I am talking about—a phased means of replacing the poll tax, first by returning immediately for the sake of speed and simplicity to the rates and then by concentrating on improving the rebate scheme and on bringing in a new valuation register and linking it to ability to pay. All that is set out in the document and I am surprised by the Minister's unfamiliarity with it.
      I was making the point that we can get rid of the poll tax by 1 April 1992. That offer remains open to the Government.
      As I said earlier, these matters are of great concern not only to poll tax payers but to local government. The Audit Commission is worried that the survival of the poll tax will threaten what remains of the viability of local government finance. We know that the problems of collecting the poll tax in the remaining period are serious and that they will get worse. Those problems are already well documented by the Audit Commission. They have accounted for more than £1 billion-worth of poll tax not yet being collected. We have the example of Scotland to show us that the problems will only get worse year by year and there are exacerbating factors which mean that many people have been persuaded by irresponsible Government propaganda that the poll tax has gone and that they need no longer bother about it—the idea being that, if the Government have lost confidence in it and have agreed that it is unfair and unworkable, surely people will not be required to pay it. The problems are being stoked up, and they are horrific to contemplate.
      The Audit Commission rightly points, as the Prime Minister has on occasion pointed, to the difficulties of collecting the poll tax. The Prime Minister's remark was a good deal less measured than that of the Audit Commission. The Commission simply states that the poll tax is difficult to collect; the Prime Minister said that it was uncollectable. Whatever phrase one chooses, the truth is that the poll tax, as we always warned, was deficient because it was so easily avoided and because people innocently moved round the country to a much greater degree than we had ever suspected when the notion of an individual register was first contemplated.
      The poll tax is also difficult to collect because it is widely regarded as unfair. People feel no obligation to comply with the law in this respect—unfortunately. That is regrettable, but it is an unavoidable consequence of a tax that is unfair and widely resisted.
      For all those reasons, the Audit Commission rightly devoted a substantial part of its report to the problems of collecting the poll tax. It identified more than £1 billion of revenue that has not been collected for the past financial year. I invite anyone who doubts the seriousness of the problem to read paragraphs 6 to 10 of the Audit
      942
      Commission's report. Those who seek to turn this difficult issue to party advantage by complaining, as did the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), that the local authority in the city was obliged to charge its poll tax payers this year up to £50 because of the non-collection rate for last year, are adding insult to injury. That is typical of the Government. They smear local government instead of acknowledging the deficiencies of the tax which have created difficulties for local authorities. That is the truth of the matter.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What about Lambeth?
      Mr. Gould: Of course, the pattern differs from one authority to another, but the Audit Commission is clear that the problems faced responsibly and rigorously by local authorities are, nevertheless, in danger of overwhelming them.
      As Conservative Members are unwilling to accept that point, I shall give the flavour of the Audit Commission's report. Paragraph 7 says:
      "The Commission has drawn attention in previous papers to collection problems compounding as authorities pursue two years recovery action in 1991–92. Almost 4·5 million summonses were issued up to March 31 1991"—
      so much for the inactivity of local government—
      "resulting in 3·2 million liability orders. The courts have issued more than four times as many summonses than in any of the last five years of the former rates system. This is a considerable achievement, but many authorities still have a substantial backlog of original summonses to be brought. In addition only 210 means enquiries (the first stage in committal proceedings) had been held by March 31 1991; individual committal hearings for non-payment in 1990–91 will probably take up a large part of available court time in the current year."
      Ministers are doing local government and the House no service by pretending that the problems are the fault of lazy or inefficient local authorities.
      The Audit Commission estimates that, for every year in which the poll tax survives, the local authorities will lose £800 million. To put that figure in perspective, it concludes that they will lose £900 million per year in non-collection—they budgeted for a lower non-collection rate of 4 per cent.—and that the additional administrative costs of the poll tax will be £525 million. It deducted the comparable costs of administering the council tax, and that is how it came up with a figure of £800 million.
      The Labour party thinks that that is an interesting and alarming figure and a considerable underestimate of the real cost of the additional years of the poll tax. We prefer the analysis of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It calculates that, for the forthcoming financial year, the non-collection rate will be 15 per cent., not 10 per cent. as estimated by the Audit Commission. That will account for a loss of £1,450 million. The additional administrative costs will be £600 million, making a total loss of £2,050 million. The AMA deducts from that figure the administrative costs and the lower collection levels appropriate to the rates—£390 million. That means a net loss of £1,660 million for the next financial year, during which the poll tax will survive.
      I shall not weary the House with the further calculation which shows that, if the poll tax survived for a further year—which seems all too likely—the loss would be even greater. The AMA estimates that, if the poll tax survives for another two years, the total loss will be £3·77 billion. That will make life almost impossible for local authorities, but they must contemplate that nightmare, because the

      943
      Government show no sign of taking the point seriously. They have been so preoccupied with the short-term political exercise of distancing themselves from the poll tax that they have not given a thought to the problems that they are creating for local government. I regret that and hope that this short debate will at least enable the Government to face up to some of those problems.
      Let me say in passing that the Audit Commission endorses a further point that we believe to be of great importance. It says that, in order to reduce losses, it would be sensible to abandon and abolish the 20 per cent. contribution rule, which raises only £6 per person in revenue and costs £15 per person to administer. I hope that the Government will take that point, because if they do not they will be showing that they are not only dogmatic and short-sighted, but stupid. Given the history of the poll tax, we should not be surprised at that harsh judgment.
      The amendment allows the Minister to face up to the doubts and difficulties and to assure us that the Government are not about to reproduce and repeat the unhappy poll tax exercise in which they pushed through an idea that had been hastily cobbled together, with lavish assurances to their supporters that it would be all right on the night. If the Government implement the new tax in that way, they will again create all sorts of problems for individual payers and for local government.
      Mr. Douglas: I do not intend to speak at length. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) dealt specifically with the situation in England. The poll tax was introduced in Scotland a year earlier, so the problems are much more severe—especially in the Strathclyde region, where half the population of Scotland lives, and in Lothian. In those two regions and in the rest of Scotland, the rates of non-collection because of non-payment are high and increasing.
      We can all suggest reasons for that. Some people say that it is because nasty people have persuaded others in certain regions not to pay. That is false. No one needed to persuade those in Scotland who could not afford to pay to participate in the non-payment compaign. They did not pay because they did not have the income. Massive surveys, especially in Strathclyde, have shown that. However, that is in the past.
      As the hon. Member for Dagenham said, the Government have given the impression that the poll tax is dead. When we discuss other amendments, I shall suggest how the council tax can be speedily introduced in Scotland. However, that is another matter; what we are now discussing is which quick fix to adopt. The hon. Member for Dagenham suggested that England and Wales should return to the rating system, using the information available. Amendment No. 26 proposes that the latest information on the rating system is used in Scotland. That is a possibility, but that information would have to be uprated to take account of inflation, and legislation would be required. We would have to discuss whether there should be an appeals procedure.
      I am not unhappy to contemplate a quick fix. The Scottish National party has suggested the quick fix of having local government finance funded from general taxation.
      In the short run, that could be related to the general level of income tax. In the short term, the payments could
      944
      be related to income tax levels. The Government have themselves contemplated the use of such a quick fix, but favoured a connection with indirect rather than direct taxation. What worries me is that, in the interim, Scottish local authorities are in severe difficulties because of the level of non-payment, the impossibility of collecting the tax and the impression given by the Government that the poll tax no longer exists.
      Mr. Key: The Government have not given that impression.
      6 pm
      Mr. Douglas: The Minister is too insular to know what is happening in Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is sitting next to him, may or may not agree, but I am sure that he is aware of the level of non-payment and non-collection in Scotland. I am reasonably sure—although I cannot be certain of anything—that that level will rise rather than fall.
      I remember, a long time ago, sitting in the miners' club with an old miner. Looking at the bottom line of figures on his pay slip, he would say, "That more and more is making me take home less and less." The continued imposition of the poll tax will make collection levels become lower and lower, placing heavier burdens on local authorities.
      The Government do not recognise that, but I am equally concerned about the Opposition's failure to recognise it. They seem to believe that they can introduce their own quick fix by returning to the 1989 rating position in Scotland, or to the 1987 position in England and Wales. Such action, would not bridge the gap effectively: we require legislation. I do not know what an incoming Labour Government would do, but it is highly unlikely that they would get any legislation into gear in six months. It would take another year.
      Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman may or may not know—there is no particular reason why he should know, but Ministers do—that we drafted a short Bill that would have achieved all that was necessary, and, given the necessary co-operation, could have completed its passage in a single day.
      Mr. Douglas: I do not understand the position in England and Wales; but, if we returned to the rating system in Scotland, we would bring back the whole paraphernalia of appeals. That will arise in connection with this Bill. People have made improvements to their properties. Whatever may be said about the way in which the banding system would relate to such improvements, it cannot be denied that they must be taken into account.
      I do not want to take up too much time, and I would be called to order if I embarked on a detailed examination of the way in which Scottish rates were assessed. Let me say simply that they had to bear some relation to the rent that could be charged in a market that was in equilibrium—and markets, of course, are not always in equilibrium. It would not be acceptable to argue about prices on the basis of the 1989 position, updated to take account of inflation. It would also take some time.
      Let me assure the hon. Member for Dagenham that I am not playing games. If the Government started immediately, they might just manage to introduce the new system by 1 April 1992, although they would be lucky to do so. If my party's suggestion were adopted and they

      945
      embarked immediately on the introduction of a local income tax, the process could be completed very quickly. All the necessary information is there, and the computerisation of centre 1 in East Kilbride would make it much easier.
      I hope that I have conveyed some of my feelings to the Minister.
      Mr. Hind: Let me begin where the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) left off. I remember serving on the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill in 1985: my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), now Minister of State, Scottish Office, sat signing hundreds of letters to irate Scottish constituents who had rightly protested about the high rates that had followed the revaluations. I do not believe that the Scottish people will now wish to take up the offer extended by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and return to the rating system.
      My own constituents cheered when we got rid of the rates, which they regarded as an inequitable system with very little merit—an antiquated system that should be scrapped. Certainly a return to it would not be greeted with resounding cheers in my part of Lancashire. The rating system involves no accountability, and reflects neither the income of the ratepayer not the number of people living in a household. Let us forget such nonsense, which is unacceptable to the electorate and is consequently unlikely to be adopted by the House of Commons.
      I am sorry that the council tax cannot be introduced before April 1992 and that we must wait another 12 months. If, however, extra time is needed for proper planning and consultation so that we can get it right and avoid the mistakes that we made with the community charge, I shall be more than happy to allow that extra time. The hon. Member for Dagenham shakes his head, but I assure him that no quick fix is available. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West made that very clear, on behalf of English, Welsh and Scottish electors.
      The hon. Member for Dagenham has talked a lot of nonsense today. He wants to introduce a new system within a year, and has criticised the Government for taking two years. He cannot have his cake and eat it, although that is clearly what he is trying to do. The nonsense about the £140 saving on his "fair rates" scheme sounds all very well and good, but people can say anything when they have published no figures and no one has any idea of the cost base of their proposals. All that can be assumed from an analysis of the hon. Gentleman's figures is that he intends to collect £6·3 billion from the electorate by way of rates. We shall be collecting £6·8 billion. He will have to collect the £500 million difference from the electorate by way of direct taxation, which will mean higher income tax.
      I view Labour's suggestion very sceptically. Let us take time to get the system right. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Key: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) is entirely right to regard Labour's prospectus as false. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), with his customery silver tongue, spoke of the uncertainties, the questions, the delays and the target dates. He made the Government a wonderful offer: he offered to go back to 1973 valuations and abolish the poll tax. That would be so nice, but it is what we do next that matters, rather than the simple act of producing a Bill to
      946
      abolish the poll tax—a fatuous political gimmick if ever there was one. I am the first to acknowledge that the hon. Member for Dagenham has a silver tongue, although. I do not know whether it bears a hallmark. Today, however, he has made a silver hook for it.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: A forked silver tongue.
      Mr. Key: I would never go that far.
      The hon. Gentleman has again pretended that the so-called "fair rates" could be in place by 1992, only 10 months from now. I have searched his document "Fair Rates" in vain for any of the certainties that he alleges to lie within its few pages. There are no certainties. The document does not explain any of the questions about Labour's timetable that the hon. Gentleman so frequently claims that it does answer. He has failed to realise that such a proposal would come up against many of the same difficulties which he has claimed would delay the council tax. New legislation and new regulations would be needed, as would a new grant system and, for most local authorities, new software. Most local authorities have introduced new computers for the community charge system, and he is wrong to suggest that local authorities could simply return to the rates for next year. That is not an option.
      Calling a rates system a fair rates system does not make it so. The hon. Member for Dagenham's system fails to recognise the problem of single people. It is a system under which unlimited amounts could be charged and it suggests that two changes rather than one would have to be made: returning to the 1973 figures, and then introducing another system. There would be multiple valuations on different bases and, above all, there would be no restraint—no capping: of that we are quite sure.
      The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) could not conceal his frustration with his former colleague, and I can understand that because he is right: the hon. Member for Dagenham did not answer his question on timing.
      As regards Scotland, the grants for local authorities have been advanced to help cash flow, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West will acknowledge that. The situation will not be as bad as he suggests. I recognise that the mood of the Committee is that we should progress, but the fact is that these amendments are designed to restrict the valuation process to new property and to updating the old valuation list. They seek to return to the discredited rating system and are very undesirable.
      Memories are not that short. People throughout the country will remember the unfairness of the old rating system. Anyone living in a flat or a newer house will recall the feeling that they suffered from higher rates than their neighbours. They will recall the irritation of finding that every time that they improved their homes, built a garage or made an extension they were faced with someone checking up on what they had done—Big Brother corning to extract his dues. A higher bill would be a punishment for seeking to improve one's property. Labour wants us to return to all that.
      But that is not all. As I said, memories are not that short. People will remember the incomprehensibility of how the system worked—a system based on notional rental values. However ingenious the valuers might be, to base an entire system of local government finance on private sector rental values when only 2 or 3 per cent. of

      947
      the housing stock is in the private rented sector is sheer lunacy. [Laughter.] Opposition Members find this laughable, but I find it laughable that they should suggest that we should reintroduce notional rental values. In Scotland, the position is even worse because we updated values to the 1985 base there, and we can remember the pain and anguish that that caused. The amendment seeks to turn the clock back and to use that valuation. I have some good advice for Opposition Members: the people of Scotland will not wear it. Their memories are no shorter than those south of the border.
      Mr. Donald Dewar:: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but has the Minister bothered to consider any of the public opinion polls on this subject in Scotland? They have all suggested that the Scots would prefer this solution. Has he taken into account the views of the assessors? Perhaps there should be a respectful silence while the Parliamentary Under-Secretary produces a cover story. Has the Minister noted that the assessor for Lothian, for example—who is going to be entrusted, thanks to the Government's about-turn, with the valuation process in connection with the new tax, and who took the view that the Labour party scheme was practical—commended it as it would cut a year off the Government's present timetable?
      Mr. Key: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate—even though he has been here for only one minute and 30 seconds. I assure him that I keep close tabs on what is happening in Scotland because I have a Scottish wife, I was employed in Scotland, and I am well aware that the people of Scotland have strong views about the many different possible rating systems that the Labour party has suggested.
      Even though the hon. Member for Dagenham may delude himself into believing that his hon. Friends think that his proposals are good, I suspect that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West and his hon. Friends would strongly disagree. This amendment is even more misguided than I have suggested. I have listened carefully to what Opposition Members have said. I believe that they envisage a system where not only are people living in properties that were subject to the old rating system condemned to a return to those old unlamented rateable values, but also people living in new properties. Those in new properties will be subject to valuers coming round, no doubt scratching their heads and sticking their fingers in the air first for inspiration, to try to decide how much the rental value—entirely hypothetically of course—of a new house might have been in 1973, had it been built.
      It is nonsense, Opposition Members know it is nonsense, but in their desperation they have nothing better to put forward. I call upon the Committee to reject a return to the rates, which is what these amendments seek.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Gould: I found the Minister's reply a rather depressing experience in that he failed to tackle the serious purpose of the debate and the serious matters that we raised.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is quite right. It is true not only in Scotland but throughout the country that whenever polling
      948
      evidence on people's preferences for funding local government through local revenue raising is taken, polls show that our fair rates proposals—or proposals described in those terms and similar to our proposals—are three times more popular than any other proposal.
      Not surprisingly, the poll tax always languishes at the bottom, but I am sorry to say that even a local income tax finds it difficult to feature.
      Mr. Key: What about the roof tax?
      Mr. Gould: The roof tax may have been lower for a brief period, but in the country as a whole fair rates scored very well indeed.
      The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) sat through the debate, if my eyes did not deceive me, yet seems to have completely failed to understand the matters that were being discussed. I think that he was attempting to encourage his hon. Friends to ignore the possibility of replacing the poll tax by 1 April 1992, because they ought to take all the time in the world to consult, make leisurely preparations and so forth, so that they can do that job by 1 April 1993. He seems to have completely ignored the case that I, the Audit Commission and many other people have been arguing for quite some time—that it is the date of 1 April 1993 which is the difficulty, if one insists on introducing a totally new scheme. That is the quick fix. That is what is taking risks with local government finance. That is the great gamble that the Government have once more recklessly embarked upon.
      If we really want to take time, it would be in the interests of local government and everyone else for the Government to say now that they propose to take at least until 1 April 1994, if they persist with this proposal.
      The Minister failed to deal with any of the arguments about the likelihood of delay or the adverse consequences of delay. That fact made the debate such a disappointment and made his reply so depressing. However, as I have by now become a little cynical about these matters, and as I despair of the Government approaching them with true seriousness of purpose, I see little point in urging at any greater length Minister to face the facts and the truth. I suspect that salvation will arrive by a quite different course fairly shortly. For those reasons, and as I do not believe that this proposal will ever be implemented, I do not wish to press the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 2, line 40, leave out
      'acting under the direction of those Commissioners;'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 6, in page 2, line 40, leave out 'direction' and insert 'guidance'.
      No. 7, in clause 5, page 5, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
      '(3) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue may, after consultation with the local assessor, issue guidances in relation to the valuation to be undertaken, having regard to established Scottish usage.'
      No. 8, in clause 5, page 5, leave out lines 4 and 5.
      Mr. Dewar: The amendment is comparatively simple and seeks further information. I intend to dispose of it fairly briefly in the expectation—perhaps I should not be so confident—in the hope that there will be a brief stand

      949
      part part debate on clause 3. I am glad that the Minister is nodding his agreement. That will allow us to raise conveniently one or two questions about the valuation system in Scotland and may, on balance, shorten the time that the Committee has to sit. However, I want to ask the Minister one or two questions.
      I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State, who chastised me for being in the House only occasionally, has already departed. I was looking forward to discussing with him the role of the Minister's wife. She is not an archetypal or representative figure in Scottish society, wherever she may have been born. She is a well-known character in children's games, and there was an interesting theme to be developed.
      I shall confine my remarks to the proper matter for the debate, which is the role of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the valuation system in Scotland. I am considerably interested in that, and I took the trouble this morning—I will not say that I did a great deal of research—to discover who the commissioners are [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Minister's wife's husband has returned. The commissioners are the individual members of the board of Inland Revenue, and the Committee may be delighted to know that the chief valuer, who will no doubt become an important figure in Scottish local government, is Mr. R. R. B. Shutter—which seems entirely appropriate.
      I wish to ask the Minister about the role of the commissioners. I recognise that it was dealt with on Second Reading, and I challenged the Secretary of State for the Environment on the matter during his opening speech. He said:
      "That is an important point".
      I accept that: otherwise I would not have intervened. He added:
      "there should be parity of valuation in Scotland, England and Wales. It is our intention for the Inland Revenue to mastermind the valuation exercise … and give appropriate directives so that the Scottish valuations are in line with those in England and Wales."—[Official Report, 3 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 61.]
      That is an obtrusive role. It is not necessarily a bad one, but it is one that we should know more about.
      From my earlier inquiries, I got the impression that it would occur very occasionally and that day-to-day operations would remain with the assessors in Scotland and only if there were some dispute, for example, if there were a nice argument about the contractors principle—a vexed question which took up many hours of my time a few years ago when there was a shortage of comparative rental evidence and other methods had to be resorted to. The commissioners would be brought in only if a matter of principle arose.
      I do not want to make too much of a textual point. If we are to consider the masterminding of the valuation exercise, and if directives will bring Scottish valuations into line with those in England, we need more explanation.
      I do not intend to discuss forcefully the merits and demerits of the contractors principle—I have forgotten them—but I think that the merits are outweighed by the demerits. There are still differences in valuation law between Scotland and England. I approve of the Minister's talk of an attempt to harmonise valuation law. That talk was in connection with the business and commercial rating sectors, but I presume it has become relevant to the
      950
      Government's unexpected, but sensible, decision to go for a property-based rating system and that harmonisation will take place in the domestic sector as well.
      If harmonisation of valuation law is to be masterminded by the commissioners, the Minister should explain exactly what the phrase means. It does not mean that rateable values will be the same. They will not be the same in England where there are wide discrepancies, and presumably they will not be the same in Scotland.
      Is the Minister saying that Armour on "Rating and Valuation" can be burned, that Scottish valuation law will come to an end on a phased basis and that, ultimately, valuation law in England and Scotland will be exactly the same and the law interpreted by Scottish courts will be the same as that interpreted by English courts? Is that the intention, and is that the remit of the commissioners of Inland Revenue?
      Let us take a popular current example. I notice from the public prints that the Minister has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on the vexed question of the rating of football clubs. It has been suggested that something will be done that is totally unknown in Scottish law. Valuation law will move to a system which depends on revenue of the football clubs, and it will not be based on their grounds or the number who attend the premises. That will not be glad news for Rangers football club, but it will be extremely good for Cowdenbeath.
      A revenue-based system is a departure in Scottish law. Recently, as reported in The Glasgow Herald, the Minister said:
      "I should explain that should we decide to adopt such an approach, which would severely limit clubs' rights of appeal, we would regard this as an interim measure".
      I am curious to know why it would severely restrict the clubs' rights of appeal. I invite the Minister to say a word in passing about that and the Government's intentions because of the interest in the subject and because it is important as an example of what the role of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will be.
      It will be a difficult relationship. I have said before that I welcome the Government's U-turn on the matter. The Secretary of State heavily briefed the press that the valuation office of the Inland Revenue will take over valuation procedures in Scotland, and the decision to reinstate the assessors strikes me as a sensible one. It is the essence of the assessors' role that although they are funded and have the wherewithal to operate through the regional councils, they are totally independent. If there is a dispute over valuation law, the answer in the courts will be that they are not controlled by anybody else. Now we are being asked to contemplate the possibility that, to some extent, they will be controlled by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
      I hope that the Minister will give us a fuller explanation than was possible on Second Reading. I have no complaint about the answer then, because obviously it was a point for the Committee stage. As we have reached that stage, it would be helpful if the Minister gave a full explanation of the Government's intentions. We will then be able to judge whether we want to live with them.
      Mr. Douglas: I understand that we shall have an extensive clause stand part debate, so I shall be brief. I am in the unaccustomed position of supporting the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gardscadden (Mr. Dewar). I shall

      951
      also say something on behalf of local assessors and in view of the role that they play on the poll tax, that is an engaging anomaly.
      I shall consider the relationship of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to the assessors; this arose on Second Reading. I agree with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Garscadden and I have tabled an amendment to this subsection to clarify the relationship. The hon. Member was right to say that we should congratulate the Government somewhat for their about-turn. In paragraph 2.29 of the consultative document, the Government said that the valuation office of the Inland Revenue would be almost in complete charge. It would almost totally operate the system.
      I know that representations were made by the Scottish Assessors Association and the Government rightly conceded that the expertise of Scottish assessors should be used on the new council tax. I am concerned by what is embedded in the Bill—that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will have effective legal control. I find that disturbing in the Scottish context.
      I am not an expert—I am not a lawyer—and I have no great experience from direct discussions with assessors, but I understand that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have no experience of valuing domestic property in Scotland.
      Mr. Allan Stewart indicated dissent.
      Mr. Douglas: The Minister may disagree, but I call in evidence Mr. Jack Woods, the president of the Scottish Assessors Association. If I am wrong I hope that the Minister will correct me.
      6.30 pm
      The commissioners have not embarked upon such an undertaking in Scotland. In certain areas of Scotland, there is no local office of Inland Revenue commissioners. It strikes me as strange that those with the authority and the expertise should be subordinate, in legal terms, to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue who lack that very experience and expertise.
      I have tried to soften the effects of clause 3(2) by suggesting that, if the Government are intent on achieving harmony, the relationship between the commissioners and the assessors should, at the very most, be based on "guidance", not direction. It is important to decide who calls the shots and to recognise who has the expertise and experience to operate the proposed system in Scotland.
      I am not in love with that system, but if the Government want to get it in place by 1 April 1993, they should be sensible. They should use the expertise of the assessors to the greatest extent and those assessors should not be impeded by being subject to the overlordship of the commissioners.
      My argument may be subject to dispute, but given the practical experience of the assessors they should not be dominated by the commissioners. I appreciate that the Government see certain merits in fettering the assessors' role—that would not necessarily be to Scotland's advantage—and in trying to achieve harmony. Nevertheless, the assessors should not be dominated by directions issued by the commissioners.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) said, there is an unusual degree of unanimity between the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the prospective Scottish National party candidate for Garscadden.
      This has been a genuinely useful debate and I hope that I can reassure the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Dunfermline, West. The hon. Member for Garscadden alleged that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had made a U-turn. The hon. Gentleman is a fair man and I am sure that he will recall that during questions on the original statement my right hon. Friend said to him:
      "We are still considering the possible role of Scottish assessors in the system"—[Official Report, 23 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 931.]
      I fear that watching me on television is not a high priority for the hon. Member for Garscadden.
      Mr. Dewar: It is always very instructive.
      Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I recall that, on the evening following that statement, I appeared on television in "Scottish Questions". I made it clear that the assessors have the considerable expertise to which the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Dunfermline, west have referred. I stressed that we were seriously considering their role in the proposed system. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed the same view in interviews that he gave.
      It is important to put on record the precise nature of the relationship between the assessors and the commissioners—it is the essence of the debate. The primary responsibility for carrying out valuations in Scotland rests with the assessors. They will act in accordance with directions given by the commissioners.
      The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West spoke about the Inland Revenue valuation office's experience of domestic valuation in Scotland. The commissioners have had experience of valuing local authority houses for sale to sitting tenants and of valuing individual properties for taxation purposes. However, Mr. Woods was right to say that the commissioners do not have the same experience as the assessors when it comes to the general valuation procedure.
      Mr. Douglas: So that I do not mislead the House I should like to quote what Mr. Woods said. I do not wish to misinterpret him. On page 321 of the submission to the Scottish office of May 1991, Mr. Woods said:
      "The Valuation Office in Scotland has never in modern times been responsible for valuation for domestic rating as contrasted with the position in England and Wales"
      Perhaps I misled the House with my extempore remarks, but it is important to quote the basis of my argument.
      Mr. Stewart: I have that document with me, and I believe that Mr. Woods was right to say that the valuation office has never been involved in the general valuation procedure in Scotland. However, it has experience of valuing individual properties.
      The Government are already on record as saying that we do not anticipate any need for the widespread use of the power to give directions set out in the Bill. We expect that power to be used initially to start the process going, but any further directions, should they be necessary, will simply be given in order to achieve consistency of approach.

      953
      We expect that the Inland Revenue commissioners would find it necessary to give a direction only as a last resort to achieve consistency in the way in which properties are banded in Scotland and consistency between Scotland and England and Wales, where that consistency would not otherwise be achieved in agreement with the local assessors.
      There might not be any need to issue directions because the assessors and the Inland Revenue commissioners already have excellent working relationships. They should be able to deal with the problems of harmonisation in the non-domestic sector to which hon. Members have referred.
      Mr. Douglas: They have not agreed on some issues for years.
      Mr. Stewart: They have reached a measure of agreement in some areas. The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to sports grounds, and I accept that they have not reached total agreement on that issue, which is a matter of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Even if the law is the same, professionals may disagree on how it should be applied in particular circumstances. That does not imply any criticism of their relative professionalism, expertise or dedication. We must ensure that we avoid such disagreement when we set up the council tax.
      I hope that I can reassure the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Dunfermline, West by saying that the president of the Scottish Assessors Association has gone on record as saying that he feels comfortable about the role of the commissioners at the United Kingdom level. The proposals do not cause any problems to the professionals—those who will carry out the valuations.
      I recognise that the amendments are probing and I assure the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Dunfermline, West that the power to give direction is simply one of last resort. I hope that it will not be necessary to use it once the process is up and running. I am sure that they would agree that it is crucial to give an assurance and perception of uniformity north and south of the border.
      If any problems arise as a result of the Government's approach, I should be happy to discuss them with the hon. Members. We hope that that will not happen because the professionals are content with what has been suggested. I welcome the opportunity to put that on the record and I hope that I have been reasonably reassuring to the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Dunfermline, West.
      Mr. Dewar: The Minister has been more reassuring than he sometimes is: I can be no more enthusiastic than that. In return, I can give him the assurance that I do not esxpect to spend many hours discussing valuation law with him. That would be a considerable test for both of us and I suspect that it would not produce much light.
      I hear what the Minister says. It is significant that there have not been many protests from any of my contacts, so we shall have to see how it goes. I do not intend to force a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. David Bellotti: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 2, line 44, at end insert—
      '(4A) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue in England and Wales and in Scotland, the local assessors acting under the direction of those commissioners, shall
      954

      (a) before commencing the work of valuation, and

      (b) after completion of the work of valuation,

      publish the expected and final cost of the valuation and compare it with the estimated cost of assessing individuals' tax status for the purpose of introducing a local income tax to fund local government.'.
      The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to an estimated cost of £250 million for the valuation provisions. There are 21·5 million houses and flats in the country. A quick calculation shows that the Government expect the average valuation cost to be £12 per hereditament. That is an interesting figure. I should very much like the name and address of the estate agent that the Government intend to use if properties can be valued at £12 each. Perhaps nearer to the truth is what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) said earlier in the debate. He said that he could sit in the centre of Southampton with a map of Southampton in his hands and identify upon it the bands of properties there. That would be socially divisive and would almost certainly lead to major protests and many appeals. It would also cost a great deal.
      The purpose of the amendment is to seek answers from the Government about what their valuation proposals will mean and to try to identify the equivalent costs of introducing a local income tax. Either the Government must provide the full costs of valuation or they must give more information. The public needs to know how much money is to be wasted on introducing the new tax. I remind the Government that between £10 billion and £14 billion has already been wasted on the poll tax.
      According to all the opinion polls, support for a local income tax is growing throughout the country. The costs of introducing a local income tax deserve to be considered. A local income tax would be simple to administer. It would certainly be fairer in terms of the burden placed on people. It would be very much related to ability to pay. Almost certainly it could be in place by April 1992—a very important date, since for 12 months after that date the Government propose to waste an additional £800 million, as the Audit Commission pointed out, on prolonging the agonies of the poll tax.
      The reason why it would be simple to administer and could be in place so quickly is that the information that is needed is already on the Inland Revenue computers, which give the address, including the postal code, of everyone who would be required to pay the local income tax. That information, together with the correct software programme, means that it would be cheap to administer and that it would be in place within the right time scale. A local income tax has another attraction—accountability. An end-of-year adjustment, just before local elections, means that a local income tax would be seen by the electorate to be linked to the decision that they were about to take at the ballot box.
      For those reasons, we believe that a local income tax is worthy of support. It was its unfairness in principle that was at the heart of the poll tax opposition. We are beginning to see, as the Government provide us with more details, how unfair their council tax proposals will be. The council tax will do nothing to help the student in a bed-sit, often living, traditionally, in the centre of our large cities and towns.
      For example, a student in Edinburgh, even with a 25 per cent. discount, will still have to pay more under the council tax than he did under the poll tax. In central London, there is low-cost housing, provided by housing

      955
      associations and others, next door to very expensive housing. The houses look the same from the outside. On the open market, those properties would fetch the same. However, the people living in the low-cost housing may be on very low incomes. The Government's council tax proposals do nothing to help students.
      6.45 pm
      A local income tax, related to ability to pay, means that the majority of students on low incomes would not contribute towards local taxation. Moreover, the council tax would do nothing for the widow in a terraced house, bought by the family 30 years ago in Southwark; the house may be valued at £90,000, but her income is about £8,000. Even after the single discount, that person would have to pay £372 a year. Under a local income tax system, she would be very much better off. The only important figure would be her £8,000 income. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What would she pay?"] The figure in Southwark will be well under £372. I do not have the exact figure, but I can make it available. The Government know full well that over a month ago the Liberal Democrats published and sent to the Government details of what the local income tax would be in every local authority in the country. As I say, I do not have the figure in front of me, but it is on public record. The Government have the figure, but I can make it available to them again, if they so wish. I am giving examples that the Government need to take on board if they intend to introduce a council tax, and I am certainly pressing for the introduction of the local income tax alternative.
      A local income tax has many advantages. Not only is it fair, but it is directly linked to the ability of people to pay. They will pay what they can afford to pay. That is the important criterion when considering any form of local taxation. Our proposals also mean that no new registers and no new valuations would be required. It would be much cheaper to introduce, and it could be introduced very much more quickly than a council tax.
      For those reasons, and also because I believe that the British people should have before them a comparison of the costs of the alternative ways in which local government could be funded, I must press the advantages of a local income tax. The valuation costs that appear in the explanatory and financial memorandum are not clear. Insufficient detail is provided for the people of this country to reach a decision. That detail should be given by Ministers. If they do not do so, I believe that a comparison should be placed before the people of this country.
      Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I doubt whether we need spend much time on that weird flight of fancy. My question arises out of the failure of the Department of the Environment to reply to a letter that I wrote to it, which is relevant to this debate.
      I, too, looked at the figure that is given in the explanatory and financial memorandum. Departments, under all Governments, respond much too slowly to queries. My question, arising out of the cost, is this: could it be that the low cost—which, on the face of it, looks like £12 per hereditament—is due to the Government's intention, perhaps under regulations, to make it possible for people who know that their properties are in the top band to respond to a letter by saying, "Yes, we are in the
      956
      top band," thus doing away with the need to provide a valuation? No one will say that he or she is in the top band if that is not so. It would not be in anyone's interest to do that. That would provide the opportunity for considerable savings to be made. That may explain why one cannot make a naive division of the number of hereditaments into the total sum on the face of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) has just tried to do.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The amendment provides for comparisons to be made between the cost of valuation and the cost of introducing a local income tax, and for figures to be published of the costs of valuation, both estimated—before it starts—and actual, after it has been completed. The amendment is unnecessary. Were the amendment simply what it appears to be, I should have been disappointed at the lack of knowledge that it displays about the way in which the Government treat public expenditure. However, its purpose is different. It has nothing to do with the merits of the Bill. It is intended to provide a platform for discussion of a local income tax.
      I am disappointed, therefore, that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) was unable to give us details of what the Liberal Democrats propose. When he was challenged from a sedentary position as to what his friend in Southwark would be paying under the local income tax system, he said that the Liberal Democrats had published those figures but that they were not available to him to give to the Committee today.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I must tell the Minister that if the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) had sought to do as he suggests I might have been tempted to rule him out of order. The Minister should stick to what is in the amendment.
      Mr. Bennett: I was drawing attention to the inconsistencies in the speech by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, Mr. Walker.
      There are a number of reasons why a local income tax would be unsuitable for financing local government. Those reasons reflect matters of principle, practicality, and good administration.
      It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, whose theory belongs in cloud cuckoo land; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) talked about a flight of fancy. The hon. Member for Eastbourne cannot seriously believe that a local income tax could be in place by next year, that the software would be available and that the system would be simple. That is nonsense. None of it could be put into place by 1992 even if we believed in it in principle.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about the average cost—
      Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Bennett: Not now. I am answering the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who asked about the average cost.
      It may not be necessary for the valuer to value every home. Often a valuer will go to a street and find a whole street of identical properties. He will then be able to make the assumption that the value of such properties will be the same. The £12 that the hon. Member for Eastbourne calculates as the cost per property of valuation does not take account of the fact that, in some areas, valuers will be

      957
      able to make assessments on the basis of having seen rows of similar houses. The charge will be higher for properties requiring more detailed valuation. It is dangerous to make assumptions based on average figures.
      There are important reasons of principle why we should not adopt a local income tax. I do not believe that a highly redistributive tax is a suitable basis for financing local government. Income tax is suitable only as a national tax, and it forms an important element in the Government's economic policy. To give local government the ability to levy income tax would reduce the Chancellor's room for manoeuvre in economic management. It would also reverse the reduction in the burden of taxation on incomes, which has been the Government's policy for 12 years, and would have a damaging effect on incentives. I cannot believe that the people of Britain would want there to be more than 500 chancellors of the exchequer, all dipping their hands into the public's pocket after the national Chancellor of the Exchequer had already done so.
      Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bennett: Let me finish my argument first.
      I do not believe that it is right to give local government the right to redistribute income, and the unfettered discretion to take from local taxpayers sums of money in excess of what would be prudent. We have only to look at the effects of local government in London—at Lambeth, Haringey, Camden and other boroughs—to see what would happen to taxpayers in those areas if their local authorities had the right to dip into their pockets and impose a local income tax.
      Mr. Salmond: I should like to come to the assistance of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti). The Government have been humiliated over the poll tax and are now embarking on a flight into the unknown with the new council tax. Does the Minister seriously intend to stand there and attempt to rubbish a system that works satisfactorily in so many other European countries?
      Mr. Bennett: I am interested to hear from the representative of the Scottish National party that that party's policy is to have a local income tax. I do not believe that it would be right to have two forms of chancellor of the exchequer in this country—one in central Government, able to make decisions on the redistribution of income, and a mini-chancellor in every local authority, able to make his own decisions, which might be contrary to those made by central Government, about the distribution of wealth in the country.
      I should not like a chancellor of the exchequer in Camden town hall to be able to levy as much as 25p on the local people, in addition to the 25 per cent. income tax already taken by central Government. I do not believe that most people want to see that, either. To go down that road would pose a serious danger to the Government's economic strategy. It would be irresponsible of the Government to allow fiscal policy to be under the influence of local authorities, with all the macro-economic consequences that could flow from such a state.
      Income tax is not practical at local government level, for several reasons. The yield of income tax for small local authorities could vary considerably according to economic circumstances, and deny local government the steady and predictable source of income that they need. That lack of predictability, and the consequent potential instability,
      958
      would be made worse by what experts call fiscal migration. That means that people with the highest incomes would move to low-tax authority areas and those with low incomes would move to high-tax areas.
      Let us ponder the vicious spiral that that would cause—the instability in areas such as south London, where Lambeth and Wandsworth exist side by side. As every telling reminder of the difference between Labour and Conservative local government shows, at the moment Labour costs more; for example, it costs £450 more to live in Lambeth. If there were a local income tax, Labour would drive people out, and tax rates would become higher and higher as fewer people were left to pay the local income tax. Such a system of local taxation would not be common sense.
      Another practical objection is that income tax rates are changed only in steps of 1p or, at a pinch, 0·5p. That would represent a large proportional increase in the tax rate and would greatly restrict local authorities' flexibility in making budget decisions. The smallest increase or decrease in income that they could consider might represent 10 or 20 per cent. of their total revenue. That does not seem likely to offer adequate accountability, and the buoyancy of the local income tax would reduce the restraints on local authority spending.
      The Chairman: Order. The Minister is contrasting the cost of administering one system with the cost of administering another. His remarks do not seem to have much to do with the amendment. He should direct his remarks to the amendment.
      Mr. Bennett: I thought that it was in order to point out what the effects of the amendment would be, Mr. Walker. It would produce a system of local income tax, and the disadvantages of that—
      The Chairman: Order. I beg the Minister to read the amendment and then address his remarks to what I can read in it. I am not prepared to allow the debate on which the Minister is now embarking about the intrinsic merits of a local income tax scheme. The amendment is not about that, and nor is the debate.
      Mr. Bennett: I think that I have already given enough evidence, Mr. Walker, to show the impracticality of the Liberal amendment, and the fact that it is wrong in principle. I therefore ask the Committee to vote against it.
      Mr. Bellotti: I am grateful to you, Mr. Walker. I was beginning to struggle as I listened to the Minister's response. This is the first time that I have listened to a response from a Minister that I simply could not fathom. I hope that my reply will keep to the point.
      First, there is the question of what the Government's valuation proposals will cost. The Minister's response has at least revealed that the Government will expect people undertaking valuations to stand at the end of a street and look down it to see whether all the houses look the same. If they do the houses will all he valued the same. That reveals a naivety beyond belief, even for the House.
      Everyone realises that there has to be some element of fairness, and the Government's approach to valuation is ridiculous, as well as unfair.
      Mr. Hugo Summerson: Speaking as a chartered surveyor, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the procedure that he describes would be perfectly easy to carry out.
      Mr. Bellotti: I am grateful for that advice, but in all the towns—and indeed, in all the roads—in which I have lived, there has been a vast variety of property values. There are differences in value of almost 100 per cent. between houses one end of the street where I live and houses at the other. A naivety about property valuation is being revealed among Conservative Members which I find surprising, especially in any one professionally involved with valuation. But at least we are getting some more information in the debate.
      Having seen how ridiculous the Government's idea of the cost of valuation is, I want to emphasise how easy and cheap in comparison our alternative proposals would be. I invite the Minister to visit his local Inland Revenue office and ask the manager to press a button on the computer. Immediately, details of the names and addresses, including postcodes, of all the people in that area will flash before him on the screen. That is the basic information that we need to start with for the introduction of a local income tax. Given that the information already exists, the costs of levying a local income tax would be minimal.
      7 pm
      The Government's true feelings towards local authorities have been revealed at the Dispatch Box tonight. The measures in the Bill are all about controlling local authorities from the centre. If the Government want to make local authorities accountable, there are other measures open to them, one of which is the introduction of a fair voting system. But the Government want total control, and they are so naive as to believe that the valuation proposal can give it to them.
      On the basis of the debate, I have no hesitation in pressing the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 26, Noes 274.

      Division No. 168]

      [7 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Maclennan, Robert

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Beith, A. J.

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Bellotti, David

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Salmond, Alex

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Carr, Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Cartwright, John

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Douglas, Dick

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Fearn, Ronald

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Howells, Geraint

      Mr. James Wallace and

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Atkinson, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Allason, Rupert

      Beggs, Roy

      Amess, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Amos, Alan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Ashby, David

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Ashton, Joe

      Body, Sir Richard

      960

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hannam, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Hardy, Peter

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Harris, David

      Bowis, John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hayes, Jerry

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hayward, Robert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bright, Graham

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

      Hill, James

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Holt, Richard

      Butcher, John

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Butler, Chris

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

      Caborn, Richard

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Illsley, Eric

      Cash, William

      Irvine, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Churchill, Mr

      Jack, Michael

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Jackson, Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Janman, Tim

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Key, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Kilfedder, James

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Couchman, James

      Knapman, Roger

      Cran, James

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Knowles, Michael

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

      Knox, David

      Day, Stephen

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Devlin, Tim

      Latham, Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dixon, Don

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dover, Den

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lewis, Terry

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lightbown, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Favell, Tony

      Lord, Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Flynn, Paul

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Forman, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forth, Eric

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Franks, Cecil

      Madel, David

      French, Douglas

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fry, Peter

      Marland, Paul

      Gale, Roger

      Marlow, Tony

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Martlew, Eric

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Meale, Alan

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Michael, Alun

      Gregory, Conal

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mills, Iain

      Grist, Ian

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Ground, Patrick

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grylls, Michael

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hague, William

      Moate, Roger

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      961

      Morley, Elliot

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Steen, Anthony

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Stevens, Lewis

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Summerson, Hugo

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Page, Richard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Paice, James

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thorne, Neil

      Pawsey, James

      Thurnham, Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Pendry, Tom

      Tracey, Richard

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tredinnick, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Trippier, David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Trotter, Neville

      Price, Sir David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Redwood, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Walden, George

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Ward, John

      Rost, Peter

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Watts, John

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wilkinson, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wilshire, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Shelton, Sir William

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shersby, Michael

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Sims, Roger

      Yeo, Tim

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Mr. David Davis.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Gould: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 2, line 49, leave out 'prescribed' and insert 'fourteen'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 55, in page 2, line 49, at end insert
      'Draft regulations under this section shall be laid before the House before 1st July 1991'.'.
      No. 56, in page 2, line 49, at end insert
      'and the top band shall contain only all houses with a value over £500,000 in England and Wales and all houses with a value over £330,000 in Scotland'.
      Mr. Gould: The Bill and clause 3 are remarkably uninformative about the basis on which valuation is to be conducted. We know little about what will be measured. The Minister of State said that it was to be capital values—the sale price of one's house. On other occasions he has told a radio audience that other factors will also be taken into account. We are not clear about those factors and about how they impinge on the basic proposition that the valuation base should be capital values.
      962
      7.15 pm
      Clause 3 tells us nothing about the number of bands, their disposition, size or relationship to each other. We are not told the top rate band. The only information vouchsafed to us is that the valuation will be based on prescribed bands. That basic proposition raises the issues that I have mentioned about the number of bands, their size and the top limit. It also raises the question of how the bands are to be calculated. Should they be calculated nationally or regionally or even more locally? Those matters will be raised in the debate on amendment No. 29. Conservative Members have voiced understandable concern about the difficulties that will arise if the bands apply nationally rather than regionally.
      Another matter raised in the debate and outside is the likelihood of people appealing against a decision to put their properties in a particular band. Earlier, the Minister was asked to comment on the perception by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors that no appeals will be permitted. That must be a misapprehension. The Minister nods assent, confirming that it is. It would be extraordinary if no appeals were permitted.
      We were told at the start of the whole operation that the shape and detail of the new council tax would be decided after consultation with local government and the wider public. The Government have published a consultation paper about which views are being expressed and submissions made. Understandably and rightly, the Government claim that consultation is valuable and say that they should be commended for inviting public opinion. They say that they should not simply impose solutions but should listen to the views of those who will be affected.
      The mystery is that in this atmosphere of general bonhomie and a willingness to listen to other opinions, the issue of the bands, their number, their relationship to each other and the top limit have been arbitrarily withdrawn from the consultation process. One of the small services that the Minister could perform in replying to the debate is to confirm that that unhappy news is accurate. Perhaps he will explain why, on this most delicate of issues, the consultation of which the Government boast is not taking place.
      Although the Bill is uninformative, the Government say that they have flatly and finally made up their minds that there will be seven bands and that the top one will consist of properties valued at £160,000 or above.
      The Government have not been driven into this somewhat remarkable situation by any desire to achieve a sensible and practicable outcome. They have been driven by the hurried timetable that we debated earlier and the need, against all expectations, to convince people that somehow they can meet the schedule to replace the poll tax on 1 April 1993. That is why the Government have had to truncate the consultation process on this essential and central issue, and they have made up their minds quickly so that they can make rapid progress in what, I suspect, will be a vain attempt to stick to their timetable.
      The Government are also driven by a motive that is even less reputable. Their desire is not just to fulfil a tight timetable, but to deflect criticism that they have been dithering, indecisive and unable to make up their mind. As soon as they came under pressure because they were thought to be consulting and looking at different options, they closed the whole issue and proclaimed that they had made up their mind and nothing would change it.

      963
      The Government felt desperately, their former Secretary of State and current chairman having been gobsmacked by our figures, that they had to produce figures of their own which at least gave the appearance of being as specific and reliable as ours. Therefore, it is worth recounting, as I have on previous occasions, the history of this short and somewhat shameful episode. The Secretary of State, who is again absent from our deliberations, had begun the process. Once he had made up his mind and persuaded colleagues to go for a property tax, against all earlier protestations from Ministers, he set about the business of trying to work out how it would operate.
      First, the Secretary of State sent out a circular, in the last three or four days of February, asking district valuers to conduct an exercise in which they allocated all local property to one of 14 bands, with a top band for properties worth £250,000 or above. He did not ask them to conduct any valuations, because there was not enough time. No work was done on the ground. They were asked only to make guesses as to how many of the properties in their areas would go to one or other band. Armed with this rather scanty information, the Secretary of State took the figures to the Cabinet. It is significant that our amendment proposes the 14 bands that the Secretary of State's exercise had stipulated.
      When the Secretary of State got to the Cabinet, by this time rather late in the day, he ran into a small difficulty called the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, having looked at the figures, said, "We cannot do this. We cannot threaten our supporters living in high value properties, particularly in the south of England, with an obligation to pay a substantial share of the new council tax. We have to limit that or we will be crucified electorally." To his credit, I think that the Secretary of State did not like that very much. He understood more clearly than the Prime Minister and his colleagues what the consequences would be, but he lost. He suffered another of his many significant defeats in trying to bring forward an acceptable replacement for the poll tax. I suspect that that is why the Secretary of State has found it difficult to appear in the Committee to support some of the proposals. He knows that the Bill represents a compendium of his defeats in Cabinet.
      The Cabinet and the Prime Minister insisted that, instead of 14, there should be seven bands. In the meantime—here I cannot give as accurate an account as I would like as I am not privy to these matters—for reasons about which I can only speculate, the Secretary of State had decided that as 14 bands were not acceptable, he should go for a compromise of nine. Therefore, he instituted a further exercise. He issued another circular to the district valuers asking them to conduct a more comprehensive and serious exercise in which they allocated —on the basis, one assumes, of proper valuations—all properties to one of nine bands.
      Rather unfortunately for the Secretary of State, the circular was leaked, and we discovered first that the nine band exercise was under way and subsequently that an earlier 14-band exercise had been carried out. Within a day of that leak, the nine-band exercise was aborted. We were then told that all bets were off and that there were to be seven bands because nothing else would do. That raises two questions: what was the purpose of the original 14-band exercise and why was the nine-band exercise begun and then aborted within a couple of days?
      964
      The answer is that by this stage the Government were so wounded by charges that they were dithering about replacing the poll tax and were so sensitive about charges that they could not make up their mind that, at the very suggestion that they were looking at a range of options, they felt obliged to kill the exercise. In the mistaken belief that panic represented decisiveness, they decided to go for seven bands and that was the end of the consultation process.
      The peculiarity is that, because of the gobsmacking of the chairman of the Tory party, the Government were obliged to produce some figures. They could not produce the 14-band figures, which were in any case an estimate about which they wanted to forget. Nor could they produce the nine-band figures, which presumably at some stage they must have thought would be informative and useful but which they had been forced to abandon. Having nailed their colours to the seven-band mast, they had to produce figures for that. Unfortunately, no one had ever done any work on seven bands. Not to be deterred, they took the guesses that had formed the basis of the 14-band exercise, lopped off the top six bands, and rejuggled the remaining eight bands to create seven bands, none of which bore any accurate correlation to the original exercise. They then allocated guesses to each of the seven bands. On that basis, they had the gall to produce figures which they seriously said represented what bills would be for this year if their proposals were in operation. They are now using that ludicrous guess—worse, an invention based on a guess—to hold local authorities to levels of bills and expenditure for future years. That is a shameful and disreputable exercise.
      The curious thing about this is that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland to inquire what the basis of those figures might have been, he was told airily that it would not serve any purpose to reveal the statistical basis of the calculations. I can understand that, as we now know how insubstantial was the basis on which the figures were produced. I hope that the few hon. Members who are here in this relatively ill-attended debate and the, unfortunately, few who are recording it, will attempt to get across to the wider public that no reliance is to be placed on the Government's figures. The figures for bills to be paid under the council tax are inventions.
      On an earlier occasion, when asked what had gone wrong with the poll tax, which no one defends, not even the Minister or the Under-Secretary—perhaps the right hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) do—the Prime Minister said, "We were bounced." I wonder about a Prime Minister who can excuse one terrible mistake on that basis but is now proposing to bounce not just the Cabinet, his party or the House of Commons but the whole country into a council tax based on such a ludicrous invention. Has not the Prime Minister learnt the lesson of his analysis? We are storing up huge problems as a consequence of this insubstantial and shaky measure.
      The Government cannot say that they were not warned. It is not just the Labour party which has said that the exercise looks unreliable and that banding is not to be supported without a good deal more work. Through its secretary general, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has expressed itself in today's newspapers as follows: unless the Government do a great deal more work and are not in too much of a rush to scrap the poll tax

      965
      without addressing some of the practical difficulties, the council tax will itself, like the poll tax, be a "discredited tax."
      The Minister gave us a vignette of his relations with the RICS and, according to him, he met its representatives yesterday. He assures us that at that meeting they told him that the council tax was a wonderful concept. It is remarkable that after an hour or two in the presence of the Minister the secretary general of the RICS should say that the council tax threatens to be a "discredited tax". The Minister should think more carefully about the conversations that he has over lunch if that is an example of the impact that he has on his audiences.
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman does not strengthen a weak case, which he has deployed repetitively, by misquoting what I said a few hours ago, which will appear clearly in Hansard.
      Mr. Gould: I reported the Minister, as in turn reporting the RICS, as saying that the institution thought that the council tax would be a perfectly workable and acceptable tax. Is that the case?
      Mr. Portillo: It will be workable and acceptable.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Gould: I shall rephrase what I understood the RICS told us was the institution's view of the poll tax. It seems that the council tax is considered to be a workable and acceptable tax. However, even that is somewhat different from Mr. Pattison's reported remarks in the Evening Standard. It seems that he thinks that the council tax may become a "discredited tax". I take no responsibility for the reporting of his words, but it has been reported that he has said:
      "banding allocations will become unrealistic and unfair."
      It seems that he also said:
      "This is the fast route to a discredited tax."
      That is rather different from whatever words the Minister chooses to describe his interpretation of the RICS's views about the council tax.
      The RICS has raised a number of practical problems with banding and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of them. The Minister is on record as saying that, once properties are allocated to particular bands, they will remain in them in perpetuity. That has been contradicted by the RICS, which has said that efforts will have to be made periodically to ensure that the location of properties within certain bands is reviewed. One can understand that. I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that provision will be made for appeals.
      The seven-band structure and the £160,000 cut-off point are unfair and arbitrary. The system has been designed for one reason and one only, and that is to protect the wealthy who are living in valuable properties so that they do not have to pay their fair share. That reproduces the fundamental unfairness and the rotten principle of the poll tax: that those best able to pay should not pay their fair contribution. The system distorts the progressiveness which, in other circumstances, the Government claim for council tenants. It seems that everyone will have to pay his fair share except for the wealthy who are in the most valuable properties.
      However the liability is distributed for paying a fixed sum, the arithmetical mean must be the same. If one person paid the total liability of £9 billion, or whatever, the
      966
      mean would be whatever it would be. The mean is distributed among all those who are liable. Ministers seem unable to grasp that if the Government protect those who are at the top end of the scale by saying that they need not pay their fair share, others have to pay that from which those at the top end of the scale have been absolved. While the arithmetical mean will always be the same, the bill for the average person, family or household—if the scale is compressed—must necessarily be higher.
      I know that Ministers are not geniuses or even especially competent in arithmetic, but I am advancing a fairly basic proposition which I hope they will be able to grasp. I am saying that even under the council tax the bills of the majority will be higher than they need be because the range of bands is skewed to produce that result. Those who do not pay what they should place a loading on the rest of the community. That, to put it simply, is why the bills for the majority will be higher than they need be.
      Incidentally, the compression of the bands and the imposition of the £160,000 limit lead to the concern that has been expressed by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). He is rightly concerned about the impact of the compression on areas such as London and the south-east, where property values are so much higher than elsewhere. With proper banding the problem would have been eased.
      Mr. Portillo: No.
      Mr. Gould: Oh yes; oh yes; oh yes. The London Boroughs Association, the right hon. Member for Brent, North and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) have argued that a proper range of valuation would have reduced the deleterious effect of high property values in London and the south-east.
      Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman has slightly misunderstood what my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and I said. We argued that in many London boroughs there are no properties with a value of £60,000 or £80,000. We agree with the sevenband structure but we say that it needs to be set out differently according to the region. The London Boroughs Association has advanced the same argument.
      Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I agree with it. He may be caused embarrassment when I say that we are in entire agreement and on all fours in this instance. I agree that a separate argument can be advanced about the number of bands in the structure. I understand him to say that as the range of property values in London is rather different from that in the rest of the country, it is inappropriate to have an already compressed range of bands applying to London. I say that, if we had the 14 bands that the Secretary of State originally contemplated, with a limit of £500,000, the London boroughs, depending on their individual circumstances, could have applied the appropriate bands to their range of properties. I think that the hon. Gentleman understands my argument.
      Mr. Portillo: I genuinely wonder whether the hon. Gentleman does not understand or whether he expresses himself poorly. Whatever the reason, his argument about compressed bands is 100 per cent. wrong. It is rather reminiscent of the point about parishes that arose yesterday. He understood that there was a point, but he had it entirely wrong. If a property is worth £160,000 in

      967
      London, under our proposal it will pay two-and-a-half times as much as, for example, a £30,000 property. If we did not have compression, the property worth £160,000 would pay five times as much as the other property, or rather more. Clearly compression is helpful to the higher-value properties in the south-east, not unhelpful.
      Mr. Gould: The Minister fails to understand the effect of his own scheme. As many properties in London are valued at about £160,000, and as that is the top rate, they all pay the top rate. The result is that there are few to pay anything less. Those who live in houses that are worth £500,000 pay no more. In other words, those who are bunched in the middle of the valuation range pay the top rate under the Minister's scheme. That is why the right hon. Member for Brent, North and the hon. Member for Surbiton are objecting. They say that an inappropriate range of property values is being applied. I am surprised that the Minister cannot understand that. Again, we have an insight into why mistakes are made.
      The Chairman: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member in the middle of his speech, but I must remind him and the Minister that we are trespassing into an area that will be covered during the next debate, which will focus on regionalisation.
      Mr. Gould: You are right, Mr. Walker. We have had debates, however, about regional banding under even less appropriate amendments.
      I am about to draw my remarks to a close and I shall conclude by saying that however the Minister may wish to interpret the RICS's warnings, there are many outside this place who understand very well that what is being proposed by way of banding is a fast route, as the RICS has said, to a "discredited tax".
      The amendment offers the Government a means of making honest men of themselves. The only exercise that they have carried out is a 14-band exercise, as stipulated in the amendment. The Government can now use the only information that they have to instruct district valuers and others on how to make progress. However, unless they are prepared to do that, they must stand convicted of putting forward proposals and figures to the public for which they have absolutely no basis. As long as they adhere to their current position, which is that consultation is at an end and an unfair and unworkable banding system is to be imposed, we are on the way to that discredited tax.
      Mr. Roger Sims: I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister of State responds to the debate, he will explain the present state of play with regard to banding and will say whether the paper before us is a consultation paper. Following my letter to him, he will know that I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about the top band. Many properties in my constituency and throughout suburban and inner London, including my hon. Friend's constituency, are valued by local estate agents at £160,000 or more. Many are ordinary, semi-detached properties and my constituents who live in those properties feel strongly that they will be put into exactly the same band as owners of property worth the £0·5 million mentioned in the amendment, and even more. There may be a relatively small number of higher-priced properties and, even if there
      968
      were another band, it might not make much difference. Nevertheless, there is an understandable sense of unfairness.
      I have put the point in writing and verbally to my hon. Friend. Although I do not expect him to commit himself this evening, the matter could be dealt with in various ways, such as by having eight, nine or 14 bands, a regional banding system or simply altering the figures covered by the proposed seven bands. I merely ask for an assurance that the bands proposed by the Government are not cast in concrete and that the representations that have been made to my hon. Friend—the end of the consultation is in a couple of days' time—will be taken into account. Will my hon. Friend assure me that, by passing clause 3, we shall not commit ourselves irrevocably to the seven bands and the figures that have been given?
      I have been in the House long enough to know the interaction between legislation. We shall eventually have legislation that contains detailed proposals of the council tax. I do not want to be told then that there will be seven bands at those values because I supported them in the earlier legislation. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will assure me that no final decision has been made on the number of bands or the figures within them.
      Mr. Portillo: If my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) votes in favour of the clause, he will be voting to authorise Parliament to make money available for a valuation process, which would put properties into bands. But he would not be voting for a particular number of bands or series of values to be ascribed to bands. The banding concept is implicit within the Bill but no number of bands is stipulated.
      I have told my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst in private, and I do so equally in public, that we entered the consultation process with a firm recommendation from the Government that there should be seven bands, and we indicated the valuation that we had in mind having thought about the matter carefully. I do not wish to deceive my hon. Friend in that respect, because the proposal for seven bands is firm. However, this is a genuine consultation period and we fully recognise that we shall hear a range of comments and opinions. We shall wish to weigh all the points made to us during that period. I thank my hon. Friend for being so assiduous in writing and speaking to me and raising the matter during the Committee proceedings.
      7.45 pm
      One of our reasons for considering that a cut-off point at, say, £160,000 may be appropriate is that, in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst some people live in even more expensive houses. It does not mean that they have the readily disposable income to make a much greater contribution. They may simply have lived in such a house for some time and now find that it is worth a great deal of money because of where it is. One of the great mistakes made during the rating system was the assumption that, if one lived in a more valuable property, one should contribute limitless extra amounts to local government.
      We have sought, first, to constrain the amount that anyone contributes by changing the balance of what is raised nationally and what is raised locally. Secondly, we have sought to ensure that, although the tax will be related to property prices, that relationship should be kept within

      969
      bounds, so that those who live in more expensive properties should contribute only about two thirds more than those in average value properties, while those in the least valuable properties should contribute only two thirds of the average.
      That is why it is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) should so clearly misunderstand the point as it applies to London and the south-east. When he appeared to sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) who spoke about the difficulties of operating within a national banding system, it was the merest cant. The Labour party's proposal would exacerbate those difficulties manyfold. Opposition Members want a system in which there are no restraints. They assume that an elderly couple who live in a house that now happens to be worth £250,000 are, ipso facto, five times more able to pay tax than people living in houses worth £50,000 in other parts of the country. Although the Government believe that the council tax should relate partly to property prices, we do not believe that there should be the crude relationship that existed under the rating system, to which the Labour party wish to return.
      Mr. Gould: I suspect that we shall have an opportunity to debate our proposals for fair rates when there is a Labour Government after the next general election. I am sure that the Minister is aware that we are currently debating an amendment on a rather different proposition, which is that there should be 14 bands with a £0·5 million top band rather than the Government's current proposal. Will the Minister deal with that distinction?
      Mr. Portillo: Yes, and I can be brief because the hon. Gentleman's speech has been delivered before. Indeed, we have heard every word of it before. His fictitious account of how the Government moved from 14 bands to some other number of bands—
      Mr. Gould: As the Minister accuses me of returning to the theme more than once, perhaps we can now deal with it. What valuation exercises have been carried out and on the basis of how many bands? Am I right to say that a 14-band exercise was carried out, a nine-band exercise was aborted and a seven-band exercise has not yet been completed?
      Mr. Portillo: I fell foul of the "lady Whip" earlier by going on too long and I do not intend to be drawn into all that. But for the avoidance of doubt I can tell the hon. Gentleman that at no time did Ministers consider a 14-band option, and the reason for that is apparent. The great advantage of banding—
      Mr. Blunkett: I will take responsibility for keeping the debate going. What was circular 53 all about then?
      Mr. Portillo: It was not about the series of options that Ministers were to consider. That is the important point.
      The obvious merit of banding is that it simplifies the process of valuing property and it also simplifies the question of what happens over time. Clearly, the fewer the number of bands, the fewer difficulties there are over time. The fewer appeals there are in the first place because there are fewer boundaries between bands the less likelihood there is that over time a property will move from one band to another. It would have been absurd for Ministers to consider a 14-band option and that is why it is absurd that
      970
      it should have been proposed in the amendment. If there is to be an effective banding system, the pressure is to have a small number of bands rather than a large number of bands.
      That is the point that I was trying to make when I talked about revaluation. A terraced house is a terraced is a terraced house. It never ceases to be that, and it never changes its location. If the bands are broad enough, even over a period of time it is unlikely that its value, or even its relative value, will move to such an extent that it will change bands. I do not exclude the possibility, but that is the point that I was trying to make about the advantage of banding. The Labour party's rates proposal would mean that each property would have to be revalued periodically and their values would all have to change.
      There is one other point that I want to pick up because the hon. Member for Dagenham has raised it so often—what I said on the radio about other factors. I can give a simple example. Factors other than capital value could be taken into account. For example, improvements to a property for the benefit of a disabled person were disregarded for the purposes of rateable value, and rightly so, and under the council tax they should also be disregarded. That is the sort of other factor that I have in mind and I was trying to be fairly exact about that. It is an important point and the Secretary of State has never denied it.
      Mr. O'Brien: What happens to the disabled person whose property is in the lowest band? Will there be any concession for that individual?
      Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with some proposals, I shall weigh them in the consultation process.
      Mr. O'Brien: The answer is no.
      Mr. Portillo: No, that is precisely the sort of thing that we want to talk about during the consultation process. We will be considering how to treat the properties of disabled people.
      Mr. O'Brien: There will be no concession.
      Mr. Portillo: Please, I ask the hon. Gentleman to listen. I am saying that the Government will want to listen carefully to what is said about such matters during the consultation. I believe that the council tax should disregard improvements to, for instance, the properties of disabled people.
      The hon. Member for Dagenham is apparently also puzzled about how the valuation office has data about the value of properties. When properties in Britain are sold, stamp duty may have to be paid and that is a matter for the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue has a great deal of information about current house prices because people selling them have to declare the prices at which they sell them and they have to pay tax.
      The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Royal Institute for Chartered Surveyors. He does himself no good by misquoting. The Evening Standard says that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' secretary general, Mr. Michael Pattison, said:
      "there should be periodic checks on whether properties are still in the right band. Otherwise…over several years 'banding allocations will become unrealistic and unfair. That is the fast route to a discredited tax'."

      971
      The hon. Gentleman implied that the RICS has said that banding was the way to an unworkable and discredited tax and that is not true. The RICS is making the point that it wants to see revaluations and appeals. We have always made it clear that we think that there should be an appeal mechanism and I believe that that is implied in paragraph 2.23 of our consultation document.
      The Opposition have no doubt amused themselves by putting down an amendment proposing 14 bands, but it makes no sense and it never would have made any sense. It was never considered by the Government, and there is no reason to revisit that terrain. I therefore call upon the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Gould: Just as the Minister claims not to have been surprised at me moving the amendment, I am unfortunately not surprised at his response to my speech and to the amendment. He notably failed to provide any evidence that the Government had any basis for their calculations. He notably failed to satisfy the proper inquiries from his own hon. Friends and he will notably have failed to have saved his colleagues, should they ever be members of the Government who implement the tax, from the sort of embarrassment which scarred them so deeply over the poll tax. For all those reasons, we wish to press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 260.

      Division No. 169]

      [7.55 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Allen, Graham

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

      Alton, David

      Dewar, Donald

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dixon, Don

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dobson, Frank

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Douglas, Dick

      Ashton, Joe

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Eastham, Ken

      Barron, Kevin

      Edwards, Huw

      Battle, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Fatchett, Derek

      Beggs, Roy

      Faulds, Andrew

      Beith, A. J.

      Fearn, Ronald

      Bell, Stuart

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bellotti, David

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

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

      Flynn, Paul

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Blair, Tony

      Foster, Derek

      Blunkett, David

      Foulkes, George

      Boateng, Paul

      Fraser, John

      Boyes, Roland

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bradley, Keith

      Galbraith, Sam

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gould, Bryan

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Graham, Thomas

      Carr, Michael

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Cartwright, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hain, Peter

      Clelland, David

      Hardy, Peter

      Cohen, Harry

      Haynes, Frank

      Cryer, Bob

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cummings, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Darling, Alistair

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      972

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Brien, William

      Howells, Geraint

      O'Hara, Edward

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Parry, Robert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Illsley, Eric

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Ingram, Adam

      Prescott, John

      Janner, Greville

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Redmond, Martin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Reid, Dr John

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Richardson, Jo

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Lambie, David

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Lamond, James

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Leighton, Ron

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Salmond, Alex

      Lewis, Terry

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Litherland, Robert

      Sheerman, Barry

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Livsey, Richard

      Short, Clare

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAllion, John

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Snape, Peter

      McFall, John

      Soley, Clive

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Spearing, Nigel

      McKelvey, William

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McMaster, Gordon

      Strang, Gavin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

      McWilliam, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Madden, Max

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Marek, Dr John

      Turner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wallace, James

      Martlew, Eric

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Meale, Alan

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Michael, Alun

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Winnick, David

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morley, Elliot

      Worthington, Tony

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Murphy, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Nellist, Dave

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Boswell, Tim

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bottomley, Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Allason, Rupert

      Bowis, John

      Amess, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Amos, Alan

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Ashby, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bright, Graham

      Atkins, Robert

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Atkinson, David

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

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Bendall, Vivian

      Butcher, John

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Butler, Chris

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Butterfill, John

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Carrington, Matthew

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Carttiss, Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Cash, William

      973

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Irvine, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Churchill, Mr

      Jack, Michael

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Janman, Tim

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Key, Robert

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Kilfedder, James

      Couchman, James

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Cran, James

      Knapman, Roger

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

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knowles, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Knox, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Latham, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dover, Den

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dunn, Bob

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Favell, Tony

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lord, Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Forman, Nigel

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Forth, Eric

      Maclean, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Franks, Cecil

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Madel, David

      Fry, Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gale, Roger

      Marland, Paul

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marlow, Tony

      Gill, Christopher

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Mates, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gregory, Conal

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Grist, Ian

      Moate, Roger

      Ground, Patrick

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Grylls, Michael

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hague, William

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Hannam, John

      Needham, Richard

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Harris, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hayward, Robert

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Page, Richard

      Hill, James

      Paice, James

      Hind, Kenneth

      Patnick, Irvine

      Holt, Richard

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Portillo, Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Price, Sir David

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Hunter, Andrew

      Redwood, John

      974

      Riddick, Graham

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Rost, Peter

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tracey, Richard

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Trotter, Neville

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shelton, Sir William

      Viggers, Peter

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Walden, George

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Shersby, Michael

      Ward, John

      Sims, Roger

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Watts, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Whitney, Ray

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wilshire, David

      Stevens, Lewis

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Sumberg, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 2, line 49, at end insert
      'and (in the case of England and Wales) according to regions, in respect of each of which the Secretary of State shall prescribe a band of values'.
      The amendment permits a debate on the regional variations of capital values and their effects on the system proposed for the new council tax.
      During the debate on the first set of amendments, the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) mentioned the great concern of many people in London and the south about the way in which the proposed banding system will apply in their areas. He told the Minister that, if some provision could be made to accommodate the suggestions made by the London Boroughs Association, and if some amendments were made to the system, he envisaged people dancing in the streets and voices in heaven blessing the Minister, because problems are expected with the banding system in its present form.
      During the debate on the previous set of amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) dwelt at some length on the banding issue. This amendment refers to the specific problem of how the various bands will apply in certain areas and reflects the fact that proposals have been made for some regional banding. We have tabled the amendment against that background in the hope that the Government will reconsider the present principle of banding and will try to accommodate some of the worries expressed by the LBA and by Conservative Members about the problems facing ratepayers in southern England.
      The Bill is an enabling measure; it provides the power to allocate domestic properties to bands for rating purposes. It is a power to prescribe principles for banding in the form of regulations. Regulations will also be made to provide access to the necessary information to ensure that such allocations are made on a sound basis. That is the background to the problems mentioned by London and southern Members of Parliament.

      975
      The Bill is a Government U-turn on the poll tax, which has been discredited and is to be scrapped. Our fear is that, if the proposed new banding system is not amended, the new council tax will also be discredited. It is not only Labour Members who are saying that. The Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association has been putting pressure on some 200 Members of Parliament, mostly Conservative, to urge the Government to base the new council tax on regional bands that take account of the higher property values in the south. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham mentioned the original proposal for 14 bands, which would have met some of the anxieties expressed by the LBA.
      The LBA has made overtures to Members of Parliament because householders in regions with high property values, such as the south-east and the south-west, would benefit from an amendment to the banding proposals. The LBA suggests that there should be nine regions, with the system being based on the average house price in each region. Those nine regions would be the north, the north-west, Mersey and Humberside, the west midlands, the east midlands, East Anglia, the south-west, the south-east, and Greater London. The Government should carefully consider that proposal as it would mean a fairer and more equal system for the banding of properties. Although I do not wholly support the LBA's proposals, I support the proposal for a regional emphasis.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend's point is reinforced by the position in my constituency, where well over half of the properties would come within the bottom range of the proposed bands. However, if those properties were in high-value areas such as London and the south-east, they would come within the top range. That shows the wide regional variations.
      Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend has ably explained the problem. Without some sort of regional banding, the proposed system will be discredited, as was the poll tax. That is why we take the matter very seriously.
      8.15 pm
      Ms. Mildred Gordon: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend, and I can tell him that the people of Tower Hamlets are very concerned. In docklands, small luxury apartments sell for about £250,000, yet most people in that borough have modest incomes and live in modest dwellings. Some people are very poor and they live in overcrowded accommodation. They do not want to pay a high council tax for the privilege of living in an area where luxury apartments are bought by companies and given to their executives as pied-a-terres.
      Mr. O'Brien: The problem explained by my hon. Friend is common to many London boroughs and to the south-east and south-west. I am sure that many Members of Parliament could cite similar cases. For example, it is absurd that 70 per cent. of the homes in Hackney, which is one of London's most deprived boroughs, will come within the top three tax bands. The poor people of Hackney will be paying a high council tax because under the Government's grant system their area is deemed to be wealthy. Those poor people often live in homes that they rent from the council or from a housing association; they cannot afford to buy homes in such a high-cost area. The
      976
      proposed council tax has many anomalies, and if the Government do not deal with them there will be another uprising.
      Clause 3(3) provides:
      "The valuation shall be carried out on such assumptions and in accordance with such principles and by reference to such date as may be prescribed".
      In many cases, that will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Bill gives him the power to carry out such prescription. The clause also refers to "each prescribed area". The Government must deal with such prescribed areas because the Members of Parliament representing them place great importance on how the council tax will be applied to them.
      At first glance clause 3(3) appears to cover all the issues of concern and matters of principle raised by hon. Members on both sides, but in different parts of the country each prescribed area could be different. Therefore, it is important that the Government note the proposals in our amendment for regional variations in the capital values of domestic properties.
      Hon. Members will be aware that a few years ago, when we received the report on the revaluation of commercial properties, we realised the significance of the regional variations of property values. That could cause an uproar and create problems. One can readily see that the same problems will recur with this proposed banding of properties. Those are warnings to the Government that something must be done if the council tax is to be fair. Our amendment attempts to rectify the problems and any anomalies which may arise from this ill-thought-out legislation.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment told us that the new council tax would be based solely on capital values, but the Minister of State said that many other factors would be considered when assessing capital values, and he referred to the disabled. If disability is the only other factor, the Minister was misleading the listeners who tuned in to the "Today" programme. We should have a further explanation of the Government's proposals.
      When the Secretary of State was challenged in the House about those conflicting views, he said that both he and the Minister were correct. That cannot be the case. As their comments conflicted, they cannot both be correct in their views on how the council tax will be applied. The Bill does nothing to clarify that. I hope that tonight the Minister will clarify the issue.
      The consultation paper on local government finance confuses the uses of values. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham explained in detail the confusion caused by the various values applied to the bands. The proposals use values for the distribution of the local tax burden within each prescribed area and valuations to determine in part the resources equalisation function grant. The proposals for banding influence the grant that the Government will pay on resources equalisation. Therefore, if the valuations system and banding are not thought through properly, they will create difficulties and unfairness in the financing of local authority areas. In addition to demanding payment from people on low incomes, they will influence the amount of grant paid to local authorities under the rate support element.
      The prescribed area and the valuation base should be examined because of the high capital values and the high incidence of rented accommodation. If that is not done, there should be an examination of regional banding.

      977
      I referred to the payment of grant support. On Second Reading, in reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on the complete abolition of grants, the Secretary of State said:
      "My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. However, if one were to examine the resources of some of the more hard-pressed authorities and their undeniable needs, it would be difficult to see how to square 100 per cent. of expenditure with 100 per cent. of local revenue. The Government take the view that there is a balance to be struck. We have changed the incidence of the balance very much for the better through my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget, but it is very much the Government's view that it is appropriate that local authorities should have some revenue-raising capacity of their own."—[Official Report, 3 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 56.]
      In other words, if local authority revenue is to be raised fairly, it is important that the Government consider regional handing, as outlined in the amendment. In areas such as Hackney, the measure of real taxable resources, such as taxable incomes, should be taken as the formula for considering the resources equalisation function of the grant system rather than the artificially high prices of properties.
      We can appreciate the reintroduction of the resources equalisation grant procedure—that is a step in the right direction—but if it is to apply fairly across the board, the measure of taxable capacity should be incomes. That is to say, it should apply to people and not to houses because people pay taxes and houses do not. The principle applied in the banding procedure is wholly unfair.
      If the new council tax is to apply fairly across the board, a more accurate view must be taken of standard spending assessments. They influence all the budget proposals of local authorities. In many instances the SSA will determine the grant to be paid to an authority and how much taxpayers will pay. We already realise that the SSA is the criterion for capping. Therefore, there must be a radical review of SSAs before the new council tax is introduced.
      I warn the Government that, if this banding exercise is their flagship for financing local authority expenditure, and if it is to be applied fairly, at present its application is not in the best interests of local government. I ask the Minister to consider our amendment carefully. If there are difficulties with it, perhaps he will explain what the Government are prepared to accept to deal with the anxieties expressed in this debate. If there is no alternative to the system of banding, we shall have to divide the House on this issue.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Rupert Allason: I urge the Government to reject this amendment. It might appear slightly attractive superficially; certainly the principle of regional variations has already been granted, in the sense that there will be a different banding base for Wales, Scotland and England. This is a mischief-making amendment, however. The Opposition have not described what they have in mind as an alternative. When they were given the opportunity to participate in the construction of an alternative to the community charge, they declined it. The Liberals, on the other hand, at least had the good grace to make a contribution and to suggest a scheme which, on examination, has been rejected in the past and which is likely to be rejected again—as it is wholly impractical.
      Mr. O'Brien: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. The Labour party did not decline to participate. We asked the Secretary of State to abolish the poll tax immediately, whereupon we would enter into meaningful consultations.
      Mr. Allason: There can be no consultations if prior conditions are imposed.
      The real tragedy of all this is to be found in what the Opposition say about the best interests of local government. Those best interests are that both sides should be able to sit down and thrash out a system that can be worked by both parties. Different parties are in power across the country and they will have to implement and administer the system. Here we can see the mischief making at work in the amendment. The Opposition are trying to tie the Government's hands. As I read clause 3(3), the Government have wide powers of discretion to decide how the bands will work, yet the Opposition are attempting to introduce a system based on regional variations.
      In my constituency there are many variations. We have houses of high value and a large number of small terraced houses which used to have low rateable values. My interest in this topic stemmed from the fact that Torbay had the dubious honour of having to impose the highest community charge in the south-west. My support for the community charge fell away between the moment when the original scheme looked as if it were going to benefit Torbay and the moment when the new SSA system, introduced in November 1989, severely disadvantaged my constituency.
      I hope that the new system will at least be fair and that it will take account of some element of regional variation. But to try to tie the Government's hands in an enabling Bill is sheer mischief making. I hope that, in the months before the election, the electorate will remember how the Opposition behaved on this important issue.
      The system of raising revenue for local authorities will have to be administered by all parties. There is a Liberal administration in my constituency, so it is essential for local government and for those who have to pay the council tax that there be an element of agreement. Accordingly, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Key: I shall do my best not to inflame any hon. Member on this issue, in the interests of brevity. I shall, course, respond seriously to the points that have been made.
      I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) for his wise words. He has put his finger on two of the problems: mischief-making and the genuine regional problem. I listened with care to the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). It was significant that they put arguments from the point of view of different ends of the country. They put their fingers on the central problem in all this. It is the practical problem of regional boundaries—similar houses with similar values on either side of a regional boundary could attract very different council tax bills.
      In my constituency, for instance, a house might fall into band E or F, while over the boundary in the next village in Hampshire, a similar house might fall into band C because it is in the south-east region. Why should two

      979
      similar houses of the same value and so close together have such different bills? That is one of the biggest problems associated with regional banding.
      I shall take away the thesis of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and consider it carefully. He need not divide the House on this issue, however, because the amendment is unnecessary.
      This is an enabling power which does not specify how bands should be set. Indeed, it would be possible to have regional bands under the Bill. The Government have no proposals to have such regional bands but the amendment is redundant and merely designed to limit the room for manoeuvre, not to increase the possibilities.
      Mr. Eric Illsley: The Minister talked about how, with regional banding, a property in his constituency could pay more council tax than one across the boundary in a neighbouring constituency. Does not the same problem occur between the high values of properties in the south compared with the values of properties in the north? Semi-detached houses in my constituency would be far cheaper than their counterparts in the south.
      Mr. Key: I was coming to that, but it happens to be untrue. A valuation carried out differentially according to regions would mean that low-value properties in the north of England would face bills similar to those of much higher-valued properties in the south. The effect of the amendment would be to raise council tax bills for most people living outside the south-east of England. That would not be right. On our proposals, bills would be set on the same basis throughout England. Properties with values of about £80,000 would be charged on the same basis in London and Lancashire, in Newcastle and in Nuneaton. This simple and readily understood principle would disappear if separate bands were set for each region.
      I know that some of my hon. Friends have said that our approach would give rise to unduly high bills in the south-east. We have designed our proposals to ensure as far as we can that that does not happen. Our approach to banding properties means that the largest bill is only two and a half times the lowest, for spending at the standard level. That will avoid disproportionate bills for high-priced areas and will mean that low hills for low-priced properties are sent out throughout the country. The amendment seeks to undermine that approach and I call on the Committee to reject it.
      Mr. O'Brien: The Minister has missed an important point. He says that people in the highest band will pay two and a half times the tax of people in the lowest. But it is the number of people in the higher bands that gives rise to our anxiety. We are worried about the numbers who will be paying excessive levels of the tax.
      The Minister said that the Government had no intention of introducing any form of regional banding. I did not suggest that a regional banding procedure should be set in concrete. The amendment requires the Government to establish a form of regional banding to ensure fairness throughout the country in the levying of taxes on people in low value properties.
      As the Minister can give us no guidance and no assurance has been given that a fair system will be applied, we have no alternative but to divide the Committee.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 259.

      Division No. 170]

      [8.40 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Hardy, Peter

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Allen, Graham

      Hinchliffe, David

      Alton, David

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Home Robertson, John

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Howells, Geraint

      Ashton, Joe

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Barron, Kevin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Battle, John

      Ingram, Adam

      Beckett, Margaret

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Beith, A. J.

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Bell, Stuart

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Bellotti, David

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn & Ft'dish)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Blair, Tony

      Lambie, David

      Blunkett, David

      Lamond, James

      Boateng, Paul

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Boyes, Roland

      Leighton, Ron

      Bradley, Keith

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Lewis, Terry

      Caborn, Richard

      Litherland, Robert

      Callaghan, Jim

      Livingstone, Ken

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Livsey, Richard

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      McAllion, John

      Carr, Michael

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cartwright, John

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McFall, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Clelland, David

      McKelvey, William

      Cohen, Harry

      McMaster, Gordon

      Cryer, Bob

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cummings, John

      McWilliam, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Madden, Max

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Darling, Alistair

      Marek, Dr John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dewar, Donald

      Martlew, Eric

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Dobson, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Douglas, Dick

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Eastham, Ken

      Morley, Elliot

      Edwards, Huw

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fatchett, Derek

      Murphy, Paul

      Faulds, Andrew

      Nellist, Dave

      Fearn, Ronald

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      O'Brien, William

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Flynn, Paul

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Parry, Robert

      Foster, Derek

      Pendry, Tom

      Foulkes, George

      Pike, Peter L.

      Fyfe, Maria

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Prescott, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Radice, Giles

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Redmond, Martin

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Reid, Dr John

      Gordon, Mildred

      Richardson, Jo

      Gould, Bryan

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Graham, Thomas

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hain, Peter

      Salmond, Alex

      981

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dennis

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wallace, James

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Short, Clare

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

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

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Soley, Clive

      Winnick, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Worthington, Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Strang, Gavin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Mr. Eric Illsley.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Cran, James

      Aitken, Jonathan

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

      Alexander, Richard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Allason, Rupert

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Amess, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Amos, Alan

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Arbuthnot, James

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Dover, Den

      Ashby, David

      Dunn, Bob

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Eggar, Tim

      Atkins, Robert

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Atkinson, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Fallon, Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Favell, Tony

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Beggs, Roy

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Bitten, Rt Hon John

      Forman, Nigel

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Forth, Eric

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Franks, Cecil

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Freeman, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter

      French, Douglas

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Fry, Peter

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gale, Roger

      Bowis, John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Gill, Christopher

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bright, Graham

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butcher, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Butler, Chris

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Butterfill, John

      Grist, Ian

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Ground, Patrick

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hague, William

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Cash, William

      Hannam, John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Harris, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hayward, Robert

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hill, James

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Couchman, James

      Holt, Richard

      982

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

      Page, Richard

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)

      Paice, James

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hunter, Andrew

      Pawsey, James

      Irvine, Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jack, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Janman, Tim

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Price, Sir David

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Redwood, John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Key, Robert

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Kilfedder, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Knapman, Roger

      Rost, Peter

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Knowles, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Knox, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Latham, Michael

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shersby, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lightbown, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lord, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Stevens, Lewis

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Sumberg, David

      Maclean, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Madel, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Marland, Paul

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marlow, Tony

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Trotter, Neville

      Mates, Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Mills, Iain

      Ward, John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Watts, John

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Moate, Roger

      Whitney, Ray

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Wilkinson, John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Wilshire, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Needham, Richard

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Nelson, Anthony

      Yeo, Tim

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Mr. Tim Boswell.

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 3, leave out lines 1 to 14.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 31, in page 3, line 2, leave out 'persons' and insert
      'members of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors or members of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation'.
      Mr. Murphy: Amendment No. 30 concerns keeping valuation exercises in the hands of the valuation sector of the Inland Revenue and amendment No. 31, having properly qualified valuers if privatisation of that service takes place.
      Opposition Members have nothing against estate agents, either in particular or in general. In some respects, we are rather sorry for them. Because of the high interest rates that the Government have imposed recently they are disappearing at a fairly rapid pace. Nevertheless, I suspect that they will be the most significant beneficiaries of the council tax during the next couple of years because, according to the Bill, the Government intend to put a considerable amount of work their way to speed up the valuation of domestic properties in England and Wales and thus ensure that the council tax is introduced as quickly as the Government suggest—that is, in 1993.
      I mentioned yesterday and I think that it is worth repeating that in Wales—I am sure that this also applies to England and Scotland—the district councils are saying that, as regards administering the implementation of the new tax, 1994 is a more realistic date for its introduction. Whether it is 1993 or 1994, if we give estate agents and private surveyors the job of evaluating property, many people will express a number of fears.
      In the first instance, it could be argued that estate agents and surveyors have a vested interest in pushing up prices and valuations of properties. When houses are sold, it is on the basis of a commission and obviously estate agents will benefit if houses are more expensive when they are sold. It has been argued that the associations which represent estate agents and surveyors could impose voluntary restraints. However, only a year or so ago hon. Members on both sides of the Committee realised, when we were considering the difficult problem of gazumping in England and Wales, that voluntary restraints on estate agents simply were not good enough. There is an opportunity for unscrupulous estate agents and surveyors to puff up the price of properties in their areas for their own advantage.
      The other problem is that private sector valuers could deal with both the initial valuation of a property and the appeal on valuation, in their area. Clearly that goes against natural justice, and it would not be a good case for the Government to argue.
      However, that is not the biggest problem, which is one of confidence. For many years I was a member of the ratings and valuation courts in south Wales. We had to deal with members of the general public, who had appealed to the panels against the valuation of their property. Very often the people who were appealing were heartily fed up with the activities of the Inland Revenue and its valuation sector. However, that did not happen often. In general, Inland Revenue valuation officers did a good job, but, clearly, if valuation is to be put into the hands of estate agents people's confidence in the assessments made by them of properties will be considerably less than if the Inland Revenue made the valuations.
      Mr. Allason: Bearing in mind the fact that the Labour party's policy is for four, five or even six valuations of properties for its property tax, will the hon. Gentleman give a commitment on behalf of the Labour party that only Inland Revenue valuation officers and members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors will be employed to undertake that work?
      Mr. Murphy: It is not for me to give such a commitment in a debate that relates to a small section of the Bill. However, the Inland Revenue would be the appropriate body to deal with valuations as they affect rates. It has always done a good job and I see no reason why it should not continue to do its job after a Labour Government are elected and revaluation takes place two or three years after the introduction of a fair rates system.
      Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The heart of the Labour party's policy is that it is not one of revaluation across the whole country, but a series of valuations based on different criteria for each property. The policy will keep valuation officers and members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in business for the next two decades.
      Mr. Murphy: That is not the case. Members of the Inland Revenue valuation sector are extremely competent, capable and highly qualified and are more than adequately suited to deal with all the different methods by which property would be valued. In fact, the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation has said that its members could quite adequately and properly deal with the matter. I have not the slightest doubt that the professional competence of the people who would be involved in valuation could cope with the new methods, as it coped with those in the past. If they could cope with notional rental valuations, they could certainly cope with the simpler ones on capital value that we shall introduce. I have no doubts about that.
      9 pm
      The confidence that the general public will have in the people valuing their properties will be greater if the people doing that are those from the Inland Revenue who used to do it rather than estates agents. I am told that estate agents are held in the same regard as Members of Parliament and we must read into that what we will.
      The Government need to have a close examination of the cost of the exercise. Some have suggested that it could cost about £250 million. Most significantly, we would have to compare that with the costs of using the local valuation officers of the Inland Revenue. Amendment No. 31 deals with the case, if the Government do not see fit to accept amendment No. 30. If the Government insist on using estate agents and surveyors, they should consider whether they have the necessary qualifications; they should be members of either the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation.
      The essence of the debate is that there is no need for the proposals in the first place. The Government are panicking because they want to get the legislation through as quickly as possible to ensure that the council tax is in operation by 1993. That is, of course, a fiction because by then there will be a Labour Government.
      In any event, our view is that the 1973 valuations are sufficient in the first instance to introduce a fair rating

      985
      system. A couple of years after its introduction, it will be operated on a rolling basis. It is important that there should be time for proper valuation with high public confidence in the valuers. We believe that estate agents and surveyors, whatever their qualities, are not in the same league as the Inland Revenue and that valuation should be the subject of a Government Department and not private individuals or firms.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The amendments have two aims. The first is to prevent the commissioners of the Inland Revenue from appointing persons who are not in the service of the Crown to assist them in the valuation. Secondly, they insist that anybody who can help with the valuation is a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation.
      I found it difficult to understand the argument of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). Throughout the debate, we have heard the Labour Members complaining about the speed with which the Bill will go through the House and the time that it will take to put it into practice. We have been told that the Labour party is worried that the proposals will not be in place by 1 April 1993, but that it will be 1 April 1994. The Labour party has urged that we should return to the old rating system, a system which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said was
      "an irrational, inefficient, highly resented form of taxation".
      It is strange that the Labour party should take that view and complain about speed—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wish to intervene?
      Mr. Dewar: No, I do not.
      Mr. Bennett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet if he does not wish to contribute to the debate.
      The advantage of using the private sector as well as the Inland Revenue is, I should have thought, quite clear. First, it gives diversity and choice and ensures that there is not just one sector giving valuations. The complaint of the hon. Member for Torfaen that our proposal would mean estate agents bidding up the value of properties is false on two counts. First, comparisons will be made with the valuations made by other bodies. That is the advantage of involving both the public and the private sector. Secondly, there will be the public perception. I cannot believe for one moment that if an estate agent were to bid up the value of the properties in his area the people who lived in them would not complain, if they thought that they would have to pay more council tax than would otherwise have been the case. The hon. Gentleman put forward a spurious and weak argument. Therefore, we cannot accept the amendments.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment told the House on Second Reading that the Government intend to use the best professional expertise to undertake the work involved in allocating properties to bands. We shall use the private sector when it can use its skills to do a speedy and cost-effective job.
      The second of the two amendments contradicts the first. It says that the private sector can be used but that we must ensure that the only people who do the work are members of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors or the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. We are determined to use the best professional expertise that is
      986
      available to allocate properties to bands in the most cost-effective way and in a way that will deliver the introduction of the council tax in April 1993. Naturally we shall consider the role of members of both the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. It cannot, however, be right for us blindly to rule out people who are not members of those bodies when we consider who can assist us in this task. What I can do, however, is rule out people who do not have the appropriate expertise to undertake a sound and cost-effective job.
      There is a variety of jobs to be done. We shall consider all offers of assistance and will decide on the most cost-effective use of all the resources available to us. I cannot, therefore, recommend the Committee to accept the two amendments of the hon. Member for Torfaen.
      Mr. Murphy: The Minister misunderstood what I said about the second amendment. I said clearly that if the first amendment was not accepted by the Committee, the second could be considered in a separate context. All of us are concerned about the cost-effectiveness of how property is valued, but that cannot be the main criterion when we are considering a brand new tax.
      The problem with the poll tax was that it never gained the confidence of the public. If the Government want the new council tax to gain the confidence of the public but the valuation of properties and the setting up of the bands is flawed—because the work has not been done properly, due to the fact that those who carry out the valuations do not enjoy the confidence of the people of Britain—it is doomed from the very beginning. That is why the amendments have been tabled. We want to ensure that people do not (10 what they used to do when I sat on those bodies—come to us because of their lack of confidence in the valuation of their properties.
      The amendments are important. I hope that the Government will reconsider the position of those people who do not possess the relevant qualifications, for which we press in amendment No. 31. Both the Minister and his colleagues must say clearly to local authorities and the people of this country who will value those 53 million properties. If the general public do not have confidence In those people, the council tax will be flawed from the beginning.
      When the Bill is considered in the other place, or when the Secretary of State makes regulations later, I hope that a much firmer approach will be adopted regarding the people who will carry out the valuations. I say that for the sake of the people of this country, who are looking for any alternative—although I believe that ours is the best—to the poll tax. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Douglas: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
      `(5A) Where any survey report for the purpose of rating contains details of numbers in a local authority area in receipt of income support and those engaged in full-time education, special regard should be had to the effects of these categories in determining the values placed on property in the area.'.
      Subsection (5), which I seek to amend, says:
      "(5) For the purposes of the valuation the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may disclose to a person appointed under subsection (4) above—

      (a) any survey report obtained for any purpose of rating, including non-domestic rating;".

      987
      The object of the Bill is to introduce a new tax using banding based on capital values. No doubt when we debate clause stand part we shall have the opportunity to discuss that aspect further.
      If capital values are to be used, I assume that the valuation will be carried out on an arm's-length basis, and that there will be neither coercion nor favouritism. If that is the case—it is a reasonable assumption—the supply and demand for property in any one area will have some influence. The prices paid for property will be related to the buoyancy of incomes in the area. That is why I ask that special regard should be given to two categories.
      The Government, in their wisdom, sought to consider the position of people on low incomes. Chapter 3 of their consultative document says:
      "The Government intend to make arrangements to ensure that people on low incomes are not called on to make a disproportionate contribution to local taxation".
      It has bemused everyone that the Government feel capable of making substantial changes and of bringing in a new form of tax that they hope will be in operation by 1993 and will be much fairer than the poll tax—it is difficult to see how a new tax could be less fair than the poll tax—yet simultaneously persist in asking the poorest sections of the population to pay at least 20 per cent. of the poll tax. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), is not in his place as he is taking part in some necessary consultations, but he knows that local authorities in Scotland have made repeated representations to the Scottish Office asking for the encumbrance to be removed.
      I do not know what the current estimates are for the cost of exempting students and people on income support, but I was told that it might be about £40 million a year. If that were set against the cost of collecting taxes from those poorer sections of the population, it would be a deal to which the Scottish Office should give urgent consideration.
      The amendment was intended to draw attention to the fact that, if large numbers of people in an area are students, or are on income support, that affects the values of property, which in turn affects the so-called buoyancy of the tax. If the Government acknowledge that fact in relation to the future tax, why will they not acknowledge it now in relation to the poll tax?
      The Minister should answer those questions. I had hoped that a Scottish Office Minister would reply to the debate, but I suspect that I shall be disappointed—or I may be pleasantly surprised by receiving a more positive response than usual. The situation in Scotland is desperate. It is absurd, for instance, that the Shetland isles may have to pursue students to pay a proportion of the poll tax at a cost far in excess of any tax revenue that could possibly be collected. That is farcical, and brings the tax into disrepute.
      If the Minister says that the amendment is poorly drafted, I must plead guilty but it provides an opportunity for the Government to remove such categories from the current tax, in the way that they intend to remove them from the tax that they propose to introduce in April 1993.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Key: It is a pleasure to reply to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). Most of the issues that he raised were not specifically Scottish, so I hope that he will accept the spirit of my reply.
      The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we intend to introduce the council tax by 1993 and he found a clever way to introduce the 20 per cent. argument. As he knows, we are carefully considering this and shall continue to do so. Local taxation has been subject to rapid flux and another change would not be broadly welcomed.
      The most important answer to the hon. Gentleman's thesis is that we have made resources available to ensure that the poorest in society will be able to pay the tax themselves or, if they are allowed 100 per cent. on benefits, we have ensured that their benefits reflect that. There is no reason for anybody to think that he would benefit if the system were changed in a bureaucratic and unnecessary way.
      I shall certainly not taunt the hon. Gentleman with allegations of poor drafting. It is tedious of Ministers to say such things and for a long time when I was a Back Bencher I had to listen to such taunts. The survey reports prepared for rating have never needed to contain the kind of statistics to which the hon. Gentleman refers. At best, they are tangential to the job in hand. While the characteristics of an area affect the market for property and hence its value, I cannot understand why special regard should be paid to those two indicators in determining the value of a property.
      The amendment mentions people on income support. The number of such people in a given area will affect the extent to which people in that area will benefit from the 100 per cent. benefits proposed for the council tax. However, of itself that has no bearing on the value of property. We are consulting on these proposals and rebates for those on income support will be an integral part of the council tax. In the main, these are matters for the legislation that we intend to introduce in the autumn, at which time hon. Members will have ample opportunity to consider them.
      The amendment mentions
      "numbers in a local authority area…and those engaged in full-time education,".
      Taken at face value, that must include all schoolchildren, but I do not think that is what the amendment seeks. Even if it relates only to those who are potentially liable for the council tax, that does not in any way affect the allocation, based on the value of an individual property, to a specific band. Therefore the amendment does not have a place in the Bill.
      We propose that, if the first or second adult in a property is a student, each will receive a full personal discount. We propose similar treatment for student nurses, apprentices and youth training trainees. If there are no other adults in a household of students, that household will receive two discounts. As I have said, we are consulting on these proposals, and discount for students is a matter for the main legislation to be introduced in the autumn.
      Mr. Douglas: I am relying on memory, but I understood in relation to the 20 per cent. for students that

      989
      the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the matter would be constantly considered by him and COSLA. Has there been a change in that?
      Mr. Key: I shall invite the Under-Secretary of Slate for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), to give the Scottish perspective on that. My understanding is that we have made proposals for students but have said that details have still to be worked out. For instance, we must deal with the treatment of students in halls of residence. What would be the situation if students were in accommodation owned by one of them? What would be the position of business rating were students to be living in a commercial property?
      The hon. Gentleman is right—there is still a consultation process to come, and we shall listen to what is said, but our intention is clear. Where the first or second adult in a property is a student, each will receive the full personal discount. The House will have ample opportunity to consider all these matters when we debate the main Bill. Therefore, although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not agree with me in this, I hope that he will accept my invitation to take part in the debates on that, which will happen later in the year and beyond. I hope that he will not press his amendment.
      Mr. Douglas: I am a bit disappointed by the Minister's reply. Perhaps the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) will clarify it by means of a letter to me. That would be temporarily acceptable. I understand that the House wishes to move on, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Before I call the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to open the debate, I remind the Committee that we have had a good run in debates on amendments to clause 3. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to cover ground that has already been covered in those debates.
      Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to you, Sir Paul, for allowing a clause stand part debate. In debates on a Great Britain Bill, amendments often are dealt with largely on an English basis and Scottish Members, and, to be fair, the Scottish Minister, stay out of debates because of an understanding that there will be an opportunity to raise one or two Scottish points at a stage such as this. I have heard your ruling, Sir Paul, but I have one or two Scottish points to raise.
      There is a constant fascination in these exchanges about the casual way in which Ministers slip in, as though they were Conservative initiatives, policies and concessions that have been wrung out of them by the anger of public opinion and the persistence of the Opposition. With some style and a ring of conviction, the Under-Secretary said in a previous debate that the Government were introducing a policy of 100 per cent. rebates, as though it were an act of spontaneous generosity that the Conservatives had long been contemplating and had only now been able to introduce. We know that, instead, they have been fighting doggedly against this for months. That is true of many other changes.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) used to tell us that returning to a
      990
      property tax of any sort would be a "hammer blow" to the people of Edinburgh that could not be contemplated. It was anathema and heresy. Now, even the doughtiest defender of the poll tax, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is telling us that a rating system is an absolutely splendid thing as long as one does not admit that it is a rating system. It is all a matter of terminology.
      My points are concerned with the valuation system. We have here another interesting novelty. The hon. Member for Eastwood is no doubt about to sing, in dulcet tones, the virtues of capital valuation. I will not bore the House with quotations from the many stirring speeches that he made about how unacceptable and unfair capital valuation was, and how, in the tree-lined suburbs of Newton Mearns and Pollokshields, the bourgeoisie would be rising in wrath against any Government wicked enough to introduce such a thing. If that happens, I promise him that we shall be cheering on the bourgeoisie, so long as they confine their attentions to the ballot box.
      I have some fundamental questions for the Minister. I am sure that he will have no difficulty in answering them, but I have found them obscure. I listened to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales describing, with the somewhat arrogant and abrasive style that he has made his own, small groups of intrepid valuers with different degrees of professionalism in England and Wales setting out to do the business for the Inland Revenue and the Government. The implication, presumably was that in England and Wales there would be an independent valuation for every property initially.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: No.
      Mr. Dewar: It is interesting that the Minister has explained that that is not the position.
      Mr. Bennett rose—
      Mr. Dewar: I do not want to hear from the hon. Gentleman. I am using him as a paving device to ask some questions of Scottish Office Ministers.
      I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to explain the Government's intentions in respect of the initial valuation, which will come into effect on I April 1993 if he has his way. Is it expected that every property in Scotland will be valued individually? That is what has been recommended by the assessors. As I understand it, that is what they want. The Minister seems puzzled, but perhaps the answer is simple. Everyone will know what his band is. I believe that that is common ground. I want to know whether every householder will know the individual valuation that led to him being placed in a certain band.
      If the Minister says no in answer to my question, that will raise several interesting implications. Perhaps, for example, he will say something about the appeals procedure. If there is not to be individual valuation and no knowledge of the basis on which the valuation was determined, it will make the appeals procedure especially difficult. If the bands are broad, questions will be raised about the basis on which properties have been assigned to particular bands. Will valuations be made on the basis on which the Inland Revenue's valuation office arrived at the figures that the Secretary of State for Scotland announced recently to reassure the public that they would not be disadvantaged by the new system?
      The Minister will remember the letter which was signed by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 8 May, which was

      991
      sent to me. I shall not quote it extensively, but I shall use fragments of the phraseology. The right hon. Gentleman wrote that it was
      "essentially an in-house exercise."
      He told me that it was "essentially statistical" and claimed that it was not fair to ask him to go into the details. I can understand the certain diffidence that ensued.
      It would seem that the Inland Revenue's valuation officers' establishment undertook its exercise on the basis of existing knowledge. It would seem also that the officers did not inspect individual properties. I presume that, for the valuation roll of 1993, when the new tax comes into operation, work will be done on the ground. Is it intended that every house will be inspected? I understand that the answer is no. That is fine; I understand that.
      When he replies, perhaps the Minister will explain briefly what will happen. Will there be a system of beacons? Will there be beacon properties? Will there be valuation that is based on a random scatter in an area? It may be that in a spec-built estate every house will be exactly the same, they all having been built five or six years ago. The valuation of one such house may lead to the valuer having a good idea of the value of each house on the estate. However, in the sort of street in which the Minister lives or in which I live—
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I do not live in the street.
      Mr. Dewar: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is the sort of man who would live in a circus. On this occasion, however, I am not referring to St. Andrew's house under present management. I am being serious because this is a serious matter.
      In the sort of street in which the hon. Gentleman lives, or in which I live, there will be substantially different valuations. The houses in the street where I live will range from £70,000 or £80,000 well into the top band of £160,000. The value of individual houses will not be known unless each one is visited and valued. If that is not done and it is assumed that each house in the street will be in the top band, I can say with confidence that there will be a rash of appeals. It is probable that everyone in the street will appeal.
      If, on the other hand, it is assumed that each house is of such value that it does not enter the top band, the tax spread will become unbalanced in a way that I am sure Ministers would not wish to defend. I urge the Minister to explain exactly what will happen between now and 1 April 1993. It is no good him simply saying that every house will not be valued. He must tell us much more about what he has in mind.
      9.30 pm
      The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities believes that, once someone is in a band, he will be in it in perpetuity. In the Municipal Journal he said, in terms, that, once in a band, the situation would never change. The banding system will be a selection of the sheep from the goats because once one is in it one will stay there. There will be no effective revaluation, no matter what one does.
      The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland has today commented on the Government's proposals, some of which will be of consolation to the Minister, because it supports some aspects of the new system. However, as professional valuers, they say that the
      992
      idea that everyone can be put in a band in perpetuity is nonsense. Perhaps they are being ambitious, but they believe that a revaluation every three years is desirable and necessary. They think that it is a wretched pretence—they used the word "pretence"—to imagine that there can be a once-and-for-all placement of properties and that the valuation base is somehow ever young and ever green and never needs revision. With the passing of time, it becomes hopelessly out of date. It then inevitably becomes a mockery and a source of discontent.
      The Minister will be familiar with the survey that was carried out by Paisley college on the unit for land values. I have no reason to believe that it was not done by skilled and impartial people. They found that 25 per cent. of the properties surveyed were within 5 per cent. of the end of the bands proposed by the Government. They therefore concluded that there would probably be more appeals under that system than under the previous rating system, which the Government criticised so heavily.
      The Minister has much explaining to do. Naturally, there are problems of extensions and improvements, but, more fundamentally, there is the problem of the state of repair of a house. The Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), in a letter dated 5 June:
      "Some assumptions will have to be made for valuation purposes about the state of repair of the property. In keeping with the suggestion made in the consultation paper, the bandings used for the illustrative bills presume that properties are maintained in a reasonable state of repair, whether this was by the occupier or by the landlord."
      For illustrative purposes, that is a proper assumption to make. One says that, although the state of repair affects the outcome, for this academic exercise—this in-house statistical exercise, as the Secretary of State called it—the Government assume that every house is in good repair and equal and can therefore exclude that highly relevant factor for that purpose.
      However, in real life, things are not equal. Some houses are in a good state of repair and are well maintained and improved while others are not. It affects the value considerably. I presume that, in those circumstances, a fair picture could be obtained only by the individual inspection of the property, which the Minister specifically told us, by a shake of the head during our brief exchanges, will not take place.
      The Minister's letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart admitted clearly that assumptions must be made for the purpose of this exercise. However, assumptions cannot be made in reality. Rather we must find out what that reality is. How will that be done before 1993 if the Minister does not provide for individual valuations? I hope that he will deal with that matter.
      I realise that some of my hon. Friends wish to speak, but I want to raise a couple more points. I shall keep some specific questions about the use of private sector valuers for an amendment on a later clause. The Minister will know, so I do not need to underline the point too heavily, that we have considerable doubts about how the valuation system is being banded under this scheme. We also know that an extremely wealthy bachelor living in an expensive property cannot pay more than twice that paid by a couple living in a difficult-to-let council house. The range has been dramatically squeezed.
      In the best of senses, the Government are in a protection racket. To be fair, the Secretary of State has not tried to hide that. The people who are being protected are

      993
      those at the top of the range. Those at the bottom, the modest range of the scale, will be paying more than they need to pay in order to give that protection to those in expensive properties. That is part of the essence of the scheme.
      I raise that in passing because it is a bitter pill to swallow. I remember, as I am sure the Minister does, the highly coloured speeches bordering on the dishonest which were made by Scottish Office Ministers in the days when they were attacking the Opposition's property-based system. Because it was based on capital values—
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): They are both rating systems.
      Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State is right, but ours is a fair rating system and the Government have drafted in a measure of unfairness. However, he is right: by any definition they are both rating systems. But the Government attacked our rating system because it was capital value based, which they said was particularly unfair on council house tenants who bought and on people at the bottom of the owner-occupying range who would be penalised by capital valuation. That point was repeatedly made by the right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands, backed up by his junior Ministers, his satraps and acolytes of one sort or another.
      Therefore, I find it rather hard that, when we are faced with a Conservative capital valuation, which presumably has all the same disadvantages for those council house tenants who have bought their homes under the right-to-buy legislation, we have the added twist which certainly was not in the Labour party's scheme that those at the bottom will pay more than they need to because the Government have foreshortened the liability at the top of the range. That shows the hypocrisy, crocodile tears and synthetic anger which marked the attacks made upon our proposals only a few months ago.
      In the letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart the Minister deals with that problem in a lordly way. He says that the seven bands are broad and of course there is no need for people who live at the bottom end of the scale, people who buy their council houses, to worry because they will be
      "concentrated in the lower bands."
      That is the end of the argument. That was not his attitude a few short months ago, but we did not rig the field to hit the people on whose behalf he was protesting.
      The Government have many questions to answer. There has been reference to the report of the Audit Commission for England and Wales, and it would be interesting to have a similar report from the Scottish equivalent before too long. Some of the matters dealt with cannot be canvassed at length in this debate, but the Minister will know, for example, that the Audit Commission has taken the view that the 20 per cent. rule should go now. It pointed out that the net gain to the Exchequer is far outweighed by the costs of collection which, in England and Wales, are two and a half times the net yield to the Exchequer of the payments made by those who are responsible for only 20 per cent. of their tax.
      The Minister will also have noticed the remarkable point made by the Audit Commission:
      "The low proportion of expenditure now to be raised by local taxation, combined with the very high gearing on tax rises, may make the system unsustainable in the long term
      994
      without either extensive capping or a reduction in the functions of local government. Neither would be supported by the commission."
      That is the truth. The system has been rigged in a way that has made it unsustainable and ramshackle. It is, as the Audit Commission clearly implies, by definition a danger to the fabric of local democracy as we have known it.
      But there is another point in the Audit Commission's report which is highly relevant to the clause. Much doubt has been expressed in the professional journals by the professionals and, to be fair, by many politicians, including the Secretary of State for the Environment, about whether the Government would be able to make their target of 1 April 1993 in England and Wales. That criticism—let us be fair and call it, rather, a worry or a nagging doubt—about whether it will be possible runs through the Audit Commission's report. The best that it has to say is that the timetable may be achievable, but it goes on to say that there are many reasons to believe that it may not be achievable. It warns the Government that they should be ready to abandon the timetable if it cannot be kept.
      What I have to say is of great importance and interest to Scotland. If the Minister considers, for example, the current issue of the local government publication he will see many reasons advanced why it will not be possible to put the system in place in England by April 1993, but none of those reasons applies in Scotland. If, as some of us are beginning to suspect, it will be possible to kill the poll tax on 1 April 1993 in Scotland but not in England and Wales, it would be a monstrous insult to the people of Scotland if the killing of the poll tax were delayed for another year north of the border merely to save the blushes of the Department of the Environment south of the border.
      It would be wholly unacceptable if the Secretary of State for Scotland kept in step with the Secretary of State for the Environment merely because that would make for good relations in the Cabinet room. I should like an assurance and a guarantee for the Under-Secretary of State that if he can end the poll tax on 1 April 1993 he will do so. We believe that he could do it more quickly but, even if we accept his scheme, we believe that that timetable could be kept. Will he give an undertaking to do that, even if it means that we end the poll tax—as, in all justice, we have a right to do—a year before the rest of the country? That is the categorical guarantee that we seek from the Minister tonight.
      Mr. Alistair Darling: I have always considered that the announcement made about the council tax by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for the Environment was merely to provide a lull in the storm in which the Government find themselves with regard to local government finance.
      The more one considers the fine print of the Government's proposals, the clearer it becomes that there are far more difficulties in the local council tax than the Government care to admit. Some of those difficulties were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) a few moments ago.
      I had always thought that each house in Scotland, England and Wales would be valued individually. That seems to be the common sense way to proceed because no two houses are the same. However, the Minister's grunt revealed that each house will not be valued individually, but that there will instead be a block valuation. I want to

      995
      show the Minister by reference to houses in my constituency what a ludicrous result that is likely to produce.
      As the Minister knows, Edinburgh is composed of tenements. In one tenement stairway there can be a tremendous variation in the value of property. A main door flat can be worth four or five times the basement or top flat. In any one street there can be a variation in house prices ranging from £30,000 to £1 million. Indeed, that is the case in one street in my constituency, a street which is known not only to Scottish Ministers but, I suspect, to most hon. Members—the Royal Mile. It is common to find that small houses can be bought for £20,000 or £30,000 and that large houses are sold for more than £500,000. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that they should be put in the same band because they are in the same area?
      The Minister cannot even compare like houses with like houses. One main door flat might be completely different from a main door flat four or five doors further up the street. Edinburgh, like many other cities, comprises streets built at different times. For example, in the street in which I live there are grade A listed buildings and other buildings which are not listed. Because they were built at different times there is a tremendous variation in value. In addition, some houses have been improved, but others have not.
      I assure the Minister that members of the public will feel a great sense of injustice if houses are lumped into the same valuation band merely because the Minister did not feel that the expense of valuing each house was justified. It seems ludicrous not to value each house individually, especially in a city such as Edinburgh where there are not enough broadly similar large housing schemes to attempt to value houses on such a broad base. Under the Scottish Office guidelines, although in one street some houses could fall within band C and others within band G, it appears that they will all be lumped together, possibly in the bottom band, possibly in the top band, or possibly somewhere else.
      9.45 pm
      I hope that the Minister will tell us why he does not propose to value each and every house. Does he accept that each street and each house is different? If he does not, many people throughout the country will appeal against the valuations of their houses. What guidelines will be issued for the valuation? What will the valuers have to take into account? My hon. Friend the member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) recalled that the Minister had said that for England and Wales, it would be a once-and-for-all valuation. That does not make sense. Prices change quite dramatically, sometimes because of market forces and sometimes for other reasons.
      In a street near to where I live there is a Georgian house which, until a few years ago, was renowned across Scotland, if not across the United Kingdom, as a house of ill repute. There were queues outside its door every time the US navy put into port. A few years ago, its owner died and it was closed—[Interruption.] I shall not name the house because I am going to a party there on Saturday. It has new owners, of course, who use it for rather different purposes.
      Ten or 15 years ago, a Georgian mansion could be picked up for £15,000. The same house would now be worth more than £1 million. Had the proposed council tax
      996
      been in force 10 or 15 years ago, that house would have been valued on a once-and-for-all basis, as would have been the house of ill repute. That cannot be right.
      What appeal mechanism will there be? Many people may feel aggrieved if their houses are so valued that, by just £1, they find themselves in a higher band. Valuation is a hit-and-miss affair—[Interruption.] The Minister should not grunt from a sedentary position. Why does he not intervene?
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I answered the very same question as that asked by the hon. Gentleman on Second Reading. It is obvious that he did not attend that debate.
      Mr. Darling: I did not attend, but I am aware of what the Minister said on that occasion. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the Government's intentions. The council tax is being rushed through in a blind panic, and as people realise the implications on their pockets many more questions will be asked.
      The Minister has a duty to tell us how the valuations will be carried out. He must reassure people that, if they feel aggrieved because their houses have been lumped into an inappropriate band, they can do something about it. Otherwise, there will be just as much protest and fuss about the council tax as there has been about the poll tax, which the Government have been forced to abandon in a blind panic and in a desperate attempt to save their skins.
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Clause 3 would fundamentally change the valuation process that is embodied in law in Scotland. It has been developed, tried and tested over many years, and it has been the backbone of the Scottish system. I understand that the Bill is only a paving measure, and that the future body of the law that will govern the valuation process will be made under secondary legislation and statutory instrument.
      I am aware that another Bill will follow this Bill, but I cannot anticipate what it will contain. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. My primary concern is that, under this Bill, the burden of the new valuation system will be met entirely by regulations. I understand, too, that there is a more limited purpose to the valuation because we are trying to put properties into bands. The Minister may say that that is a much more restricted purpose than the whole panoply of the valuation laws that previously obtained. Before we pass clause 3, we must be sure that we understand exactly what it sets out to replace.
      If secondary legislation is to be the main focus of the detail of the new tax, what will be the role of the courts? I can foresee all sorts of difficulties of interpretation. The system will be much more complicated than the Government perhaps anticipate. Much of the secondary legislation will have to go before the courts for clarification and interpretation, just as social security law causes all sorts of problems. I can foresee the difficulties of interpretation leading to precedents. We must give a great deal of consideration to the change in the balance before we agree to the clause.
      The only figure in the Bill for the costs of administration is the round figure of £250 million which embraces England and Wales as well as Scotland. Can the Minister provide us with any further figures? What percentage of the £250 million will apply to Scotland? Although the problem may not be as big north of the border as south of it, what is his estimate of the manpower

      997
      increases? The explanatory memorandum states that it is difficult to make a firm, long-term prediction about that for England and Wales. Because we in Scotland have a system of assessors, the problem may be less, but if any figures are available for increased manpower in Scotland as a consequence of clause 3, I should be happy to know of them.
      What is the Minister's view of the comments of the Opposition Front Bench about the Bill's timetable? It is absolutely crucial. Many people are making their own dispositions, and will continue to do so over the next couple of years, on the basis that the substantive legislation will be enacted in 1993. If there is any difficulty about that whatever—it may be less of a difficulty north of the border than south of it—it is important that the Goverment make the position clear in relation to Scotland now. Tonight they must undertake to keep the House updated. If it appears to the Secretary of State from the information that comes across his desk from his officials that there will be a significant slippage in the enforcement in 1993, I hope that he will pass that information on to the House at the earliest opportunity so that we can share the problems, if problems there are.
      There are two difficulties which I shall not labour as they have been raised in the House. First, it is impossible to get properties into perpetual bands. That point has already been argued cogently and concisely, and I join those who have expressed concern under that heading. Secondly, I want to add my voice to those who are anxious about improvements. It is not possible in a banding system to ignore improvements. Yet, if I understand the Bill correctly, that is what the Government propose. If I am wrong about that, I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to put me right.
      Will there be any constraints on appeals? Is it possible for someone to appeal no matter how different his estimate may be from the valuation placed on his property? Will there be a percentage of difference beyond which people may not appeal; or will it be wholly at the discretion of the individual who is given what he considers an erroneous valuation? In short, will there be any restraints on the process?
      How many outstanding appeals are there already in Scotland? Information available to me suggests that there are about 600,000 outstanding business appeals in England and Wales and 38,000 old rating appeals. That is a backlog of several years before we even start considering new appeals.
      As for rural areas, we have heard one sensible speech from a Glasgow direction and one from an Edinburgh direction. I well understand the points made about the Royal Mile and other parts of the central belt. In villages in rural areas it is difficult, especially in places such as the Borders, which has villages with castles at one end of a street and small houses at the other, to allocate valuations. Castles are being built in my village at the moment. There are also modest buts and bens in which local Members of Parliament live. No matter how skilled the valuer, how can he possibly walk along a village street applying bands left right and centre with any prospect of getting them right?
      If we do not have any answers to these questions, we should think carefully before allowing the clause to be made law. We need a great deal more information than we have been given to date.
      Mr. Douglas: This has been an interesting debate. As usual, I am a little bemused by the position of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) told the Government to hurry up and get the new system in place by 1993, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) offered cogent reasons why that could not be done. If that does not represent compression of bands, I do not know what does.
      I know enough about the hon. Member for Garscadden to know that he is good at asking questions but not so good at answering them. I want to know, if there were a Labour Government in 1992, whether all this paraphernalia would be swept away and the Labour party would introduce their fair rates proposals seemingly overnight, thereby wiping out the continuing problems of the poll tax. In the absence of an answer to that question I shall leave the matter on one side.
      The Government attempt to persuade us that banding produces simplification and speed. Those are the two elements that the Government adduce in favour of their approach. Simplification and speed might advantage those engaged in valuing property, especially in Scotland—that far I concede the argument of the hon. Member for Garscadden. We still have the 1989 valuation for Scotland —it is reasonably up to date. We also have a highly computerised system containing a great deal of information, and we have expertise in the form of the Scottish assessors.
      Those are the advantages that the Government can pray in aid of their proposals—and they may favour those who administer the scheme. But they do not necessarily persuade those who will have the scheme administered for them. I expect a great deal of difficulty in the context of properties previously owned by local authorities and now passing into owner-occupation. The market value of such property has not been tested. That will present a considerable problem for the valuer, and also for those who receive the valuation.
      That leads me to the type and nature of appeals. The valuation appeals committee in Scotland has been reasonably cheap and effective.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
      Again considered in Committee.
      Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Douglas: I was referring to the valuation appeals committee. It is a reasonably cheap and effective way for individuals to plead their case before a tribunal. Will that procedure be continued? That would be a valuable piece of information.
      In previous debates, I alluded to the method and approach to be adopted for capital valuations. I hope that I took the whole Committee with me when I argued that the deal must be freely arranged. It could not relate to a property that had been bequeathed by a mother or father to a son or daughter, or to a property that had been valued in a highly congested market. It must be made plain that the valuation should be carried out at arm's length.

      999
      The date at which a property is valued is also of supreme importance. There is no point in using information that was obtained in 1989; the time of the valuation must be stipulated. I suggest that it would be detrimental if the valuation was carried out more than a year ago. The hon. Member for Garscadden and others have examined the state of the property market, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have suggested improvements.
      It would be farcical to apply a valuation in perpetuity to a but and ben in the highlands with an acre of land attached to it if it were possible to build a four, five or six-bedroomed house on the land and still call it a but and ben. That would be possible if we were stuck with properties in valuation bands in perpetuity. The Minister should clarify that problem.
      Above all, the Minister has an obligation to tell us whether the resources are available to introduce the tax in 1993. I shall not go over the views of the Scottish National party about the possibility of a local income tax; we shall deal with that again in debates in another place.
      The Minister must give us an absolute assurance that resources are available to put the tax into practice at the proposed date. The assessors say that they can do it, and they are confident that they can do it in Scotland, as the hon. Member for Garscadden pointed out. It would be farcical if Scotland were held up because resources and expertise are not available south of the border.
      Finally, there are different types of banding north and south of the border. We have not referred to the possibility of upsetting arrangements in border areas. However, it has been conceded that there can be different types of banding in different parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Minister could give me his views on why it is impossible to have different types of banding within Scotland. I can understand the advantage of an all-Scottish banding system, but there might be an advantage in having different arrangements for the central belt and in the Highlands and Islands. I cannot see the logic of trying to pressurise the whole of Scotland into the same banding structure, but perhaps the Minister could give us his views.
      I am extremely suspicious about the trust of this Bill and of the Government's attitude towards local government finance. I must put the same strictures before the Opposition spokesmen. Both those parties are moving towards a costly, complicated system which, in one form or another, is a move back to the rates. That is costly and complicated and it will not last. It is my view and that of my party that it is a form of taxation which denies local authorities the accountability that they deserve and denies them a buoyant source of finance. The only argument that we have heard from the Dispatch Box against a local income tax has been that the United Kingdom Treasury will not wear it. I suspect that the argument that we have heard from a Tory Government at the Dispatch Box would be similarly deployed by a Labour Government.
      Scotland deserves a local income tax, it could work in Scotland and the Scottish National party will be putting that argument to the Scottish people in the weeks and months ahead.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: In an earlier debate, I commented that the Committee was in the unusual position of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the
      1000
      prospective Scottish National party candidate for Garscadden agreeing with each other. I am glad that normal service has been resumed in this debate.
      The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) rightly and properly pointed out that this is a paving Bill and a paving clause. Of course, I shall try to answer as many as possible of the questions put during the debate, but hon. Members will recognise that the main Bill is yet to come.
      I am aware that it would not be proper for me to go over ground that has already been covered in the course of the many debates on clause 3. However, I must briefly tell the hon. Member for Garscadden that we are not introducing a rating system. The council tax is a combined property and personal tax and there are innumerable differences between it and the rating system which I shall take other opportunities to remind the hon. Member of.
      Considering the stirring defence of the roof tax by the hon. Member for Garscadden, I am surprised that he appears to have abandoned it for a different system.
      I shall start with the serious and more technical matters mentioned by hon. Members. First, I shall respond to what the hon. Member for Garscadden said about banding. It is of interest to the Committee that the assessors' view—the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has referred to their views on a number of occasions—is quite clear. They say that a banding system finds favour with the Scottish Assessors Association in that such a system should lend itself to a less detailed valuation of every property and should ensure that the change to the new basis can be introduced within the proposed timetable—a number of hon. Members referred to the timetable.
      I believe that I can reassure the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire by drawing attention to the considerable amount of data already held by the assessors. They have computerised data which is supplemented by plans and survey details of every domestic subject in their regions up to 1989. That data covers every aspect that could be deemed relevant to capital value.
      The assessors have informed the Scottish Office—hon. Members have the same information—that that data could be readily adapted to achieve capital value banding. That data has been supplemented by recording all house sales information up to 1988 when sale prices were used as secondary evidence under the old system. Since then, sales evidence and sale prices have been readily available in all regional offices. The update of the existing computerised data would be a task undemanding of professional staff or resources.
      Mr. Kirkwood: That information is helpful, but does it cover individual properties? Under the Data Protection Act 1988, can I pay my 25p and find out what my property is valued at in Ettrickbridge?
      Mr. Stewart: I did not anticipate being asked about the Data Protection Act and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
      I assure the House that updating the system to incorporate new and/or altered properties since 1988 could be readily achieved. I can tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that the data on the Royal Mile is

      1001
      already available in considerable detail. For a street of new owner-occupied housing which is more or less identical, it is not necessary to do an individual valuation.
      Mr. Darling: Let us suppose that the Minister is right —I have no reason to believe that he is not—and that the assessor has a valuation of all the properties on the Royal Mile ranging from a rather old castle at the top to a highly desirable palace at the bottom, with houses of various sizes and shapes in between. Is the Minister saying that it will be possible to attach an individual value to each one of those properties and that they will be banded accordingly? Or will there be some attempt to band the whole street, part of the street or types of housing in the street? The Minister must appreciate that there are tremendous variations in value between different houses in the street even though they may be classified as the same sort of thing be it basement flat, tenement, castle or palace.
      Mr. Stewart: Each individual house will have an individual band attached to it and the individual occupier will be aware of that. It is likely that multi-storey council flats will be in the same band. The Royal Mile is at the other end of the spectrum.
      Mr. Dewar: Earlier the Minister said that the Scottish Assessors Association saw advantages in banding. I am prepared to concede that, because I have had the advantage of seeing its draft recommendations and comments on the Government's consultative document. He will be aware, however, that the association also strongly urged that, before placing a property in a band, it should be individually valued, as was done under the previous system. I understand from the Minister that the Government have ruled that out.
      Mr. Stewart: No.
      Mr. Dewar: But the Minister said firmly that there would not be individual valuations.
      Mr. Stewart: I may have been misunderstood. Every individual property is allocated to a particular band. Precisely how that is done is a matter for the professional judgment of assessors. Many properties in many streets will fall into the same band, but that is not true of the Royal Mile. The assessors maintain that, by the modification and use of existing computerised data and facilities, a capital value could be produced for each property within the narrowest of margins, and certainly to a degree more accurate than simply ascribing the property to one of the proposed bands. By so doing, the assessors believe that that would minimise and reduce the work load arising from appeals, a matter to which I shall return.
      10.15 pm
      The hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for Dunfermline, West asked me about costs. I do not have a figure to give to the Committee, but the assessors believe that the work can be achieved within or with only marginal adjustments to existing budgets. The Government have made it clear that they will compensate local authorities for any reasonable additional costs that they incur as a result of the exercise.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked about relative changes. We shall return to that point in the context of the Bill after the consultation period has ended. The phrase used by the hon. Member for Glasgow,
      1002
      Garscadden about protection rackets may find its way into the public domain in surprising areas. [Interruption.] I was thinking of Newton Mearns as a random example.
      The hon. Members for Dunfermline, West, for Edinburgh, Central and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to appeals. I can confirm that there will be an appeals procedure. Like the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, one is attracted to the idea of a valuation appeals committee, but we are making no definite plans until the consultation period has ended. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked me about outstanding appeals. I shall deal with that point in the second half of the letter that I will write to him after the debate.
      Hon. Members in general asked about the timing of the introduction of the council tax. The Government's commitment to introducing the tax both north and south of the border is absolutely clear—April 1993. In relation to Scotland I can confirm that the assessors have told us that they believe that there will be—
      Mr. Dewar: There is a growing feeling, which may not be justified in the event, that it may be possible—because of the more up-to-date valuation roll and the experience of the assessors, due to the fact that their software is in place—to meet the April 1993 target in Scotland but that it may be more difficult to meet it south of the border. If that happens, will the Minister give a guarantee that he will go ahead in Scotland and kill off the poll tax earlier than in England and Wales?
      Mr. Stewart: I do not know whether the Minister of State's comment was heard by the hon. Member for Garscadden. I can confirm that the Government's commitment is absolutely clear. I end by saying in relation to Scotland that, for their part, the assessors in Scotland have made it clear that they do not regard it as a matter of great difficulty to meet the timetable.
      I have not talked in general about the clause, since other matters relating to it were considered in earlier debates. I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Dewar: I hope and expect that the Minister will be on the Opposition Benches before these decisions arise, but it is being widely canvassed in all the professional journals that the timetable is very tight and that it may not be possible to keep to it. I do not intend to divide the Committee on the clause. If we carried the day, we should be in the illogical position of having stopped all work on preparing for the earliest possible demise of the poll tax. I do not believe that that is what people want. We shall continue to press the Minister on the details. I am impressed neither by the comprehensive nature of his argument nor by the strength of his position. He may feel that there is cheering in the streets of Newton Mearns, but over a wider range of Scottish opinion I think that my scepticism is fully shared.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      FURTHER PROVISION AS TO VALUATION IN SCOTLAND
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 5, leave out line 6.
      I wish to speak briefly to the amendment, for limited technical reasons. This will be a Scottish equivalent of the earlier debate about the position in England, which dealt with the question of employing private sector valuers to aid the assessors in their task. I do not want to push the debate to any great length, but perhaps the Minister could say a word or two on that subject.
      I realise that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), poured scorn on the idea that some sort of professional qualification would be expected. The implication was that experienced estate agents, even without qualifications as valuers, might be used.
      It would also be helpful if the Minister said a word or two about the position of regional councils. People who will be involved have raised a technical question with me. At present, the assessor is independent and presumably the assessor will be responsible for hiring the private sector valuers. If a problem arose with the private sector valuers' work—there could be a legal dispute, for example—would the regional council be responsible for the actions of the private sector figures, even though there is no direct contract between those people and the council? Presumably the contract will be between the assessor and the private sector valuers. Would the regional council be bound by that contract and therefore liable for those people's actions?
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's two questions, one of which was general and the other particular.
      Our previous debate showed that the House is agreed that the Scottish assessors are well equipped, both with information and with computer systems, to enable them to carry out their task of valuation. Nevertheless, we do not wish to rule out the possibility that the private sector will be able to assist the assessors in certain circumstances.
      For example, private sector valuers could provide effective input on new properties in some areas. It would be perverse to deny the assessors that option. Moreover, sometimes it may be more cost-effective for the private sector to participate. We would not want legislation to prevent its participation in such circumstances.
      With regard to the more detailed legal point, I do not believe that there is a problem, but I shall take legal advice and perhaps write to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Dewar: I thank the Minister. I did not intend to start a lengthy debate and I find the tone of what he said reassuring, on the whole. Paragraph 2·29 of the Government's consultation paper contains a reference to the new system's requiring
      "in addition the fullest possible involvement of private sector professionals."
      I take that to refer to the difficulties south of the border, and that it does not represent the spirit in which the Scottish Office would expect the assessors to approach the matter.
      I take the Minister's point that there may be special cases in which it is sensible to use outside help, when there is particular expertise in the private sector. I agree that it
      1004
      would be silly to rule that out, but I take it the Minister is not adopting the spirit of paragraph 2·29, which portrays the private sector as taking a major role in support of the Inland Revenue valuation officers. If that is a correct interpretation—I believe that it is—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7

      CITATION, REGULATIONS, ORDERS, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT
      Mr. Douglas: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 41, leave out from 'instrument' to 'House' in line 42 and insert
      'which shall not come into effect unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by each'.
      I shall be brief on this simple issue of principle. The Government repeatedly argue that this is a paving measure. It is a time-honoured practice to use statutory instruments. About 100 years ago we might have been able to go against that practice, but it is difficult to do so today.
      The Bill is a new and significant measure that affects everybody in Scotland, England and Wales. Statutory instruments using the negative procedure do nothing to enhance the stature of Parliament. The least that the Government can do for the mother of Parliaments is to replace the Bill's entitlement to use the negative procedure with the affirmative procedure. For many years we have seen how the Government majority operates and it has been demonstrated again in Committee. If the Government do not accept my amendment, I intend to divide the Committee.
      Mr. Key: I shall explain the procedure. I cannot understand why hon. Members should wish to have an affirmative resolution each time that it is necessary to make some minor technical change to the definition of domestic property in England, Scotland or Wales, or to prescribe that a property which stands in more than one area shall, for the purposes of valuation, be deemed to stand within a single, specified area. I accept that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was focusing largely on the regulations to be made under clause 3(3), which prescribes the assumptions and principles on which the valuation is to be carried out.
      These are important matters, but they do not warrant the affirmative resolution procedure. That is because the underlying principle of the valuation, the banding of domestic property, is in the Bill. The regulations about assumptions are subject to negative resolution, following the precedent for similar regulations for non-domestic rating made under paragraph 2(8) of schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Therefore, this is not something new and untried. I assure the Committee that there is no question of wishing to minimise the influence of Parliament. As I have said, these are technical matters and the negative resolution procedures are the most appropriate way for them to be dealt with.
      Mr. Douglas: In the light of that extremely unsatisfactory reply, I shall press the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 177, Noes 270.

      Division No. 171]

      [10.28

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Haynes, Frank

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Allen, Graham

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Alton, David

      Home Robertson, John

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Howells, Geraint

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ashton, Joe

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Illsley, Eric

      Barron, Kevin

      Ingram, Adam

      Battle, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Beith, A. J.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Bell, Stuart

      Lambie, David

      Bellotti, David

      Lamond, James

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Blair, Tony

      Leighton, Ron

      Blunkett. David

      Lewis, Terry

      Boateng, Paul

      Litherland, Robert

      Boyes, Roland

      Livingstone, Ken

      Bradley, Keith

      Livsey, Richard

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      McAllion, John

      Caborn, Richard

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Callaghan, Jim

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McFall, John

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Canavan, Dennis

      McKelvey, William

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Carr, Michael

      McWilliam, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Madden, Max

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Clelland, David

      Marek, Dr John

      Cohen, Harry

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cryer, Bob

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Cummings, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Meale, Alan

      Dalyell, Tam

      Michael, Alun

      Darling, Alistair

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Dewar, Donald

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Dixon, Don

      Morley, Elliot

      Dobson, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Douglas, Dick

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Murphy, Paul

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Nellist, Dave

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Eastham, Ken

      O'Brien, William

      Edwards, Huw

      O'Hara, Edward

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Parry, Robert

      Fatchett, Derek

      Patchett, Terry

      Faulds, Andrew

      Pendry, Tom

      Fearn, Ronald

      Pike, Peter L.

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Flynn, Paul

      Prescott, John

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Foster, Derek

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Foulkes, George

      Redmond, Martin

      Fraser, John

      Reid, Dr John

      Fyfe, Maria

      Richardson, Jo

      Galbraith, Sam

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Rowlands, Ted

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Ruddock, Joan

      Gordon, Mildred

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Gould, Bryan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Graham, Thomas

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hain, Peter

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

      Hardy, Peter

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      1006

      Soley, Clive

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Strang, Gavin

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Worthington, Tony

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Turner, Dennis

      Vaz, Keith

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wallace, James

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mr. Alex Salmond.

      Wareing, Robert N.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Dicks, Terry

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Alexander, Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dover, Den

      Allason, Rupert

      Dunn, Bob

      Amess, David

      Dykes, Hugh

      Amos, Alan

      Eggar, Tim

      Arbuthnot, James

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Ashby, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Favell, Tony

      Atkins, Robert

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Atkinson, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Beggs, Roy

      Forman, Nigel

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forth, Eric

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Franks, Cecil

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Freeman, Roger

      Body, Sir Richard

      French, Douglas

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gale, Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gill, Christopher

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bowis, John

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bright, Graham

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

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

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Gregory, Conal

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Butcher, John

      Grist, Ian

      Butler, Chris

      Ground, Patrick

      Butterfill, John

      Grylls, Michael

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hague, William

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Cash, William

      Hannam, John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Harris, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hayward, Robert

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hill, James

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Couchman, James

      Holt, Richard

      Cran, James

      Hordern, Sir Peter

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

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

      Day, Stephen

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      1007

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Portillo, Michael

      Irvine, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jack, Michael

      Price, Sir David

      Janman, Tim

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Redwood, John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Key, Robert

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Kilfedder, James

      Rost, Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Knapman, Roger

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Knowles, Michael

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knox, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Latham, Michael

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shersby, Michael

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lord, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Squire, Robin

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Maclean, David

      Stevens, Lewis

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Madel, David

      Sumberg, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Summerson, Hugo

      Marland, Paul

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mates, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Tracey, Richard

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Trippier, David

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Trotter, Neville

      Mills, Iain

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Viggers, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Ward, John

      Moate, Roger

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Watts, John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Whitney, Ray

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Wilkinson, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wilshire, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wolfson, Mark

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wood, Timothy

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Yeo, Tim

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Pawsey, James

      Mr. Irvine Patrick.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 7

      Reduction of service
      'The Secretary of State shall not designate an English or Welsh authority as a result of this Act without publishing a list of services that it is expected the relevant authority will need to reduce as a result of designation'.—[Mr. Bellotti.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 11—Reduction of services (Scotland)—
      'The Secretary of State shall not designate a Scottish authority as a result of this Act without publishing a list of services that it is expected the relevant authority will need to reduce as a result of designation.'.
      Mr. Bellotti: The new clauses will ensure that local people know who is responsible when local services are cut. They are designed to heighten accountability so that there is a clear link between action that affects local residents and those who make the decision.
      If the Government intend to override the democratic decisions of local councils, it should be made clear to everyone where the consequences of that action will lie. Councils may even find it useful to know what priority the Government would attach to their local services. For example, they may like to know whether the Government believe that housing repairs are more important than home helps or whether libraries are more important than swimming pools. It would be useful for a local authority to know whether, once the Bill is enacted, the Government will still require a local authority to fulfil all the statutory legislation that the Government have heaped on local councils in the past 12 years on environmental protection, mandatory improvement grants and providing sewers in rural areas.
      The new clauses would also help to concentrate the mind of the Secretary of State, who would have to face up to the consequences of his decisions. The Government told us that the poll tax would increase accountability and we all know that that is untrue. The clauses would ensure that, under the new council tax, accountability will be seen to work in some way. They would leave the decision of which services to cut with the local authorities, but would ensure that local residents know what the Government intend when they cap an authority and force it to cut expenditure.
      I do not wish to prolong this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Far more hon. Members are present now than have been here at any point during the past two days' debate. In a sense, that is a great shame, but I am sure that those who have been absent will read the debate of the past two days in Hansard and will learn much from it. The point that the two new clauses make is perhaps the most important because it is a point of principle. The Government must face up to the consequences of their actions, which they are not used to doing and should do more often. I shall wait to see what the Minister has to say before I decide whether to divide the Committee.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) said that this is a large audience for a Liberal. I assure him that it is also a large audience for a Welsh Office Minister.
      The effect of adding the new clauses to the Bill would be to make capping throughout Great Britain contingent on further action by the Government through the publication of lists of the services that the relevant

      1009
      Secretary of State considers will need to be reduced as a result of capping. That suggestion is rather odd. In taking a decision about the level of capping for an authority, the Secretary of State is concerned with that authority's aggregate budget and the demands it makes on its charge payers, not with the components within that budget.
      The aims of capping are to prevent excessive expenditure and to protect charge payers from its consequences. It remains for individual local authorities to decide their spending priorities within their revised budgets. Authorities are in many cases well able to reduce wastage, improve efficiency and manage their affairs better in order to restrain their expenditure. It is right that we should encourage them to do so. However, it is not for us to tell authorities how to order their priorities. I call on the Committee to reject the new clause.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Bellotti: I am amazed that, after all the cuts in local authority services that have resulted from the Government's policy in the past 12 years, they should still be talking about wastage and efficiency. Most local councillors and most local authorities throughout Britain are doing their best despite the Government. The Bill should not be finance led, as it is; it should address itself to the delivery of local services, and the needs of the people in our local communities should be paramount. It is for that reason that I shall seek to divide the Committee.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 33, Noes 261.

      Division No. 172]

      [10.45 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Livsey, Richard

      Alton, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Ashton, Joe

      Meale, Alan

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Salmond, Alex

      Beith, A. J.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Bellotti, David

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Carr, Michael

      Wallace, James

      Cryer, Bob

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Douglas, Dick

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Flynn, Paul

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

      Lambie, David

      Mr. Ronald Fearn.

      Livingstone, Ken

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Allason, Rupert

      Boswell, Tim

      Amess, David

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Amos, Alan

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bowis, John

      Ashby, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Atkinson, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Bright, Graham

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Batiste, Spencer

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

      Beggs, Roy

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Bendall, Vivian

      Butcher, John

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Butler, Chris

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Butterfill, John

      1010

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cash, William

      Hunter, Andrew

      Chapman, Sydney

      Irvine, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Jack, Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Janman, Tim

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Key, Robert

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Kilfedder, James

      Couchman, James

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Cran, James

      Kirkhope, Timothy

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

      Knapman, Roger

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Day, Stephen

      Knowles, Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knox, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Latham, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dover, Den

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dunn, Bob

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Eggar, Tim

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Favell, Tony

      Lord, Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Forman, Nigel

      Maclean, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forth, Eric

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Madel, David

      Franks, Cecil

      Malins, Humfrey

      Freeman, Roger

      Marland, Paul

      French, Douglas

      Marlow, Tony

      Fry, Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gale, Roger

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Mates, Michael

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mills, Iain

      Gregory, Conal

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grist, Ian

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Ground, Patrick

      Moate, Roger

      Grylls, Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hague, William

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hannam, John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hayward, Robert

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv1 NE)

      Paice, James

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Pawsey, James

      Hill, James

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hind, Kenneth

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Holt, Richard

      Portillo, Michael

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Price, Sir David

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      1011

      Redwood, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rost, Peter

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rowe, Andrew

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Tracey, Richard

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Trotter, Neville

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Ward, John

      Shelton, Sir William

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Watts, John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Shersby, Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wilkinson, John

      Speller, Tony

      Wilshire, David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Squire, Robin

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wood, Timothy

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Steen, Anthony

      Yeo, Tim

      Stevens, Lewis

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Mr. John M. Taylor,

      Sumberg, David

      Mr. Irvine Patnick.

      Summerson, Hugo

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent signified]
      10.58 pm
      Mr. Portillo: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Government are determined to introduce the council tax in England, Scotland and Wales on 1 April 1993. We will introduce a tax that is sustainable and that commends itself to the British public as fair, and we will introduce it at levels that are acceptable. To achieve that, it may be necessary for us to control the expenditure of local authorities, whatever their size and whatever their budgets may be. That is why the Bill extends our powers to limit local authority budgets below £15 million a year. It also makes it possible for us to commence the valuation process so that we can bring the council tax into operation in April 1993.
      The Opposition have shown that they are opposed to any limitation on local government spending. They would like to see it rip. The figures for their alternative hold no water, because under their proposals local authority spending would go through the roof. We have every confidence that with this Bill we shall be able to introduce the council tax in 1993, and I have every confidence that the British public will accept it as a fair and sustainable basis for local taxation. I commend the Bill to the House.
      11 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I oppose the Bill and ask the House to oppose its Third Reading.
      The past two days have been a wasted opportunity which could have been used to rid the country of the poll tax by 1 April 1992. We could have ensured that the Conservative estimate of £800 million a year—we estimate
      1012
      £3·7 billion for the period to April 1994—was saved by introducing our alternative from 1 April. That money should be spent on services, protecting jobs and enhancing the quality of life of local communities. It should not be wasted through non-collection and the administration of the poll tax for a further two years.
      Tonight we come to the end of a debate in which the Government have admitted their contempt for local government. The smallest authorities, with tiny budgets relative to macro-economic policy, will find themselves capped, not because of the impact of the expenditure on their local economy, but because the Government have had to do a cash deal with the Treasury to keep down the poll tax this year and next, and to ensure that resources are made available for that. That is the simple reason why those authorities that spend less than £15 million a year have been included in capping.
      Worst of all, the Bill has introduced the valuation system for the council tax. Tory Members will live to regret both their absence from the debate and that they voted the wrong way, as their Whips told them to. We have accorded ourselves a valuation system which will be clumsy to implement and will lead to havoc in the appeals system, confusion, irritation and unfairness.
      There is only one thing to be said about the measure. I said it at about 3.45 pm and I shall repeat it. The Secretary of State for the Environment said it on 22 June 1979—the last time a valuation system was attempted in England and Wales. He called on the British people to "tear it up". That is what we should do with the valuation system in this Bill. Instead, we should institute our fair rates proposals which would rid us of the poll tax for ever.
      11.3 pm
      Mr. Bellotti: During the passage of the Bill, it has been proven to the House that the system of bandings is unworkable, that the valuation process to be embarked upon will bring utter chaos and that 1993 is far too optimistic a date to have the system in place. The country knows that the poll tax was a failure, and it will soon find that the council tax is an equal failure.
      The country knows that we do not want to go back to the rates. In the course of our deliberations a local income tax that could be in place by April 1992 has been on offer, as has the opportunity to remove capping from local authorities and thus the chance to ensure that there are no cuts in their services. Those opportunities were not taken by the Government, and that is why we should vote against giving the Bill a Third Reading.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 185.

      Division No. 173]

      [11.04 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Bellingham, Henry

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Alexander, Richard

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Allason, Rupert

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Amess, David

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Amos, Alan

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Arbuthnot, James

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Boswell, Tim

      Ashby, David

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Atkinson, David

      Bowis, John

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      1013

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bright, Graham

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

      Hill, James

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Butler, Chris

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cash, William

      Hunter, Andrew

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Irvine, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jack, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Janman, Tim

      Churchill, Mr

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Key, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Kilfedder, James

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Couchman, James

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Cran, James

      Knapman, Roger

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

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knowles, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Knox, David

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Dicks, Terry

      Latham, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dover, Den

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Favell, Tony

      Lord, Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Maclean, David

      Forman, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Forth, Eric

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Madel, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Malins, Humfrey

      Franks, Cecil

      Marland, Paul

      Freeman, Roger

      Marlow, Tony

      French, Douglas

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Fry, Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gale, Roger

      Mates, Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gill, Christopher

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mills, Iain

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Gregory, Conal

      Moate, Roger

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Grist, Ian

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Ground, Patrick

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hague, William

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hannam, John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hayward, Robert

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      1014

      Page, Richard

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Paice, James

      Sumberg, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Summerson, Hugo

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Portillo, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Price, Sir David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Redwood, John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Riddick, Graham

      Thurnham, Peter

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tracey, Richard

      Rost, Peter

      Trippier, David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Trotter, Neville

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Viggers, Peter

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Ward, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Watts, John

      Shelton, Sir William

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Whitney, Ray

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shersby, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wilshire, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Speller, Tony

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wood, Timothy

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Squire, Robin

      Yeo, Tim

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Steen, Anthony

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stevens, Lewis

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mr. Nicholas Baker.

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Darling, Alistair

      Allen, Graham

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

      Alton, David

      Dewar, Donald

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dixon, Don

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dobson, Frank

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Douglas, Dick

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Ashton, Joe

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Eastham, Ken

      Barron, Kevin

      Edwards, Huw

      Battle, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Fatchett, Derek

      Beith, A. J.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bell, Stuart

      Fearn, Ronald

      Bellotti, David

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

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

      Flynn, Paul

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foster, Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Foulkes, George

      Blunkett, David

      Fraser, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Fyfe, Maria

      Boyes, Roland

      Galbraith, Sam

      Bradley, Keith

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Caborn, Richard

      Gordon, Mildred

      Callaghan, Jim

      Gould, Bryan

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Graham, Thomas

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Carr, Michael

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hardy, Peter

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Clelland, David

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Doug

      Cryer, Bob

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cummings, John

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      1015

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Howells, Geraint

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Parry, Robert

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Illsley, Eric

      Prescott, John

      Ingram, Adam

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Radice, Giles

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Redmond, Martin

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Reid, Dr John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Richardson, Jo

      Lambie, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lamond, James

      Rowlands, Ted

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Ruddock, Joan

      Leighton, Ron

      Salmond, Alex

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lewis, Terry

      Sheerman, Barry

      Litherland, Robert

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Livingstone, Ken

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Livsey, Richard

      Short, Clare

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAllion, John

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      McFall, John

      Snape, Peter

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Soley, Clive

      McKelvey, William

      Spearing, Nigel

      McMaster, Gordon

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McWilliam, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Madden, Max

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Marek, Dr John

      Turner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Vaz, Keith

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wallace, James

      Martlew, Eric

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Meale, Alan

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Michael, Alun

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Winnick, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Worthington, Tony

      Mullin, Chris

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Murphy, Paul

      Nellist, Dave

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      O'Brien, William

      Mr. Jack Thompson.

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

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That, during the proceedings on the Matter of the Welsh economy, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Hospital Services (North Down)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
11.17 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: I regard myself as fortunate that I was successful in obtaining this special opportunity to raise in Parliament the crucial issue of hospital services in the North Down area.
There is what has been described as a deepening crisis in the provision of health services at the Ulster hospital. Dundonald, the Bangor hospital and the Ards hospital, Newtownards. Tomorrow, the Eastern health board will meet to impose further cuts in the money required for the North Down hospitals. I wish to state clearly in this debate tonight that I regard the board with a considerable degree of contempt because its members act as the minions of the Government. When the Government say jump, they jump, and when the Government say cut, they cut—I am glad to see that I have the approval of some hon. Members in this Chamber tonight.
To prove how dutiful they are, the members of the board cut with a vengeance and without regard for the welfare of the people of North Down. The Eastern health board is totally undemocratic because most of its members are not democratically elected, but are appointed by the Government.
We in Northern Ireland have been stripped of much of our democratic processes. Direct rule is a form of colonial rule, but we still have this Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore it is my duty as the elected representative of the people of North Down, young and old and regardless of their politics and religion, to make their protest and my personal protest on the Floor of the House of Commons.
I accuse the Eastern health board of deliberate and wilful discrimination against the people of North Down, and I accuse the Government of undermining the hospitals and health service of that area.
The Government cannot plead ignorance of the gravity of the situation. Time after time I have made representations to the Department of Health and over the years I have drawn attention to the deterioration in the national health service in North Down. Time after time, I have protested at the excessive delays which a number of my constituents have had to experience before obtaining a hospital appointment. Many are still waiting for hospital treatment. In some cases the illness is painful or distressing for other reasons, not least the intolerable wait for surgery which only exacerbates the anxiety and stress.
Those long-suffering people—human beings who have their rights—should be the main consideration of the Government and the Eastern health board. However, since 1989 the board has closed 200 beds at the Ulster hospital at Dundonald, a large, modern hospital. Beds have also been closed at the Ards and Bangor hospitals.
Last year, the board announced the closure of a further 18 surgical beds at the Bangor hospital. I attacked the board for that decision and it responded with the explanation that their closure was temporary. Sadly their closure was permanent and the board meant it to be permanent.
That so-called "temporary" closure did not have the support of the doctors of Bangor. Surely those medical practitioners should know better than the bureaucratic

1017
and undemocratic Eastern health board. Sixteen of those doctors took the trouble to write a special letter to the then Minister responsible for health condemning the bed closures at Bangor hospital. They stated that that hospital provides
"a necessary and worthwhile service for out patients."
The doctors took that opportunity to scotch a mischievous suggestion that they did not support that hospital. The opposite is the case, because they asked the Minister for permission to send their patients directly to that hospital. They also asked for an urgent meeting with the then Minister. Six weeks later they received a reply —their request was rebuffed.
I believe that, if the present Minister responsible for health had written that letter, it would have shown more sympathy, because, no matter what others may say, I believe him to be a man of compassion. I hope that, as a result of bringing this case to his attention, he will be shocked into action.
The Ulster hospital at Dundonald has also suffered at the hands of the bureaucrats. Since 1989 almost 100 beds have been closed, including 28 paediatric beds, 20 plastic surgery beds, 20 gynaecology beds and 18 general surgery beds. In fact 20 per cent. of the hospital beds formerly available in the North Down area have been closed in recent years by the board. That represents one fifth of the hospital beds that were available for the treatment of patients. Sadly, all that has been done to the detriment of the people of North Down.
One might assume that the population of North Down was small and reducing, but that is not the case. There is an enormous population in the North Down area. There has been a population explosion there. About 260,000 people live in the area covered by the North Down and Ards unit of management, a considerable percentage of whom are elderly people who need easy and ready access to hospital care. At least 40 per cent. of the resident population in the Eastern health board area, which includes Belfast, live within the sphere of the North Down and Ards unit of management.
Despite the fact that 40 per cent. of the resident population live there, it has, unbelievably, only 18 per cent. of the board's total number of hospital beds. Anyone can see that that is totally unfair. I hope that the Minister, in the comment that he is now making to his ministerial colleague, is agreeing with what I say. That miserable and alarming figure—I am not referring to the Minister now —which clearly demonstrates the grave injustice that is being done to the people of North Down will be even further reduced as a result of the board's proposed cuts. And more cuts will be made the following year.
May I give another example of the injustice done to the people of North Down? The budget of the North Down area of management is approximately £38 million. That figure—for last year—is the most recently available one. The budget of the City hospital for the same period—only one of the many hospitals in Belfast—was approximately £62 million. That proves to me, as I have long argued, that Belfast should be hived off from the Eastern health board area. The City hospital's tower block cost about £70 million. In fact, it cost more, due to the extras that were added on over the years. That vital money was drained away from the funding of the Ulster and Bangor hospital and the Ards hospital, Newtownards.
1018
In the face of public fury, the eastern health board has retreated from its original intention to impose cash savings of £1 million. The board states that it will provide
"non-recurring assistance, up to £350,000, for this year."
I emphasise the words "for this year." That money will not be provided next year. Consequently, in 1992 there will be further cuts in the realistic funding required for the hospitals in the North Down area. It may mean in due course the end of the remaining acute facilities in Bangor hospital. That would be a scandal. It would arouse great and militant anger. That is one reason why I shall fight with all my might the undermining of the hospital services in the North Down area.
Let me make it perfectly clear that the North Down hospitals are most efficiently managed and truly cost effective. The Government talk of waste in many United Kingdom hospitals which must, they say, be eradicated. There is no fat in the Ulster, Bangor or Ards hospitals. They are being penalised for having shed all the waste of past years. The budgetary restraints now being imposed will imperil the level of hospital services for the people of North Down. Moreover, apart from clinical services being affected, more nurses and ancillary staff will lose their jobs.
When cuts of £1 million were imposed in previous years, the Eastern health board shut approximately 100 beds. So the proposed cuts—I use the term cuts, as I am speaking about a reduction in the money that is required for the hospitals—will mean about 65 more beds closed. The fact that beds have been closed—and that more will be closed in good and efficient accommodation at the Ulster hospital—is blatant nonsense. The cost of maintaining a patient at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast is 40 per cent. more than keeping a patient at the Ulster or the Bangor hospital. It is 30 per cent. more expensive to keep a patient in the Belfast City tower block than in the Ulster hospital, the Bangor hospital or the Ards hospital.
It is sheer stupidity for the Eastern health board to force people into the Belfast hospitals when they would prefer to be in either the Bangor or the Ulster hospital. The Ulster hospital is modern and efficient and the doctors, nurses and staff are excellent. Indeed, I was tremendously impressed by a surgeon whom I happened to meet—a Mr. McNeilly—who personified all that is good about the Ulster hospital. I would compare the Ulster and Bangor hospitals with the eight wards in the main corridor in the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast.
Let me provide not my own opinion but an independent professional opinion. The Department of Health in London set out what is termed an estate code, putting hospitals into different categories—A, B, C and D—according to their physical conditions. The categories are as follows. Category A represents property which
"is in … new condition and will perform adequately for a full normal life."
Category B represents property which is
"sound and operationally safe with only minor deterioration."
Category C represents property which is
"operational but major repairs will be needed soon (in three years for buildings)."
Category D is the lowest of them all:
"The property is at serious risk of an imminent crisis."
The Ulster hospital is rated in category A. But where are the eight wards in that main corridor of the Royal Victoria hospital? They are way down at the bottom, in category D. According to the Department of Health,
"the property is at serious risk of an imminent crisis."

1019
I should emphasise that the A classification for the Ulster hospital and the D classification for the wards and main corridor of the Royal hospital were given by Mr. Ceri Davies, who submitted a report to the Government a few years ago.
Let me explain what the board now proposes and what is happening. The board says that people in the North Down area, instead of going to the modern Ulster hospital or to the Bangor hospital, must go into Belfast, perhaps ending up in the main corridor of the Royal, which has received a D classification. It is also a hospital where the beds are 40 per cent. more expensive than the beds in the Ulster hospital.
I point out to the Minister—if he does not already know this—that people in North Down do not like travelling to the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. There is a real danger of terrorist activity. Cars are frequently stolen from the Royal. Moreover, many relatives have great difficulty travelling by public transport—often with many changes—from their homes in North Down to the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast.
One concept behind the national health service reforms as set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients" was that the money should follow the patient—in order to meet the needs and wishes of the patient. That is not happening in this case. The Eastern health board is turning that round. The patients must follow the money into Belfast. That is something that I will not accept, and that is why I demand a full independent public inquiry into the running of the Eastern health board—in particular into the way in which it manages the North Down area hospital. Nothing less will satisfy the people of North Down—unless, of course, the Government decide to abolish the whole system and replace it by a body of people who are directly elected by the people of Northern Ireland.
Pending a full inquiry, I demand a full and searching examination by the Select Committee on Health. The Eastern board should take no action on budgetary matters until the Select Committee has had an opportunity to cross-examine the officials and others in the Eastern board. There is much more that I would like to say, but in order to leave the Minister a reasonable time in which to reply to the debate, I shall finish by quoting from "better service, better care" which was sent to me and, I think, to almost everyone in Northern Ireland by the Minister. It states:
"Your Health and Social Services Board's new role. They will act on your behalf".—
that certainly does not apply to the Eastern board, which is acting against the interests and wishes of the people of North Down—
"to make sure the health and social services are working for you."
That is a sick joke. The document also states:
"Boards will be funded according to the size of their resident population".
There are 260,000 people in the North Down management area, and they are not getting the money and the beds which such a number of people requires.
The document emphasises allowances for age and health. There are many elderly people in the area. The story that I have to relate about the Eastern board is a sorry one. The people of North Down have no way to
1020
appeal for justice other than through me on the Floor of the House. I strongly urge the Minister to respond to the needs and wishes of the people whom I represent.
11.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) for clearly setting out the concerns of his constituents about hospital services in their area. The hon. Gentleman has given many years of dedicated service to the people of North Down and Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the United Kingdom as a whole. He is a stout defender of his constituents' access not only to health and personal social services, but to the whole range of public services. Through his activities, such as obtaining this useful Adjournment debate and his parliamentary question which I look forward to answering tomorrow, his reputation as a watchdog of local interests will be further enhanced, if not in the national press, certainly in the columns of the County Down Spectator and the Newtownards Chronicle.
I should like to reply not only to the points made by the hon. Gentleman in his excellent speech, but to some of the concerns in the area that have arisen over the past few weeks. One of the arguments is that perhaps Bangor hospital should become a new acute hospital. It is worth dwelling on what a modern acute hospital is expected to provide. It must be able to offer high-quality care 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year and, as a minimum, it should provide a general medical and surgical specialty, obstetrics and gynaecology, a consultant-led accident and emergency department with adequate supporting staff and facilities; an intensive care unit, a full anaesthetic service and a range of investigative facilities, including pathology and radiology.
Sufficient manpower levels are essential for the maintenance of high-quality services. For consultant medical staff, for example, it is necessary to maintain, when possible, at least three consultants in each specialty, and that means ensuring that their case load is sufficient to justify this investment in highly skilled and experienced staff, together with the facilities and equipment that they require.
To justify a new acute hospital, a minimum population of 100,000 and preferably up to 200,000 is required. Those are the sort of services that are provided by the Ulster hospital. Of course, that does not mean that a great deal more cannot be done to improve the Ulster hospital. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said—that the Ulster needs to be improved—but it makes a tremendous contribution to patient care. Naturally, it could be made more attractive further to enhance the quality of its excellent services. I know that the Eastern health and social services board is finalising its plans for further major investment in the hospital. Obviously we cannot abandon the Ulster hospital and start again. That would be an appalling waste of public money. The ideal solution, from the perspective of the people of North Down and the hon. Gentleman, would be to put it on a set of wheels and trundle it down the road towards Bangor.
However, we have to ask whether the people of Bangor and Ards are denied reasonable access to hospital services. In terms of national and international comparisons, travel times are extremely good, not just to the range of acute hospital services at the Ulster and Ards hospitals, which

1021
are respectively some 10 miles and five miles from Bangor, but to the full range of regional services provided by the major Belfast hospitals, some 15 miles away. Although I accept some of the hon. Gentleman's comments about Belfast, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people receive excellent treatment there and are happy to go there to receive it. Many parts of Great Britain would envy the range and quality of the health and social services enjoyed by the population served so ably by the hon. Member for North Down.
I shall now deal with the Ulster, North Down and Ards hospitals unit and its financial position. As the title is rather long, I shall refer to it—I hope without causing offence—as the Ulster hospital unit. I do not want that to be regarded as a Freudian slip either. I take this opportunity to clear up the misunderstandings that appear to have arisen over whether financial cuts are being imposed on the unit. The Government are spending £1,166 million on health and personal social services in Northern Ireland this year. This represents an increase of £115 million over 1990–91, so there are no cuts there.
Of this total, the Eastern board is getting £430 million, compared with £390 million last year. That is an increase of £40 million, so there are no cuts there, either. The share of the Ulster unit is almost £37 million, compared with just over £33 million last year. That is not a cut, either. To talk of cuts is destructive and damaging, causes needless fears, and is plainly wrong.
As to beds, I have a sneaking suspicion that most people will agree that we are treating patients, not beds. To take the example of the Ulster hospital, in 1985–86, it treated 15,261 patients, and in 1990–91, 17,033. In other words, if one can treat more patients with fewer beds, that is the best use of the resources, and one that produces the best service.
As happens every year in the Ulster unit, as in every other, the Government expect each board to find cash-releasing cost improvements, which the board retains as a contribution towards the costs of planned developments of services. The costs of pay awards above the Government's cash limits have to be taken into account, as do the costs of inflation above forecasts and various other pressures. These savings do not leave the board. They are not cuts—they are reinvested in the business.
Therefore, that figure, which was set at 1·3 per cent. overall this year, was varied by the Eastern board. I think it right that the five hospital boards should be expected to find slightly more—about 1·6 per cent. of the allocation —and that its four community units should be expected to find slightly less—0·9 per cent. That reflects the fact that the Government expect to see a gradual shift of resources from acute hospitals to community care. In Bangor and Newtonards, I have seen some marvellous examples of community care in the past few months. I have been honoured to visit a great number of such projects.
In the case of the Ulster hospital unit, a cash-releasing cost improvement target of 1·6 per cent. produces £590,000 out of a total budget of nearly £37 million. The unit has had a unit general manager since 1 April 1990, as has every unit in Northern Ireland. These managers are expected to manage. Speaking with the experience of my professional
1022
background, I can say that I would expect any manager worth his salt to be able to find 1·6 per cent. savings through greater efficiency while protecting the quality and volume of services that his unit delivers. It is possible to achieve that without affecting any services. For example, better purchasing policies or the better use of resources could avoid any reduction in services. The figure relates to reallocation for factors that will have to be met in any event.
In addition to the figure that I have mentioned, the unit has argued that it needs to find £300,000 to meet an overspend from last year that was caused by a combination of factors. While not accepting the figure in its entirety, the board allowed the unit to retain £328,000 non-recurrently in 1990–91 from the closure of Crawfordsburn hospital to provide time for the unit to take appropriate management action. The unit ended the financial year in a more or less break-even position. On its calculations it still has to find about £300,000 for the current financial year.
The board has again agreed this year to provide between £250,000 and £350,000 on a non-recurrent basis. The exact figure will be determined following discussions between the board and the unit. As I have said, the unit has to find a sum, which it will use within the unit, for extra expenses for this year.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unable to attend the meeting which the board held last Wednesday with representatives of the district councils of North Down, Ards and Castlereagh. I have read the minutes and I am disturbed by some of the views which were expressed by those in the local community. I read also the report of the meeting in the Newtownards Chronicle.
The chairman of the board made it clear at the meeting that there are no proposals to close the Bangor or Ards hospitals. I hope that my explanation of the funding position will further reassure the people of North Down that there are no funding crises at the Ulster hospital unit as have been described in the Ulster press. The Eastern board plans to develop and improve even further the services that are presently provided at the Ulster hospital.
In the longer term, of course, once the further investment has been made at the Ulster, someone might question whether it was necessary or desirable to sustain acute services at both the Ards and Ulster hospitals, which are less than five miles apart. Such factors will have to be considered one day, but any changes will need to be carefully planned. It is entirely right that the issues should be dealt with in consultation with the board, the local people and their representatives.
I cannot comment on the future of the Ulster and Ards hospitals without referring to Bangor hospital. I perceive that there is a considerable gap between the services which people appear to believe are provided and the services that are actually provided. It is not an acute hospital, but it provides many extremely useful services. There is no reduction planned of which I am aware and—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued fir half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  University Pay
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) of 15 April,Official Report, column 50, on expenditure on university pay, if he will break down the figure for other staff between (a) manual and ancillary workers, (b) clerical and certain related administrative staff and (c) technical staff, and express each as a percentage of the total universities general recurrent expenditure in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The available information is as follows:

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Secretarial and Clerical (£m)

  185·3

  189·0

  190·2

  194·2

  Per cent·

  7·3

  7·3

  7·2

  7·2

  Technical (£m)

  218·4

  216·6

  210·3

  205·5

  Per cent·

  8·6

  8·4

  8·0

  7·6

  Other staff (£m)

  126·6

  126·3

  122·1

  121·9

  Per cent·

  5·0

  4·9

  4·6

  4·5

  Notes:

  Expenditure is at 1990–91 prices, derived using GDP deflator assumptions based on the university academic year.

  Percentages are of United Kingdom universities' total recurrent expenditure from general funds.

  Student Accommodation
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, if he will indicate the number of students resident in college accommodation in each university; and what percentage of the total they represented in 1990 in(a) Wales and (b) England.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information on the number of students resident in college accommodation in each university is contained in "University Statistics—Volume 3—Finance". The latest available information is for 1988–89. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out, at 1990 prices, the level of capital spending on school buildings for the latest available year for(a) Berkshire, (b) Essex, (c) Hereford and Worcester, (d) Nottinghamshire and (e) Somerset.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested, which has become available only since my earlier reply of 4 June, is as follows:
  532

  1990–91 prices

  Local education authority

  £ million

  Berkshire

  121·8

  Essex

  128·3

  Hereford and Worcester

  28·4

  Nottinghamshire

  19·2

  Somerset

  25·8

  1 1989–90 prices.

  1 1988–89 prices.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to how much is spent(a) by the University of Wales as a whole and (b) by each constituent college on Welsh medium teaching; what percentage of overall expenditure this accounts for; and if he will also publish figures for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the names, location and local education authority of(a) each grant-maintained school and (b) each school which is balloting on, or awaiting a decision about, grant-maintained status, grouping the schools by education authority and by standard region.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Operating and approved grant-maintained schools by region and local education authority

  Greater London

  Hendon School, Hendon

  Barnet

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School for Boys, Barnet

  Barnet

  Claremont High School, Kenton

  Brent

  Bullers Wood School for Girls, Chislehurst

  Bromley

  London Oratory School, Hammersmith

  Hammersmith

  Bishopshalt School, Hillingdon

  Hillingdon

  Haydon School, Pinner

  Hillingdon

  Queensmead School, South Ruislip

  Hillingdon

  Vyncrs School, Ickenham

  Hillingdon

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School, Kensington

  Kensington

  Stratford School, Forest Gate

  Newham

  London Nautical School, Blackfriars

  Southwark

  Nonsuch High School for Girls, Cheam

  Sutton

  Wilsons School, Wallington

  Sutton

  South East

  Reading School

  Berkshire

  Southlands School, Reading

  Berkshire

  St. Bartholomew's School, Newbury

  Berkshire

  Beaconsfield High School, Beaconsfield

  Buckinghamshire

  Bridgewater Hall School, Milton Keynes

  Buckinghamshire

  Brindley Hall School, Milton Keynes

  Buckinghamshire

  Hardley Secondary School, Fawley

  Hampshire

  Burgate School, Fordingbridge

  Hampshire

  The GS For Girls Wilmington, Nr. Dartford

  Kent

  The Cornwallis School, Linton

  Kent

  The Maplesden Noakes School, Maidstone

  Kent

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys, Dartford

  Kent

  St. George's CE School, Gravesend

  Kent

  Guildford County School

  Surrey

  533

  South West

  Beechen Cliff School, Bath

  Avon

  Oldfield School, Bath

  Avon

  Colyton Grammar School, Colyford

  Devon

  Bournemouth Grammar School

  Dorset

  Woodroffe School, Lyme Regis

  Dorset

  Ribston Hall High School, Gloucester

  Gloucestershire

  Stroud High School

  Gloucestershire

  Marling School, Stroud

  Gloucestershire

  Pate's Grammar School, Cheltenham

  Gloucestershire

  Sexey's School, Bruton

  Somerset

  St. Augustine RC School, Trowbridge

  Wiltshire

  East Anglia

  Queensbury School, Dunstable

  Bedfordshire

  Chalvedon School, Basildon

  Essex

  Westcliff High School for Boys, Westcliff

  Essex

  Rickmansworth School

  Hertfordshire

  Watford Boys Grammar School

  Hertfordshire

  Francis Bacon School, St. Albans

  Hertfordshire

  Caistor School, Caistor

  Lincolnshire

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School, Alford

  Lincolnshire

  Skegness Grammar School, Skegness

  Lincolnshire

  The Kings School Grantham, Grantham

  Lincolnshire

  Carre's Grammar School, Sleaford

  Lincolnshire

  St. George's School, Sleaford

  Lincolnshire

  King Edward VI Grammar School, Louth

  Lincolnshire

  Wymondham College, Morley

  Norfolk

  Midlands

  Baverstock Grant-Maintained School, Kings Heath

  Birmingham

  Small Heath School, Small Heath

  Birmingham

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  Birmingham

  Great Barr School, Great Barr

  Birmingham

  Ecclesbourne School, Duffield

  Derbyshire

  Netherthorpe School, Stavely

  Derbyshire

  Old Swinford Hospital, Stourbridge

  Dudley

  Long Field High School, Melton Mowbray

  Leicestershire

  Kingswood School, Corby

  Northamptonshire

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  Northamptonshire

  Southfield School for Girls, Kettering

  Northamptonshire

  Manor High School, Wednesbury

  Sandwell

  Adams' Grammar School, Newport

  Shropshire

  Wolverhampton High School for Girls

  Wolverhampton

  Moseley Park School, Wolverhampton

  Wolverhampton

  Newbold Grange High School, Rugby

  Warwickshire

  North West

  St. James' CE School, Farnworth

  Bolton

  Bankfleld High School, Widnes

  Cheshire

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School, Rossendale

  Lancashire

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  Lancashire

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  Lancashire

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School, Clitheroe

  Lancashire

  St. Francis Xavier's College, Woolton

  Liverpool

  Audenshaw High School, Manchester

  Tameside

  Northern

  Bingley Grammar School, Bingley

  Bradford

  Crossley Heath School, Halifax

  Calderdale

  North Halifax High School, Illingworth

  Calderdale

  Kirkbie Kendal School, Kendal

  Cumbria

  Heckmondwike Grammar School, Heckmondwike

  Kirklees

  Castle Hall Grant-Maintained School, Mirfield

  Kirklees

  534
  (b) Schools by region and local education authority which: have applied for grant-maintained status; or, are committed to apply following a ballot in favour of seeking grant-maintained status; or, are committed to ballot on grant-maintained status.

  Greater London

  St. Paul's CE Primary School, Barnet

  Barnet

  Copland Community School, Wembley

  Brent

  William Gladstone School, Parkside

  Brent

  Cator Park School, Beckingham

  Bromley

  Crofton Junior School, Orpington

  Bromley

  Newstead Wood School, Orpington

  Bromley

  Beaverwood School for Girls, Chisleshurst

  Bromley

  Coopers School, Chislehurst

  Bromley

  Langley Park Boys School, Bromley

  Bromley

  Ravens Wood School, Bromley

  Bromley

  Kelsey Park School, Bromley

  Bromley

  Hayes School, Hayes

  Bromley

  Riddlesdown High School, Purley

  Croydon

  Drayton Manor High School, Hanwell

  Ealing

  Northolt High School, Northolt

  Ealing

  Wood End First School, Northolt

  Ealing

  Ellen Wilkinson School, Acton

  Ealing

  Wood End Middle School, Northolt

  Ealing

  Greenford High School, Greenford

  Ealing

  Walford High School, Ealing

  Ealing

  Brentside High School, Hanwell

  Ealing

  Harwood School, Fulham

  Hammersmith

  Nower Hill High School, Pinner

  Harrow

  Barnhill Comprehensive School, Hayes

  Hillingdon

  Greenway Comprehensive School, Uxbridge

  Hillingdon

  Townmead School, West Drayton

  Hillingdon

  Northwood School, Northwood

  Hillingdon

  Hayes Manor School, Hayes

  Hillingdon

  Mellow Lane School, Hayes End

  Hillingdon

  La Retraite School, Lambeth

  Lambeth

  Turnham Junior School, Lewisham

  Lewisham

  John Fisher School, Purley

  Sutton

  Raines Foundation School

  Tower Hamlets

  Highams Park School

  Waltham Forest

  Graveney School, Tooting

  Wandsworth

  Burntwood School for Girls, Wandsworth

  Wandsworth

  Ethelburga JMI School, Wandsworth

  Wandsworth

  South East

  Langley Grammar School, Slough

  Berkshire

  Deanefield School, Reading

  Berkshire

  Brookmead First and Middle School, Ivinghoe

  Buckinghamshire

  Arnewood School, New Milton

  Hampshire

  Ringwood Comprehensive School, ringwood

  Hampshire

  Swanscombe High School, Swanscombe

  Kent

  Thamesview School, Gravesend

  Kent

  Homewood School, Tenterden

  Kent

  Cliffe Woods Middle School, Rochester

  Kent

  Dartford Grammar School, West Hill

  Kent

  Southlands Comprehensive School, New Romney

  Kent

  Appledore CE Primary School, Ashford

  Kent

  Aylsford School, Aylsford

  Kent

  Oakwood Park Grammar School, Maidstone

  Kent

  Edenbridge Middle School, Edenbridge

  Kent

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls, Dartford

  Kent

  Wrotham School, Wrotham

  Kent

  Cliffe Woods Primary School, Rochester

  Kent

  Sheppey School, Sheerness

  Kent

  Senacre High School, Maidstone

  Kent

  The Skinner's School, Tunbridge Wells

  Kent

  Simon Langton Boys' Grammar School, Canterbury

  Kent

  Snodland CE Primary School, Snodland

  Kent

  Oldborough Manor High, Maidstone

  Kent

  Brockhill Park School, Saltwood

  Kent

  Cranbrook School, Cranbrook

  Kent

  St. Peter's Primary School, Tonbridge

  Kent

  535

  Rainham Mark Grammar School, Gillingham

  Kent

  St. John the Baptist School, Woking

  Surrey

  de Stafford School, Caterham

  Surrey

  Send C of E First School, Send

  Surrey

  Collingwood School, Camberley

  Surrey

  Manor County First School Byfleet

  Surrey

  Glyn School, Epsom

  Surrey

  Hawkedale First School, Sunbury-on-Thames

  Surrey

  Gordon's School, Woking

  Surrey

  Heathside Secondary School, Weybridge

  Surrey

  Stoneleigh First School, Ewell

  Surrey

  Ashley County First School, Walton-on-Thames

  Surrey

  South Holm wood CE First School, South Holmwood

  Surrey

  Epsom and Ewell High School, Epsom

  Surrey

  South West

  Desborough Comprehensive School, Maidenhead

  Berkshire

  Boyton County Primary School, Boyton

  Cornwall

  Foster's Boys Grammar School, Yeovil

  Dorset

  Lord Digby's Girls Grammar School, Sherborne

  Dorset

  Budmouth School, Weymouth

  Dorset

  Parkstone Grammar School, Poole

  Dorset

  The Crypt School, Gloucester

  Gloucestershire

  Neroche Primary School, Ilminster

  Somerset

  East Anglia

  St. Helen's Primary School, Bluntisham

  Cambridgeshire

  Gamlingay Village College, Gamlingay

  Cambridgeshire

  Newborough Primary School, Newborough

  Cambridgeshire

  The Plume School, Maldon

  Essex

  The Park School, Rayleigh

  Essex

  Elmbridge School, Ongar

  Essex

  King John School, Benfleet

  Essex

  The Philip Morant School, Colchester

  Essex

  Elmwood County Primary School, South Woodham Ferrers

  Essex

  Watford Girls' Grammar School

  Hertfordshire

  Parmiters School, Watford

  Hertfordshire

  St. Mary's RC Primary School, Royston

  Hertfordshire

  Christ Church CE JMI School, Chorleywood

  Hertfordshire

  Monksmead First School, Borehamwood

  Hertfordshire

  Nascot Wood School, Watford

  Hertfordshire

  Magdalen CE/Meth Primary School, Wainfleet

  Lincolnshire

  Bourne Primary School, Bourne

  Lincolnshire

  Yarborough High School, Lincoln

  Lincolnshire

  Christ's Hospital School, Lincoln

  Lincolnshire

  Castle Hills School, Gainsborough

  Lincolnshire

  William Alvey Junior School, Sleaford

  Lincolnshire

  North Rauceby School, North Rauceby

  Lincolnshire

  Gartree School, Tattershall

  Lincolnshire

  Redgate Middle School, Hustanton

  Norfolk

  Heacham Middle School, King's Lynn

  Norfolk

  Norwich Road First School, Thetford

  Norfolk

  Loddon Middle School, Loddon

  Norfolk

  The Admiral's Middle School, Thetford

  Norfolk

  Dereham Church First School, Dereham

  Norfolk

  Downham Market High School, Downham Market

  Norfolk

  Gresham Primary School, Gresham

  Norfolk

  Midlands

  Sir Wilfred Martineau School, Birmingham

  Birmingham

  Silverhill Primary School, Mickleover

  Derbyshire

  Borrow Wood Junior School, Spondon

  Derbyshire

  Bishop Stopford School, Kettering

  Northamptonshire

  Bliss Charity Primary School, Neither Heyford

  Northamptonshire

  Moulton Primary School, Moulton

  Northamptonshire

  King John Middle School, Mansfield

  Northamptonshire

  High Oakham Middle School, Mansfield

  Nottinghamshire

  536

  Windmill Ridge School, Mansfield

  Nottinghamshire

  Ravensdale Middle School, Mansfield

  Nottinghamshire

  Ellerdine Primary School, Cold Hatton

  Shropshire

  The Down Primary School, Bridgnorth

  Shropshire

  Hatchford Junior and Infant School, Chelmsly Wood

  Solihull

  Tudor Grange School, Solihull

  Solihull

  St. Thomas More RC High School, Stoke

  Staffordshire

  Belmont Primary School, Stoke

  Staffordshire

  Exhall School, Ash Green

  Warwickshire

  Hartshill School, Nuneaton

  Warwickshire

  Rokeby Middle School, Rugby

  Warwickshire

  Darlaston Community School, Wednesbury

  Walsall

  North- West

  Kettleshulme C of E Primary School, Kettleshulme

  Cheshire

  Arley Primary School, Northwich

  Cheshire

  Newton C of E School, Newton

  Lancashire

  Ormskirk Grammar School, Ormskirk

  Lancashire

  Crossgates Primary School, Rochdale

  Rochdale

  Northern

  Wortley CE J and I School, Wortley

  Barnsley

  Salterlee J and I School, Halifax

  Calderdale

  Hassall Green Methodist Primary School, Sandbach

  Cheshire

  Bowness-on-Solway Primary School, Bowness-on-Solway

  Cumbria

  Eden School, Carlisle

  Cumbria

  Queen Elizabeth School, Penrith

  Cumbria

  St. Aidan's School, Carlisle

  Cumbria

  King James I Comprehensive School, Bishop Auckland

  Durham

  Wold Newton Primary School, Wold Newton

  Humberside

  Woolley CE First School, Woolley

  Wakefield

  Romanby County Primary School

  North Yorkshire

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what procedure he expects to use in order to determine the teachers' pay increases for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to be in a position to ask the School Teachers' Review Body to recommend a settlement for 1992–93.

  University Funding
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reconsider his recent decision not to meet employers and employees of British universities to discuss funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No. For the second year running, there has been an increase of some 10 per cent. in public funding for universities. My right hon. and learned Friend has made clear that it is now for the employers to reach a pay settlement within the aggregate resources at their disposal.

  Cash Limits (Science)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any changes to announce to cash limits on his Department's Science Vote for 1991–92.
  537
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit for class XI, vote 5, science will be amended. The cash limit change is as follows:

  Class and vote

  Current cash limit £

  Change £

  Revised cash limit £

  XI.5

  920,455,000

  7,000,000

  927,455,000

  The additional funds will provide for the following additional allocations to the research councils in 1991–92.

  £ million

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  1·05

  Economic and Social Research Council

  0·10

  Medical Research Council

  1·50

  Natural Environment Research Council

  1·15

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  3·20

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the governor of Sudbury prison became aware of the mistake involving a release date for a prisoner who is going to be released on 8 August instead of 8 April; and what action was taken by the governor as a result of becoming aware of this mistake.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The governor of Sudbury became aware of the mistake involving the release date of this prisoner on 5 April 1991 and the prisoner in question was granted home leave on compassionate grounds from 8–11 April 1991. The governor has improved the procedures for informing prisoners at Sudbury of the date approved for their release on parole.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to apologise to a prisoner at Sudbury prison for the notification of a release date of 8 April instead of 8 August.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On discovery of the mistake regarding his release date, the governor apologised to the prisoner concerned for the distress which had been caused.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mistakes involving release dates for prisoners at Sudbury prison are known to have been made during the last 12 months.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  One.

  Charities
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will propose amendment to European Community draft directive COM (90) 314 FINAL-SYN 87 to protect the interests of charities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In discussion with their European Community partners, the Government are seeking to ensure that the directive makes proper allowance for the needs of charities and other data users.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had 538
  from charities concerning the potential impact on their fund-raising activities of EC draft directive COM (90) 314 FINAL-SYN 87.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have received six representations from or on behalf of organisations with charitable status about the impact of the draft directive on their fund-raising activities.

  Adoption
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what instructions he issues to police forces in England and Wales on the procedures for prompt checking of prospective adopters of children from overseas in order to comply with entry clearance procedures; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will revise his instructions to police forces on the procedure for checking prospective adopters of children from overseas for entry clearance in order to shorten the procedure.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Guidance to police forces about checking those applying to work with or to care for children is contained in Home Office circular 102/88. We have no present plans to revise it.

  Police, Leicestershire
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of police officers in Leicestershire for each year since 1979, including 1991–92; and when he plans to make a decision on the number of police officers for 1992–93.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table sets out the establishment and strength details for the Leicestershire constabulary for each year since 1979.

  As at31 December

  Establishment

  Strength

  1979

  1,706

  1,701

  1980

  1,727

  1,720

  1981

  1,727

  1,728

  1982

  1,733

  1,725

  1983

  1,733

  1,736

  1984

  1,733

  1,703

  1985

  1,733

  1,750

  1986

  1,733

  1,716

  1987

  1,733

  1,762

  1988

  1,733

  1,747

  1989

  1,760

  1,748

  1990

  1,813

  1,784

  11991

  1,827

  —

  1 with effect from 1 October 1991

  The Leicestershire police authority has applied for an additional 27 police posts for 1991–93. Its application will be carefully considered, with advice from HM inspector of constabulary, together with applications from other police authorities. My right hon. Friend aims to announce his decision in late autumn.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place between the Department of Education and Science and his Department to ensure that overseas students at present studying at the South West London college, Tooting,
  539
  London are treated with understanding in cases of applications for visa extension to complete their studies due to transfer of their studies to other London colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No discussions have taken place. All students who are able to satisfy the requirements of the immigration rules will be given an extension to complete their studies.

  Rape
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many rapes were reported in the last year for which figures are available; and how many resulted in(a) a charge, (b) a prosecution and (c) a conviction.

  Mr. John Patten
  The provisional number of offences of rape recorded by the police in 1990 is published in table 2 of "Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/91". The number of persons found guilty of rape in 1989 is published in table S4. 1(a) of "Criminal statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary tables, 1989 Vol. 4". Corresponding information for 1990 is not yet available. A detailed analysis of offences of rape was published in "Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/89, Statistics of offences of rape 1977–87". Information on reporting and recording of sexual offences is published in table A.2 of "The 1988 British Crime Survey" (Home Office research study 111) and on rape in table 2 of "Concerns about rape" (Home Office research study 106). Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Policing Costs
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost in the last three financial years of policing major national sporting events and demonstrations in the metropolitan police area not covered by the national and imperial services grant or its successor.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The additional 1 per cent. specific grant paid in recognition of the national duties performaned by the Metropolitan police is not hypothecated to specific functions, and therefore the infonnation requested is not available.

  Crime, Northumberland
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Northumbria as to how many house burglaries were reported to the Northumbrian police in 1990, or the latest year for which figures are available in(a) Northumbria and (b) Newcastle as a whole and, of these, how many led to (i) prosecution and (ii) conviction;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Northumbria as to how many car thefts were reported to the Northumbrian police in 1990, or the latest year for which figures are available in (a) Northumbria as a whole and (b) Newcastle and, of these, how many led to (i) prosecution and (ii) conviction;

  (3) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Northumbria as to how many cars were reported to the Northumbrian police as damaged through break-ins in
  540
  1990, or the latest year for which figures are available, in (a) Northumbria as a whole and (b) Newcastle; and how many reports led to (i) prosecution and (ii) conviction.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information for 1990 on notifiable offences recorded in the Northumbria police force area is in the Library. Information on cars damaged during break-ins is not available centrally. The available information on prosecutions and convictions in Northumbria is contained in the chief constable's annual report which is also available in the Library.

  Extradition (Irish Republic)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the persons who have been extradited for political offences since 1980(a) from Great Britain to the Republic of Ireland and (b) from the Republic of Ireland to Great Britain, giving the year in which the extradition occurred and indicating the outcome in each case.

  Mr. John Patten
  None. The Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 and the reciprocal Irish legislation preclude extradition for political offences.

  Animal Experimentation
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will ban the export of all animals for experimentation;

  (2) if he will list the countries to which the exportation of animals for experimentation is not allowed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No such bans exist, nor do the Government have any plans to introduce such restrictions.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs were exported from the United Kingdom for experimentation in each year since 1985.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Home Office does not collect such statistics.

  Ashwell Prison
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will identify the reasons for the delay between the carrying out of the inspection of Ashwell prison in September 1990, and the delivery of the report to him until December 1990, and then published with his statement on June 6; and what action he intends to take to speed up this process in future.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Arrangements for preparing reports on his inspections of prison establishments are a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. Arrangements for advising Ministers on the recommendations in each report are the responsibility of the prison service. The chief inspector presented his report on Her Majesty's prison Ashwell to my right hon. Friend on 21 December 1990. The inspectorate was notified of our response to the report on 3 May 1991 so that it could arrange for printing and distribution. In between those dates officials of the prison service were considering the main recommendations of the report and its wider implications.

  We have already issued instructions to ensure that when a report from the chief inspector is submitted it is dealt

  541
  with expeditiously by the prison service. My right hon. Friend also regularly reviews with the chief inspector the work of his office.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on his intentions regarding recommendation 5·4 of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons regarding Ashwell prison; and whether he will list the recommendations addressed to the governor which have already been implemented or will shortly be so.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The complement of the physical education department at Ashwell prison has been reviewed and an additional post will be considered with other bids when trained staff become available.

  The inspector's recommendations 5·7, 5·8, 5·11 and 5·19 to the governor have been implemented. Recommendation 5·16 was not accepted since current meal times at Ashwell are considered to be reasonable and later times would not make the best use of staff. Recommendation 5·13 has been accepted by the governor: reallocation of medical, psychiatric and psychological resources is being considered at headquarters. The governor expects to complete his review of the remaining seven recommendations shortly.

  Immigration Service (Interpreters)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policy and vetting is adopted in respect of the employment of interpreters by the immigration service; how many there are; what languages are covered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The recruitment of interpreters for permanent pensionable employment with the Home Office is conducted by the Civil Service Commission which runs an open competition when a vacancy arises. Currently the immigration service has eight such employees, who in the main, speak languages of the Indian sub-continent. In addition, casual, fee-paid interpreting services are used by the immigration service as required. Applicants for fee-paid work are interviewed and assessed for suitability by a chief immigration officer or more senior officer. Other checks may be made if necessary. An interpreter employed for the first time is required to give a written undertaking that he will translate faithfully and to the best of his ability. Interpreters are instructed to give a direct translation of questions put and answers given.

  Passport Thefts
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the theft of passports from Wells, Somerset in recent years; if any

  Banks and building societies Sterling lending to the M4 private sector Percentage growth

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Over 12 months

  Over 6 months annualised (seasonally adjusted)

  Real terms

  Current prices

  Real terms

  1983 January

  —

  16·6

  9·7

  1983 February

  —

  16·8

  9·5

  1983 March

  —

  16·4

  9·9

  1983 April

  —

  15·1

  9·6

  542
  persons have been prosecuted in relation to this matter; whether the serial numbers of the stolen passports were notified to all United Kingdom ports and to appropriate international agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In Great Britain Post Office Counters Ltd. issue British visitors passports (BVPs) on behalf of the United Kingdom Passport Agency. In March 1988 a quantity of BVPs was stolen from a modified sub post office in Wells. This theft formed part of a conspiracy to burgle for which seven persons appeared before Cardiff crown court on 16 April 1990; they admitted the offence and were sentenced between two and six years' imprisonment. The serial numbers of the stolen BVPs were notified by the then Passport Department to the immigration service and the police and to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for routine circulation abroad.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken to recover passports stolen from Wells, Somerset; whether any person has been detained within the United Kingdom or abroad travelling on a passport stolen from Wells; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Investigation of the British visitors passports stolen in Wells in 1988 was a matter for the Post Office investigation branch and the Somerset and Avon police. I understand that a number of persons detained in western European countries for various offences were found to be in possession of British visitors passports from the series reported stolen. In one of these cases investigations are continuing into possible immigration offences.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Bank and Building Society Lending
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing, for each month from January 1977 to the present,(a) the annual rate of growth of bank and building society lending in real terms, using the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments as the deflator, (b) the annual rate of growth of bank and building society lending over the previous six months, seasonally adjusted and (c) the annual rate of growth of bank and building society lending, in real terms, over the previous six months, seasonally adjusted, using the retail prices index excluding mortage interest payments as the deflator.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information is as follows (figures for earlier periods are not readily available):
  543

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Over 12 months

  Over 6 months annualized (seasonally adjusted)

  Real terms

  Current prices

  Real terms

  1983 May

  15·5

  10·5

  1983 June

  13·2

  15·5

  10·6

  1983 July

  11·4

  16·0

  10·8

  1983 August

  10·5

  14·9

  9·4

  1983 September

  10·4

  16·9

  11·0

  1983 October

  10·3

  16·6

  11·1

  1983 November

  10·3

  15·8

  10·5

  1983 December

  10·4

  16·1

  10·7

  1984 January

  11·5

  17·3

  12·2

  1984 February

  11·4

  18·0

  12·9

  1984 March

  11·8

  17·4

  12·1

  1984 April

  12·0

  18·3

  12·8

  1984 May

  11·5

  18·1

  12·6

  1984 June

  11·6

  17·8

  12·3

  1984 July

  12·4

  17·5

  12·4

  1984 August

  12·9

  17·1

  12·3

  1984 September

  12·8

  17·8

  13·4

  1984 October

  13·0

  17·6

  12·8

  1984 November

  13·5

  18·4

  13·7

  1984 December

  13·4

  18·3

  13·8

  1985 January

  12·9

  18·9

  13·7

  1985 February

  12·4

  18·0

  12·9

  1985 March

  12·5

  19·0

  13·1

  1985 April

  12·2

  19·0

  13·0

  1985 May

  12·2

  18·7

  12·7

  1985 June

  12·3

  18·3

  12·3

  1985 July

  12·4

  17·1

  11·3

  1985 August

  12·3

  17·8

  11·9

  1985 September

  11·3

  16·1

  10·0

  1985 October

  11·7

  16·0

  10·3

  1985 November

  11·4

  15·5

  9·7

  1985 December

  11·4

  15·5

  9·9

  1986 January

  10·8

  15·1

  9·7

  1986 February

  11·8

  16·6

  11·2

  1986 March

  12·1

  17·3

  12·8

  1986 April

  12·8

  16·9

  13·2

  1986 May

  12·8

  17·7

  14·0

  1986 June

  13·4

  18·7

  14·8

  1986 July

  14·1

  19·9

  16·1

  1986 August

  14·6

  19·7

  15·8

  1986 September

  14·2

  18·4

  14·5

  1986 October

  15·0

  20·3

  16·4

  1986 November

  15·7

  21·1

  17·2

  1986 December

  16·2

  21·2

  17·2

  1987 January

  16·3

  20·5

  16·3

  1987 February

  15·5

  19·7

  15·4

  1987 March

  14·7

  19·9

  15·5

  1987 April

  15·4

  18·8

  14·6

  1987 May

  15·2

  17·9

  13·6

  1987 June

  15·2

  17·6

  13·6

  1987 July

  15·4

  18·6

  14·4

  1987 August

  14·7

  18·0

  13·8

  1987 September

  16·0

  19·8

  15·7

  1987 October

  14·8

  19·7

  15·2

  1987 November

  14·3

  20·3

  15·6

  1987 December

  14·5

  20·7

  16·0

  1988 January

  15·8

  21·5

  17·2

  1988 February

  15·8

  22·2

  18·0

  1988 March

  16·5

  22·2

  17·8

  1988 April

  17·0

  24·3

  19·3

  1988 May

  17·1

  24·5

  19·2

  1988 June

  17·4

  25·5

  19·9

  1988 July

  17·7

  26·2

  20·2

  1988 August

  18·2

  26·4

  20·4

  1988 September

  18·2

  26·3

  20·1

  1988 October

  18·6

  25·4

  19·3

  1988 November

  18·5

  25·1

  19·0

  1988 December

  18·5

  24·2

  18·2

  544 545

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Over 12 months

  Over 6 months annualized (seasonally adjusted)

  Real terms

  Current prices

  Real terms

  1989 January

  18·0

  23·1

  16·7

  1989 February

  17·6

  22·7

  16·1

  1989 March

  17·6

  22·5

  15·8

  1989 April

  16·6

  21·8

  15·0

  1989 May

  16·3

  21·6

  14·7

  1989 June

  15·7

  21·2

  14·4

  1989 July

  14·9

  20·8

  14·2

  1989 August

  15·3

  21·6

  15·1

  1989 September

  15·4

  21·9

  15·2

  1989 October

  14·4

  21·1

  14·1

  1989 November

  14·0

  20·3

  13·4

  1989 December

  14·3

  21·4

  14·5

  1990 January

  13·5

  20·4

  13·5

  1990 February

  13·7

  19·8

  12·8

  1990 March

  13·3

  19·2

  12·2

  1990 April

  10·9

  18·3

  9·6

  1990 May

  10·3

  18·3

  9·4

  1990 June

  9·7

  16·3

  7·5

  1990 July

  8·7

  15·3

  6·5

  1990 August

  7·1

  14·0

  4·5

  1990 September

  5·7

  12·4

  2·7

  1990 October

  5·4

  12·8

  3·0

  1990 November

  5·7

  12·7

  3·2

  1990 December

  4·4

  11·5

  2·3

  1991 January

  4·2

  11·2

  2·5

  1991 February

  3·5

  10·9

  2·1

  1991 March

  2·4

  9·7

  1·2

  1991 April

  3·7

  8·7

  1·8

  Banks and building societies lending to the M4 private sector:

  (a) 12 month growth rate in real terms

  (b) 6 month growth rate (sa)

  (c) 6 month growth rate (sa) in real terms

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the course of his consideration of the banks' lending policies to small businesses, he intends to meet the chairmen of the leading Scottish banks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I am holding meetings to discuss this issue with the chairmen of the four largest United Kingdom banks, and with the chairman of the British Bankers Association. The more detailed inquiries which my officials are conducting together with the Bank of England involve a wider range of banks, including the leading Scottish banks.

  Ferry Fares
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy at any meeting of the Council of Ministers of Finance to resist any moves to require VAT to be imposed on ferry fares.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government have made it clear that the United Kingdom is opposed to any move which would restrict our ability to use existing zero rates.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the average weekly civil service pension paid in 1990;
  546
  (2) what is his most up-to-date estimate of the number of civil service pensioners;

  (3) what is his most up to date estimatee of the number of civil service pensioners in receipt of annual civil service pensions of (a) up to £1,000 per annum, (b) £1,001 to £2,000 per annum, (c) £2,001 to £3,000 per annum, (d) £3,001 to £4,000 per annum, (e) £4,001 to £5,000 per annum, (f) £5,001 to £6,000 per annum, (g) £6,001 to £7,000 per annum, (h) £7,001 to £10,000 per annum, (i) £10,001 to £15,000 per annum and (j) £15,001 and above.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The average weekly civil service pension paid in 1990 was £25·70. The number of civil service pensioners as at 31 May 1991 was 509,634 of whom 46,408 were in receipt of weekly paid pensions. It is estimated that the number of civil service pensions, within the indicated bands as at 31 March 1991, were as follows:

  Number

  (a) up to £1,000 per annum

  151,217

  (b) £1,001 to £2,000 per annum

  125,550

  (c) £2,001 to £3,000 per annum

  66,881

  (d) £3,001 to £4,000 per annum

  43,366

  (e) £4,001 to £5,000 per annum

  27,802

  (f) £5,001 to £6,000 per annum

  23,216

  (g) £6,001 to £7,000 per annum

  18,047

  (h) £7,001 to £10,000 per annum

  32,252

  (i) £10,001 to £15,000 per annum

  15,720

  (j) £15,001 per annum and above

  5,537

  Veterinary Services
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total of receipts of value added tax levied on accounts for veterinary services and medicines, in each of the last three available years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Alcohol Duties
  Sir George Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the detailed provisional outturns in 1990–91 by both volume and excise revenue for(a) still wines not exceeding 15 per cent. alcohol, (b) still wines exceeding 15 per cent. alcohol, (c) sparkling wines, (d) beer, (e) cider and perry, (f) made-wines and (g) spirits; and if he will give his similarly detailed latest forecasts for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The following provisional information is available. Forecasts of volumes are not available for 1991–92.

  Taxes and benefits as percentages of income by quintile groups of households 11977–88

  1977

  1979

  1981

  1983

  1985

  1987

  1988

  (a) Retired households

  Cash benefits as percentages of gross income:

  Bottom quintile group

  90

  93

  91

  90

  85

  88

  87

  2nd quintile group

  90

  91

  88

  88

  86

  86

  85

  3rd quintile group

  86

  87

  83

  82

  81

  78

  81

  4th quintile group

  74

  74

  72

  69

  66

  60

  57

  Top quintile group

  34

  37

  34

  31

  28

  22

  24

  Average over all households

  65

  67

  64

  61

  58

  52

  53

  Income tax, NIC and domestic rates as percentages of gross income:

  Bottom quintile group

  13

  11

  11

  12

  16

  15

  18

  2nd quintile group

  8

  8

  9

  9

  10

  12

  12

  3rd quintile group

  9

  8

  10

  9

  11

  12

  13

  4th quintile group

  11

  10

  11

  11

  13

  14

  14

  Top quintile group

  22

  20

  20

  22

  22

  23

  21

  Average over all households

  15

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  17

  Indirect taxes as percentages of disposable income:

  Bottom quintile group

  19

  19

  21

  26

  28

  27

  27

  2nd quintile group

  16

  16

  19

  21

  19

  20

  21

  3rd quintile group

  15

  16

  17

  20

  17

  18

  18

  4th quintile group

  15

  17

  18

  20

  20

  21

  21

  Top quintile group

  17

  16

  19

  18

  17

  19

  18

  Average over all households

  16

  17

  19

  20

  19

  20

  20

  Benefits in kind as percentages of final income:

  Bottom quintile group

  36

  34

  36

  36

  37

  39

  44

  2nd quintile group

  32

  33

  34

  32

  31

  33

  34

  3rd quintile group

  30

  33

  32

  29

  28

  29

  32

  4th quintile group

  28

  28

  28

  26

  25

  25

  25

  Top quintile group

  15

  16

  16

  15

  13

  12

  13

  Average over all households

  26

  27

  27

  25

  24

  24

  25

  (b) Non-retired households

  Cash benefits as percentages of gross income:

  Bottom quintile group

  26

  29

  35

  47

  53

  53

  49

  2nd quintile group

  11

  12

  14

  17

  17

  18

  15

  3rd quintile group

  7

  8

  8

  10

  9

  8

  7

  4th quintile group

  4

  5

  5

  6

  5

  4

  3

  Top quintile group

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Average over all households

  7

  8

  9

  11

  11

  10

  8

  548

  1990–91 outturns

  1991–92 forecast1

  Clearances (thousand hectolitres)

  Revenue (£ billion)

  Revenue(£ billion)

  (a) Still wine below 15 per cent.2

  5,920

  0·6

  0·9

  (b) Still wine above 15 per cent.2

  380

  0·1

  (c) Sparkling wine

  360

  0·1

  (f) Made wine

  680

  0·1

  (d) Beer

  62,540

  2·2

  2·3

  (e) Cider and perry

  3 3,690

  0·1

  0·1

  (g) Spirits

  4990

  1·7

  1·9

  1 Chancellor's 1991–92 Budget Statement forecasts.

  2 Wine of fresh grape.

  3 Estimated.

  4 Pure spirit alcohol.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish tables on the same basis as at table P, page 119 of Economic Trends March 1991, No. 449, showing figures separately for (a) retired and (b) non-retired households.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 11 June 1991]: The information is as follows:
  549

  1977

  1979

  1981

  1983

  1985

  1987

  1988

  Income tax, NIC and domestic rates as percentages of gross income:

  Bottom quintile group

  22

  17

  17

  16

  14

  14

  17

  2nd quintile group

  23

  20

  20

  21

  20

  19

  19

  3rd quintile group

  24

  21

  23

  23

  22

  21

  21

  4th quintile group

  24

  22

  24

  25

  24

  23

  22

  Top quintile group

  24

  23

  24

  25

  25

  24

  22

  Average over all households

  24

  21

  23

  23

  22

  22

  21

  Indirect taxes as percentages of disposable income:

  Bottom quintile group

  26

  24

  28

  28

  27

  28

  31

  2nd quintile group

  22

  23

  24

  25

  25

  25

  25

  3rd quintile group

  21

  22

  23

  24

  23

  22

  23

  4th quintile group

  20

  21

  22

  23

  22

  20

  21

  Top quintile group

  17

  19

  19

  19

  18

  16

  15

  Average over all households

  20

  21

  22

  23

  22

  20

  21

  Benefits in kind as percentages of final income:

  Bottom quintile group

  40

  38

  42

  42

  39

  43

  43

  2nd quintile group

  27

  25

  27

  27

  25

  25

  26

  3rd quintile group

  21

  19

  20

  21

  18

  18

  18

  4th quintile group

  15

  13

  15

  14

  12

  12

  11

  Top quintile group

  8

  8

  7

  9

  7

  5

  5

  Average over all households

  19

  18

  19

  19

  17

  16

  16

  1 Ranked by equivalised disposable income for retired and non-retired households respectively.

  Source: CSO, from Family Expenditure Surveys.

  Financial Statistics
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing, for each month from January 1977 inclusive,(a) the average three-month inter-bank rate, (b) the average three-month inter-bank rate in real terms, using the retail prices index excluding

  3 month inter-bank rate (average over month)

  Bank and building societies lending to M4 private sector (Percentage annual growth)

  Current prices

  Real terms

  1978 January

  6·26

  -3·87

  —

  February

  6·87

  -3·04

  —

  March

  6·82

  -2.80

  —

  April

  7·62

  -1·09

  —

  May

  9·30

  0·93

  —

  June

  10·04

  1·91

  —

  July

  10·18

  2·05

  —

  August

  9·45

  1·21

  —

  September

  9·37

  1·38

  —

  October

  10·57

  2·73

  —

  November

  12·07

  3·95

  —

  December

  12·35

  4·07

  —

  1979 January

  12·70

  3·85

  —

  February

  13·32

  4·09

  —

  March

  12·06

  2·99

  —

  April

  11·69

  2·40

  —

  May

  11·82

  2·38

  —

  June

  13·12

  2·72

  —

  July

  13·98

  -0·68

  —

  August

  14·12

  -0·82

  —

  September

  14·17

  -1·22

  —

  September

  14·17

  -1·22

  —

  October

  14·12

  -1·94

  —

  November

  16·24

  -0·45

  —

  December

  16·81

  0·16

  —

  1980 January

  17·16

  -0·19

  —

  February

  17·77

  0·00

  —

  March

  18·11

  -0·39

  —

  April

  17·64

  -2·47

  —

  May

  17·05

  -3·13

  —

  June

  16·77

  -2·80

  —

  July

  15·88

  -0·02

  —

  550
  mortgage interest payments as the deflator and (c) the percentage growth in bank and building society lending over the same month in the previous year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 10 June 1991]: The available information is as follows (figures for earlier periods are not readily available):
  551

  3 month inter-bank rate (average over month)

  Bank and building societies lending to M4 private sector (Percentage annual growth)

  Current prices

  Real terms

  August

  16·53

  1·24

  —

  September

  16·00

  0·90

  —

  October

  15·98

  1·46

  —

  November

  15·84

  1·44

  —

  December

  14·73

  0·55

  —

  1981 January

  14·28

  1·23

  —

  February

  13·04

  0·41

  —

  March

  12·65

  -0·06

  —

  April

  12·33

  -0·10

  —

  May

  12·40

  0·06

  —

  June

  12·66

  0·80

  —

  July

  13·79

  2·16

  —

  August

  14·18

  1·86

  —

  September

  14·78

  2·60

  —

  October

  16·33

  3·65

  —

  November

  15·06

  2·60

  —

  December

  15·44

  3·13

  —

  1982 January

  15·13

  3·07

  —

  February

  14·48

  3·49

  —

  March

  13·57

  3·34

  —

  April

  13·77

  4·31

  —

  May

  13·35

  3·87

  —

  June

  13·00

  3·85

  —

  July

  12·37

  3·67

  —

  August

  11·11

  3·32

  —

  September

  10·89

  3·40

  —

  October

  9·79

  2·68

  —

  November

  9·39

  2·48

  —

  December

  10·62

  3·77

  —

  1983 January

  11·21

  4·60

  —

  February

  11·34

  4·35

  —

  March

  10·98

  4·81

  —

  April

  10·26

  5·00

  —

  May

  10·26

  5·53

  —

  June

  9·94

  5·23

  18·9

  July

  9·89

  4·95

  17·2

  August

  9·87

  4·56

  16·7

  September

  9·69

  4·16

  16·9

  October

  9·38

  4·25

  16·3

  November

  9·30

  4·32

  16·2

  December

  9·42

  4·34

  16·5

  1984 January

  9·45

  4·72

  17·2

  February

  9·38

  4·68

  17·2

  March

  8·95

  4·04

  17·3

  April

  8·88

  3·81

  17·7

  May

  9·40

  4·31

  17·1

  June

  9·45

  4·37

  17·3

  July

  11·51

  6·71

  17·7

  August

  11·07

  6·54

  17·9

  September

  10·83

  6·68

  17·4

  October

  10·67

  6·17

  18·0

  November

  9·93

  5·59

  18·4

  December

  9·82

  5·63

  17·9

  1985 January

  11·68

  6·82

  18·0

  February

  13·76

  8·83

  17·5

  March

  13·63

  8·01

  18·3

  April

  12·76

  7·06

  18·2

  May

  12·66

  6·98

  18·2

  June

  12·44

  6·78

  18·1

  July

  12·04

  6·50

  18·1

  August

  11·50

  5·89

  18·1

  September

  11·55

  5·73

  17·4

  October

  11·55

  6·08

  17·4

  November

  11·57

  6·00

  17·2

  December

  11·76

  6·31

  17·0

  1986 January

  12·83

  7·57

  16·2

  February

  12·65

  7·42

  17·3

  March

  11·72

  7·45

  16·4

  552 553

  3 month inter-bank rate (average over month)

  Bank and building societies lending to M4 private sector

  Current prices

  Real terms

  (Percentage annual growth)

  April

  10·48

  6·99

  16·3

  May

  10·22

  6·75

  16·3

  June

  9·78

  6·21

  17·1

  July

  9·96

  6·50

  17·6

  August

  9·84

  6·27

  18·3

  September

  10·12

  6·45

  17·9

  October

  11·04

  7·46

  18·6

  November

  11·17

  7·59

  19·4

  December

  11·36

  7·67

  20·1

  1987 January

  11·05

  7·16

  20·4

  February

  10·86

  6·88

  19·7

  March

  9·97

  5·93

  19·2

  April

  9·80

  5·91

  19·6

  May

  8·82

  4·87

  19·5

  June

  8·90

  5·17

  19·3

  July

  9·21

  5·35

  19·6

  August

  10·04

  6·17

  18·8

  September

  10·16

  6·41

  20·1

  October

  9·98

  5·81

  19·3

  November

  8·95

  4·73

  18·9

  December

  8·77

  4·57

  19·0

  1988 January

  8·97

  5·08

  20·1

  February

  9·27

  5·48

  20·0

  March

  8·89

  4·92

  21·1

  April

  8·30

  3·91

  22·1

  May

  8·03

  3·46

  22·5

  June

  8·93

  4·04

  23·1

  July

  10·55

  5·27

  23·8

  August

  11·39

  6·10

  24·3

  September

  12·15

  6·64

  24·5

  October

  12·04

  6·56

  24·9

  November

  12·31

  6·83

  24·8

  December

  13·13

  7·62

  24·8

  1989 January

  13·14

  7·25

  24·6

  February

  13·02

  6·95

  24·3

  March

  13·05

  6·91

  24·3

  April

  13·13

  6·78

  23·4

  May

  13·14

  6·72

  23·2

  June

  14·15

  7·80

  22·4

  July

  13·92

  7·68

  21·5

  August

  13·85

  7·73

  21·8

  September

  14·02

  7·73

  22·0

  October

  15·02

  8·42

  21·3

  November

  15·11

  8·53

  20·8

  December

  15·12

  8·55

  21·2

  1990 January

  15·16

  8·52

  20·4

  February

  15·11

  8·40

  20·7

  March

  15·29

  8·51

  20·4

  April

  15·21

  6·74

  19·6

  May

  15·15

  6·48

  19·2

  June

  14·97

  6·24

  18·9

  July

  14·95

  6·13

  17·8

  August

  15·00

  5·42

  16·8

  September

  14·91

  4·97

  15·8

  October

  14·03

  4·15

  15·5

  November

  13·64

  4·07

  15·5

  December

  13·80

  4·40

  13·9

  1991 January

  13·97

  5·01

  13·2

  February

  13·25

  4·32

  12·4

  March

  12·40

  3·66

  11·1

  April

  11·95

  4·85

  10·7

  554

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Roger Windsor
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Mr. Roger Windsor, formerly chief executive of the National Union of Mineworkers, has ever been employed by Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 12 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further meetings later today.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Redundant Churches Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right honourable Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what are the financial implications for the redundant churches fund in respect of the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure of the change after the circulation of the draft measure of the word "obtain" to "seek" in respect of the views of the Diocesan Advisory Committee in clause 15(i) of the Measure.

  Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)
  There are no implications for the redundant churches fund.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his office during the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Renton
  This information is not held centrally.

HEALTH

  Health Authorities (Management Costs)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the management costs of health authorities in the 1980–81 accounts and in each subsequent year to 31 March, detailing by authority in each region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No comprehensive information specifically on the management costs of health authorities is held centrally. However, a table showing the expenditure on headquarters administration as reported in the annual accounts of each regional and district health authority in England for the years since the establishment of district health authorities on 1 April 1982, has been placed in the Library. Figures for each special health authority for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, which cannot be attributed to particular regions, are also included for completeness.
  556
  Regions are managed in an integrated way and it would be misleading to interpret regional health authority (RHA) data in isolation from the districts they manage. In particular, the division of functions between the RHA and districts and between districts varies from region to region. Consequently the region totals provide a more valid picture.

  Maternity Units
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average length of stay in a maternity hospital in each district health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The estimated average length of stay of a maternity delivery patient in England in the year 1989–90 was five days. Information on post-natal average length of stay at district health authority level is available in the health service indicator package, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  TUC Health Services Committee
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when in the last 12 months he has met the Trade Union Congress health services committee; and which trades unions were represented at those meetings.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I met the health services committee of the TUC on 5 March and my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State met the committee on 19 July 1990. The following trades unions were represented:

  Confederation of Health Service Employees

  GMB

  Health Visitors Association

  Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association

  MSF

  National and Local Government Officers Association

  National Union of Public Employees

  Prison Officers Association

  Society of Radiographers

  Transport and General Workers Union.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the report of the independent expert group set up in March 1990 to investigate whether the emission of toxic gases from fungal growth on cot mattresses could be a cause of cot deaths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The report is published today by HMSO and copies have been placed in the Library. The independent expert working group concluded that the hypothesis that toxic gases evolved from chemicals in cot mattresses are a cause of sudden infant death syndrome is not supported by experimental evidence.

  The group recommended that, despite the absence or evidence to implicate toxic materials used as fillers or fire retardants in cot furnishings, as a matter of prudence, the need for such additives should be reconsidered. If antimony trioxide is used as the fire retardant, only material with the lowest possible levels of arsenic contaminant should be used.

  The Department of Trade and Industry will keep under review the use of potentially toxic materials in cot furnishings.

  As an incidental finding to the work to investigate the hypothesis the expert working group noted that cot

  557
  mattresses used by healthy babies and those used by babies who had died from sudden infant death syndrome were contaminated by a number of micro-organisms including some which were potentially pathogenic. There were differences in both the types and the level of contamination. They were unable to draw conclusions from these incidental findings. They recommended that specific investigation of the significance of the findings of microbial contamination take place.

  The chief medical officer has asked a group of experts to advise him on research to determine the significance of the microbiological contamination.

  I am most grateful to the independent expert group and its chairman, Professor Paul Turner, for producing such a comprehensive and carefully considered report. They were supported in this by some very detailed analytical research from both the International Mycological Institute at Kew and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much expenditure on the national health service has increased in south Bedfordshire in real and cash terms since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The South Bedfordshire health authority was established on 1 April 1982. The annual accounts of the authority record total revenue expenditure of £30·80 million (cash) for 1982–83 and £57·03 million (cash) for 1989–90 (the latest year available). Those figures represent increases of 85·2 per cent. in cash terms and 28·3 per cent. in real terms (measured at 1989–90 prices).

  Prior to 1 April 1982 the authority's predecessor health district formed part of the larger Bedfordshire area health authority. For Bedfordshire as a whole the annual accounts of the relevant health authorities record total revenue expenditure of £32·30 million (cash) for 1978–79 and £104·64 million (cash) for 1989–90. Those figures represent increases of 224 per cent. in cash terms and 38·5 per cent. in real terms (measured at 1989–90 prices).

  National Association of Young People in Care
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many meetings Ministers have held or had arranged with representatives of the National Association of Young People in Care in the past two years; and what was the subject of such meetings;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the support his Department has been making available to the National Association of Young People in Care over the last five years;

  (3) when he expects to make a decision on the current application for core funding grant aid in respect of the National Association of Young Children in Care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I will be meeting representatives of the National Association of Young Children in Care (NAYPIC) later this week, when current issues in residential care and the future funding of the association will be amongst the topics to be discussed. No other ministerial meetings have been held with NAYPIC during the past two years although the association has been in regular contact with officials.

  A grant of £82,000 was awarded to NAYPIC for the period 1 January 1987–31 March 1988, and one of £64,000 per annum for the two years 1988–89 and 1989–90. Because
  558
  of difficulties within the association, payment of grant was suspended at the end of December 1988. While the grant was reinstated in August 1989 no further payments were made because of renewed problems within the association.

  A final decision about NAYPIC's current application for funding will be made shortly.

  Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is funded by his Department into polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their carcinogenic consequences.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Funding of research on biomedical aspects of the effects of environmental pollution on health lies within the remit of the Medical Research Council and the Department keeps the results of research in this area under review.

  The small area health statistics unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which is jointly funded by this and other Government Departments, has been asked to investigate cancer and mortality rates around industrial installations such as cooking works and incinerators both of which are known to emit polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

  The Department is also funding work at the Laboratory of the Government Chemist which includes an investigation of the PAHs present in cigarette smoke.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce the hours worked by junior hospital doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are issuing today further guidance to health authorities, health boards and NHS trusts on reducing the hours of duty of hospital doctors and dentists in training. A copy has been placed in the Library. At the heart of the guidance is an agreement between the health departments and the medical profession setting, for the first time, explicit controls on the contractual hours of duty of doctors in training, including controls on the maximum periods of continuous duty and minimum periods of off duty time, for each of the working arrangements (full shifts, partial shifts and on-call rotas). The agreement also sets a clear timetable for change.

  The agreement is accompanied by guidance to assist authorities, boards and trusts, with the help of task forces, and, in Scotland, local implementation groups, to achieve reductions in hours while maintaining clinical standards and educational opportunities. This includes guidance on changing patterns of work for hospital doctors in training, including illustrations of shift patterns which meet the hours criteria; guidance on making the best use of nursing and midwifery staff and technical, clerical, administrative and other staff to help to reduce the hours of work of doctors in training while delivering improved patient care; good practice guidance on living and working conditions for doctors in training; guidance from the Central Consultants and Specialists Committee on the role of consultants in providing emergency cover throughout the 24-hour period and on the need to move to a more team-based method of working; and guidance from the conference of medical royal colleges and individual colleges and faculties on the educational and training implications of reducing hours.
  559
  In addition the Government have made funds available for additional medical staff to help authorities, boards and trusts to reduce hours.

  The ministerial group on junior doctors' hours, its supporting technical group and parallel groups in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will continue to monitor progress in reducing hours and I look forward to seeing real advances made on this front.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Jammu and Kashmir
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now refer the situation in Jammu and Kashmir to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We expressed concern about the situation in Kashmir at the United Nations Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva on 27 February, in a joint European Community statement.

  Minority Group Rights
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international treaties and conventions exist providing for the protection of the rights of minority groups, as opposed to the rights of individuals.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no multilateral United Nations or Council of Europe treaties and conventions which protect minority groups as such. Individuals belonging to minorities are given particular mention in article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of voluntary repatriation of Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong; what resources have been provided by Her Majesty's Government for the care and screening of asylum-seekers; and what discussions he has had with the Governments of Thailand and Malaysia concerning treatment of Vietnamese boat people.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As of 6 June 1991, 7,088 Vietnamese migrants had volunteered to return to Vietnam from Hong Kong. Just under 500 volunteers were awaiting repatriation, less than 1 per cent. of the total camp population. Since 1989, Her Majesty's Government have spent £34·891 million either directly or via UNHCR on the care and screening of Vietnamese asylum seekers.

  On discussion with the Malaysian and Thai Governments, I refer the hon. Member to the recent joint declaration of the EC/ASEAN ministerial meeting held in Luxembourg on 30–31 May 1991, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong have been resettled in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Hong Kong, outside the detention centres, (c) other EC countries, (d) other Commonwealth countries and (e) the United States of America.
  560
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the period 1979–1990 a total of 13,703 refugees were resettled in the United Kingdom; 126 in Hong Kong; 6,988 in other EC countries; 32,240 in other Commonwealth countries and 63,650 in the United States of America.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the United Kingdom financial assistance under the PHARE—Poland Hungary Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy—programme is being made directly to eastern European countries so that they can select and buy in their own preferred specialists and advisers to help them on social issues, including development of trade union organisations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Commitment of all the PHARE programme funds for central and eastern European countries is determined by the European Commission a nd the Management Committee of Member States; no funds are made available to central and east European Governments to use at their discretion. The development of trade union organisations is not one of the PHARE programme's priorities.

  Kurdish People
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of Turkey concerning the treatment of Kurdish people in Turkey.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British Ministers and officials regularly raise human rights issues with the Turkish Government. As to Kurdish people in Turkey, we look to the Turkish Government, as to other Governments where substantial groups of Kurdish origin live, to respect the international treaties to which they are a party.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Kurdish Front of Iraq about the negotiations it is holding with the Government of Iraq.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We remain in close contact with the Kurdish leadership and have the opportunity to discuss with them a range of subjects, including progress in their discussions with the central authorities in Baghdad, on a regular basis.

  Baltic States
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in each of the last five years Her Majesty's consul in Moscow has visited(a) Estonia, (b) Latvia and (c) Lithuania.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's consul in Moscow has made no official visits to these republics in recent years. He has, however, made private visits.

  Working visits have been made to all three of the Baltic states by other embassy officers, all of whom have been prepared to handle consular matters.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives are
  561
  currently being taken or considered which would make available the expertise and skills of industry in the United Kingdom to the Governments of the Baltic republics in order to assist them in diversifying their own economies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British expertise and skills are being made available to the Baltic states through the know-how fund for the Soviet Union, which began disbursing in April. One of the projects already approved under the know-how fund is in the Baltic states and other projects there are under consideration.

  Mecca Tunnel Disaster
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 437, he will make a statement about progress made by the Saudi Arabian Government in tracing British citizens missing since the tunnel disaster at Mecca on 2 July 1990.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British embassy in Riyadh continues to press the Saudi Arabian authorities vigorously for news of progress towards the identification of the three missing British nationals from among the unidentified victims of the tunnel disaster of 2 July 1990.

  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as the embassy has received a response.

  Cayman Islands
  Mr Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when the review of the constitution of the Cayman Islands will be published.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Commissioners' report has been published as a Command Paper. Copies are available in the Library of the House. The report will be released for public debate in the Cayman Islands by the governor.

  South Africa
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the ANC on sporting links with South Africa; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Hurd
  The ANC has recently sought the British Government's support for the readmission of South Africa to the International Cricket Council. In reply we have welcomed the formation this month of one non-racial United Cricket Board of South Africa. I have explained to the ANC that the Government do not control sport in this country, but that I was sure that the ICC would wish to take account of this development. Under the United Cricket Board, cricket in South Africa will comply with the terms of the Gleneagles agreement and should resume its place in international sport. I hope that very soon South Africa will be re-admitted to international cricket. As other sports become non racial, the same will apply to them.

  Food Aid (Soviet Union)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what types of food the 250 million ecu of EC food aid to the Soviet Union will consist of; how many tonnes it represents; what is its value in 562
  pounds sterling; from which EC budget it will be paid; and to which budget of Her Majesty's Government it will be attributed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 10 June 1991]: The 250 million ecu EC food aid for the Soviet Union is expected to comprise two tranches:

  i) 50,000 tonnes whole milk powder

  10,000 tonnes baby food

  15,000 tonnes canned beef

  5,000 tonnes canned pork

  ii) tomato paste (worth 5 mecu)

  beef (worth 10 mecu)

  pasta (worth 8 mecu)

  whole milk powder (worth 12 mecu)

  The second tranche is likely to be worth 35 million ecu but the tonnage this represents remains to be established. At a conversion rate of 1 ecu = £0·7, the total food aid package will total some £175 million and will be funded from the 1990 European agriculture guarantee and guidance fund guarantee section surplus under the 1991 budget. The United Kingdom contribution is not attributed to any Government Department.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests Her Majesty's Government have received from Sierra Leone for assistance in dealing with invading forces and refugees in the east of the country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following discussions with the Government of Sierra Leone we are supplying a quantity of non-lethal defence equipment to the Sierra Leone army.

  There has been no recent request from the Sierra Leone Government for help in dealing with refugees or displaced persons. We have, however, already made a significant contribution to refugee relief operations in the region, arising from the conflict in Liberia. A further £1 million has recently been allocated to United Nations agencies for this purpose.

  Somalia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of Somalia concerning the plight of refugees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since the fall of the Barre regime in January 1991, there has been no nationally accepted government in Somalia. We are in constant contact with British aid agencies and the United Nations. We have provided food aid and £1·25 million relief to help Somalia refugees in Ethiopia and Kenya.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the chairman of the International Stock Exchange to discuss delayed payments of fees and commissions to stockholders employed in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have no present plans to do so.
  563
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what costs were incurred by his Department in connection with the sale of the electricity distribution companies; and how much value added tax was incurred on those costs;

  (2) what costs the electricity distribution companies incurred as principal in connection with their privatisation; on what costs incurred in this connection the electricity distribution companies recovered VAT; and how much VAT was recovered.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Electricity privatisation costs incurred by my Department in 1987–88 were £0·8 million, in 1988–89 £5·5 million, in 1989–90 £12·4 million, and in 1990–91 are estimated at £256·5 million. As many of the costs were jointly incurred on the privatisation of the distribution and generating companies, allocation of the costs to the two categories would not be meaningful. VAT paid so far is estimated at £14·6 million.

  The costs incurred by the electricity distribution companies in connection with their privatisation are a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce details of the second tranche of the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We propose to make the second Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Order for renewable sources of electricity generating capacity in the autumn of this year. Proposals for the 1991 renewables order are set out in "Renewable Energy Bulletin No. 4", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Kuwait Oil Fires
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what follow-up there has been to his visit to the Kuwait oil fires.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have nothing to add to the answers given to the hon. Member on 3 June 1991 at columns 10–11.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish for each local authority in Northamptonshire the number of people presently receiving housing benefit and income support together with housing benefits; and what are the costs involved.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Initial estimates of housing benefit expenditure for 1991–92 from the Northamptonshire local authorities are in the table. The estimates do not distinguish between income support and non-income support cases.

  Northamptonshire local authorities: Initial estimates of housing benefit expenditure—1991–92

  £ million

  Corby

  4·3

  Daventry

  2·7

  East Northampton

  2·8

  Kettering

  4·6

  Northampton

  14·2

  564

  £ million

  South Northants

  2·5

  Wellingborough

  4·4

  A count of the number of people receiving housing benefit on 31 May 1991 is to be taken by local authorities shortly. The results will be available by the late summer.

  Strategic Planning Guide
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date the strategic planning guide will be delivered to staff who are drawing up strategic plans for their area; and if he will send a copy to the hon. Member for Oldham, West.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for each year since 1986 what is the average time taken for processing an application for(a) attendance allowance and (b) the higher rate of attendance allowance;

  (2) whether the independent living fund is unable to process an application for assistance without the applicant first receiving confirmation of eligibility for the higher rate of attendance allowance; in how many cases the delay in processing the higher rate of attendance allowance claims has led to the blocking of hospital beds in spinal units; what steps he will take to ensure that attendance allowance claims are speeded up; and if he will consider introducing an additional question on the attendance allowance claim form to identify those people who have applied to the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of attendance allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what monitoring is undertaken by his Department of the expenditure of the social fund in local offices.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Injury Compensation Claims
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will establish an inquiry into the handling of the claim for injury compensation and related claims from Mr. Cameron, 87 Davis drive, Glenrothes, Fife; for how long the claims have been outstanding; and if he will make a statement.
  565
  Mr. Scott
  The administration of industrial injuries disablement benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

TRANSPORT

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has undertaken as to the effect on the price of a gallon or litre of unleaded petrol of the abolition of vehicle excise duty and its transfer to petroleum spirit; and if he will set out the likely retail price based on average pump prices for the last quarter.

  Mr. Chope
  On the basis of that proposition the estimated increase in unleaded petrol would be 33·2 p a gallon (7·3 p a litre). The pump price (average last quarter) might be about 222 p a gallon (48·7 p a litre). The figures for the last quarter do not include the recent budget duty changes.

  InterCity Services
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of punctuality was achieved by InterCity in 1981, 1986 and 1991.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail's five business sectors were not introduced until 1982 so InterCity punctuality figures for 1981 are not available. The level of punctuality achieved by InterCity in both 1986–87 and 1990–91 is as follows:Trains running on time or within 10 minutes: 85 per cent.

  Rail Fares (VAT)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the annual effect on British Rail revenue and traffic volume of the imposition on rail fares of VAT at the rate of 4 per cent. and at the rate of 9 per cent.

  Mr. Freeman
  We estimate that the loss of gross revenue to British Rail would be in the approximate ranges of £50 to £90 million per annum for an imposition of 4 per cent. and £100 million to £200 million for 9 per cent. Reductions in passenger traffic of up to about 3 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively would be likely. It is not possible to be precise, since the impact depends upon passenger response and the extent to which in the case of the grant-aided railway, higher VAT might be matched by increased grant.

  Bus Services, Greater London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of each of the responses he has received to his proposals for de-regulation and privatisation of bus services in Greater London.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received over 200 responses to the consultation paper "A Bus Strategy for London", many of which are lengthy and detailed documents. I do not see a case for bearing the cost of placing in the Library 566
  copies of all these documents. I shall, however, arrange for a list of respondents to be placed in the Library. An announcement on the Government's conclusions, following the consultation exercise will be made in due course.

  Trailers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, (1) pursuant to his reply of 5 June,Official Report, column 227, if he will detail the investigations that are currently taking place into variable sensing units to be fitted to trailers built before 1982;

  (2) how many deaths have been reported in the last 12 months in accidents where one of the vehicles was a trailer with a variable sensing unit built prior to 1982.

  Mr. Chope
  We are investigating the accident and fatality statistics for trailers manufactured before 1982.

  We have no detailed statistics for the last 12 months but police reports for 1988 indicate that there were 570 fatal accidents involving heavy goods vehicles in England and Wales.

  To date 490 of these reports have been examined in detail revealing that there were three fatalities involving pre-1982 trailers which were not fitted with variable sensing units.

  Discussions are taking place with the major vehicle and equipment manufacturers as well as vehicle operators.

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to privatise railway stations.

  Mr. Freeman
  None, except as part of the privatisation of British Rail.

  Navigator Systems
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about his decision to replace the Decca navigator system with Loran C.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport announced in April of last year his decision in principle, and subject to certain conditions, to replace the Decca navigator system with Loran C as the standard marine radionavigation system to be provided in United Kingdom waters into the next century, a number of representations have been received.

  The fishing industry, the Master Mariners Association and others have argued against the adoption of Loran C chiefly because of the extra expense and inconvenience to which the proposed change would put the users of radionavigational systems at a time when increased reliance is likely to be placed on satellite systems. The electronics engineering industry have expressed concern because of their view that a high percentage of Loran C equipment would be imported from Japan and from the United States of America and that the market for Decca receivers in Europe would be lost.

  The general lighthouse authorities have expressed their support for Loran C because they consider it to be a more effective system and have the potential to provide near global coverage. The Royal Yachting Association has expressed its support for Loran C as a single system which would be available throughout Europe and in many other parts of the world. The General Council of British

  567
  Shipping and the Lights Advisory Committee regard Loran C as having a higher technical performance but support whichever system would be the cheaper for payers of light dues.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library full information relating to the Loran C proposal.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The proposals for a north-West European Loran C system were set out in the Department of Transport's consultative document of June 1989, entitled "The future of marine radionavigation in United Kingdom waters", a copy of which was placed in the Library at that time. Subsequent changes to the proposed station configurations and technical parameters have been relatively minor. The costs which would fall to be met by the United Kingdom are now estimated to be £8·5 million for investment and £0·6 million a year running costs, both at 1990–91 prices.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library all information relating to the submission from Racal Decca to continue to operate Decca, including the cost and the proposals to refurbish and upgrade existing equipment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The proposals which Racal Marine put forward in 1988 for the automation and continued operation of the Decca navigator chains in the United Kingdom have been superceded by further proposals put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 30 April this year. Negotiations are continuing and it would not be appropriate at this stage to place details in the Library.

  Motorway Speed Limits
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of(a) the number of users of British roads who used roads in France in the past year and (b) the number of users of French roads who used roads in the United Kingdom in the past year; and if he will consider an adjustment in motorway speed limits to bring the United Kingdom into line with France.

  Mr. Chope
  During 1990 approximately 5 million British registered vehicles travelled to France and 1·5 million French registered vehicles travelled to Britain. I am looking at all speed limits, including that on motorways. The motorway speed limit for cars in France is amongst the highest in the European Community; the rate of motorway fatalities is 9·1 per 100 million vehicle kilometres in France whereas in the United Kingdom it is 6·3 per 100 million vehicle kilometres.

  A38
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his Department's options for the A38 trunk road improvement between Saltash and Trerulefoot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department's consultants are making good progress with their investigations into possible options for the improvement of the A38 between Saltash and Trerulefoot.
  568
  I still hope that we shall be able to consult the public on the more favourable options towards the end of next year. The difficult topography and the environmentally sensitive countryside militates against more rapid progress.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings he has held with representatives of the people of Haringey and Islington concerning the operation of red routes; what meetings he plans to have; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Ministers and officials have met hon. Members, borough councillors, delegations of local business people, and groups representing local interests about the pilot red route scheme. Officials have also attended a number of public meetings in both boroughs. Requests for further meetings will be considered on their merits.

  Marine Rescue
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many occasions in the last six months the International Maritime Organisation requirements have been breached by a failure to maintain the minimum staffing level of two fully trained regular officers and one auxiliary at any marine rescue co-ordination centre or sub-centre in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The International Maritime Organisation requires contracting Governments to provide adequate search and rescue services for persons in distress around their coasts. At no time during the last six months has the United Kingdom failed to meet these requirements.

  Underused Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the location of each site and its acreage of the unused and underused land held by his Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Each of the Department's highway regions is responsible for compiling an annual register of unused and underused land in its area at 31 March.

  Under the Government's code of practice, the register is available at the 9 regional offices for inspection by the public from 30 June onwards. The information is being collated centrally and I shall place the returns in the Library when they are available at the end of the month.

  Road Accidents, Paisley
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pedestrians in each standard age cohort were fatally injured in road accidents for each year since 1980 in the constituency of Paisley, North.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is not readily available for Paisley, North constituency and instead the requested information is given for Renfrew district in the following table.
  569

  Pedestrians fatally injured in road accidents in Renfrew district by age group for years 1980 to 1990

  Age group

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  11990

  Under five

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  5–9

  3

  1

  2

  1

  —

  1

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  10–14

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  15–19

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  20–24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  25–29

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  30–39

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  40–49

  —

  2

  —

  3

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  50–59

  1

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  2

  60 and over

  8

  2

  4

  5

  5

  2

  5

  5

  1

  4

  2

  All ages

  13

  10

  11

  16

  9

  6

  15

  10

  6

  11

  9

  1 Provisional.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications the Overseas Development Administration has received for internal purchase of grain in Tigray and Eritrea; on what grounds these applications have been accepted or rejected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Where internal purchase of grain offers a cost effective and timely means of providing food to those in need I am willing to consider funding proposals from British voluntary agencies. I would also need to be sure that the distribution can be adequately monitored and accountability for the public funds involved would be fully assured. We have received proposals from Oxfam and CAFOD—Catholic Fund for Overseas Development.

  These agencies have agreed to review their proposals to take account of the effects of recent developments in Ethiopia on the relief operation, including the internal purchase scheme. I await their revised applications.

  Kedung Ombo Dam, Java
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the United Kingdom executive director at the World bank is taking to ensure adequate compensation is paid to those people displaced by the Kedung Ombo dam in central Java; what estimates he has of the number of people still living in the dam area; and whether Her Majesty's Government were represented at the opening of the dam on 18 May.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Compensation is essentially a matter between those concerned and the Government of Indonesia. Reliable estimates of numbers are difficult to come by, but I understand that some 5,000 families have accepted compensation and moved, and that 500–600 families remain in the green belt around the Kendung Ombo dam area. Her Majesty's Government were not represented at the opening of the dam.

  Narmada Dam, India
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information he has concerning the size of opposition to the displacement of people and flooding of land as part of the World bank Narmada dam project in India;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to instruct the United Kingdom's World bank executive director to support the proposal of local non-governmental organisations to
  570
  institute an independent commission to investigate the Narmada dam project in India and to halt construction pending its findings;

  (3) if he is satisfied that the environmental and social conditions drawn up by the World bank and the Government of India for the Narmada dam project will be met by the 30 June deadline; and whether he will make it his policy to refuse to extend United Kingdom support for the project if the deadline is not met.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I am not in a position to gauge the size of the opposition to the Sardar Sarovar dam project. At our suggestion and that of other donors the World Bank and the Indian authorities have agreed to appoint an independent team to assess the resettlement and environment aspects. So far as I am aware, the Indian authorities do not intend to halt construction during this review, if it goes ahead.

  The deadline of 30 June applies to a related water delivery and drainage project, the future of which is under review by the World bank.

  Motorway Speed Limits
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with chief constables and others about the current level of speed limits on motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  I will answer this question shortly.

WALES

  Pain Relief
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pain relief consultants there are within national health service hospitals in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Currently there are two consultants in Wales in the specialty of palliative medicine. Pain relief work is also carried out by many anaesthetists, but information on the amount of time devoted to pain relief by those consultants is not available centrally. However, the majority of district general hospitals in Wales have a specialist interested in the relief of chronic pain.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will facilitate the establishment of a pain relief clinic in Gwynedd; and what discussions he has had with the Gwynedd health authority on this matter.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A pain relief clinic is already available at Ysbyty Gwynedd.
  571
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what statistics relating to pain relief are collected by the Welsh Office from national health service hospitals in Wales; what proposals he has to improve the available analysis of such statistics; and if he will ensure that the activity of pain clinics is incorporated in hospital activity analysis in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Welsh Office collects quarterly information relating to hospital bed use and out-patient activity by specialty. This information is published annually in "Hospital Bed Use Statistics", copies of which are in the Library of the House. Between January 1979 and March 1989 information relating to pain relief was collected and published as above. For the financial year 1989–90 pain relief work undertaken by palliative medicine consultants and anaesthetists was not separately identifiable from their other work. Since 1 April 1990, however, data on pain relief work done under both specialties have been collected as a separate category and will be included in published data for 1990–91 later this year.

  The hospital activity analysis system relates only to patients admitted to hospital and as such does not include the activity of out-patient pain clinics.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what equipment is available in NHS hospitals in Wales for the relief of pain, including self-administered pain relief equipment; and what plans he has for extending such availability.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available centrally. It is for local health authority managements to determine the availability of equipment in the light of local needs and circumstances, having regard to available resources.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total amount of community charge unpaid in Wales since its inception.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Local authorities in Wales would receive some £414 million if all 1990–91 community charge bills were paid in full. Latest estimates suggest that they will receive around £389 milion of this, representing 94 per cent. of the full amount due. It is for local authorities to seek full payment of outstanding amounts in order to protect the interests of charge payers generally.

  Treatment Centres
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how long he is proposing to extend or renew the present contract for the elective orthopaedics treatment centre at the Prince of Wales Orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar, Cardiff.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The existing treatment centres have annual contracts.

  Decisions on future funding will be taken in the light of experience during 1991–92, but it is not intended that central funding should continue indefinitely.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation he has carried out of the impact on waiting lists for elective surgery of the three present treatment centres at Bridgend, Bangor and Rhydlafar; and if he will place copies of such evaluations in the Library.
  572
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is intended to undertake a wider evaluation of the treatment centre initiative during 1991. The existing centres have been broadly successful in meeting their contractual targets and are proving an effective complementary method of delivering speedier health care for Welsh patients.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what length of contract is proposed for the second ophthalmology treatment centre for Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The established treatment centres are managed on annual contracts. Decisions on the future funding of the existing centres will be taken in the light of experience during 1991–92. The contract for the proposed new centre at Bridgend will make allowance for referral patterns to become established, but it is not intended that central funding should continue indefinitely.

  "Local Strategies for Health"
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will now publish a review of achievement of the strategic objectives specified by the Welsh Office in the circular "Local Strategies for Health", and associated publications on the strategic intent and direction for the NHS in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Our approach to health strategy has been acknowledged by the World Health Organisation and others as putting Wales at the forefront of the drive for better health not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe.

  District health authorities and family health services authorities are currently working with community health councils, local government and voluntary groups to prepare local strategies for health aimed at achieving our long-term goal of making Wales one of the healthiest nations in Europe. The first set of local strategies will be submitted to the Department for approval in December.

  When the local strategies are available and we have drawn on them to develop a management strategy for Wales as a whole, we will be in a position to monitor progress against the ambitious targets set both locally and nationally.

  M4 Flyover
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take in co-operation with West Glamorgan county council to protect pedestrians from objects falling from the Ynysforgan flyover of the M4 motorway.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Design work is currently under way on alterations to the Ynysforgan flyover parapets where the motorway passes over the footbridge. Parapet heights will be increased and a mesh infill provided over a length of 30m in the vicinity of the footbridge.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to reimburse Swansea city council for the £50,000 spent and thrown away on sending out new poll tax bills following the Government's change in policy.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Department is in consultation with the Council of Welsh Districts on reimbursement arrangements.

  Acute Hospital Beds
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of acute hospital beds available in Wales for each of the years 1979 to 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on the number of acute hospital beds is given in the following table. In order to give the full picture on trends I have added the figures from 1974–79:

  Average daily available acute beds: Wales1

  Number

  1974

  10,880

  1975

  10,552

  1976

  10,378

  1977

  10,425

  1978

  10,274

  1979

  10,133

  1980

  10,075

  1981

  9,971

  1982

  9,949

  1983

  9,992

  1984

  9,836

  1985

  9,810

  1986

  9,640

  1987

  9,557

  1988

  9,472

  1989–902

  9,049

  1 Excludes geriatrics, younger disabled, obstetrics, GP maternity, mental illness, mental handicap, adolescent psychiatry, mental illness children, psychogeriatric and elderly mentally infirm.

  2 Data from 1 April 1989 are readily available only on a financial year basis.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has of how many children were in care in the area of the Llanelli borough council at the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information is held centrally only on the numbers of children in care by county area. There were 275 children in care in Dyfed on 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children were in local authority care in Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There were 3,278 children in local authority care in Wales on 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in local authority care in Wales at the latest available date were in(a) residential care and (b) under the care of foster parents.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There were 585 children in local authority care in residential accommodation on 31 March 1990. Of these, 569 were in local authority community homes and the remaining 16 in registered voluntary homes and hostels.

  There were 1,994 children in local authority care with foster parents on 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children were in care in(a) Dyfed, (b) West Glamorgan and (c) Mid-Glamorgan at the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There were 275 children in care in Dyfed, 365 in West Glamorgan and 757 in Mid Glamorgan on 31 March 1990.
  574
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of fostering children in Wales in the last three available years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Expenditure by local authorities on boarded-out children in care in Wales since 1987–88 is given in the following table:

  Net current expenditure £ million1

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  5·4

  5·9

  6·8

  1 Expenditure on employees and running expenses net of sales, fees, charges and other local income, but gross of relevant specific grants.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the percentage of housing stock sold under right-to-buy schemes by each district authority in Wales in total since 1980.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Total right-to-buy sales as a percentage of local authority stock at 1981

  per cent.

  Aberconwy

  42

  Alyn and Deeside

  26

  Arfon

  23

  Blaenau Gwent

  20

  Brecknock

  37

  Cardiff

  30

  Carmarthen1

  5

  Ceredigion

  35

  Colwyn2

  0

  Cynon Valley

  23

  Delyn

  21

  Dinefwr

  29

  Dwyfor

  23

  Glyndwr

  32

  Islwyn

  41

  Llanelli

  36

  Lliw Valley

  31

  Meirionnydd

  32

  Merthyr Tydfil

  26

  Monmouth

  31

  Montgomeryshire

  33

  Neath

  32

  Newport

  26

  Ogwr

  35

  Port Talbot

  39

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  31

  Radnorshire

  37

  Rhondda

  14

  Rhuddlan

  29

  Rhymney Valley

  29

  South Pembrokeshire

  23

  Swansea

  20

  Taff Ely

  39

  Torfaen

  37

  Vale of Glamorgan

  31

  Wrexham Maelor

  20

  Ynys Mon

  25

  WALES

  28

  1Many of the disposals of dwellings by Carmarthen District Council, are made voluntarily rather than under the Right-to-Buy scheme.

  2All of the disposals of the dwellings by Colwyn District Council are made voluntarily rather than under the Right-to-Buy scheme.

  Source: Local authority returns, 1981 Census of Population.

  Population Movements
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing(a) the number of young people moving from Wales to England, (b) the number of young people moving from England to Wales and (c) the net outflow for the year between September 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Data from the national health service central register, which relates to movements of persons on national health service doctors' lists, give an indication of the number of young people moving between Wales and England. This information is given in the following table:

  National health service central register moves of young people from Wales to England and England to Wales for year ended September 1990

  Age

  From Wales to England (a)

  From England to Wales (b)

  Net outflow from Wales (c)

  0–15

  6,500

  7,800

  -1,300

  16–24

  14,600

  13,300

  +1,300

  Numbers of farmers and workers employed in agriculture—June 1980

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  All workers (excluding salaried managers)

  County

  Principal farmers

  Other partners

  Total

  Principal farmers

  Other partners

  Total

  Total farmers and directors

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Salaried managers

  Clwyd

  2,664

  631

  3,295

  630

  317

  947

  4,245

  2,768

  707

  3,475

  86

  Dyfed

  7,657

  1,664

  9,321

  1,677

  810

  2,487

  11,808

  5,769

  1,890

  7,659

  66

  Gwent

  1,429

  282

  1,711

  390

  220

  610

  2,321

  1,310

  407

  1,717

  28

  Gwynedd

  3,046

  621

  3,667

  845

  369

  1,214

  4,881

  2,189

  382

  2,571

  61

  Mid Glamorgan

  604

  121

  725

  175

  93

  268

  993

  719

  121

  840

  4

  Powys

  4,014

  1,016

  5,030

  654

  407

  1,061

  6,091

  2,841

  472

  3,313

  29

  South Glamorgan

  369

  98

  467

  67

  46

  113

  580

  506

  138

  644

  17

  West Glamorgan

  519

  137

  656

  186

  68

  254

  910

  512

  113

  625

  9

  Wales

  20,302

  4,570

  24,872

  4,624

  2,330

  6,954

  31,826

  16,614

  4,230

  20,844

  300

  Note: Figures exclude minor holdings not included in the June census.

  Source: June Agricultural Census 1980.

  Adoption
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the children adopted in Wales in the last three available years were 10 years of age and over.

  Number of adoption orders1

  Number of children adopted aged 10 years or over

  Percentage of children adopted aged 10 years or over

  1987

  442

  116

  26·2

  19882

  463

  141

  30·4

  19893

  436

  128

  29·4

  Source: OPCS

  1 Period January to December

  2 Five adoption orders did not specify the age of the child and have therefore been omitted from these figures.

  3 One adoption order did not specify the age of the child and has therefore been omitted from these figures.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many adoption orders were made in Wales in each of the last three available years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of adoption orders made in Wales in each of the last three available years is given in the following table:
  576
  Source: OPCS.

  Note: These figures, which are rounded to the nearest 100, relate to re-registrations for year ended December 1990. This is to make an allowance for an average of three months between a person moving and subsequent re-registration.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the latest available estimates of the number of Welsh language learners currently residing in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Farm Employment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers, partners, directors and farmworkers were employed by county in Wales in June 1980.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures from the agricultural census for June 1980 are given in the following table:

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is given in the following table:

  Number of adoption orders1

  Year

  1987

  442

  1988

  468

  1989

  437

  Source: OPCS

  1 Period January to December

  577
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what percentage of the children adopted in Wales in each of the last three available years were legitimate children;

  (2) what percentage of the adoptions in Wales in the last three available years were made without parental agreement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available centrally.

  Cancer
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary Wales if he will sponsor an investigation into of cancer, by type, by location and by age sufferer, in the district of Taff Ely.

  The current annual average daily traffic flows on the sections of A470 between Coryton and Abercynon are estimated as follows:

  Section

  Cars

  Light goods

  Heavy goods

  Buses

  Total

  Coryton—Ynys Bridge

  36,600

  4,300

  3,900

  400

  45,200

  Ynys Bridge—Nantgarw

  37,400

  4,450

  3,600

  300

  45,750

  Nantgarw—Upper Boat

  33,000

  3,400

  2,750

  350

  39,500

  Upper Boat—Glyntaff

  37,300

  3,150

  2,200

  300

  42,950

  Glyntaff—Bridge St.

  28,800

  3,250

  2,200

  300

  34,550

  Bridge St. —Abercynon

  22,750

  2,400

  2,350

  500

  27,900

  Projections for the year to 2005 are:

  (a) on Low Growth estimates

  Coryton—Ynys Bridge

  48,150

  5,700

  4,700

  400

  58,950

  Ynys Bridge—Nantgarw

  49,200

  5,900

  4,350

  300

  59,750

  Nantgarw—Upper Boat

  43,400

  4,500

  3,300

  350

  51,550

  Upper Boat—Glyntaff

  49,100

  4,200

  2,650

  300

  56,250

  Glyntaff—Bridge St.

  37,900

  4,300

  2,650

  300

  45,150

  Bridge St.—Abercynon

  29,900

  3,200

  2,850

  500

  36,450

  (b) on High Growth estimates

  Coryton—Ynys Bridge

  55,800

  6,850

  5,550

  400

  68,500

  Ynys Bridge—Nantgarw

  57,000

  7,100

  5,100

  300

  69,500

  Nantgarw—Upper Boat

  50,300

  5,400

  3,900

  350

  59,950

  Upper Boat—Glyntaff

  56,900

  5,000

  3,100

  300

  65,300

  Glyntaff—Bridge St.

  43,900

  5,200

  3,100

  300

  52,500

  Bridge St.—Abercynon

  34,700

  3,800

  3.350

  500

  42,350

  Pontypridd-Cardiff Railway
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the average numbers of passengers carried by British Rail daily on the Pontypridd to Cardiff branch of its network in(a) 1988, (b) 1989, (c) 1990 and (d)

  Sir Wyn Roberts: This is a matter for British Rail.

  Urban Programme

  Financial year

  Name of premises

  Work assisted

  Allocation £

  1980–81

  Blaenavon Workmen's Institute

  Renovation Work

  4,500

  1981–82

  Congress Theatre, Torfaen

  Provision of Toilets

  5,750

  Blackwood Little Theatre

  Roof Repairs

  8,000

  1984–85

  Afan Arts Centre Port Talbot

  Re-roofing and Refurbishment

  30,000

  Rhymney Valley Museum

  Work of Galleries

  40,000

  Blackwood Miners Welfare Association Hall

  Renovation Work

  11,000

  1986–87

  Blackwood Little Theatre

  Refurbishment Phase I

  25,000

  1988–91

  Parc and Dare Hall, Treorchy

  Upgrading of front facade, entrance and foyer; facilities for disabled; construction of raked floor in auditorium and improvements to stage

  500.000

  578
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The latest available figures published in "Cancer Registration in Wales: 1974–1984" indicate that the standardised cancer registration rate for all malignancies in Taff Ely is below the Wales average. I therefore see no reason for the Welsh Office to undertake such an investigation.

  A470
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest existing and projected estimates of traffic flow along the A470 by vehicle type.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is given in the following tables:

  Arts Buildings
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of those buildings used for the arts in Wales which have been built, renovated or improved with Government funds since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on funding allocated for these purposes by the Welsh Office is given in the following tables.

  Specific Grants
  St. David's Hall, Cardiff—£000,000 in 1978–79, £500,000 in 1979–80 and £200,000 in 1980–81 towards the cost of building the Hall.
  Welsh National Opera—£150,000 in 1981–82 towards cost of constructing new rehearsal facilities:
  579

  Financial year

  Name of premises

  Work assisted

  Allocation £

  1988–91

  Blaenavon Institute (opened 1894)

  Structural conservation work inside and out. New foyer, staircase, replacement seating, installation of theatrical equipment

  800,000

  1989–91

  Blackwood Institute

  Major structural internal and external work carried out; acquisition of building

  635,000

  1989–91

  Pontypridd Municipal Hall

  Visual arts gallery and cinema, external refurbishment and landscaping work outside building

  200,000

  1989–90

  Rhydycar Leisure Centre

  The installation of retractable seating for major events instead of hiring seating at considerable cost

  135,000

  1989–92

  Blaengarw Workman's Hall (built 1894)

  Major structural work carried out on the enveloping of the building and internal work; also the installation of central heating system

  853,000

  1989–92

  Coliseum Theatre Trecynon (built 1938)

  Extend orchestra pit and refurbish building; purchase of building from Charitable Trust

  548,000

  1989–92

  Ystradgynlais Miners' Welfare Hall

  Development of Hall into Arts and Social Centre

  657,000

  Revenue allocation for manager and part-time staff to manage and develop use of facilities

  1991–92

  Lyric Theatre Carmarthen

  Improvement of facilities

  120,000

  Projects of regional or national importance

  Financial year

  Project

  Supplementary credit approval

  1990–91

  Llangollen International Eisteddfod Site. New Pavilion

  £433,000

  1991–92

  Llangollen International Eisteddfod Site. New Pavilion

  £1,390,000

  Information about funds disbursed by centrally funded agencies is not held centrally. I will write to the hon. Member with this information.

  The total allocation to the National Museum of Wales for all capital works at its branches was:

  Financial year

  Amount £

  1979–80

  1,087,000

  1980–81

  786,000

  1981–82

  619,000

  1982–83

  799,000

  1983–84

  657,000

  1984–85

  711,000

  1985–86

  995,000

  1986–87

  924,000

  1987–88

  2,123,000

  1988–89

  3,630,000

  1989–90

  6,499,000

  1990–91

  7,820,000

  Housing Standards
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of houses, by district, in Mid Glamorgan which are below minimum required standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The numbers of unfit dwellings in the districts of Mid Glamorgan as estimated by the 1986 Welsh house condition survey are given in the following table:
  580

  District

  Total number of unfit dwellings

  Cynon Valley

  4,400

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2,500

  Ogwr

  3,900

  Rhondda

  4,900

  Rhymney Valley

  2,100

  Taff Ely

  2,700

  Source: 1986 Welsh House Condition Survey.

  Special Diets
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales, by county, are registered as needing special diets because of physical or mental disabilities; how many of them are eligible for the new lower care component of the disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally.

  Eligibility for disabled living allowance is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Public Transport Expenditure
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications since 1985 his Office has received for section 56 grants under the Transport Act 1968; how many of these applications have been provided, wholly or in part; and if he will name in each case the project concerned, the level of support provided and the date on which the grant application was approved.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department has received no applications under this provision.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Import Restrictions
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the quotas on imports from(a) Thailand and (b) Vietnam for (i) bed linens, (ii) yarn

  581
  fabric, (iii) sewing thread, (iv) curtains, (v) shirts, (vi) porcelain tableware, (vii) matches, (viii) footwear, (ix) gloves, (x) headgear and (xi) trousers.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Restrictions on the imports of yarns, sewing threads, fabrics, shirts, gloves and trousers originating in Thailand under the EC-Thailand MFA bilateral agreement are shown in table 1.

  The import to the United Kingdom of bedlinen, curtains, porcelain tableware, matches, footwear, and headgear originating in Thailand is not restricted by quota.

  Restrictions on the import of goods originating in Vietnam are set out in table 2.

  Table 1

  Product

  United Kingdom quota level (1991)

  Synthetic spun yarns (MFA category 22) (includes some sewing threads)

  425 tonnes

  Cotton fabrics (MFA category 2)

  1,108 tonnes

  Fabrics of synthetic spun yarns (MFA category 3)

  2,226 tonnes

  T-shirts, knitted shirts etc. (MFA category 4)

  5,539,000 pieces

  Men's and boy's woven shirts (MFA category 8)

  251,000 pieces

  Woven trousers (MFA category 6)

  395,000 pieces

  Knitted gloves (MFA category 10)

  2,726,000 pairs

  Table 2

  Product

  Quota level (notes) (1991)

  Tableware of porcelain, china or pottery; ornaments or statuettes

  £23,100

  Bedlinen, tablelinen, curtains, synthetic yarn and woven fabrics of synthetic yarn (MFA categories 20, 23, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40)

  7 tonnes1

  Shirts

  Import bane2

  Matches

  Import ban

  Footwear

  Import ban3

  Gloves

  Import ban

  Headgear

  Import ban4

  Trousers

  Import ban5

  1 Certain of these goods of flax, ramie, hemp or silk are unrestricted. Goods of this description of textile categories other than those listed are subject to an import ban.

  2 Shirts of ramie or of silk are unrestricted.

  3 Certain casual footwear (eg espadrilles) is unrestricted.

  4 Certain headgear (eg straw hats and the like) is unrestricted.

  5 Certain trousers for industrial wear are unrestricted.

  Note: Full details of import licensing requirements are set out in the Open General Import Licence dated 4th December 1987.

  Kuwait (Contracts)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), 5 June,Official Report, column 264, if he will state, so far as is known to his Department, the number of companies which have won contracts in Kuwait, and the number and value of contracts won by companies employing fewer than 20 people.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am aware of 52 companies which have won contracts in Kuwait with a total of at least £190 million. One of these companies has fewer than 20 employees and has won a contract worth £500,000.

  It is not possible to determine how many companies with fewer than 20 employees will benefit from sub-contracts.

  Baltic States
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further initiatives are currently being taken by his Department to promote bilateral trade between the United Kingdom and the Baltic republics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Overseas trade services staff in the United Kingdom and Moscow provide a range of export promotion services for the Soviet Union, including the Baltic republics.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the record of export promotion by the British embassy in Moscow in relation to each of the Baltic republics over each of the last five years: and if he will place in the Library a list of companies in the United Kingdom who are exporting to any one or more of the Baltic states, with details of the goods involved and the gross value of the trade.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Overseas trade services staff in Moscow are undertaking a series of visits to regions of the Soviet Union with commercial potential for British companies, including the Baltic republics.

  The names of companies involved in trade to the Baltic republics, their products and their value is a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Overseas trade statistics are compiled on a country basis and cannot be broken down by republic.

  Rechar
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what benefit he expects for coalfield areas to derive from the EC Rechar scheme.

  Mr. Leigh
  The 11 United Kingdom Rechar programmes, submitted in July 1990 and currently awaiting approval by the European Commission, seek some £109 million in EC support for a wide range of infrastructure and small firms measures based on the Commission guidelines published in the Official Journal of 27 January 1990. The actual projects to be supported will be decided once the programmes are approved.

ENVIRONMENT

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in Britain.

  Mr. Trippier
  The White Paper on the Environment. "This Common Inheritance", which was published last September describes Britain's strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sets out the first tranche of measures to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

  Planning Consent
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to allow councils to penalise those who build properties or extensions without planning consent.
  583
  Mr. Yeo
  Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has introduced provisions in the Planning and Compensation Bill which greatly strengthen and improve local planning authorities' power to deal with breaches of planning control.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had on the timescale for phasing out the poll tax.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have said that we plan to replace the community charge with the council tax with effect from 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the abolition of the poll tax 20 per cent. contribution rule; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have recently proposed a new council tax to take effect in 1993. It will be possible for people on low incomes to receive 100 per cent. rebates on the council tax. However, we have not proposed any change to the benefit rules for the remaining period of the community charge.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make further adjustments to standard spending assessment mechanisms.

  Mr. Portillo
  The standard spending assessments are based on detailed research. They have been subject to extensive review over the last two years. Stability is an important consideration in this area to enable sensible forward planning by authorities. The Government have no proposals for any major changes, although data from the 1991 census will be incorporated into the SSAs as soon as possible after they become available.

  Councillors' Allowances
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to carry out consultations with local authority organisations on the councillors' allowances scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My Department has worked closely with the local authority associations in drawing up the new system of members' allowances which took effect from 1 April this year. The new system will be reviewed after a year's operation in consultation with the associations.

  Broader issues are being considered in the review of local government.

  Housing
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making with respect to the encouragement of the further provision of affordable housing in non-metropolitan district council areas.

  Sir George Young
  Development of low-cost housing for rent or shared ownership sale is rising substantially as a result of increases in public expenditure through the Housing Corporation to over £2 billion by 1993–94. We have also reviewed the way resources are allocated to ensure the houses are built where they are most needed,584
  and introduced special programmes to help rural areas. The fall in house prices and reductions in interest rates have eased access to housing for first-time buyers, and deregulation of private rents has helped make more houses available for rent.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have carried out a large-scale voluntary transfer of some or all of their housing to a new landlord.

  Sir George Young
  Sixteen local authorities have so far transferred their housing stock to new, approved landlords, following a ballot of tenants. These transfers have involved 76,000 homes, have generated £647 million in receipts and have enabled local authorities to repay £400 million worth of debt. Altogether the transfers have attracted over £1 billion of private sector investment in social housing.

  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure that local authorities bring back empty council properties into use as soon as possible.

  Sir George Young
  We have taken a number of steps to reduce the number of empty local authority properties. In particular, under the £300 million homelessness initiative more than 5,300 empty local authority properties in London and the South East will be brought back into use; £1,076 million of credit approvals will be made available this year towards the renovation of local authority stock and the housing revenue account subsidy rules have been changed to give authorities a better incentive to bring empty properties back into use.

  Vacant Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of public vacant and derelict land he estimates as accumulating since he stopped updating the central register of vacant public land.

  Mr. Yeo
  Because of the incomplete response by owners and changes in the minimum size of site there is no basis for making such an estimate. We are proposing steps to improve the response as my hon. Friend was told on 7 May at column 401.

  Roads
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are taken to ensure that the allocation of resources to local government is adequate to ensure that local authority roads are kept in an acceptable state of repair.

  Mr. Key
  Local authority standard spending assessments include, where appropriate, adequate provision for highway maintenance.

  Greenwich Social Services
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what determines the standard spending assessment on social services for Greenwich borough council.

  Mr. Portillo
  The method of allocating the standard spending assessment for social services is set out in the
  585
  Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) as amended by the Revenue Support Grant (Amendment) Report (England) which was approved by the House in January this year. The same method is used for Greenwich as for all other social services authorities in England.

  Dog Licensing
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any recent discussions with the RSPCA about dog licensing.

  Mr. Baldry
  My officials have regular discussions with the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society, which includes RSPCA representatives, on matters relating to responsible dog ownership and to the implementation of the package of dog control measures contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We will introduce the dog control measures next year. They include a duty on local authorities to enforce the requirement that dogs wear a collar and identification tag when in a public place and to ensure that stray dogs are collected up. We believe that the measures will encourage responsible ownership and directly address the main problems caused by dogs; whereas a national dog licensing or registration scheme would be bureaucratic, expensive to operate and ineffective.

  Uncollected Rents
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount of uncollected council housing rents at the last count.

  Mr. Yeo
  At the end of March 1990 English local authorities were owed an estimated £360 million in rent arrears.

  Figures for the position in March 1991 are not yet available.

  Hadrian's Wall
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the steps taken to preserve Hadrian's wall.

  Mr. Yeo
  Hadrian's wall is a scheduled ancient monument. As such, it is protected by the need to obtain the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for any works within the scheduled area, in addition to any planning permission required.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning permissions for wind farms have been approved in England and in Wales during the two most recent years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not held centrally.

  Releases of Radioactivity
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority released radioactivity to the environment since 1961 at levels that would have been subject to prosecution under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, prior to Crown immunity being withdrawn.
  586
  Mr. Trippier
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) has never been subject to Crown immunity under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (RSA 60) for the disposal of radioactive waste. Disposals from UKAEA premises are closely regulated by means of certificates of authorisation issued under RSA 60 by HMIP and where appropriate jointly with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, backed up by inspection of premises.

  The only prosecution by HMIP under RSA 60 against UKAEA was on 5 June 1991 when the authority pleaded guilty to two breaches of conditions in its certificate of authorisation. We are not aware of any other releases of radioactivity which would have rendered the authority liable to prosecution.

  Pollution Registers
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out those areas of corporate information on pollution that will be excluded from deposition in the local register on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is not possible to define exhaustively the areas of information which should be excluded on grounds of commercial confidentiality. Under section 22 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the onus is on the operator to prove to the enforcing authority that disclosure of information would prejudice to an unreasonable degree their commercial interests—and every case will have to be considered on its merits.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what approvals he intends to give for estate action funds for the refurbishment of the St. Martin's estate, Tulse Hill, London SW2.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department did not offer estate action support for 1991–92 to Lambeth council towards the cost of its proposed work on the St. Martin's estate as the application failed to satisfy the objectives of the programme. No other application is being considered. The Department would be willing to consider a new bid for this estate in a future year, but approval would depend on the quality of the proposed scheme in competition with other bids received.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the budget for the estate action programme in the current year.

  Sir George Young
  The estate action budget for 1991–92 is £268 million.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figure he has included in his budget for granting aid to the National Rivers Authority for(a) the current financial year, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  Grant-in-aid for the current year is £106·5 million. Planned provision for 1992–93 and 1993–94 of £96·9 million and £96 million respectively, as published in the Department's annual report 1991 (Cm. 1508), is subject to the Government's public expenditure decisions which will be announced later this year.

  Building (Heating)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given by his Department to the recommendation of the Technical Services Agency, that the law requiring the heating of buildings to a minimum of 16 deg. C should be extended to set a similar minimum temperature for housing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The standard of fitness for human habitation (section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 as amended by schedule 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) requires that a dwelling-house shall have adequate provision for heating. Circular 6/90 advises that in deciding whether a dwelling-house is or is not unfit, an authority should consider whether the dwelling-house has provision for heating capable of generally maintaining the living room at a temperature of 18 deg. C or more and the other main rooms at a minimum of 16 deg. C.

  Community Charge
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the amount of community charge payable by each eligible adult in a household of one, two, three, four or five adults where one, two or no adults have been exempted due to severe mental handicap in 1991–92 after the community charge reduction scheme has been applied, for each level of assumed rates in £50 bands from £150 to £500, in £100 bands from £500 to £1,500, £1,750 and £2,000, where in each case the community charge is set at each £10 increment between £140 and £600.

  Mr. Key
  I have today placed in the Library tables showing the information requested. The tables relate to the number of adults in a property who are not exempt from the community charge.

  If there are people in a property who are exempt from the community charge for any reason, these people are disregarded in the calculation of the community charge reduction available to other occupants.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department is taking to encourage recycling by local authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires all waste collection authorities to prepare recycling plans. We have issued guidance on how to draw up the plans for consultation. We have also distributed £12 million of supplementary credit approvals for 1991–92 to enable local authorities to invest in recycling. This will add significantly to measures already in place to encourage recycling.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans to introduce new initiatives to reduce the number of homeless people in Britain.

  Sir George Young
  All those accepted as homeless by local authorities are provided with accommodation. For the relatively small numbers who are literally homeless, we 588
  have allocated £96 million over three years to central London; and we are considering the possibility of extending the initiative to other parts of the country.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has completed his review of derelict land policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I have today arranged for copies of a derelict land grant advice note setting out the Government's new priorities and objectives for derelict land grant (DLG) to be deposited in the Library of the House of Commons.

  The new policies set out in the advice note represent the culmination of the Review of Derelict Land Policy which has been carried out by the Department following the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to the House on 20 July 1988. There have been extensive consultations with local authorities and other interested bodies.

  The national priorities and objectives of DLG have been redefined to enable support to be given to the reclamation of sites for both development and environmental improvement. Priority will be given to the treatment of sites which are causing major environmental damage, particularly those which are badly contaminated. We have also enhanced the grant regime available to the private and voluntary sectors.

  These changes go hand in hand with the 23 per cent. increase in resources for DLG in 1991–92 which I announced in a reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on 7 February 1991 at column 226. The Government's aim is to broaden the scope of DLG as a nation wide grant for the reclamation of derelict land and to make the grant regime more flexible and attractive. This will speed up the rate at which derelict land is reclaimed and returned to an appropriate use for the benefit of the local community.

  In urban areas priority will be given to recycling land for development where there is a proven demand for investment from the private sector but reclamation for environmental improvement will also be welcomed in order to improve the attractiveness of an area as a place for investment or in which to live or work. This will include, for example, promoting nature or historic conservation and community forests.

  In rural areas, emphasis will be placed on reclamation in areas of particularly high scenic quality and on schemes to foster development having regard to local planning policies.

  Local authorities will be encouraged to develop reclamation strategies in consultation with local interests involved in reclamation. The number of rolling programmes of reclamation which allow local authorities to plan their reclamation strategies for several years ahead will be increased.

  A more attractive grant regime for the private sector and for voluntary bodies has also been introduced. A wider range of costs will be eligible for grant and voluntary bodies will be able to apply directly to the Department for grants to clear up neglected or unsightly land. Non-local authority DLG will also be re-introduced into the 57 urban programme areas.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each available year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, or the 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. Heseltine
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Information on my Department's energy consumption prior to 1989–90 is not readily available. In 1989–90 energy expenditure, excluding the Property Services Agency, was as follows (expenditure in 1990–91 money terms shown in brackets):

  £

  £

  Electricity

  1,593,562

  (1,717,063)

  Gas

  831,377

  (895,809)

  Oil

  362,696

  (390,805)

  Solid Fuel

  4,003

  (4,313)

  Consumption relating to these was as follows

  Kilowatt hours

  34,000,000

  Therms

  2,600,000

  Litres

  3,300,000

  Tonnes

  70

  The latest estimate of expenditure for 1990–91 which now includes Property Holdings is as follows (Property Holdings in Brackets):

  £

  £

  Electricity

  1,866,340

  (390,000)

  Gas

  766,932

  (66,000)

  Oil

  427,949

  (0)

  Solid Fuel

  1,500

  (0)

  Consumption relating to these was as follows:

  Kilowatt hours

  31,105,667

  (6,500,000)

  Therms

  2,095,442

  (180,500)

  Litres

  3,229,804

  (0)

  The area of accommodation relating to the 1990–91 figures is 1,303,197 square feet. This excludes specialised property such as the royal parks and palaces which are included in the expenditure and consumption figures but to which the concept of floor area is inappropriate.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, if he will make a statement on the number of disabled people who have been assisted in finding employment by his Department in each of the last 15 years?

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. However the Employment Service keeps information on the placings of people with disabilities into employment. I have asked Mike Fogden, chief executive of the Employment Service executive agency, to write to my hon. Friend on this operational matter.

  Radway Green Ordnance Factory
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies have been declared at the Radway Green ordnance factory in the last year.

  Mr. Forth
  Information given to the Department under the redundancy handling provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1975 is provided in confidence and remains confidential until made public by the company concerned.

  Child Care
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry to encourage companies to develop child care provision within their organisation to assist women at work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The CBI is represented on the advisory committee on women's employment which I chair. Child care has been discussed on a number of occasions. I welcome all steps by the CBI and other employers' organisations to encourage the adoption of flexible working arrangements and help with child care to assist working parents.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed claimants in each constituency in the west midlands in April 1990 and April 1991; what was the percentage change in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Unemployment in the west midlands remains 30 per cent. below what it was at the time of the last general election.

  Disabled Trainees
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 586, if he will list the action taken by his Department to ensure that there is no discrimination against trainees with disabilities; and if he plans to introduce further legislative protection for trainees who suffer unjustifiable discrimination on the grounds of disability.

  Mr. Jackson
  There is a range of measures to enable people with disabilities to benefit from Government training programmes. For example young people with disabilities remain eligible for a guaranteed place on youth training beyond 18 if their availability for YT has been delayed by the effects of their disability or health problem.

  From April 1991 people with disabilities regardless of the length of time they had been unemployed, were included in the Government's aim group that offers a place on either ET, EAS at a job club or on the job interview guarantee programme.

  People with disabilities can be supplied with appropriate facilities and support to enable them to join youth training and employment training and to pursue suitable training. This covers such items as adaptations to premises, special aids and equipment.
  591
  Training and enterprise councils are required to set out in their corporate and business plans how they intend to meet the training needs of people with disabilities. These plans form the basis of their contract with this Department.

  We have no plans to introduce further legislative protection for trainees.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what Business and Technician Education Council courses are financed through the TECs.

  Mr. Jackson
  TECs receive part of their funding from the Department of Employment for the achievement of NVQs and other equivalent qualifications acceptable to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. There are at present 222 BTEC qualifications so designated.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the organisations from which he received a response to his Department's consultative paper on the future of the careers service; and, of these, how many commented specifically on the future of careers advice for young people with disabilities.

  Mr. Jackson
  Many organisations responded to my Department's consultation on the future of the careers service announced in the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" (Cm. 1536). Those with an interest in providing services for people with disabilities were well represented in the responses. It is my intention to ensure that, however provision is organised, a high quality of careers service will be safeguarded everywhere.

  Woodlee Employment Rehabilitation Centre
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the provision by Woodlee employment rehabilitation centre in Egham of residential assessment and rehabilitation for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Secretary of State announced on 16 April, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans)Official Report, columns 157–59, that employment services for people with disabilities are to be improved and developed.

  New local employment service teams will be established over the next 12 to 18 months to provide more professional advice, assessment and help in finding and keeping work for people with disabilities.

  Greater use will be made of the voluntary sector and others to provide employment rehabilitation, including residential facilities, and nine employment service regional centres of excellence will be established over, approximately, the next five years.

  Operational responsibility for the development of employment services for people with disabilities, including the future of the Egham employment rehabilitation centre, rests with the chief executive of the Employment Service executive agency, Mike Fogden, to whom I have referred the right hon. Gentleman's question for a more detailed reply.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) members and (b) chairs of industrial tribunals are black; what ethnic monitoring policy is in operation in respect of industrial tribunals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  It is estimated that 51 lay members and 2 chairmen of the industrial tribunals are from the ethnic minorities. The number of lay members is monitored by asking applicants to give details of their ethnic origin. The monitoring of chairmen is a matter for the Lord Chancellor.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions have been issued to managers of job clubs in connection with visits by hon. Members and parliamentary spokesmen.

  Mr. Howard
  As an executive agency, the employment service is being encouraged to promote contact between hon. Members and their local ES offices.

  In the case of proposed visits by parliamentary spokesmen to local offices or to ES programmes such as job clubs, officials are required to notify such requests to my office. I am keen that parliamentary spokesmen should have an opportunity to see ES operations at first hand and I have written to the hon. Member to explain the position.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Student Numbers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what were the student numbers in the bachelor of education degree, honours, in each year since 1988 in(a) Stranmillis college of education and (b) St. Mary's college of education, Belfast;

  (2) what were the student numbers in the bachelor of education degree, general, in each year since 1988 in (a) Stranmillis college of education and (b) St. Mary's college of education, Belfast;

  (3) what were the student numbers in the diploma in the advanced study of education in each year since 1988 in (a) Stranmillis college of education and (b) St. Mary's college of education, Belfast;

  (4) what were the student numbers in the post-graduate diploma in education in each year since 1988 in (a) Stranmillis college of education and (b) St. Mary's college of education, Belfast and (c) Queen's university of Belfast.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers were:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (a) Stranmillis college

  BEd (Honours)

  499

  597

  637

  BEd (General)1

  98

  46

  —

  DASE2

  69

  70

  58

  PGCE3

  67

  63

  55

  PGCE (Hons) Psychology

  3

  6

  6

  (b) St. Mary's college

  BEd (Honours)

  512

  587

  629

  BEd (General)1

  111

  46

  —

  DASE2

  78

  99

  94

  PGCE

  65

  64

  58

  593

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Queen's university PGCE3

  119

  125

  146

  1 1987–88 was the last year of entry to the three-year general degree course. Since 1988–89 all BEd entrants have followed a four-year honours course.

  2 DASE figures represent the full-time equivalent student loan.

  3 The diploma in education was replaced by the postgraduate certificate in education in 1976.

  Education (Finance)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the budgetary allocation to Stranmillis college of education and St. Mary's college of education in each year since 1988.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The budgets for approved recurrent expenditure in the last three financial years were:

  Stranmillis college

  St. Mary's college

  1988–89

  3,544

  3,345

  1989–90

  3,836

  3,709

  1990–91

  4,117

  4,032

  The figures represent gross expenditure, part of which is funded from tuition fee income.

  Private Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many private residential and nursing homes are currently registered in the Eastern and Southern health and social services boards; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Hanley
  At 31 December 1990, the latest date for which information is held centrally, the numbers of nursing homes registered by the Eastern and Southern health and social services boards were 66 and 29, respectively.

  At 31 March 1991, the latest date for which information is held centrally, the numbers of homes for persons in need, registered by the Eastern and Southern health and social services boards were 105 and 23, respectively.

  As the list requested is very lengthy, I have arranged for a copy to be sent to the hon. Gentleman and for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Eye Surgery
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what measures will be taken to reduce the waiting list for cataract operations at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast;

  (2) what additional resources will be allocated to eye surgery at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast.

  Mr. Hanley
  Additional funds of some £440,000 have been allocated to ophthalmology at the Royal Victoria hospital over the past two years. The funds allocated thus far have enabled an extra 600 procedures to be carried out during 1990–91, the great majority of which have been for cataracts. I hope to announce in the near future further additional funding for 1991–92 which should enable an additional 1,200 procedures to be carried out during 1991–92.
  594
  Better management of waiting lists also helps to reduce both their length and the waiting time. The Department therefore supports the initiatives by the clinical resource efficiency support team, a group of clinicians formed to promote clinical efficiency. The team has produced a guidance booklet on waiting list management. As a result, boards have been asked to draw up programmes of management action focusing in particular on those specialties which have the greatest problems.

  Social Services Committee
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will announce the composition of the new Social Services Committee which replaces the district committees disbanded on 1 April.

  Mr. Hanley
  The chairmen of the four councils were announced on 4 April and I hope to be able to announce the membership within the next few weeks.

  Eye Surgery
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cataract operations were carried out at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast in each year since 1 April 1985.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information is based on calendar years from 1985 to 1988 and on the financial year for 1989–90. The numbers are:

  Year

  Cataract operations

  1985

  959

  1986

  957

  1987

  1,329

  1988

  1,595

  1989–90

  1,552

  Advance Factories
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what locations there are unoccupied advance factories.

  Mr. Needham
  There are unoccupied advance factories at Antrim (technology park), Armagh, Ballymena, Bangor, Belfast (Adelaide), Craigavon, Londonderry (Springtown), Newtownards and Strabane.

  Ryan Park, Castlereagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the Northern Ireland Housing Executive removed the play equipment from the play area at the rear of Ryan park in the borough of Castlereagh; and what proposals there are to provide play equipment for the children of this residential area.

  Mr. Needham
  I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that the Housing Executive has not removed any play equipment from the play area at the rear of Ryan park.

  The Department of Environment has been unable to establish who removed it. However, I understand that Castlereagh borough council is now considering the provision of new play equipment for the children of the area.

  Extradition (Irish Republic)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the persons who have been extradited for political offences since 1980(a) from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland and (b) from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, giving the year in which the extradition occurred and indicating the outcome of the case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. The legislation effecting extradition between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland precludes extradition for a political offence.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland including staff transferred from the former Fair Employment Agency, how many members of the Fair Employment Commission staff have been appointed since Mr. Harry Goodman was appointed chief executive of the commission; how many of these staff members are Roman Catholics; and if he will make a statement about Mr. Goodman's previous experience of industry and personnel management prior to his appointment as chief executive of the Commission.

  Mr. Needham
  Thirty one members of the Fair Employment Commission staff have been appointed since Mr. Harry Goodman was appointed chief executive of the commission, of whom 18 are Protestant and 13 are Roman Catholic.

  Mr. Harry Goodman's career began in the Northern Ireland civil service. Prior to leaving the NICS in 1978, he had been a senior manpower adviser on personnel and industrial relations matters, work which necessitated extensive contact with both sides of industry at the highest levels of both management and trade unions.

  On leaving the civil service, Mr. Goodman became assistant chief executive and chief officer (advisory services) of the Labour Relations Agency where his work included the development of a range of advisory services to industry on industrial relations and employment and personnel matters, as well as the management of finance and personnel within the organisation. He also had responsibility for the conciliation services associated with individual complaints.

  Mr. Goodman is an economics graduate of Queen's university Belfast and a fellow of the Institute of Personnel Management.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the number of persons whose perceived religious affiliation was Protestant and Roman Catholic and(a) operational staff and (b) other staff of (i) the Fair Employment Agency at the time of its dissolution, (ii) the Fair Employment Commission at the time of its creation and (iii) the Fair Employment Commission at the present time.

  Mr. Needham
  As the Fair Employment Agency became the Fair Employment Commission on 1 January 1990, the number of staff at the time of the agency's dissolution is the same as the number of commission staff at the time of its creation.

  The commission has declared its intention to make monitoring information available on a yearly basis. To make such information available more frequently and
  596
  covering shorter periods could infringe the confidentiality requirements of the Fair Employment Acts by disclosing the religious beliefs of identifiable individuals. Accordingly, details are provided in relation to support and operational staff as at 1 January 1991.

  1 January 1990

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Operational staff

  1

  15

  Support staff

  7

  4

  1 January 1991

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Operational staff

  18

  19

  Support staff

  12

  8

  Further Education
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has to remove further education in Northern Ireland from education and library board control;

  (2) if he will make a statement on his conclusions for the future of further education subsequent to the consultative document "Signposts for the 90s"

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General recently announced the conclusions that the Government have reached about the future of further education in Northern Ireland. These took account of the responses received to the consultative document "Signposts for the 90s". In particular, my right hon. and noble Friend announced proposed new arrangements designed to achieve the Government's aim of a better planned and co-ordinated system of further education in the Province. The Government are satisfied that this aim can be achieved without disturbing the existing statutory position of the further education colleges and the education and library boards.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will specify the number of lecturing posts in each college of further education which have been transferred from youth training programme funding to mainstream further education funding since April 1991.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Following the introduction of the block funding arrangements for the youth training programme (YTP) on 1 April 1990, the Department of Education was advised that, in a number of further education colleges, some full-time teaching posts which had been funded from YTP resources in previous years were now deployed mainly on mainstream (non-YTP) courses. The number of posts, and the colleges involved are:

  Name of College

  Number of posts

  Institute of Further and Higher Education—Belfast

  College of technology

  4

  College of busines studies

  3

  Rupert Stanley college

  3

  Antrim

  3

  Ballymena

  1

  Coleraine

  2

  Magherafelt

  3

  Newtownabbey

  5

  Fermanagh

  4

  597

  Name of College

  Number of posts

  Limavady

  3

  North West college

  6

  Omagh

  2

  Down

  9

  Lisburn

  2

  Newcastle

  5

  North Down and Ards college

  8

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will specify how much has been allocated by each education and library board to further education out of his recent announcement to allow boards to spend £2·7 million to help to prevent teacher redundancies and to specify the mechanism by which boards allocated this money to colleges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Of the total sum of £2·7 million allocated by the Department, £1·3 million was earmarked for primary schools. Boards then decided how the remaining £1·4 million should be allocated to their post-primary schools and further education colleges.

  The amounts allocated by boards to further education colleges were as follows:

  Education and library board

  £

  Belfast

  70,000

  Western

  50,000

  North-Eastern

  80,000

  South-Eastern

  Nil

  Southern

  40,000

  Boards allocated these sums to colleges by application of the formula set out in their FE delegation schemes or on the basis of greatest need.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will specify the amount of the unit of resource being applied by each education and library board to fund a full-time equivalent student in further education.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the relative value of the unit of resource for further education to the level of funding for an A-level student in each grammar school in each board area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

SCOTLAND

  Staffing Levels
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the whole time equivalent number of (i) medical staff, (ii) hospital doctors, (iii) general practitioners, (iv) community doctors and (v) nursing and midwifery staff employed in the Scottish health service in each year since 1974, inclusive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested for each year from 1974 to 1989 is contained in editions of Scottish Health Statistics, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.
  598
  Figures for 1990 are shown in the following table:

  Staff in post at 30 September 1990, whole-time equivalents

  Wte

  Wtu

  Medical staff

  9,918·0

  Comprising hospital doctors

  5,746·3

  Community doctors

  428·7

  General medical practitioners

  13,743·0

  General dental practitioners

  1,694·0

  Nursing and midwifery

  63,687·2

  1 Provisional, including assistants and trainees.

  Council Housing
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses there are; and how many council(a) houses and (b) flats have been sold in (i) Scotland and (ii) Renfrew district since May 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on local authority housing stock was published in table 14 of Statistical Bulletin HSU No. 17. Copies were sent to all Members representing Scottish constituencies and are available in the House Library.

  Information on the number of council houses and flats sold to sitting tenants between April 1979 and December 1990 is set out in the table.

  Total

  Houses

  Flats

  Scotland

  1159,020

  116,334

  42,267

  Renfrew

  7,064

  4,204

  2,860

  (1) Includes sales where dwelling type is not known.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mortgage repossessions there have been in(a) Strathclyde region and (b) Renfrew district during each of the past 12 months for which records are available; and what were the annual figures for each of the past 12 months.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available in the form requested. The Council of Mortgage Lenders publishes statistics in their regular newsletters on various aspects of mortgage lending by building societies but this is on a Great Britain basis and no corresponding information is available for Scotland only. No information about other mortgage lenders is held centrally.

  Road Safety
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve road safety in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office is committed to playing its full part towards achievement of the Government's target of reducing road accident casualties by one-third by the year 2000. The Scottish Office will work closely with local roads authorities to draw up the road safety plans recommended in the Local Authority Association's "Code of Good Practice" endorsed by COSLA in 1989. It will initiate appropriate engineering works and standards, publicity, education and enforcement measures and legislative changes to improve road safety in Scotland.

  In addition to a very substantial ongoing investment on the road network in Scotland, the Scottish Office has set up

  599
  an accident investigation and prevention (AIP) unit with its own budget to finance safety schemes on trunk roads. A rolling programme has been prepared by the local authority agents, whose accident remedial unit's viability and establishment has been largely underwritten by the volume of trunk road work, thus allowing expanded expenditure on local roads.

  The Scottish road safety campaign, which is largely funded by the Scottish Office, has an ongoing programme providing publicity and education materials in Scotland to raise public awareness of the importance of road safety. This is in addition to the Department of Transport's national campaigns.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many reported cases of rape there were in Scotland in 1989 and 1990; how many men were prosecuted for rape in each of these years; how many were convicted; what were the sentences; and how many had previously served a sentence for the same offence.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1989 and 1990, 328 and 326 cases respectively of rape were recorded by the police in Scotland. In 1989, 89 men were proceeded against, 50 of whom had a charge of rape proved against them. Of these 50, 39 were imprisoned, seven were sent to a young offenders' institution, two were admonished, one was fined and in one case no order was made.

  In 1989, three men successfully prosecuted for rape were recorded as having previously served a sentence for this crime. Court disposal figures for 1990 are not yet available.

  Mental Handicap
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will amend the current community charge legislation so as to exempt from any liability those with a mental health handicap who live in accommodation of the Ark housing association and other special housing associations.

  Mr. Lang
  I have no plans to make any changes to the existing community charge arrangements. However, I have previously made it clear that I would be prepared to do so if particular circumstances showed that changes were necessary.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will exempt those with a mental handicap who live in property of the Ark housing association and other special housing associations from liability to all or part of the proposed council tax.

  Mr. Lang
  We shall be considering the responses to the consultation paper on our council tax proposals before reaching final decisions on issues of this kind.

  Student Accommodation
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students were resident in college accommodation at each university in Scotland in 1990; and what was the proportion of the total number of students in such accommodation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is given in the table:
  600

  Session 1989–90

  University

  Number of students in university-owned residence

  Percentage of total full-time students

  Aberdeen

  2,808

  46·0

  Dundee

  1,494

  39·7

  Edinburgh

  4,270

  39·3

  Glasgow

  2,682

  23·3

  Heriot-Watt

  1,026

  23·3

  St. Andrews

  2,448

  62·1

  Stirling

  2,086

  61·1

  Strathclyde

  1,520

  18·2

  All Scotland

  18,328

  35·0

  Primary School Testing
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations have been made to him by school boards or parent-teacher associations which have been in favour of compulsory primary school testing.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  To date, about 1,300 representatives including those from school boards and parent teacher associations have been received, covering a complete spectrum of views on testing.

  Dogs
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of dogs in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) on 5 June 1991 at column 262.

  Farm Employment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers, partners, directors and farmworkers were employed by region in Scotland in June 1980.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of farmers, spouses doing farm work and farmworkers employed on main holdings in June 1980, by local authority region, is shown in the following table. Partners and directors are not separately enumerated in the June census but are included either as farmers or farmworkers.

  Region

  Number of farmers

  Number of spouses doing farm work

  Number of farmworkers

  Borders

  1,143

  309

  3,513

  Central

  738

  265

  1,322

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,352

  806

  5,176

  Fife

  755

  225

  2,623

  Grampian

  4,826

  1,290

  7,549

  Highland

  2,997

  938

  2,734

  Lothian

  805

  253

  2,802

  Strathclyde

  4,393

  1,989

  7,316

  Tayside

  2,025

  532

  6,212

  Islands

  3,027

  1,265

  1,355

  Scotland

  23,061

  7,872

  40,602

  Note:

  The coverage of main holdings has changed since June 1980. In 1986 some 6,000 holdings were transferred from the main to the minor holdings list. At that time these holdings returned 3,480 farmers, 1,071 spouses and 463 farm workers.

  Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations representing parents the Minister of State is willing to meet to discuss educational matters.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am happy of course to receive the views of parents on educational matters at any time, whether or not they are members of an organisation.

  House Repairs and Maintenance
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of private sector houses in Glasgow over each of the past five years, and the total amount of grant for repairs and maintenance in each year, and express that total as divided by the number of private sector houses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1991] : The available information is set out in the table. Grant is not payable for ongoing works of maintenance.

  Private sector dwellings1

  Amount of repair grant paid£2

  (a)

  (b)

  (b)÷(a)

  1986

  119,172

  24,143,865

  203

  1987

  122,176

  24,116,945

  197

  1988

  125,401

  23,575,413

  188

  1989

  128,093

  30,197,296

  236

  1990

  n/a

  18,690,760

  n/a

  1 Source: Valuation roll. Includes housing association dwellings.

  2 Source: Returns from Glasgow district council.

  n/a not available.

  New Towns (Employment)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs were created, and how many jobs were lost, in each of the Scottish new towns in 1990.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 6 June 1991]: This information is not available for the 1990 calendar year. The development corporations' estimates for the 1990–91 financial year are as follows:

  New town

  Number of jobs created

  Number of jobs lost

  Net loss or gain

  Cumbernauld

  872

  189

  +683

  East Kilbride

  864

  378

  +486

  Glenrothes

  1,571

  2,296

  -725

  Irvine

  1,091

  746

  +345

  Livingston

  3,864

  3,462

  +402

  Total

  8,262

  7,071

  +1,191

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 375, if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the amount spent on agricultural support in the United Kingdom under the common agricultural policy and by national grants and subsidies in both actual and real terms for 1960–61 and for each year from 1973–74 to 1990–91.
  602
  Mr. Curry
  Separate figures for expenditure under the Common Agricultural Policy and on national grants and subsidies are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the positive steps taken by his Ministry to move the emphasis from quantitative to qualitative support in agriculture policy in the EC.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government have supported a number of changes to the common agricultural policy designed to make Community agriculture more market orientated. Such changes should encourage farmers to respond to consumer demand and to rely less on artificial outlets such as intervention.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet constituents of the hon. Member for Devon, North who suffer from the effects of using organophosphorous sheep dip compounds.

  Mr. Maclean
  I met representatives from the Pesticides Exposure Group of Sufferers (PEGS) on 23 October 1990. I can see little advantage in having a further meeting at this time.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many complaints he has received about the physical side effects of organophosphorous sheep dip compounds; if he will refuse future licences for these compounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received 63 reports since 1985 of suspected adverse reactions concerning the physical side effects to humans of organophosphorous sheep dips. Twelve of these reports relate to products no longer licensed. In addition I have recently received 18 brief reports from the National Poisons Centre which my officials are currently investigating. I am not yet able to say whether these reports include duplicates of those mentioned above.

  These 63 reports should be set in the context of more than 1 million dippings since 1985.

  All suspected adverse reaction reports are investigated. Future licence applications for such compounds will continue to be determined in accordance with the Medicines Act criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. Existing organophosphorous sheep dip products are currently being reviewed to see whether they meet up-to-date standards. Any products which fail to do so will have to be withdrawn from the market. The review will be completed later this year.

  Pigs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library copies of representations he has received concerning his proposed regulations on sow stalls and tethers; and when he expects these regulations to become effective.

  Mr. Maclean
  Those consulted on the draft Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991 were not warned that their responses might be made public and I do not therefore propose to make them available.

  If Parliament approves the proposed regulations this month, they will make it illegal to use new close

  603
  confinement systems for pigs from 1 October this year and will phase out existing installations of this kind by the end of 1998.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the evidence of blue ear disease among pigs in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  Symptoms not immediately attributable to any specific disease have occurred on eleven premises in Humberside. Blue-eared pig disease, which has occurred in a number of other Community countries, cannot be ruled out as the cause. Movement restrictions have been imposed on the areas surrounding the holdings concerned and investigations are continuing.

  Meat Inspection Charges
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the practices of meat inspection charges being passed directly to producers.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are aware of the concerns expressed by livestock producers about the passing back of an element of the meat inspection charges. The purpose of meat inspection and residue sampling at slaughterhouses is, of course, to protect the final consumer. We are also aware that the Director General of Fair Trading is considering this issue and this Department stands ready to provide any inspection he may require.

  Dogs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 3 June,Official Report, what information he holds concerning the details of dogs imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  Prospective importers of dogs into this country are required to supply details of their animal such as breed, age and sex in order that the Department can issue an import licence. This information is used to check that a dog arriving in the United Kingdom is covered by an import licence. Subsequently the information is not

  Distribution of farmers and workers by county June 1980 census (England)

  Principal farmers or partners

  Other partners or directors

  Spouses of farmers/ partners or directors

  All other workers

  Total

  Avon

  1,890

  604

  584

  4,129

  7,207

  Bedfordshire

  1,118

  620

  467

  3,177

  5,382

  Berkshire

  735

  268

  220

  2,353

  3,576

  Buckinghamshire

  1,653

  620

  528

  3,477

  6,278

  Cambridgeshire

  3,497

  1,576

  1,182

  10,859

  17,114

  Cheshire

  3,848

  1,289

  1,336

  5,915

  12,388

  Cleveland

  430

  168

  122

  703

  1,423

  Cornwall

  6,243

  1,807

  2,263

  6,461

  16,774

  Cumbria

  5,698

  2,269

  2,103

  5,313

  15,383

  Derbyshire

  3,420

  1,194

  1,105

  3,796

  9,515

  Devon

  9,834

  2,722

  3,708

  10,390

  26,654

  Dorset

  2,501

  891

  938

  5,243

  9,573

  Durham

  2,002

  783

  722

  2,386

  5,893

  East Sussex

  1,864

  616

  635

  3,973

  7,088

  Essex

  3,154

  1,487

  1,084

  10,131

  15,856

  Gloucestershire

  2,652

  1,018

  877

  5,233

  9,780

  Greater London (East)

  130

  57

  42

  493

  722

  604
  required and it could only be retrieved at disproportionate cost. The numbers of import licences issued for dogs during the last five years are:

  Number

  1986

  4,738

  1987

  5,249

  1988

  5,132

  1989

  5,915

  1990

  5,999

  Sugar
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the 1991–92 farm prices as they affect sugar production and prices.

  Mr. Curry
  In the 1991–92 price settlement, EC support prices for sugar beet and white sugar were frozen at 1990–91 levels in ECU terms. A green pound devaluation will result in a 2·04 per cent. increase in these prices in the United Kingdom.

  Green Pound Devaluation
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on consumers arising from the recent green pound devaluation.

  Mr. Curry
  It is estimated that when the effects have fully worked through the devaluations will increase the food price index by approximately 0·25 per cent. and the retail price index by less than 0·05 per cent.

  Farm Employment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers, partners, directors and farmworkers were employed by county in England in June 1980.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is given in the table. Data are taken from the June 1980 agricultural census and hence exclude estimates for minor holdings not in the annual census.
  605

  Principal farmers or partners

  Other partners or directors

  Spouses of farmers/ partners or directors

  All other workers

  Total

  Greater London (South-East)

  281

  95

  92

  995

  1,463

  Greater Manchester

  1,393

  514

  510

  1,862

  4,279

  Hampshire

  2,478

  959

  818

  8,412

  12,667

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,787

  2,204

  1,915

  11,672

  21,578

  Hertfordshire

  1,112

  489

  322

  3,544

  5,467

  Humberside

  3,189

  1,682

  894

  8,890

  14,655

  Isle of Wight

  423

  116

  135

  1,054

  1,728

  Isles of Scilly

  61

  18

  30

  109

  218

  Kent

  3,690

  1,464

  1,231

  16,448

  22,833

  Lancashire

  5,399

  1,951

  2,095

  7,011

  16,456

  Leicestershire

  2,507

  1,011

  728

  4,026

  8.272

  Lincolnshire

  5,451

  2,626

  1,882

  17,901

  27,860

  Merseyside

  470

  219

  178

  1,109

  1,976

  Norfolk

  4,620

  1,786

  1,451

  17,761

  25,618

  North Yorkshire (Beverley)

  3,114

  1,256

  1,114

  5,546

  11,030

  North Yorkshire (North Allerton)

  4,636

  2,080

  1,438

  6,907

  15,061

  Northamptonshire

  1,674

  731

  496

  3,238

  6,139

  Northumberland

  2,024

  907

  709

  3,822

  7,462

  Nottinghamshire

  1,804

  799

  464

  4,408

  7,475

  Oxfordshire

  1,801

  751

  536

  4,701

  7,789

  Shropshire

  4,350

  1,635

  1,478

  6,788

  14,251

  Somerset

  4,812

  1,639

  1,767

  7,307

  15,525

  South Yorkshire

  1,251

  518

  373

  1,954

  4,096

  Staffordshire

  3,939

  1,336

  1,316

  5,304

  11,895

  Suffolk

  3,190

  1,428

  1,040

  10,476

  16,134

  Surrey

  1,354

  440

  475

  4,845

  7,114

  Tyne and Wear

  284

  116

  77

  580

  1,057

  Warwickshire

  2,041

  770

  653

  3,838

  7,402

  West Midlands

  461

  162

  156

  854

  1,633

  West Sussex

  1,628

  709

  681

  8,102

  11,120

  West Yorkshire

  2,519

  882

  751

  3,116

  7,268

  Wiltshire

  2,549

  981

  717

  6,019

  10,266

  Source: Agricultural census June 1980 (excludes minor holdings).

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the future of the Milk Marketing Board.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government's approach has been to encourage the dairy industry to come forward with proposals for more open and competitive milk marketing arrangements. We welcomed the milk marketing board's decision to submit plans for transforming itself to co-operative status. The next step is for the board to bring the dairy trade into its discussions and there will need to be an opportunity for wider consultation with all interests affected before decisions are taken. The Government are ready to facilitate change provided it commands industry support and is compatible with competition law.

DEFENCE

  JP233 Weapons
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has completed his evaluation of the effectiveness of the JP233s delivered by the RAF in the Gulf war; if this weapon is still being produced; and if any have been sold to other nations.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are continuing to study all aspects of the Gulf campaign. Production of the JP233 has now ceased. It is not our normal practice to comment on whether particular items of defence equipment have been sold abroad.

  Gulf War
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete the lessons of the Gulf weapons and tactics used by Her Majesty's Forces in the recent war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Detailed analysis of the campaign and the conclusions to be drawn from it is continuing, and will not be complete for some time.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now able to state how many of the seven Tornado aircraft lost in the Gulf war were shot down by enemy action; and how many crashed after flying into the ground without being hit by hostile fire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Of the six Tornados lost in action during the Gulf conflict, it now seems likely that two aircraft were lost to anti-aircraft fire and a third to a surface-to-air missile at medium level, but detailed investigations are continuing.

  Boxer System
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the Royal Air Force needs a new advance communications network; how many towers are to be built as part of the Boxer system, and where; how much these new arrangements will cost; what discussions he had with British Telecom and Mercury with a view to their providing such a network for leasing by the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Royal Air Force's existing communications system within the United Kingdom,
  607
  which relies almost entirely on commercially-rented facilities, lacks sufficient capacity for high-speed digital data transfer. The Boxer network which will replace it, will include a total of 212 microwave link towers, using existing towers wherever possible. For security reasons locations cannot be disclosed. The estimated cost of the project is £230 million. The option of continuing to rely on commercially-rented facilities has been considered but rejected on cost grounds.

  Married Quarters, Hampshire
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the sufficiency of availability of married quarters for the various units due to be withdrawn from BAOR under the new NATO arrangements; and what assessment he has made of the effect upon housing requirements in Hampshire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The future requirement for married quarters in the United Kingdom is currently being reviewed as part of the "Options for Change" studies.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the avoidance areas for low-flying military aircraft over Wales.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As set out in the Government's reply to the Defence Committee's report on low flying last year (HC 659/90), it remains our policy not to release such information.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the corridor for low-flying aircraft running north from the Severn estuary to the Black mountains was narrowed in the past 10 years; and what were the reasons for the change.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am not aware of any such corridor. The structure of the current United Kingdom low flying system is designed to make the widest possible area available for low flying training so as to minimise the level of disturbance to those on the ground.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if file will define the boundaries of the transit areas for low-flying aircraft over Wales now and those which existed prior to 1985.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom nuclear weapons will be allocated in support of the new allied command in Europe rapid reaction force; and what additional costs will result to the armed forces budget as a result of the NATO Ministers' meeting on 28 May.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We do not comment on nuclear weapon deployments. The costs of the force structure

  County

  Local authority

  Location

  Description

  Hectares

  Avon

  Bristol City Council

  Bristol

  Vale lane—Quarry

  1·619

  Bedfordshire

  North Bedfordshire BC

  Cardington

  RAF Cardington

  11·938

  Berkshire

  Windsor and Maidenhead DC

  Slough

  ARE Ditton Park

  30·351

  608
  emerging from the "Options for Change" study and from consultations with NATO are being further refined and the Government's spending plans for defence will be set out in the Autumn Statement following this year's public expenditure discussions.

  Challenger Tank
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ask General Dynamics to detail those aspects of its tender for the Challenger tank replacement which cover senior executives' emoluments.

  Mr Alan Clark
  No.

  Helicopter Flights, Northern Ireland
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average daily number of helicopter flights to and from Army installations at(a) Crossmaglen, (b) Bessbrook, (c) Forkhill, (d) Drummuckavall, (e) Crievekeeran and (f) Glassdrummond in each month since 1 January 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to provide operational details of this kind.

  General Dynamics
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those contracts valued at over £10 million for which General Dynamics is currently tendering as prime contractor.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Involving my Department, one only —the contract for a main battle tank to replace the Chieftain.

  Contract Tendering
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to ask companies tendering For contracts for information in relation to senior executives' emoluments.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Our existing arrangements with industry are adequate in this regard.

  Vacant Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out in the Official Report the location of each site and its acreage of the unused and underused land held by his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The MOD register of unused and underused land in England is presently being updated. A list of sites included in the register as at 31 March 1990 is set out below. Many of these sites have now been sold or are in the process of disposal. I will provide the hon. Member with a revised list when available. Similar information for land held in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
  609

  County

  Local authority

  Location

  Description

  Hectares

  Cambridgeshire

  Huntingdon

  Huntingdon

  RAF Brampton

  0·727

  Cambridgeshire

  Peterborough City Council

  Peterborough

  Saville Road

  0·499

  Cambridgeshire

  South Cambridgeshire DC

  Duxford

  Land adjoining M.Q's

  2·509

  Cheshire

  Macclesfleld BC

  Wilmslow

  Dean Row

  21·600

  Cheshire

  Warrington BC

  Stockton Heath

  103–115 Greenfields Avenue

  0·360

  Cornwall

  Caradon DC

  Saltash

  Land and Buildings

  1·044

  Cornwall

  Carrick DC

  Swanvale

  Oil Fuel depot

  3·400

  Cumbria

  Carlisle City

  Crindledyke

  Development land

  0·473

  Cumbria

  Carlisle City

  Longtown

  CAD—Site B

  0·500

  Cumbria

  Copeland BC

  Millom

  Hycemoor Way

  2·790

  Cumbria

  Copeland BC

  Whitehaven

  Eskmeals house

  2·800

  Cumbria

  Copeland BC

  Whitehaven

  Hycemoor Way

  2·860

  Derbyshire

  South Derbyshire DC

  Hilton

  CVD

  109·265

  Devon

  Plymouth City Council

  Mount Wise

  Land and Buildings

  2·010

  Devon

  Plymouth City Council

  Radford Woods

  Oil Fuel Depot

  11·730

  Devon

  Plymouth City Council

  Turnchapel

  Oil Fuel Depot

  5·110

  Devon

  South Hams DC

  Dartmouth

  Land—College Way

  1·340

  Devon

  South Hams DC

  Plymouth

  Renney Lentney Training Camp

  23·876

  Devon

  Torbay BC

  Brixham

  Oil Fuel Depot

  3·680

  Devon

  West Devon BC

  Harrowbeer

  Stores Depot

  3·800

  Dorset

  East Dorset DC

  Wimborne

  West Moore—Petrol

  1·619

  Dorset

  Weymouth and Portland BC

  Portland

  Folly Pier, The Grove

  13·000

  Dorset

  Weymouth and Portland BC

  Portland

  The Grove Reservoir

  4·000

  Durham

  Derwentside DC

  Consett

  Watling Street

  0·720

  Essex

  Braintree DC

  Braintree

  Land at RAF Ridgewell

  2·302

  Essex

  Colchester BC

  Colchester

  Bounstead Road

  0·510

  Greater London

  Barnet

  Hendon

  East Camp

  15·192

  Greater London

  Barnet

  Hendon

  HQ's

  0·405

  Greater London

  Barnet

  Hendon

  RAF Hendon

  0·405

  Greater London

  Barnet

  Whetstone

  Postal Buildings

  0·809

  Greater London

  Greenwich

  Woolwich

  Arsenal East

  32·375

  Greater London

  Greenwich

  Woolwich

  Cambridge House

  0·529

  Greater London

  Greenwich

  Woolwich

  Connaught Barracks

  2·428

  Greater London

  Greenwich

  Woolwich

  Roberts House

  0·480

  Greater London

  Hillingdon

  Harefield

  Harefield House

  4·047

  Greater London

  Hounslow

  Hounslow

  Beavers Lane Camp

  3·209

  Greater London

  Richmond·Upon-Thames

  Teddington

  ARE Queen"s Road

  0·821

  Hampshire

  Basingstoke & Deane BC

  Bramley

  Campbell Road

  14·810

  Hampshire

  Basingstoke & Deane BC

  Bramley

  Land at Coopers Lane

  0·210

  Hampshire

  East Hampshire DC

  Bramshott

  Land—Hammer Lane

  2·280

  Hampshire

  East Hampshire DC

  East Meon

  HMS Mercury

  12·830

  Hampshire

  Eastleigh BC

  West end

  RN Victualing Depot

  4·800

  Hampshire

  Fareham BC

  HMS Daedalus

  Land

  8·020

  Hampshire

  Fareham BC

  Hillhead

  RNE Seafield Park

  5·800

  Hampshire

  Fareham BC

  Lee·on·Solent

  Land at HMS Daedalus

  0·599

  Hampshire

  Fareham BC

  Titchfield

  Land adjacent HQ's

  0·510

  Hampshire

  Gosport BC

  Gosport

  Land—Fort Road

  2·274

  Hampshire

  Gosport BC

  Gosport

  Land—Haslar Road

  2·926

  Hampshire

  Gosport BC

  Gosport

  Priddy's Hard

  40·469

  Hampshire

  Gosport BC

  Rowner

  Caravan Site

  2·630

  Hampshire

  Gosport BC

  Rowner

  Red House Site

  3·743

  Hampshire

  Gosport BC

  Rowner III South

  Flats & Houses

  4·452

  Hampshire

  New Forest DC

  Calshot

  Land & Houses

  2·210

  Hampshire

  Portsmouth City Council

  Gunwharf

  HMS Nelson

  3·775

  Hampshire

  Portsmouth City Council

  Southsea

  RM Eastney

  14·600

  Hampshire

  Rushmoor BC

  Aldershot

  Willems Park

  8·069

  Hampshire

  Rushmoor BC

  Farnborough

  RAF Sports Ground

  4·856

  Hampshire

  Rushmoor BC

  Farnborough

  RAF Borough

  1·635

  Hampshire

  Winchester City Council

  Winchester

  Bar End Playing Fields

  4·110

  Hampshire

  Winchester City Council

  Winchester

  Peninsula Barracks

  6·070

  Hereford and

  Malvern Hills DC

  Malvern

  The Lills, Blackmore Park

  2·990

  Worcester

  Hereford and

  Malvern Hills DC

  Malvern Wells

  Wood Farm Camp

  9·000

  Worcester

  Hereford and

  Wyre Forest DC

  Kidderminster

  Land—Drakelow Lane

  4·500

  Worcester

  Hertfordshire

  Hertsmere BC

  Bushey

  Ford Close

  0·899

  Hertfordshire

  Three Rivers DC

  Leavesden

  Private Airfield

  96·315

  Hertfordshire

  Watford BC

  Leavesden

  Private Airfield

  10·522

  Humberside

  Beverley DC

  Leconfield

  Lissett and Carnaby Close

  2·480

  Humberside

  East Yorkshire DC

  Driffield

  Alamein Barracks

  5·140

  Humberside

  East Yorkshire DC

  Great Driffield

  Auchinleck Close

  6·268

  Kent

  Dover DC

  Deal

  Cold Blow Sports Ground

  8·181

  Kent

  Dover DC

  Dover

  Land—Broadlees Bottom

  8·370

  Lancashire

  Preston BC

  Preston

  Greaveston—Oil Depot

  3·600

  Lancashire

  Preston BC

  Preston Docks

  Former Oil Depot

  3·400

  610 611

  County

  Local authority

  Location

  Description

  Hectares

  Lancashire

  West Lancashire DC

  Burscough

  Land—OSU Burscough

  2·104

  Leicestershire

  Charnwood BC

  Burton-on-the- Wolds

  Souters Lane

  1·914

  Leicestershire

  Rutland DC

  North Luffenham

  Private Airfield

  0·437

  Lincolnshire

  East Lindsey DC

  North Coates

  Private Airfield

  11·331

  Lincolnshire

  West Lindsey DC

  Binbrook

  RAF HQ's

  23·876

  Lincolnshire

  West Lindsey DC

  Binbrook

  RAF Technical areas

  31·970

  Lincolnshire

  West Lindsey DC

  Hemswell

  Gibraltar and Passey Roads

  1·054

  Norfolk

  Breckland DC

  Watton

  RAF Watton

  2·921

  Northumberland

  Castle Morpeth BC

  Saltwick

  Tranwell Airfield

  2·428

  Nottinghamshire

  Broxstowe DC

  Beston

  Chilwell

  38·020

  Nottinghamshire

  Rushcliffe BC

  Ruddington

  Ruddington

  110·480

  North Yorkshire

  Harrogate BC

  Dishforth

  Pt. OS 2046

  4·570

  North Yorkshire

  Harrogate BC

  Dishforth

  Pt. OS 3246

  3·743

  North Yorkshire

  Harrogate BC

  York

  Accomb Portal Road

  0·613

  North Yorkshire

  Richmondshire DC

  Catterick

  Land—Catterick Road

  4·589

  North Yorkshire

  Richmondshire DC

  Catterick

  Richmond Road

  1·280

  North Yorkshire

  York City

  York

  Acomb Askham Lane

  2·400

  Oxfordshire

  Cherwell DC

  Bicester

  B Site

  38·040

  Oxfordshire

  Cherwell DC

  Bicester

  Langford Park Farm

  4·010

  Oxfordshire

  Cherwell DC

  Bicester

  Mellor Gate

  1·530

  Shropshire

  Shrewsbury and Atcham BC

  Shrewsbury

  Shelton Road

  5·463

  Somerset

  Taunton Deane BC

  Taunton

  Jellalabad Bks

  2·023

  Somerset

  West Somerset DC

  Watchet

  Land

  15·400

  Staffordshire

  East Staffordshire DC

  Fauld

  former RAF Site

  5·600

  Staffordshire

  Stafford BC

  Stafford

  Elsworthy Close

  1·412

  Staffordshire

  Stafford BC

  Stafford

  Naafi Site

  2·371

  Suffolk

  Ipswich BC

  Ipswich

  Yarmouth Road

  1·000

  Surrey

  Guildford BC

  Guildford

  Stoughton Barracks

  7·284

  Surrey

  Guildford BC

  Peasmarsh

  Artington Cold store

  4·048

  Warwickshire

  Warwick DC

  Hampton on the Hill

  1 to 10 Montgomery Ave

  1·500

  Wiltshire

  Kennet DC

  Everleigh

  Everleigh Manor

  12·760

  Wiltshire

  Kennet DC

  North Tidworth

  Land—Ludgershall Road

  ·215

  Wiltshire

  Kennet DC

  North Ludgershall

  Crawlboys Road

  23·195

  Wiltshire

  Kennet DC

  Tidworth

  Mathew Circular Estate

  6·475

  Wiltshire

  Kennet DC

  West Chisenbury

  Thatched Barn

  ·255

  Wiltshire

  Salisbury DC

  Amesbury

  Boscombe Down HQ's

  5·991

  Total Hectares

  1022·777

  Total Acres

  2527·333

  Batus Range Accident
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether metal detectors were used as part of the range clearance or safety measures before Grenadier guardsmen Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey were ordered to dig a trench in an impact area of the Batus live firing range in Canada on 7 July 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Metal detectors are not used as part of the range clearance measures at the Batus training area. The range covers some 2,630 sq km (1,000 sq mi) and it would be impractical to use detectors to sweep the area.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the findings and of the summary findings of the board of 612
  inquiry into the Batus range accident of 7 July 1989 involving Grenadier guardsmen Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will arrange for a summary of the findings of the board of inquiry into this incident to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement outlining the reasons for his conclusion that no blame attached to anyone for the detonation of an unexploded shell that caused grievous injuries to Grenadier guardsmen Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Legal advice was that it was not reasonably foreseeable that there should be a buried live munition at the spot where the trench was being dug and there was no blame attributable.

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

Baroness Hamwee
Sally Rachel Hamwee, having been created Baroness Hamwee, of Richmond upon Thames in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Seear and the Lord Tordoff, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Privatised Utilities: Consumer Interests
2.46 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the profits announced by the newly privatised utilities, the interests of consumers are adequately protected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the newly privatised utilities are all subject to regulation by independent bodies with statutory responsibilities to safeguard the interests of consumers. Where the regulators have reason to believe that excessive profits have been made at the expense of consumers they have powers to act. Price caps on British Gas and British Telecom have been progressively tightened. Gas tariff customers are protected by a formula limiting increases to 2 per cent. below the rate of inflation and this will be further constrained to RPI minus 5 per cent. from 1st April 1992. British Telecom price increases will be capped at RPI minus 6.25 per cent. for 1991–92 and 1992–93.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I find that Answer overburdened with complacency? Bearing in mind the substantial increase; in profits, the enormous increases in some salaries at the top of the scale and the substantial increase; to the customers, does the Minister believe that the consumer is getting a fair deal, and, if so, will he tell us why?
Lord Reay: My Lords, indeed I do. I consider that the position of the consumer has been transformed for the better since British Telecom and the other utilities were privatised. To take British Telecom as an example, the regulatory Oftel has been instrumental in motivating it to increase the quality of its services. The figures are getting better each year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is reassuring to those who supported privatisation to find that the only complaint about the privatised industries is that they have made too much profit? If they had made a loss, we should have heard all about it.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. If the efficiencies brought about by the private sector enable high growth in profits, that is good for the many shareholders and for the taxpayers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the Minister believes that the consumer is better off under privatisation, is he not living in fairyland? Is he aware that last year British Gas increased prices no fewer than three times? I have just received my electricity bill. The price has increased by 11.25 per cent. when inflation is running at 6.2 per cent. What is more, I have also received my water bill, which has increased by 15 per cent. How on earth are those inordinate and enormous increases benefiting the consumer?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned gas in the first place. As well as, as I mentioned, introducing a challenging new price cap for British Gas which will run from 1st April 1992, Ofgas has negotiated guaranteed standards of service as part of the package. A compensation scheme for consumers in the event of failure to provide adequate standards of service is now an integral part of the new authorisation scheme. British Gas also now offers a free, independent energy efficiency advice service, free safety checks and free adaptation of appliances for the elderly and the disabled. That is improvement.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the public utilities in question had been more effectively restructured before privatisation, there would now be greater competition in those sectors and the interests of the consumer would have been better safeguarded?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords, I do not agree. In the case of some former state industries an element of monopoly remains, which is in the nature of things. However, in those cases the Government can and will ensure that an independent regulatory system is in operation to protect the interests of the consumer where that role cannot wholly be left to the forces of competition. I should like to add that even then privatisation is valuable because it enables the ownership of an industry to be separated from its regulation and frees businesses to operate in the market without government interference or the constraints of public expenditure requirements.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, while I accept and support all that the Minister said about the benefits of privatisation, will he give solace to a telephone consumer—whose face I could easily identify in the House—who has been invited to pay charges on a line that was not used for calls that were not made?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend refers to a matter that has occurred recently or on an earlier occasion. Any complaints should be taken up in the first place with the utilities; and failing that with the regulator.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, what effect will the various capping procedures that the Minister outlined have on the grossly inflated standing charges? Those

1081
charges cause great hardship to the people who can least afford them and often bear no relation to the use of those instruments, in particular for telephone and gas. What will he do about the standing charges?
Lord Reay: My Lords, those are matters for which the regulators have the power and duty to investigate because they are under an obligation to promote the interests of the consumers.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Government always say that the most grievous issue they have to fight is inflation. They are, of course, right. The higher prices of the services provided by those privatised industries mean considerable increases in the bills of ordinary working people. When trade unions ask for increased wages in order to meet those increases they are told that they should hold their demands so that inflation does not rise. Will the Minister ensure that those privatised industries play their part and show the same restraint that British trade unions have done?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord is not right. Prices have fallen by about 11 per cent. in the case of gas, and standing charges by about 29 per cent., in real terms, since privatisation. In the case of telephones, the prices of principal services have fallen by more than 22 per cent. in real terms since privatisation in 1984.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the words "the interests of consumers" in the Question include conservation, especially of water in time of drought? What has privatisation contributed to that aim?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not have details of the terms of reference for the regulators. However, the regulators have an obligation to take into account the interests of the consumer. That is why they are in place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the privatised monopolies that the Government have set up suffer from an inadequate regulatory machine which needs to be strengthened? Does he further agree that on privatisation the first change is that the salaries of chairmen and boards of directors rise by a spectacular amount? What help is that to the consumer?
Lord Reay: My Lords, pay is a matter for the company. I do not agree with the noble Lord's charge that regulation is inadequate. I should have thought that my answers indicated the importance of the action that the regulators took.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his Answer to my Question, the Minister stated that the regulatory bodies were functioning. He must be aware that some weeks ago I raised the matter of water increases. Some people had to meet increases on their bills of approximately 27 per cent. Bearing in mind that the area concerned already has a hosepipe ban, how can those people be charged an increase of 26 per cent. to
1082
27 per cent. if the regulatory body is doing its job? Does that not indicate that the point made by my noble friend Lord Williams is absolutely correct?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not believe so. The regulators will no doubt examine the figures. They will be expected to act if there is evidence, for example, that the level of profits is excessive.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is it true that one of the main advantages of high profits is that it has enabled privatised industries to borrow on the market and to put right all the under-investment that occurred during the years of nationalisation, in particular with regard to water?
Lord Reay: My Lords, yes, my noble friend is absolutely and completely right.

Sri Lanka: British High Commissioner
2.59 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the recent declaration by the Government of Sri Lanka that the British High Commissioner is persona non grata.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, our immediate response has been to cancel high level visits, including one by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which was planned for this month. We are also reviewing other aspects of our relationship. We intend to move quickly to nominate a successor to Mr. Gladstone as High Commissioner in Colombo.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very encouraging reply. Has the Minister seen a recent statement by President Premadasa? In referring to the Diplomatic Corps of which our retiring High Commissioner was a distinguished member, he said of those members of the Diplomatic Corps who had been making representations regarding human rights that he would catch them by the ear and throw them out. Is the noble Earl aware that at the present time the Consortium of Aid Donors is meeting to consider a budget of 1.67 billion dollars to Sri Lanka? Does the Minister believe that such statements are conducive to further assistance? Will he confirm that the recent order for 14 fighter bombers and eight helicopters from China is not being financed to any extent from aid funds?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am aware of the meeting that is soon to take place on aid. I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's fourth supplementary question but I should be surprised if arms sales were financed out of aid. They certainly will not be financed from British aid.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that Mr. Gladstone was declared persona non grata because he drew the attention of the Sri Lankan Government to an irregularity in their election procedures? Is it not also the case that he was one of

1083
several Western European diplomats who acted as observers in the election? Should not the Sri Lankan Government have been grateful to him for drawing their attention to what was a serious flaw?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Sri Lankan Government made four complaints. First, they claimed that Mr. Gladstone was a member of an official international observer team; secondly, that he entered polling booths; thirdly, that at one booth he made an entry in the official journal that an irregularity had occurred; fourthly, that he made a written statement at a police station reporting allegations made by some voters of electoral malpractices. Mr. Gladstone has denied that he claimed to be a member of the official international observer team. However, he acknowledged the last three complaints that I mentioned. All his actions were carried out with the specific approval of the election officials in the country. He has the full support of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we on these Benches were pleased to hear the Minister's last remarks. We wish to record that we admire the stance taken by Mr. Gladstone; it comes as no surprise to Members on these Benches in the light of the distinguished name that he bears. Is the Minister sure that the proper course is to send further representatives to Sri Lanka without its government having shown signs of accepting our diplomatic representation in a proper way and, in particular, while they continue to abuse human rights?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we believe it right to have a representative in Sri Lanka at High Commissioner level. We were sad that the Sri Lankan Government took the step it did, which did nothing to further the relationships between our two countries. However, in order to protect our interests there and in order to encourage them down the path of improved human rights, we believe that there should be a High Commissioner in place.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, has there been any similar precedent whereby a Commonwealth Government have expelled an Ambassador or High Commissioner?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I regret that I cannot answer my noble friend's question.

Merchant Ships: Defence Role
3.3 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff Lord Callaghan of Cardiff asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the reason for the four-month delay in publishing the promised review of the defence needs of the Armed Forces for adequate merchant shipping.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, copies of the Executive summary of the report on the study into the future supply and demand for UK merchant ships in
1084
time of war were placed in the Libraries of both Houses yesterday. I regret the delay in making the summary available. That arose because some elements of the work took longer than expected.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the report. It demonstrates once again the power of a parliamentary Question. What steps do the Government intend to take about one of the report's conclusions that, in the event of tension, there will be a significant shortage of certain types of ships to meet our needs? Do the Government intend to use the Finance Bill as a last opportunity to prevent the continuous flagging out of ships from the British Merchant Navy and its continuing decline?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we must remember that the study examined the supply of and demand for merchant shipping in the context of a major world war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. That is now a less likely scenario. The Finance Bill is a matter for another place. I understand that amendments have been tabled to the Bill which may be debated next week. Noble Lords will just have to wait and see.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not the case that our Armed Forces were short of Merchant Navy capacity during the Falklands war and had to grub around for tonnage? Is there any intention to have a joint Merchant Navy in the Economic Community after 1992? If such an appalling event took place, it would not look good for the defence of this country bearing in mind the performance of some of our European partners during the recent fracas in Kuwait.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware that there was a shortage of merchant tonnage during the Falklands war. I know of no proposals for a joint Merchant Navy involving the Community countries. In the event of a major war involving NATO, with which the study was involved, the United Kingdom would have access to the NATO pool of shipping.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the vital role that we play in NATO and the fact that we have always regarded the Merchant Navy as an essential part of our defence, can the Minister assure the House that the Merchant Navy will be treated as a full member of the Armed Forces?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we recognise the value of the Merchant Navy in support of our Armed Forces. It is not a part of our Armed Forces but we recognise its value in addition.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that on numerous occasions anxiety has been expressed about the vital part that merchant shipping will play in any defence requirements? In view of the fact that the summary of the report is now in the Library of the House but that few noble Lords will have read it, will he assure the House that the matter will be dealt with in today's debate on defence?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, what is dealt with in the debate will be a matter for noble Lords

1085
who take part. They may wish to see the summary that has been placed in the Library. The study was made in the context of an event which is now less likely to occur.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it is not for noble Lords who take part in the debate to make a statement but for the Government to make an official Statement. As the House is about to debate the important question of defence, will the Government make a Statement about the study?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware that the Government have any plans to do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend rightly values the importance of the Merchant Navy. Is he aware that the new cadet entry for 1988 was 69 while in 1975 it was 2,315? Can anything be done about that figure?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not know from where my noble friend obtained those figures. Since 1988, when the Merchant Shipping Act gave the Government powers to give assistance to the training of cadets, the annual recruitment has risen from 162 to 525 this year.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the figures came from the United Kingdom Shipping Industry Study for the British Maritime Charitable Foundation and has he seen that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that may be the case, but the recruitment figure for this year is 525.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report to which he has referred states that there will be a need for 10,000 seafarers between now and the year 2,000? It is unlikely that we shall recruit them. Has he noted that the latest addition to the P&O fleet is a 70,000 tonne cruise liner which has been constructed in Italy, will be registered in Italy, will be manned by Italian seamen and will operate out of Fort Lauderdale in the United States? In the event of tension, when we may need such a ship for our own purposes, is it really provident to rely on a ship of that kind with a foreign crew? Do not the Government run a serious risk in this regard?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, without the full facts before me, I cannot give a definitive answer to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I suspect he will find that the ship is flagged in Italy because it was built in Italy under special incentives which require it to remain under the Italian flag for a certain period of time. We had the same situation up until a few years ago. As soon as that time period expires, the ship will probably leave the Italian flag.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, has not the Minister heard the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, say that, in the absence of any further financial help, he intends to flag out further ships and that this is one of those ships? Why does the Minister believe that the ship will return to this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, according to the noble Lord, the ship is already flagged out and has not been under our flag.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, why did not the Government give special incentives so that the ship might be built in this country where our shipyards are being run down and badly need ships to build?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, a problem of merchant shipping around the world has been over-subsidisation of shipyards which has resulted in over tonnaging, low profits and no incentive to own ships.

Dog Attack Victims: Compensation
3.11 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether individuals who suffer serious injury as a result of an unprovoked attack by a dog or dogs are eligible for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme covers injuries caused by crimes of violence. Applications from victims of dog attacks can be entertained if a crime of violence has been committed; for example, where a dog has been deliberately set on the victim.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply, which illustrates the capricious and thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the law as it stands. Will the noble Viscount agree that at present severely injured victims of dog attacks, such as the unfortunate girl in Bradford and the bakery worker in Lincoln, can obtain no effective redress unless the dog owner in question happens to be well-to-do, which is not very often the case? Will Her Majesty's Government take the opportunity offered by the Bill which is to come before us in 13 days time to rectify that state of affairs, and to do so retrospectively?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that a person had to be well-to-do. That is not the case. The important point is that compensation is payable only where there has been a crime of violence and there is proof of that. The financial position of the owner or the person in charge of the dog is not relevant. Noble Lords will be aware that we shall have an opportunity to debate the Dangerous Dogs Bill on 25th June.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for the hint contained in that last remark. However, I believe that he misunderstood me. Theoretically, victims of attacks by dogs can take civil action against the dog owner, but that is no good if the dog owner has no money with which to reimburse the victim.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that does not affect the question of compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is there not a real problem here? As I understand the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Bill, the Secretary of State has indicated that he will set up a third party insurance scheme in respect of pit bull terriers and those Japanese dogs. As the owner of a gentle and, indeed, very cowardly spaniel, I think perhaps it is going too far to have third party insurance for all dogs. However, since the Bill does not cover dobermans, rottweilers, alsatians, or some of the more vociferous mastiffs, will the Government consider that it would make sense to have a third party insurance scheme covering dangerous dogs?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is not for me to pre-empt the debate on the Bill when it arrives in this House. There will be an opportunity to discuss insurance matters in that debate.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
3.14 p.m.
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 Lord Boston of Faversham be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session and that the Lord Hesketh be added to the panel in place of the Lord Denham.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Defence Policy
3.15 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook Lord Colnbrook rose to call attention to the case for adequate defence forces in view of changes in the world situation in the past 12 months; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to think that this debate is timely. It is nearly a year since we had the opportunity of discussing this country's defences. Much has happened in that year and is still happening. Furthermore, we have not yet had the 1991 defence White Paper and we have not been told precisely when it will be published save that it will be published before the House rises for the Summer Recess. If the White Paper is not published before next month, I guess that in view of the amount of government business still before us the chances of this House being able to discuss it before late into the autumn are fairly slim. Not only will that be much too late but by then this Parliament may have been dissolved and we shall never have the opportunity to discuss it at all.
In raising this subject today I make no claim to be an expert either on defence or on the world situation. There are many noble Lords who are experts in this House and I am delighted to see how many wish to take part in the debate today. In particular, perhaps I
1088
may say how much we are all looking forward to hearing the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, who is to make his maiden speech.
No, my Lords, I speak as one who, having fought in the Second World War, abhors wars of all kinds and sizes but who firmly believes that more wars begin because one side appears weak and unwilling than ever they do when a potential opponent seems well-prepared and stout-hearted. I do not know whether the Second World War could have been avoided if we and our allies had shown ourselves more determined and better able to resist Hitler's ambitions —perhaps not—but I do know of one that took place only nine years ago which could have been avoided; that is the Falklands conflict. It was not that we were not ready and willing to resist General Galtieri's aggression—we were—but that we did not appear to be. In the end, the announcement of the proposed withdrawal of HMS "Endurance" made him think that the lights were green for him to do whatever he liked. I hope to heaven we do not make that mistake again.
As regards our major potential enemy of over 40 years standing—the Soviet Union—the outlook is nothing like as certain as one would wish it to be. Two years ago, when great and welcome changes began in Eastern Europe, a wave of tremendous optimism swept over the western world. Some people felt that the risk of a major conflict had gone for ever; that peace and light would henceforth always prevail; that our defences could be dismantled and that the money saved—the so-called "peace dividend"—would be available to remedy all the domestic and social ills from which this country is supposed to be suffering. I shall have more to say about the "peace dividend" shortly. At present the main effect of curtailment of expenditure on defence is that a lot of people in and out of the armed services are losing, or are going to lose, their jobs. That is not much of a dividend for them.
While, of course, one can understand and, to an extent, share that optimism, I have been reassured to know that the Government tempered it with a lot of caution. In our debate last year my noble friend Lord Arran, opening for the Government, referred to all these developments and then said:
"However, we need to retain strong defences: history has not come to an end, and no one can suppose that either the Soviet Union, whose forces continue to be modernised, or, in the wider world, instabilities and risks will not threaten our security."—[Official Report, 17/7/90; cols. 770–771.]
That must be right. From all the news and comment that I read, see and hear, the message is clear. The Soviet Union is far more unstable than it was a year ago. All manner of questions arise. Will the Soviet Union survive as it is now? Or will it split into its constituent parts? If it does, what will happen then? For that matter, if it does not, what will happen? Will Mr. Gorbachev survive? If he does not, who will take over? Will it be a moderniser like him who wants to abandon the Marxist creed, including its aim of world domination? Or will it be the military, which believes that everything can be settled by force of arms? I do not know. Perhaps others who follow me who have spent their lives studying these matters will know.

1089
Perhaps the Government know. I strongly suspect that nobody knows, not even the Russian people themselves.
One question in regard to the Soviet Union is perhaps of immediate relevance to this debate. Over the past year discussions and negotiations about arms control and the reduction of weapons of war—nuclear, chemical and conventional—and men and materials have been proceeding between East and West, mostly with encouraging results. Following that, especially the CFE Treaty, NATO has been able to revise its requirements for the forces at instant readiness in Europe and we were all glad that the defence Ministers, at their meeting on 28th and 29th May, came to agreement, particularly as to the establishment of a rapid reaction corps under British command. In my view it is also of the greatest importance that the United States, in spite of its current financial difficulties, is to continue to play a leading, although reduced, role in NATO.
The Soviet Union also is in the process of reducing its forces in Europe. That is good news. However, it is continuing to modernise its forces with new weapons and systems. On the face of it that does not seem to be unreasonable; we are too. It is the scale of it that I find disturbing. My understanding is that the Soviet Union's military expenditure is higher now than it was six years ago, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of its gross domestic product. Some say that it is as high as 25 per cent. of GDP.
Only the day before yesterday there was an exchange in this House in answer to the Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in regard to the size of the Soviet Navy. It can only be described as enormous. No less than 1,145 operational warships and submarines are in the Soviet Navy. Of that number there are apparently no less than 285 submarines. If my memory serves me correctly, at the beginning of the Second World War Hitler had only 50 operational submarines, and they very nearly did for us.
Furthermore, the Soviet Union's shipbuilding programme includes more, not less, submarines than it did a year or two ago. According to Jane's Weekly of the 1st of this month, last year they built a new submarine every four-and-a-half weeks. What on earth for? Submarines are not defensive weapons—not that the Soviet Union has any essential sea-borne trade to defend, unlike this country, to which such trade is vital. They are extremely offensive weapons. I find that development inexplicable. It worries me and I must say to the Government that we ignore it at our peril.
In all this, only one thing is certain. It is best described in a favourite saying of my right honourable friend the Member for Finchley, whom I often heard say:
"In politics, the unexpected always happens".
The truth of that could not have been better demonstrated than it was last summer. I have read and reread the speech made by my noble friend Lord Arran at the beginning of our defence debate on 17th
1090
July last year. In all those columns of Hansard I can find only one reference to the Persian Gulf: he speaks of,
"the welcome reduction in tension in the Gulf".—[Official Report, 17/7/90; col. 774.]
There is no mention of it at all in his winding-up speech, so it is safe to infer that no noble Lord raised any anxieties about the Persian Gulf during the whole of the debate. Yet, 17 days later Saddam Hussein marched into Kuwait, with the resulting heavy calls on our military resources of which we are all aware.
Perhaps I may pay a tribute to our military forces for their actions in the Gulf, though it has been done before and by better people than I. We all admire the way that they engaged themselves in very difficult circumstances and with enormous credit and skill. We owe them a great deal.
When will the next emergency be? I have not the faintest idea and I do not suppose anyone else has either. All I know is that there will be a next time somewhere, sometime, and we must be ready to cope with it. That is the Government's dilemma and the dilemma of every British government over the years. We are a peace-loving people and resent spending our money on soldiers, sailors and airmen and their expensive equipment unless we can clearly see a danger staring us in the face. The moment we think it has receded or disappeared we talk about a peace dividend, which either means keeping the money in our own pockets or spending it on some desirable cause whose advocates cry out that their whole operation will crumble about their ears—and ours—unless large amounts of the taxpayers' money are immediately injected.
There is nothing new in that. By chance I have been rereading the late Sir Arthur Bryant's life of Samuel Pepys. Exactly the same thing happened in 1667. The Dutch had been mauled in a naval battle the year before. That danger was felt to have gone; money was short and needed elsewhere; the fleet was paid off and laid up. What happened? Three months later the Dutch appeared in the Thames with an enormous fleet; they came up the Medway, captured and burnt our ships and landed troops at Sheerness. Time after time we do this, generation after generation. It always costs us dear in the end.
The Treasury does not help. It is always looking for ways to save a pound here, a million there, a billion somewhere else. I do not blame it. It is the Treasury's job. The trouble is that its Ministers' eyes and its civil servants' work are so firmly on its books, its ledgers and its balance sheets that it is almost impossible to expect it to lift those eyes and contemplate realistically the perils of the world. I know, I have had to try. For that we have to relyon my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Cabinet as a whole. That is why I am grateful to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal for taking part in today's debate. I know that everything your Lordships say will be faithfully and forcefully represented direct to the Cabinet.
So far we have only the sketchiest idea of what the Government intend to do, based almost entirely on the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State on 25th July last year, setting out his broad

1091
proposals following his consideration of Options for Change, an exercise which dates back to February 1990. Certainly we had his Answer to a Question in the other place on 4th June this year giving his proposed figure for the size of the Regular Army but not the reserves. I view the figure with some apprehension, in that it is not only lower than that which he envisaged a year ago, but it is the smallest figure for the Army that I can ever remember. Certainly our commitments in Europe are less; but the proposed reduction is greater than that at a time when our other commitments, including those in Northern Ireland, show no signs of decreasing. I suppose that it can be said that the world is a safer place than I can ever remember it. I do not believe it.
The Secretary of State cannot be criticised for taking his time, especially in view of the Gulf war and the uncertainties in the Soviet Union of which I have spoken, and the absolute necessity, which we all accept, of reaching agreement with our NATO allies. But there are uncertainties here too. Over too long a period that is bad for everyone. It is bad for the Armed Forces; it is bad for the Civil Service because if the Armed Forces are to be smaller, surely so too must be the Civil Service. It is also bad for the hundreds of thousands of people who supply the services with their ships, tanks, guns, clothes, food and everything they need and who do not know whether or not they will have a job after the summer holidays.
I shall not go on because I know that others much more knowledgeable and experienced than I will put forward their assessment of the perils we face and of what size and shape of Navy, Army and Air Force we need to counter them; how those forces should be equipped and how we can get them to where they are needed. I shall simply close by saying that I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the whole Cabinet agree with me that the first duty of any government, over-riding everything else, is to ensure the safety of this country and all its people. This Government, I am confident, will dc that duty. I beg to move for Papers.
3.31 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate. It may be helpful if I come in at this early stage.
The Motion under debate calls attention to changes in the international situation since my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced Options for Change nearly a year ago. And changes have certainly occurred—some immensely encouraging; some much less so. On the encouraging side is the continued growth of democracy and freedom in Europe. Soviet troops continue their withdrawal from the countries of Eastern and Central Europe, and will be gone from Hungary and Czechoslovakia by the end of this month. Germany has been unified as a sovereign state enjoying full NATO membership. With the recent dismantling of the military structure of the Warsaw Pact, the threat posed to NATO by the presence on its borders of a massive military force is gone.
1092
The meeting last autumn of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe established a permanent framework for more open and cooperative relations between East and West; and although there have been well-publicised difficulties over the interpretation of the CFE Treaty signed by NATO and Warsaw Pact nations, there is reason to expect that they will be satisfactorily resolved.
In May the intermediate nuclear forces treaty was fully implemented and we hope to see further progress in nuclear arms control with the signature by the US and Soviet Union of a strategic arms reduction treaty, and reductions in short-range nuclear forces. However, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological as well as nuclear, in the world is a matter which must concern us all. The Government will continue to seek comprehensive and properly verifiable global agreements to prevent their spread.
In spite of all the changes in Europe, the Soviet Union remains the largest conventional military power with a massive nuclear arsenal. As my noble friend Lord Colnbrook emphasised, its political future is uncertain. Furthermore, in Central and Eastern Europe there is a risk that the thawing of the Cold War will unfreeze old rivalries and tensions.
So we need to maintain sound collective defence based on NATO. The transatlantic dimension is crucial. European security without the US simply does not make sense. It is vital that a significant number of US forces—both conventional and nuclear—remain in Europe. It is also essential that we keep a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons to provide effective deterrence.
But there is still scope for measured change—tempered, as my noble friend urged, with caution—with a stronger European input to the collective defence. It is right that the countries of Europe should be taking on a greater responsibility for their own defence, and that they should acquire a more distinct role within the alliance. But European defence should not be pursued separately from the alliance and the functions of the alliance should not be duplicated.
We believe that the best way of strengthening the European pillar of NATO will be by developing the Western European Union. It is an organisation well-placed to build up close links both with NATO and with the evolving political union of the Twelve, and to act as a bridge between the two. It has already shown its ability to co-ordinate joint European action in the Gulf. It therefore makes sense to retain and develop this capacity for possible use outside the NATO area. This will not undermine or cut across NATO's role or duplicate NATO's military structure.
NATO's review of strategy and force structures was set in train by the Heads of State and Government meeting at the NATO Summit last July, and a framework for future force structures has been settled. It has been agreed that the British Army's main contribution should be as part of a new multinational Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps under permanent British leadership, with the corps including two British and two multinational divisions, and other forces as made available by allies.

1093
Unfortunately, there are many sources of conflict in the world that will not disappear through a lessening of tension between East and West. The Gulf crisis has shown that regional instability may throw up danger affecting the whole international community. Happily, in the case of Kuwait, the world community was determined to see that aggression did not succeed.
Help for Kuwait came from all parts of the world; and British forces, demonstrating their ability to perform effectively far from their familiar environment, played a significant role in the coalition formed to defend Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and to uphold the authority of the United Nations.
The frigates and destroyers of the Armilla patrol, together with RAF Nimrod aircraft, played a major part in the enforcement of the trade embargo. The Royal Navy's mine countermeasure vessels were at the forefront of the allied naval campaign, with Lynx helicopters armed with Sea Skua missiles having considerable success in removing the threat from Iraqi patrol boats and other vessels.
In the land campaign, 1st Armoured Division was the largest British merchanised formation to see action since the Second World War. The division carried out its task of defeating elements of the Iraqi armoured tactical reserve both quickly and decisively. RAF Tornado F3 air-defence aircraft and Jaguar ground-attack aircraft—deployed rapidly to the area as part of the initial multinational response to the invasion—were joined by Tornado GR1 aircraft. They played an immensely important part in the allied air campaign with low-level night attacks on Iraqi airfields and precision bombing attacks on bridges and other targets.
The international scene, and the part played by British forces in the Gulf, confirm, we believe, the prudence of the Government's defence policy. Many of the positive changes in Europe are so advanced as to be virtually irreversible and we are confident that our future security can be maintained at lower levels of forces. But we are planning for cautious and measured change, convinced that we must retain a robust and flexible defence capability as our insurance against the unexpected—and the unexpected we have certainly seen, as my noble friend pointed out. Our experience in the Gulf confirms the need for this approach.
Since last July, and against the background of events in Europe and in the Gulf, work has continued to cost and refine the broad proposals for change to frontline force structures which were outlined in the Statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It has been a major and complex undertaking and I make no apology for the fact that we are not rushing to hasty conclusions. But some initial decisions have already been announced and it is right that I should mention a few of them now.
First, our plans for the Royal Navy reflect careful consideration of the Soviet naval threat. The Soviet navy is still introducing new ships into service but is declining in size as older vessels are paid off. However, as my noble friend said, it is still enormous. The force levels we envisage will allow us to honour our obligations to NATO in times of peace and war. We
1094
shall also remain capable of making a significant contribution to multinational operations outside the NATO area, like those in the Gulf. We will be decommissioning older, less capable vessels and bringing into service more modern, better equipped ones. For example, we have announced the decommissioning of the nuclear-powered submarines HMS "Warspite", HMS "Churchill" and HMS "Conqueror" as part of the move towards around 12 boats of this type. Several of the older diesel-electric Oberon class submarines have been decommissioned. They are being replaced by the Upholder class, the first of which is in service, with a second due to follow shortly. We are also decommissioning some of the older Leander class frigates.
As regards the naval estate, we have announced the closures of Royal Arthur, the RN leadership training school, whose functions will be relocated to Whale Island in Portsmouth, of St. Vincent, the RN accommodation centre in London, and of the Blackbrook Farm diesel repair depot in Portsmouth. Other announcements on the future of the naval estate will be made as decisions are taken.
I spoke earlier of the new NATO multinational rapid reaction corps for Allied Command Europe. In accordance with this new concept we shall move to a regular army some 116,000 strong by the mid-1990s—some 40,000 smaller than today. The reduction will involve change for many units, including amalgamations and disbandments. However, I can assure the House that the regimental system will remain. Consultation with the Army on how to achieve the new structure has now begun and as soon as this is complete we shall come forward with more detailed announcements.
As to the RAF, your Lordships may recall the changes to the front line foreshadowed in the July Statement. They included reducing the RAF presence in Germany from four bases to two; withdrawing from service the Phantom air defence aircraft; reducing the number of Tornado GR1 squadrons with nuclear conventional roles in Europe from 11 to six; and re-equipping a further two squadrons of dual-capable Tornado GR1 aircraft with Sea Eagle missiles to replace the Buccaneer force in the anti-ship role. A small reduction in Nimrod numbers was also envisaged.
As my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces made clear last November, in the long term RAF Bruggen and RAF Laarbruch will be the RAF's two main bases in Germany. RAF Wildenrath and RAF Gutersloh are planned to close as flying stations by the end of 1992 and 1993 respectively. The two Phantom squadrons at RAF Wildenrath begin to disband this summer, with the UK-based Phantoms following later.
More recently we have announced that the Tornado interdiction-strike force in Germany is to reduce from eight squadrons to four. Three of the squadrons at RAF Laarbruch are to disband, starting in September 1991, with the fourth redeploying to RAF Marham at the end of this year. These moves

1095
will pave the way for the redeployment to RAF Laarbruch of Harrier and support helicopter units currently based at RAF Gutersloh.
Turning to forces based in the UK, we have recently announced the withdrawal from service, from next month, of three Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft; and that the Buccaneer operational conversion unit at RAF Lossiemouth is to start to disband from October of this year as the first step in the programme to replace the Buccaneer force at RAF Lossiemouth with re-roled Tornados.
Like the Royal Navy and the Army, the RAF is not confining its attention to restructuring the front line. The service has also embarked on a major review of all areas of support activity, including flying training. We aim to achieve a cost-effective long-term level of support which matches front-line needs, taking into account the implications for local employment and local communities in any areas where changes are proposed. We expect this process of change and rationalisation in the support area and front line to lead to the closure of a number of RAF stations in the UK and a change of role at others; but it is too early to say what the implications will be for any individual station.
In conclusion, in a changing world some change in our response is bound to be appropriate.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord's pardon for intervening. The noble Lord has reviewed the services. However, I am sure he will agree that there is no point in having adequate services unless they have the means of transport. Is the noble Lord going to mention the Merchant Navy this afternoon and tell the House the Government's policy on the calamitous decline that has overcome that service?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I was very conscious of the fact that this was the subject of a Question a few days ago, and again today. I have been watching the clock very carefully and I cannot embark on that now. I had to be selective. However, if the matter is raised again during the course of the debate I am sure that it can be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Arran when he replies to the debate.
I am sure your Lordships will all agree that in a changing world some change in our response is bound to be appropriate; and the changes we have seen in Europe in recent years have been truly staggering. They have not been unconnected with the robust determination of this Government over the years to meet the Soviet threat. But Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait shows that new threats to international peace can arise with dramatic suddenness.
We must therefore have adequate forces for the direct defence of the United Kingdom and for our contribution to the NATO alliance and which have the flexibility and capability to make our contribution to the maintenance of international law and the freedom of others.
Nothing in Options for Change shows any lack of determination in any of these directions. What would be inconsistent with our obligations would be a
1096
slashing of defence expenditure on the scale recommended by the Labour Party. Its 1989 and 1990 conferences voted for a cut equivalent to £9 billion in the defence budget—well over one-third of the entire defence budget and much more than the total cost of either the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. That clearly is ridiculous and irresponsible.
This country owes a great debt to its Armed Forces and has owed such a debt throughout its history. We shall continue to rely on their dedication and their excellence for strong and reliable defence.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, for bringing this Motion before us today. I join him in looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse. Not only is this the first occasion since the Gulf war and the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact on which we have had the opportunity to debate defence, but the Government have recently made the first of what may be several statements about the future of our Armed Forces. It is your Lordships' task today to consider the lessons that can be learnt from the Gulf and indeed from the continuing saga of events in Eastern Europe; and, in particular, in the Soviet Union. In doing so it is, above all, the Opposition's task to scrutinise both the Government's current position and what appear to be, although perhaps somewhat dimly, their future intentions.
To my mind, four questions arise from the events of the past 12 months. I state them broadly as follows. First, what has the Gulf war and the effective end of the Warsaw Pact taught us about our own defence posture—"adequate defence forces" in the words of the Motion? What lessons do we draw about the structure and nature of our alliances? How can we provide for the problem of surprise and of always having to expect the unexpected?
Secondly, given what we are told are limited means —we must recognise that we are obviously no longer a great military power—how should these means be allocated between the armed services, and by what criteria? Thirdly, what conclusions should we draw about the nature and character which security will take in five to 10 years' time? I put that question given that decisions taken now are not just decisions about tomorrow but, with the time lags involved in defence procurement and the disposition of human resources, will affect the nature of our Armed Forces for many years to come.
Fourthly, what will be the practical effects of the decisions that the Government have already taken in terms both of our own defence needs and of the needs, as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said, of those employed, either full-time or part-time, on a professional or voluntary basis?
It is a large agenda. I shall cover it as best I may, but it is the agenda set by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, since the matter of what constitutes "adequate defence forces" for this country cannot be resolved without addressing all those four questions. On my first point, I state quite categorically that we

1097
believe that nothing that has happened diminishes our support for NATO. On the contrary, that support is now even stronger. The Gulf war clearly showed that the only effective military force that the United Nations was able to draw on was one which was American led; and that it was only possible to constitute the strong coalition that was assembled for that exercise because NATO had existed. Procedures were familiar and operational decisions were based on the familiarity of the NATO environment.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said and the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal reiterated, events in Eastern Europe reinforce our commitment to NATO. None of us know what will be the outcome of the political convulsions at present shaking the Soviet Union. But as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, quite rightly pointed out, what we do know is that the Soviet Union is still a formidable military power and is actually increasing its submarine strength, in spite of its economic difficulties. That is just one reason, among many, why we should be careful, in NATO, about lowering our guard.
Now there is some talk in the European Community about an independent European defence policy, developed either through the European Community itself or through the Western European Union. Let me again make our attitude quite clear: we support the idea of a "European pillar" of NATO, but in no sense can that, or should that, be "independent". Europe will certainly have to contribute more to its own defence. After all, the US presence in Europe is currently under review in Washington, and troop levels may fall, as a result of that review, from some 320,000 to as low as 150,000, or even 100,000. Our response to that is to improve relations between the US, Britain and other NATO members in Europe, not to declare a sort of unilateral European independence.
For us, the force structure agreed at the meeting of NATO Ministers in Brussels on 28th and 29th May last marks an advance. The Rapid Reaction Corps will give much greater flexibility within the NATO area, and it may in the course of time be able to operate sensibly; not wholly "out of area"—that is not its role —but on the flanks of NATO, such as northern Scandinavia and the Mediterranean.
But the Rapid Reaction Corps raises its own problems in terms of the British use of resources; and that brings me to my second question. Given our limited means, if that is what they are, how should they be used? It is starting to emerge that the Government have instituted defence cuts, not just without consulting other political parties and Parliament, but, even more importantly, without consulting the US or our other NATO allies. That is certainly the view of the House of Commons Defence Committee in its report Options for Change: Royal Air Force which was published this morning. It states:
"It looks very much as if the United Kingdom has decided unilaterally the level and disposition of air (and ground) forces it proposes to make available, and left NATO to use them as it will".
If that is the case—I ask the noble Earl, Lord Arran, to comment on this when he comes to reply it is the Treasury that is calling the tune rather than
1098
the Ministry of Defence. It is not our strategic requirements that are paramount, but our financial stringency. The tail is well and truly wagging the dog. If that is the case, the danger is that all our NATO allies will be encouraged to do the same thing and to follow their own national priorities rather than the priorities of the alliance.
But even if these suspicions are unworthy, are we still sure that available resources are being sensibly allocated? The Gulf war, to which the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal referred at some length, demonstrated that BAOR had to be virtually stripped—cannibalised—to provide an effective fighting force for Desert Storm. Ammunition supplies were wholly inadequate; whole units in Germany were reduced to a token presence. Now we have the announcement of a reduction in the British Army troop level to 116,000 by the mid-1990s. How was this magic figure arrived at? What is the rationale for it? Will this number be sufficient to allow us to respond to the unexpected, since the one lesson the Gulf crisis taught us, as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said, is that the unexpected will always happen?
Furthermore, are we not concentrating too much on reducing personnel levels? Should we not be thinking just as much in terms of improvements in equipment? For instance, what the Gulf war showed us was the value of helicopters, both in lifting troops and in an attacking role. But we have only about half the first line helicopters that the French have and that the Germans have. In the Gulf the Royal Air Force had to deploy half its support helicopters for one armoured division; and our most modern attack helicopter, the Lynx, is 20 years old. If the size of the full-time professional army is to be reduced, we surely need to improve the development of the Armed Forces reserve. The Rapid Reaction Corps, almost by definition, can only consist of regular troops. But the Territorial Army could, and should, play a useful and important supplementary role; it should not be relegated to the status of a second class bunch of amateurs. The only way to achieve this, and to avoid the besetting problem of the TA—namely, that of absenteeism—is to devise an arrangement in service personnel contracts to ensure that they continue in training once they are in the reserve. The reason for this is quite clear. If we do get involved in a conflict (which Heaven forfend) that requires numbers of troops on the ground, the TA will be the only source of those numbers. France and Germany have conscription, the US and Australia have large and immediately available reserve forces. Why should we be left with an army that will only be a fraction of the size of others? Alternatively, if we get involved in an air war, we shall need the capability to reconstitute our air forces, and that means, as the House of Commons Defence Committee points out, a regularly exercised flying reserve—not just aircraft kept in hangars in mothballs.
But if there are problems of allocation of resources in the Army and in the Air Force, the Navy—not to mention the Merchant Navy, to which my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff has drawn attention —seems to have just as many. We are told that the

1099
Royal Navy will be cut to about 40 frigates and destroyers and 16 submarines. But are we sure that with these resources the Navy can carry out what are called its "assigned tasks"? After all, these cuts are coming at a time when there is no general progress at all, as was mentioned the other day, towards arms control agreements covering naval forces, in spite of Soviet invitations. Moreover, we seem now to be proposing a split between the Navy in the North and the Navy in the South. How the closure of the Rosyth naval base can be justified on defence grounds, let alone economic grounds, completely defeats me. It would leave the entire North Sea coastline exposed without a naval presence. It is not just a question of fishery protection, important though that may be; it is a question of the protection of North Sea oil platforms, and economically North Sea oil is at present our lifeblood.
So I turn now to my third question, which looks ahead to the character of the security problem in the late 1990s. It seems to me, as I think it would seem to all noble Lords, self-evident that in Europe, both in the West and in the East, there is the prospect—indeed, there is already the presence—of radical change.
In western Europe there will, willy-nilly, be a gradual, and perhaps not so gradual, movement towards political integration. As with economic integration, it will come when it is ready. The conclusion I draw from this prospect is that we should proceed with caution. We should not allow a defence community in Europe to precede a political community. That makes no sense at all; and a political community will come if, and only if, and when, and only when, it is ready to come and not before. Defence questions will have to wait until then.
But in eastern Europe the problem is one of disintegration rather than integration. The conclusion that I draw from that prospect is that the problems of the break-up of the Soviet empire, and possibly of the Soviet Union itself, are not going to be solved by force of arms. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that in 1914 they thought that the problems of the break-up of the Ottoman Empire could be resolved by force of arms, and look where that led them. The essential point that we must all grasp, whether on the left, right or in the centre, is that it is the political and diplomatic response to the crisis in eastern Europe which will determine whether or not there is another Sarajevo. It is whether we are, all of us, sensible enough to see that economic assistance and diplomatic support will be the key factors; force of arms should play no part.
Beyond the problems of Europe, serious as they may be, there are the longer run problems of the third world. Again, it is much more sensible to take a forward position economically than to commit ourselves to a military capability to deal with any possible explosions. As the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said, there will certainly be explosions. Let me be quite clear about our position. Our ambition is that the United Nations should gain the authority that it was always meant to have at its inception after the Second World War; namely, to play the world's policeman. At present there is a
1100
chance, just a small chance, that with the ending of the Cold War, it might be able to play that role. If it can—and we very much hope that it can—we shall be the first to encourage it and will support it with enthusiasm.
I come now to the fourth question: the practical effects of what the Government are proposing by way of cuts. I do not intend to get involved in the dispute about which regiment will survive and which regiment will be merged with others. I am sure that many noble Lords will wish to express their views on that matter.
My purpose is quite different. It is simply to say to the Government—and I emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said—that they cannot just throw people out of the Armed Forces and put them onto the streets. There must be a proper programme of retraining and reallocation for those who are made redundant. That is true not just for the Armed Forces, but also for those who work in defence industries. In other words, the Government must show greater concern for those whose livelihood is crucially affected by official decisions which are wholly beyond their control.
Let me illustrate this by referring again to the naval base at Rosyth which is threatened with closure. It is not too much to say that the impact of that closure would affect the economy of Fife and Dunfermline district in a disastrous manner. Overall, some 5,000 people, if we include the knock-on effects, would lose their jobs. That would be as a result not of market forces, not of strikes, and not of wage claims; it would be the result of a government decision. The Government must give more attention to the effects of their decisions on people's lives which are liable to be led into poverty and disaster.
Finally, it may be that your Lordships have been expecting me to give a precise account of how Labour in office would run a defence policy. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal produced his usual party political blast from the other side of the House. I am afraid to say that I think noble Lords will be disappointed. I believe that the noble Lord referred to conference decisions. He had better wait to see what our manifesto says.
I see that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is laughing. However, he will learn, when the time comes, what the manifesto says. I shall quote from an Opposition policy statement which, I must admit, was published some years back:
"It is our repeatedly stressed intention to strengthen Britain's defences. It would be irresponsible, and anyway impossible, to say by precisely how much we will do this, and precisely how much it will cost. We do not have the advice which is available in government from professional advisers; we do not know what the world situation—or the domestic economic situation—will be when we come to office; and before acting we should want to consult our Allies. But our objective is clear. While we shall seek value for money in defence expenditure as elsewhere, we will not hesitate to spend what is necessary on our armed forces."
Noble Lords opposite may perhaps recognise my quotation. It comes from a document produced by Conservative Central Office in 1976 entitled, The Right Approach. That was their view then. It is our view today.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him this question. I was not conjuring something up out of the air; I was stating to him what has already been declared to be Labour policy. Therefore, we are entitled to ask: does the noble Lord still stand by what was declared to be Labour policy in 1989–90; that is, only a year ago? That was the policy which I mentioned in the last phrase of my speech.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am quite happy to spend another half hour giving the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal a lecture on the Labour Party constitution. However, perhaps he will take it shortly from me that the manifesto with which the Labour Party will fight the next election will be decided by what is known as a "Clause 5 meeting"; that is, a meeting between the National Executive Committee and the Shadow Cabinet. That is the programme with which the party will fight the next election.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am bound to say that the noble Lord the Leader of the House was a little unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Deficient as Labour Party defence policy may be, it is a vast improvement on what it used to be. I recall the statement made last week in another place by a Labour Party defence spokesman, that Trident was an important and integral part of Labour's defence policy. If that is not progress towards truth, I should like to know what is.
Much more gently were the Government dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook. But he was undoubtedly critical of the Government's defence policy. No one can doubt that the careful wording of the Motion is an implied criticism of the Government's defence policy. It means that the events over the past 12 months call for a review of the planned strength of our defence forces. It can mean nothing else. It means that the experience of the Gulf war and recent developments in the Soviet Union call for a revision of Options for Change. That is not the view of my noble friends and myself. We did not oppose Options for Change when it was announced last year, and we do not oppose the greater reductions now put forward by the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
It must surely be common ground that defence policy must bear some relationship to threat. The threats are of potential nuclear or conventional aggression from the Soviet Union and threats out-of-area. Other speakers have already tried to assess those threats. I hope that I too may be allowed to do so. First, the Soviet nuclear threat is different from the Soviet conventional threat. We on these Benches recognise that the Soviet Government can still deploy a huge weight of nuclear missiles, and that therefore the future use of nuclear blackmail, although improbable, cannot be wholly ruled out. We therefore support the maintenance of a powerful Western nuclear deterrent to which this country should make a contribution. That is not to say that we support the huge increase in the British strategic nuclear capability
1102
which the Government plan. We believe that that is untimely and unnecessary. With the huge increase in the French nuclear deterrent, it changes the balance between the United States and the Soviet Union and makes it more necessary than ever that those two nuclear deterrents must be included in the later stages of START.
The threat of Soviet conventional aggression is a different matter. That is where the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, does not have a realistic picture of the Soviet threat. Everyone is aware of the continuing huge size of the Soviet army and navy and of the evidence of the resistance of the Soviet military high-ups to the Gorbachev reforms. As might be expected, there is resistance by the Soviet military high-ups to the one-sided disarmament concessions made by Gorbachev; to his withdrawal of troops from Eastern Europe; and, above all perhaps, to his acquiescence in the NATO membership of a united Germany. In any country, military high-ups would resist such vast reforms, so prejudicial to their own status and to what they have always believed, preached and worked for.
Where I would draw swords with the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, is in believing that the Soviet Union is able or willing to make a conventional attack on Western Europe. That was implied in what he said. He was not saying that we must not reduce our arms because something might happen in the Middle East or because there might be ethnic trouble in Eastern Europe; everyone can see that our forces are sufficient for such emergencies. The tenor of his speech was that the Soviet conventional threat still exists and that therefore Options for Change goes too far. What does it imply? It implies that a new Soviet regime—perhaps a vigorous military regime—will be able and willing to reunify the Soviet Union and to build up its economy, so as to be able to reinvade a hostile Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and East Germany in order to commit aggression against Western Europe.
If that were so, the consequence would be as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said: that Options for Change was a mistake; but it is not so. That is not realistic. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord the Leader of the House say that some of the political changes that have taken place in Europe cannot be reversed. To assess the Soviet threat, it is irrelevant to count heads of soldiers and submarines. What is a Soviet serviceman? Are all the servicemen who are today voting for Yeltsin Soviet servicemen? They would not think of themselves as such. They, and Yeltsin, consider them to be Russian servicemen. What about the Armenians, the Georgians, the Lithuanians and the Latvians? Are they Soviet servicemen? Let us take the Soviet military industrial complex. One half of the Soviet industrial military complex is located in the Ukraine. Mr. Antonov, the Ukrainian Minister of Military Industry the other day said:
"I believe 100 per cent. of the military complex located on Ukrainian territory will come under direct Ukrainian control, starting on 1st January 1992".
It is not enough to count the Soviet forces. One has also to ask which side they are on. That is a question

1103
that we do not have to ask about Eastern Europe, because we know that it is now on our side. The whole balance of power in Europe has been transformed compared with the days when all of us were battling to strengthen NATO and our nuclear deterrent against the united powerful threat of Soviet communism. We must adjust to that change. NATO is adjusting to it slowly and cautiously; and the Government too are slowly and cautiously adjusting to it.
The NATO governments know that, without risk, substantial reductions in NATO forces are now possible, and they are being made. In the mid-1990s the French will be withdrawing all 60,000 of their troops; from Germany; and the Germans are reducing from nearly 500,000 to 370,000 armed men. The Americans once had 250,000 men in Europe. They are coming down to 50,000. The reductions put forward by the British Government are comparatively moderate, and in proportion are less. Moreover, in the past 12 months, the Government have increased the reductions, and I believe that to be right.
Let us take the Gulf war. What lessons did we learn? A good point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams: we learnt that we need more helicopters; we also learnt that Smart technology is dominating modern battlefields, and, although we are better at Smart technology than many nations, we are worse than the Americans and we need to make great advances. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, we also learnt that to field an expeditionary force as large as the one involved in the Gulf means stripping BAOR, and provision must be made to avoid that in the future.
However, the level of forces in the British expeditionary force was more than adequate for the job. We overrated Iraq's military capability. We overinsured, and so NATO's response to the Gulf war, and that of the Government, is sensible. It is not to slow down the reductions, let alone to stop them, but to reorganise the remaining forces by creating a quick reaction force, under British leadership, not primarily intended for out-of-area operations, but capable of quickly being adapted to them. That is the proper reaction to the Gulf war, not, as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, seemed to suggest, to hold up the reductions or perhaps to get rid of them.
I must be particularly careful about the length of my speech because of the coming maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse. I end by noting an interesting point that has emerged from the debate. For 40 years the Opposition parties have disagreed on defence policy, sometimes quite bitterly. There is more common ground between the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord the Leader of the:House than either would like to admit. For 40 years there has been considerable divergence on defence between the parties. Agreement is now a great deal wider than it used to be. If, without sacrifice of principle, we can achieve a degree of bi-partisanship in British defence policy, my noble friends and I would welcome that very much. Therefore, we urge the Government not to be pushed off course by the well-meaning but mistaken pressure they receive from some of their Back-Benchers.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Fieldhouse: My Lords, it is a privilege for me to speak for the first time in this House on this most important subject. I ask indulgence should I stray, quite unintentionally, into contentious areas. Through the tense years of cold war and the uncomfortable period of uncertainty that followed and that still exists today, I have learnt one lesson above all others. I make no apology for repeating the point, it is so important. We can with confidence only expect the unexpected.
For most of my time in senior command, the greatest threat has been from the Soviet Union, with its overwhelming military capability. However, there has, thank heavens, been a welcome change. A reduced level of tension and important arms control agreements have been reached. But I suggest that it is often overlooked that this situation has been achieved only through collective strength within the NATO Alliance. It has withstood the test of time and the self-interest of its member nations. It will, I believe, still pay us to be cautious over the speed at which we enjoy the so-called peace dividends, for, where capability exists, intentions can change overnight.
The greatest danger to peace now lies, I believe, outside Europe. There is a risk of conflict through political, ethnic, cultural and economic issues and there is absolutely nothing new about that. There have been 80 wars since 1945; over 15 million people killed and for only one year in this whole period have British servicemen or women not been killed in action.
The overriding lesson each time we have been involved has been the necessity to maintain a broad spectrum of forces, realistically structured, well equipped and properly supported. I cannot claim to be a prophet, but I foresee a continued threat to world order and hence the need to protect our vital national interests worldwide. We hope that this can be done through the medium of the United Nations, but I do not believe that that organisation can always be relied upon to act in our best interests, as has been the case recently.
All this leaves the question: on what principles should we build our own forces from now on? In the past, our forces have largely been structured to meet the greatest threat from the Soviet Union, but it has been apparent to all that they have also had to be capable of meeting sudden, unforeseen dangers arising elsewhere in the world.
My first conclusion is that it is vital that our forces maintain their mobility and flexibility and—that all-important third element—sustainability, so that they can respond effectively and at short notice, if required, to whatever threat turns up.
In recent months, we have heard much—perhaps far too much—about achieving economies through smaller yet better armed forces. However, in reality that may be difficult to achieve. It is particularly so in some of the special capabilities that we have developed and need to maintain. My own business highlights anti-submarine warfare and particularly our submarine force. But, while the Gulf campaign proved beyond doubt that quality holds advantage over

1105
quantity, it is, as always, a matter of balance, for there is a level of quantity below which we must not go if quality is to be maintained.
This philosophy applies across the spectrum of maritime, air and land forces. Perhaps I may be allowed to focus briefly on the sea. We are, after all, an island nation and will remain dependent on the sea for the vast majority of the trade which is essential to our continued prosperity. Recent experience in the Gulf has again demonstrated the versatility of our destroyer and frigate force and their helicopters. This is valuable in both blockade operations and combat. The mine counter-measure vessels had, and still have today, a crucial role in clearing the sea lanes. The amphibious capability, while not used in the Gulf, offered a potent threat through its mere presence. Supporting these forces from afloat was a vital capability. In addition, for the land forces, well over 90 per cent. of all stores, vehicles and equipment and almost all the 100,000 tonnes of ammunition needed had to be moved by sea.
I have a particular concern here and am happy that it became apparent earlier this afternoon that I hold it in common with others of your Lordships. In war, we have to rely upon merchant shipping to undertake dangerous military duties. The number of British-manned ships, sailing under the British flag and available for defence purposes, is now at a crucial level and may already be too few. We ignore this situation at our peril.
Our armed forces make a very large contribution to that most important of all the social services: the maintenance of peace. Without peace the other social services are largely devalued. I conclude by saying that in this uncertain world we must ensure that we retain an adequate war fighting capability of a high standard to safeguard our national interests. We must therefore examine our options with the greatest possible care, remembering always that the high quality of our armed forces can be reduced in a few months, but only regained, if at all, over many years.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot express to your Lordships the pride and delight that I feel at being the first speaker to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse. Tradition forbids me to refer to him as my noble and gallant friend, but I am proud to say that that truly is the case. The noble and gallant Lord served in two incarnations in the Ministry of Defence while I served in that Ministry. The first was as First Sea Lord. At that time I was the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and among other things I was specifically responsible for our reserve forces. I shall return briefly to that matter in a moment. The noble and gallant Lord gave me superb support and encouragement in what I was then trying to do with the Royal Naval Reserve. Soon after that the noble and gallant Lord became Chief of the Defence Staff. In that capacity he was the principal military adviser not just to Ministers in the Ministry of Defence but also to the whole Government. I know
1106
that I speak with the agreement of all my right honourable and noble friends when I say that they very highly valued the advice that he gave.
Having said that, I suspect that my noble and gallant friend —I hope I may call him that—derived the greatest satisfaction from the post that he occupied just before the two posts to which I have just referred; namely, that of Commander-in-Chief Fleet. In that capacity he was the overall commander of our military operation to recover the Falkland Islands. I remember how the noble and gallant Lord explained to me when I entered the Ministry of Defence how the operation was proceeding at that time. His explanations were most interesting and impressive; but perhaps the most impressive tribute that I can pay to the noble and gallant Lord in that capacity relates to what was said one evening at a dinner of the Admiralty Board. If my memory serves me right, that dinner was attended by the French contemporary of the noble and gallant Lord. That gentleman did not speak much English but I remember he said to those of us who were assembled, in what I think were the only words of English he knew, "You won". Your Lordships will be delighted that the noble and gallant Lord has now taken up his rightful place in your Lordships' House. Noble Lords will look forward greatly to hearing him speak often in the future.
The opening speech of my noble friend Lord Colnbrook accurately reflected the present serious situation in the world. It has become fashionable to think that the world is now an entirely safe place, that the threat has gone away and that we can progressively take advantage of the so-called peace dividend. However, a military threat consists of two elements. There is first of all the military capability —the men, the women and the hardware —and, secondly, there is the political will, or lack of it. I am easily persuaded that the political will in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union to perpetrate any aggression upon us is fast dwindling and may have disappeared, but the hardware and personnel have not disappeared. A change of political will among those who used to be our potential adversaries—and now claim not to be—could easily take place in that part of the world. We must take great care before reaping so vigorously the peace dividend as we have been rather tempted to do in recent times. I am bound to say that I was not wholly certain, after listening to the speech of my noble friend the Leader of the House, that we have yet got this matter entirely right.
However, we should reserve our judgment for the time being at any rate. I look forward to reading the defence White Paper when it is published later this year. I believe it is due to be published in July. I shall then be able to form a more considered judgment on the matter. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is not in his place at the moment. His interesting speech was remarkable in a number of ways. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not feel able to tell us more about the Labour Party's policy in these matters than we have so far been able to learn. I was interested to hear the noble Lord's comments. I believe they were made in response to remarks made by my noble friend the Leader of the House on Labour

1107
Party policy that had been decided, I thought, at recent conferences. Apparently we are to ignore all that and to wait for what emerges from some smoke-filled rooms between now and whenever the election is to take place. I shall most certainly look forward to hearing about the Labour Party's policy, and I am sure the electorate will, too.
It is certainly the case that the problems with which Ministers have had to grapple in recent times have been considerable. Matters have been gravely complicated—if that is the right word—by the enormous conflict that took place in the Gulf at the beginning of this year. I believe my noble friend Lord Colnbrook said that even my noble friend Lord Arran with all the information at his disposal was unable to anticipate that there would be a conflict 17 days before the conflict broke out. However, I remember that in 1982 we certainly did not expect a conflict in the Falkland Islands 17 days before it broke out. Indeed, I do not think we expected a conflict seven days before it took place, let alone 17 days.
Be that as it may, a large degree of uncertainty now prevails. The Government are working to overcome that situation and I hope and believe that the Defence White Paper will do a great deal to alleviate that uncertainty. Some of that uncertainty has rubbed off onto the Armed Forces. The problem of retention has always been with the Armed Forces, but I am told that it is particularly acute at the moment when members of the Armed Forces are not certain what the future may hold for them. I dare say that even greater numbers would seek to leave the Armed Forces if the domestic economy were doing rather better.
I wish to speak briefly about the equally serious problems that face industry as a result of this uncertainty. The Ministry of Defence is far and away the largest single customer of UK industries. If one includes all the quartermaster stores and other such provisions, spending amounts to about £10,000 million a year. Those orders provide employment for more than half a million people in one way or another. One unhappy example of this indecision —I do not necessarily blame the Government for that—has been the Chieftain replacement programme.
A decision on that replacement programme has been repeatedly delayed in recent months. Your Lordships may recall that the decision to replace the ageing fleet of Chieftain main battle tanks was originally taken in 1987. A preliminary assessment of the available options was made at that time. Ministers eventually concluded that the choice lay between the Challenger 2, which is a new version of the Challenger 1 and incorporates a new turret, a new gun and a new fire control system; the American Abrams M1A2, which is an updated version of the Al—that tank was at that time being considered by the United States authorities, but had not been funded by Congress at that point—and, finally, the Leopard 2, which was an updated version of the old Leopard 1 which is currently in service with German and other armed forces in Europe.
It was decided in December 1988 to commission Vickers Defence Systems to carry out a demonstrator programme on Challenger 2, which included the
1108
construction of nine prototypes. If my memory serves me right, that programme alone cost in the region of £90 million or £92 million. The purpose of that programme was to show, by means of demanding milestones—and I know that they were demanding because I participated in setting them—that the Challenger was capable of meeting the requirements. As my noble friend Lord Arran confirmed in a recent Written Answer, that programme was completed and the milestones all satisfactorily passed.
Meanwhile, the other tanks continued to be evaluated. I gather that consideration was even given briefly to the little French Leclerc tank, which soon proved to be a very high risk solution and was, I presume, discarded accordingly.
I believe that the German Leopard option should be dismissed at once. Although that tank has many fine features its armoured protection is less satisfactory by our standards and could only be brought up to date by revealing information about our own capabilities, which is second in sensitivity only to our closest nuclear secrets. I believe that that would be wholly unwise and I hope that the Government will not pursue that course.
Therefore, the decision lies between the American Abrams and the Vickers Challenger. The first major consideration must be the gun and its associated fire control system. More rubbish has been talked about the gun than about any other aspect of this matter. There is no standard NATO tank gun so there is no merit in suggesting that we ought to buy the American tank because its gun is common throughout the alliance or that its ammunition is more readily available. Your Lordships will recall that the Belgians refused point blank to provide any ammunition in support of the recent Gulf conflict. Your Lordships may think, as I do, that that was a wholly regrettable decision which bodes ill for any future co-operation of that kind. In any event, I believe that the so-called "CHARM" gun to be fitted to Challenger 2 is superior to the Abrams in both long-range accuracy and penetration.
Furthermore, as the Gulf conflict demonstrated, there are grave doubts about the arrangement for the stowage of single-piece ammunition and related crew safety considerations. Ministers will bear a heavy burden of responsibility if they decide to accept arguments put forward in respect of the so-called bustle stowage facilities of the Abrams tank whose shortcomings have been so cruelly demonstrated in the Gulf.
Perhaps the greatest problem with the Abrams tank is its engine. It is fitted with a gas turbine which consumes between three and four times more fuel than the diesel-engined alternatives, a factor which could cause problems and which did cause serious problems in the desert. I am told that it was necessary for the American tanks to stop three or four times a day to refuel, with all the obvious dangers which that involved.
It is unhappily the case that the Abrams does not have a number of the important features fitted to the

1109
Challenger tank. I hope that the Government will be heavily influenced by those considerations when they take their decision.
The Government have recently said that they intend to take a decision on this matter in the very near future. I hope that when my noble friend Lord Arran replies to the debate he will be able to confirm that. I hope that the announcement when it comes before the end of this month, as has been promised, will not merely ask for more time.
I have gone into the matter in some detail because I believe that it is symptomatic of the difficulties that are facing the defence manufacturing industry at the present time. Of course great changes are taking place. Of course they are having a profound effect upon the Ministry of Defence. However, they are also having a profound effect on British industry, and I hope that the Government will take those points firmly into consideration.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Lord has much experience in the defence field, both as a Minister and as a former pilot. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the questions he asked.
Originally I intended to make only a few remarks about the air force. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for the account that he gave concerning the number of aircraft which are to be cancelled. I should like to say farewell to one particular aircraft which is shortly to disappear—the Shackleton. It is nearly as old as I am. I remember quarrelling with the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, and saying that it ought to be called the Lincoln. I was accused of damaging the morale of the workforce by not calling it the Shackleton. However, I am grateful that it was called the Shackleton.
Although the aircraft did not see service in warlike operations it is in its way a miracle. It has gone on for ever. It has the same Griffin engines. Three old Shackletons are now sitting at RAF Waddington—nothing to do with the Lord Privy Seal. I am told that they are to be auctioned at Sotheby's. I hope that some will be bought and retained in this country.
It has been a very successful aircraft. Those of us who know it and who have flown it pay tribute to its sturdiness and to the Griffin engines, which go on for ever. It ended its life performing a useful role as an airborne early warning aircraft when the radar for the Nimrod aircraft failed. I stress that it was the radar which failed. There was nothing wrong with the Nimrod aircraft, which remains very successful.
I am told that Shackleton aircraft will fly over London during the Trooping the Colour birthday parade. Therefore, those who have not seen her will have an opportunity to do so. She is not a very striking looking aircraft. She looks old fashioned, like so many of us. There is more that we should like to know concerning aircraft, such as the future of the European fighter.
I have another farewell, to HMS "Endurance", if the Ministry of Defence has its way. We learn today
1110
—some of us were told at the weekend—that the crew of HMS "Endurance" will be informed when they return from leave on Monday that the ship is being phased out and that no replacement is being built. We had some discussion on the subject during a Question in this House. We were assured then, without much firmness of purpose—nonetheless, it served to get the Government out of an awkward position—that there was no question at the moment of a change in the programme which allowed for a replacement for HMS "Endurance". When we queried to what extent the Foreign Office had been consulted we were told that it had been consulted. The Foreign Office had not been consulted. The first official news the Foreign Office had was today.
I find that amazing. It reflects what happened in 1981–82 when HMS "Endurance" was cancelled without either the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, or Mr. Ridley knowing about it. Indeed, at that time the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave orders that it should not be cancelled. Now we hear that the ship will be cancelled without a replacement.
This is not purely sentiment—although Mrs. Thatcher said that "Endurance" or a replacement would go on for a very considerable period. That is on the record. The role of "Endurance" is very important to the British interests in the Antarctic. It is not necessary for the protection of the Falklands, although it has a symbolic purpose. It has a role possibly in the long term on the fishery side, but that is taken care of largely by the Falklands. It is important in hydrography and work in support of the British Antarctic Survey, already under discussion for the next season.
The British Antarctic Survey is able, through the helicopters of HMS "Endurance", to put scientists into areas to which they would otherwise not go. The hydrography side is of the greatest importance. The danger to the environment of the Antarctic does not come from mining—I suspect that there will be no mining in the Antarctic during the lifetime of any of the Members of this House, but from ships that go down there and the absence of good hydrography.
"Endurance" helps in that respect, and in doing so is following a naval tradition. Antarctic exploration has depended on the Royal Navy. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal referred to the outer non-NATO areas. This is a non-NATO activity. Many of us hoped that when the threat in the North Atlantic disappeared there would be further facilities for that naval tradition. Indeed, Operation Tabarin, which was the original source of information for, and the origin of, the British Antarctic Survey, was a naval operation. The navy has always played a part in the work, dating back to the time when Cook first crossed the Antarctic Circle and to Admiral Ross with "Erebus" and "Terror". Captain Scott himself was on a naval expedition. It is absurd to think that it is improper for the navy to give support to such scientific activity.
I know that now everyone has to be charged for use. That is the modern fashion. But the Royal Navy has played a very important role. I hope that a successor—I stress that it must be a successor because the "Endurance" cannot go on for ever—will be

1111
found. Furthermore, there are ships now available. We do not have to build an expensive ship such as the "James Clark Ross" which cost £40 million. There is a verb good modern ship at £25 million and other ships which are not so new immediately available. It is absurd to think that we can continue to play the role that we have played in the Antarctic and in creating the Antarctic Treaty unless the Royal Naval ensign is down there.
I hope very much that when the Government talk to the Foreign Office they will listen to the arguments that the Foreign Office put forward on this subject. I think 1hat withdrawal would be a tragedy. That is not because of the name "Endurance" but because this is a role which the British can fulfil in the world very successfully. I believe that it will be most successfully done by the Royal Navy, but with a new ship.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by congratulating my noble and gallant friend Lord Fieldhouse on a distinguished maiden speech. It was to be expected that he would bring authority and insight to any debate on this subject. Like many of your Lordships, I look forward to future contributions from him.
The House must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, for raising this issue in your Lordships' House at a most critical time for our national security. As we know, the Government are engaged in a review of defence arrangements known as Options for Change. That is clearly designed to bring about radical changes in the structure, equipment and order of battle of our Armed Forces. It is therefore important and right that we should examine very closely the assumptions upon which those proposals are based.
Right at the beginning I should declare that, as chairman of Vickers Shipbuilders, the constructors of Royal Navy submarines and artillery for the British Army, I have more than an academic interest in the equipment of our Armed Forces. But I can reassure noble Lords that today I shall not engage in any special pleading for submarines, howitzers or any other form of military equipment. Nor will my remarks deal with such important issues as the threat of international terrorism, stability in the Middle East, or the situation in Northern Ireland, all of which are relevant and important. However, I should like to say in parenthesis that, like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I have heard over the past two days from a senior naval source that HMS "Endurance" is to be decommissioned, that that decision has been taken and that it will take place in the very near future. If that is true—and if, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, it is true that that has been done without the full concurrence of the Foreign Office—I hope that when the noble Earl comes to reply to this debate he will throw some light on what seems to me to be a very disturbing development.
I intend to concentrate today on the military policies and procurement of the Soviet Union. I want to focus attention on that aspect of the problem for a number of very good reasons. Anyone with even
1112
rudimentary experience of the craft of military intelligence will know that, in assessing the threat from a potential enemy, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, said, two factors have to be constantly weighed: intentions and capabilities. What does a potential adversary intend to do and to what extent has he the resources to do it?
I advance the proposition today that, while Western military planners may have made a fairly shrewd assessment of current Soviet intentions, they have not paid sufficient attention to the military capabilities of the Soviet Union, in the not unlikely event that those intentions change. The military policies of the Western alliance so far as Europe is concerned are based upon a simple and apparently generally accepted proposition; namely, that the Warsaw Pact has disintegrated, that the Soviet Union has embarked upon a process of democratisation and disarmament and that the Soviet threat, as we have been accustomed to regard it over the years, has disappeared.
There is a great deal of truth in that. Certainly the Soviet Union's ability to mount a surprise—I emphasise surprise—land-air assault on NATO has been substantially reduced. Indeed, I agree that it has been reduced to a point at which it need no longer he regarded as a likely contingency for military planners. But I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew to accept that that is not quite the same as saying that the threat of conventional attack as a whole has disappeared.
I believe that it is prudent and legitimate to conclude that there can now be changes in the strength, deployment, tactical doctrine and equipment of NATO's defensive forces. The assumptions on which we have been accustomed to base such cherished military concepts as forward defence, flexible response and the famous follow-on forces attack (FOFA) have all changed. They have been completely transformed. Therefore it is right that the Western alliance, and by extension our own Government, should examine how those changes are now to be translated into decisions about the shape, size and equipment of our Armed Forces. But that is very different from declaring the famous peace dividend, making wholesale cuts in our defence forces and sitting back content in the belief that a new world order will peacefully emerge.
The Soviet Union remains the principal imponderable factor in the security of the West. In the first place, as many noble Lords have said, there is no certainty that the Gorbachev experiment will result in the emergence of anything resembling liberal democracy in the Soviet Union. Some noble Lords may recall what the Chinese diplomat said to Henry Kissinger in 1975 when he was asked what impact the French Revolution had had on the political history of China: "It is too early yet to say". It is much too early yet to say what will happen to the Soviet empire. However, one thing is predictable. As anyone who has spent any time in studying these matters will attest, the powerful, intellectual and professional quality of the Soviet military establishment should never be underestimated. Nor should its remarkable capacity for survival. Soviet general staff and military

1113
establishments still believe with a profound conviction that what they call the correlation of forces—namely, the ability of the Soviet Union to wage war successfully—is a vital ingredient of a powerful Soviet state even in peace time. Their conviction on that, if anything, has been reinforced by the lessons of the war in the Gulf.
With the greatest affection and respect for the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I believe that his analysis of the Soviet threat is to say the least over-sanguine. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind—and I hope that includes the mind of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—that if the political intentions of the Soviet Union should change, and he admitted that they might, the Soviet general staff has the capacity rapidly to re-establish its power to make war against the West. We should never forget that. I should like briefly to offer some concrete evidence.
Despite the changes that have undoubtedly taken place, the Soviet Union still continues to spend at least 15 per cent. of its gross national product on defence. That is a conservative estimate. As the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said, some reliable sources put that figure as high as 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of gross national product. I should like noble Lords to compare that with the figure of just over 6 per cent. which the United States devotes to its defence budget, and just over 3 per cent. for the remainder of NATO.
The military procurement industry—the defence industry in the Soviet Union—is the only sector of the Soviet economy which recorded growth in 1990. Military research and development continued to grow in the Soviet Union in 1990. At the same time, the overall production of military equipment throughout the Soviet defence industry showed no sign of diminishing.
Those are not entirely assessments based on Western intelligence estimates. Marshal Yazov, the Soviet Minister of Defence, has recently published a 10-year budget for the Soviet armed forces which indicates that military expenditure up to the year 2000 is likely to remain virtually constant at 1991 prices. Last year alone the Soviet Union added 12 submarines to its fleet compared with nine in 1988 and nine in 1989.
Much has already been said about submarine construction, but it is not the whole picture. The procurement of anti-ship cruise missiles has been substantially increased. On the other hand, it is true that the production of tanks and artillery has been marginally reduced. But it is worth noting that in 1990, this year of perestroika, this year of arms control negotiations and peaceful developments, the Soviet Union was still manufacturing armoured fighting vehicles at a rate of more than 500 a month. It was manufacturing military aircraft at over 60 a month. As we have heard, it was manufacturing one fleet submarine every month.
To put it another way, in one year the Soviet Union added to its submarine fleet, already the largest in the world, the equivalent of the total manned strength of the British nuclear powered submarine fleet. Missiles
1114
of various categories from long range to short range, sea-launched, air-launched and ground-launched, are being manufactured at over 250 every month.
I could continue at some length. I shall say only that that is not, it seems to me, a picture of a country engaged in a massive programme of disarmament. It is a picture of a country changing the balance of its military expenditure to meet changing political conditions while at the same time maintaining a powerful capacity to wage war. That is precisely what we should be doing. There is a great suspicion among the officers and other ranks of our Armed Forces that Options for Change is indeed, as has been suggested, a Treasury-led policy in the sense that it is designed to produce armed forces within an arbitrary limit of resources and not armed forces necessarily designed to meet an assessed threat.
Before I conclude, let me give one example of what I believe to be the dangers of such an approach. There are many. I refer to the assumption being made of the reduced possibility of surprise attack. It is true that in current circumstances the warning time of a possible Soviet attack might be increased by as much as a factor of five. But if in response to that change, for financial reasons, we take steps which, however inadvertently, increase our own response time by a factor of 10, then we are in a much more dangerous situation than before that happened. That, I believe, is what is happening in NATO. Our time for response is being increased at a disproportionate rate to the reduction in the readiness of the Soviet armed forces to mount an attack.
That brings me to my final point: the difficulty of rebuilding military defences in democratic societies once they have been eroded. Countries such as the Soviet Union have relatively little difficulty in this matter. It is therefore dangerous for us to extrapolate future intentions from current policies; or, as Samuel Goldwyn once put it, "Never make predictions especially about the future". In democracies such as our own, such matters are not so simple. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, said, once our military defences have been contracted they cannot be expanded at will. Once the capacity to ensure our national security has been eroded, it cannot quickly or easily be repaired.
The logical way in an ideal world to carry out a defence review would be to make a clear, systematic assessment of the threat, and only then to decide how, within the available financial resources, to organise our Armed Forces to meet that threat. No responsible person believes that there should be no financial limit on our military capacity. But financial limits should not dictate policies to the extent that our military capabilities are disproportionately and perhaps dangerously eroded.
There are cynics who will say that that is always how we have conducted defence policy in this country. If that is true, then it is time that we changed our approach. As the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said, this Government have an admirable record of standing firm on defence. I profoundly hope that that will continue.

1115
Let me leave noble Lords with a quotation from the 19th century Russian poet, Fyodor Tyutchev. Translated into English it says:
"Russia cannot be understood with the mind and measured by a common yardstick. She is a special case. Russia one can only believe in".
That may well be true for Russians, but we cannot afford the luxury of such a Slav romanticism. We must understand such things with our minds. Belief in Russia is not a safe foundation on which to build the defence of the realm.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that we are greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Colnbrook for introducing this subject, and for doing so with such splendid timing. It has given a great many of your Lordships, who have vast experiene of defence problems in their different aspects, an opportunity to express views and, frankly, their apprehensions before the Government White Paper appears, and therefore before the Government have finally committed themselves on what they will do about defence provisions. I hope that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, who has most conscientiously been present throughout the debate, will report to his colleagues that, in a House where there is enormous experience of such matters, genuine anxieties have been expressed.
I wish to add to those anxieties. Twice during my lifetime this country has entered a major war which it has nearly lost and from which it emerged after years of struggle and heavy casualties. On both occasions the situation was made infinitely worse because the governments of the day had failed adequately to provide for national defence. Mercifully and thanks to the fact that Sir Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty we had an adequate Navy in 1914. However, our Army was in a most unhappy state. It was ill-equipped, small in numbers and was made battle-worthy only after years of recruiting and training.
In 1939 we were hopelessly provided with defence in all directions. I recall that when my battalion was posted to the outer London perimeter in anticipation of a German landing in the South of England it was informed that, although entrusted with that not unimportant role, it possessed one anti-tank rifle. The warrant officer who explained the situation said, "This is the anti-tank rifle. When I say 'the' that is exactly what I mean; it is the only one we have". Yet if the Germans had landed that battalion would have had to cover a considerable distance of the outer London perimeter and by then we had been at war for about nine months.
Therefore the one lesson that my generation should have absorbed and be prepared to preach is that, although one believes that the situation has become easier, it is folly to run down one's defence provisions to dangerously inadequate levels. We have done so twice and have escaped only at a considerable price. I hope that your Lordships' debate today will help to prevent us doing so for a third time.
The USSR is still most powerful. The fact that the Warsaw Pact armies have disappeared does not
1116
fundamentally alter the situation. I return to a Question that I asked my noble friend Lord Arran on Monday, referred to in part by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook at the beginning of the debate. I asked:
"How many warships are presently operated by the navy of the USSR; in what categories these warships belong; and whether the number of warships has increased or decreased over the last five years".
My noble friend replied:
"the Soviet navy currently has a total of 1,145 operational warships and submarines, including 210 major surface warships and 285 combatant submarines".—[Official Report, 10/6/91; col. 887.]
He then gave figures for the previous five years which were slightly larger. He explained them on the grounds that the Soviet Union has been disposing of obsolescent craft.
One simply asks the question: why do the Russians make that provision? Unlike ourselves, Russia is not vulnerable to blockade or attack from the sea. It occupies a great land mass stretching from Europe to the Pacific and has little dependence upon maritime movements. Why then does Russia spend the enormous sums of money involved in maintaining a navy of that size? Why does it do so at a time when it is complaining of its bad financial position and is asking for aid from the West? One simply asks the question: what is all this for?
The answer might appear to be obvious; it provides Russia with an effective means of aggression if at any time it decides to indulge in such activity. But without assuming that it has so decided, the fact that it wishes to keep open that option at such great expense is a matter that those deciding the defence policies of this country must have carefully and fully in mind. Until Russia reduces its navy to a size similar to ours or those of other European countries surely the case for reducing our naval forces is non-existent. The idea of reducing the number of destroyers and frigates to a pathetic 40 against the figures that I have quoted must cause one considerable apprehension. I wish to pass quickly—
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I entirely agree with his view that the Soviet Union's navy is absurdly large. He said that Russia was invulnerable to attack from the sea but, rightly or wrongly, a great deal of modern construction in the Soviet navy is directed against the British and American Trident fleets. He would be wrong to suppose that the new submarines being built by the Soviet Union have an offensive rather than a defensive purpose. They are aimed against the British and American Trident submarines. I repeat that the Soviet navy is absurdly large but I believe that there is a certain defensive element in Soviet naval building.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, because it is the noble Lord's birthday today I shall wish him many happy returns. I hope that when he reflects on his intervention it will not substantially diminish the pleasure of his birthday. It is perfectly obvious that the submarines have an aggressive role. To say that Russia has built a large number of submarines because America has a number of Tridents is quite absurd. It does not fit with the facts nor does it fit with the

1117
enormous number of submarines—285. That is a fantastic amount—does the noble Lord wish to celebrate his birthday again?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. In order to enjoy my birthday a little more perhaps I may point out that he is mistaken. The submarines are anti-nuclear submarines; they are defensive submarines for attacking our Trident submarines. I do not believe that the noble Lord realises that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is all very well for the noble Lord to say that but why should a great land mass with no dependence on sea communications find any need to protect itself from other countries' submarines? It is perfectly clear to those of us who are less naive than the noble Lord that this is a potential aggressive instrument. I hope and believe that Her Majesty's Government will not relax in any degree our naval preparations unless and until we see a substantial reduction in the enormous number of warships which the Soviet Union is maintaining.
I diligently support what was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, about the British Merchant Navy. Without an adequate Merchant Navy, our naval defences and our capacity to intervene in various parts of the world will be very feeble.
My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal very adroitly said that he would delegate my noble friend Lord Arran to answer that point. That only shows the advantage of political experience. However, I hope that we shall receive an answer because it is a serious question. It is serious on its merits and serious because it comes from the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who, after all, has been Prime Minister of this country; what is even more relevant and even more a cause for respect is that he served at sea with the Royal Navy during the war.
I wish to ask two other questions. So far nothing has been said about what is proposed for the regimental structure of the Army. There is wild talk in some quarters of the closing down of a number of regiments, and I understand that recruitment is being deliberately checked. I hope that the Government realise that it is not possible to create a regiment by suddenly deciding to expand again defence forces. It takes years and years to bring men together in the same spirit of loyalty and co-operation with each other and a willingness to face death and destruction in each other's company. If any number of regiments are destroyed, it will make it permanently difficult to expand our Army again, if it must be expanded. I am deeply concerned about that.
As one or two other noble Lords have mentioned, I am also anxious about the proposal to reduce our Army by, apparently, some 40,000 men. I believe that that would be running down our Army dangerously. However, I hope that the point has been taken about the long-term effect if regiments and regimental spirit are done away with. It will take many years for that to be restored and rebuilt, and the work which devoted men have done over the years in building up the spirit and unity of those regiments will be thrown away.
1118
Finally, I wish to raise the question of whether in those reductions it is proposed to limit or reduce the number of Gurkhas. They have served this country splendidly as fine soldiers. If we were to eliminate their recruitment or reduce their numbers to very small levels, it would probably be all but impossible to start their recruitment again. Those of us who have seen the Gurkhas in action know what splendid soldiers they are and what a terrible mistake it would be if we said that, because we are leaving Hong Kong in a few years' time, we shall not bother to recruit any more Gurkhas.
I illustrate that by way of personal experience. During the war in Italy we had some Gurkhas with us whose night patrol operations were the terror of the Germans. In the Italian mountains they used silently to move in and kill the German patrols. The Germans had a proper respect for them.
The Gurkhas also have a very high sense of honour. I recall an occasion when a Gurkha sergeant, who had been on a night patrol, reported to the intelligence officer of the brigade that his soldiers had been out the night before and had killed three Germans. The young intelligence officer tactlessly asked him how he could prove that they had killed three Germans. The sergeant saluted and went out; the next morning he turned up in the intelligence officer's office where he placed three severed German heads on his desk. There was his evidence. That is an example of their strict sense of honour. The Gurkha sergeant was furious because his word had been doubted by a young British officer.
I hope that when he winds up my noble friend will give a reassurance about the Gurkhas. If we are to forfeit them, we shall forfeit a permanent element in our defence forces which has served this country extremely well for a great many years and which it would be impossible to restore.
I know that the noble Earl has a great deal to do and say in replying to the debate, but I ask those questions of him because I know how conscientious he is. I shall await his replies with immense interest.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, with great diffidence I propose to make a few long-term observations on the way in which we may be tending as regards the defence of Europe, and indeed of this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, no one can predict the future with any certainty. But we should have some idea of the way we are now apparently going and perhaps adapt our policies accordingly.
No very radical changes in present defence arrangements in the West should be contemplated until the all-important negotiations for arms reduction—both conventional and nuclear—are successfully concluded and we have a rather clearer idea of the way in which a new Russia is likely to go, and notably whether it can afford to go on spending vast sums on armaments, which is questionable. The present new arrangements in NATO are no doubt satisfactory for the time being. However, if, as we

1119
must hope, all goes well in the various respects which I have mentioned, then what will be the likely effect on defence?
Surely, the first thing to expect is that an American armed presence in Europe will fairly quickly reach vanishing point. There will simply be no need in the circumstances contemplated for an American army to be in Germany since Europe will be fully capable of providing initially for its own defence.
However, that does not mean that the North Atlantic Treaty will lapse, or that the United Nations may not have an important role to play. On the contrary, the treaty must continue, all members being obliged to go to the assistance of any member which is a victim of aggression in the area defined. Not only that, hut the Americans, although absent on the Continent, may still offer some naval and air assistance in the defence of the two "flanks"—northern Norway and Turkey—even though the treaty does not necessarily involve US military intervention in Turkey except as regards any attack on Turkey in Europe.
However, while remaining a great power and no doubt the only really great power in the years ahead the United States cannot, in view of obvious obligations in the Pacific and Latin America and in view of her increasing and vast indebtedness, be responsible for maintaining indefinitely large forces abroad
It seems to follow that we may look forward to the eventual conversion of NATO in Brussels into a European defence centre controlling, in close liaison with the Americans, a European force. That will consist of the German army and air force with French and British participation together with the already projected rapid reaction force for deployment either in Europe or elsewhere which the French would no doubt be very willing to join if the Americans were no longer physically present in Europe. The French and British would of course form the bulk of the naval forces available.
This new European force could gradually develop out of Western European Union, but would preferably consist of all present members of the Community with the exception of Ireland, which, while remaining a member, would not be bound by any military decisions. The Commander-in-Chief of the land forces might well be appointed for a term by those nations contributing the most to the joint effort. The whole organisation would naturally fall under the political control of the Council of Ministers.
But would not the departure of the Americans leave Europe at the mercy of Russian nuclear weapons? It would not. Even if the continuing North Atlantic Treaty were not in itself a sufficient deterrent against the first use of a Russian bomb, the possession by the United Kingdom and France of indestructible nuclear weapons for possible use on a "second strike" would certainly suffice. In the circumstances—and in this I agree with my noble friend Lord Mayhew—a nuclear offensive against Europe would be inconceivable, and if a conventional attack by Russia back in Russia were ever seriously contemplated we and the United States should have ample time to take the necessary steps.
1120
It remains to be considered how such a scheme could operate in the event of an enlargement of the Community. Clearly the present EFTA countries could join whenever they liked. Of those Norway would probably be a party to the new defence organisation: the remainder, including Sweden, Switzerland and Austria, could well (like Ireland) be non-military members. The Eastern European States can certainly not join the Community for many years —the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, suggested at least 10—though it is to be hoped that they will all form some sort of association as soon as possible. But I feel that in any case, they should never be part of any European defence organisation. Indeed, I believe that even now they would be well advised to say that they will never willingly allow foreign troops to enter their territories except in conformity with some valid decision of the Security Council of the United Nations.
In that way we might get a belt of some 10 "neutral" states extending perhaps from Riga to Costanza which could remove from the Russian mind any fear of a fourth invasion of their motherland by European armies, as well as providing the Community with some assurance that any conceivable Russian invasion of the West would be met with resistance as far East as possible.
Paradoxically—and here I venture to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—I feel that the sort of defence project that I have suggested may promote some real measure of European unity before successful efforts to do in other spheres, essential though I consider those to be. At any rate, I make no apology for drawing your Lordships' attention to a sort of blue-print for future defence which need not alarm even those who see a "loss of sovereignty" in almost any attempt to achieve that European union which must surely come about if the Community is to be a powerful and stabilising factor in the dangerous and potentially anarchic years that lie ahead.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, an underlying theme of caution has so far run through this well-informed debate; a theme which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, so ably addressed in his excellent maiden speech. I have to say that I share every concern raised because I too believe that there is no subject of greater importance to any of us than the matter of our defence capabilities. That surely, and sadly, has been the lesson of history; one that to a greater or lesser extent we have had to relearn all too often, as my noble friend Lord Colnbrook so graphically illustrated.
I share the worries expressed by many noble Lords regarding the fundamental basis of Options for Change. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made his announcement in July 1990 about Options for Change, he referred to the possible future size of the Army; and it is on the Army that I shall concentrate today. My right honourable friend then described possible reductions of the Army strength to around 120,000. We now know that the actual figure is to be 116,000. I am

1121
bound to say that I am unclear how such a comparatively precise figure could have been calculated at that time. How was the measured change to which my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal referred, actually measured? One is bound to ask what the assumptions were that led to such a precise intention and calculation. After all, encouraging and even exciting though the changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were at that time, there was no hard and fast guarantee that any more certain and predictable world order would emerge. I would argue, as did my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, that it has not emerged even yet.
NATO restructuring to meet the new world order had certainly not been concluded at that time; it had hardly even begun. The role of Europe within a modified defence alliance and the posture of the United States in the face of that uncertainty was then undetermined. Therefore, like my noble friend Lord Colnbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I am forced regrettably to conclude that the whole exercise stemmed from, I suppose, an understandable but I believe misplaced public spending Treasury-led exercise based on the so-called "peace dividend".
In saying that I do not intend to imply that no change is necessary or desirable; quite the contrary. I believe that it most certainly is. But history may conclude that, to use a different metaphor from that used by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, the cart has once again been put before the horse with no thoroughly thought-through defence review based on all the strategic and geo-political factors involved to form the basis for what now looks as though it might just result in some sort of disjointed effort.
Having referred to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I am bound to say that that is the only metaphoric theme of his that I shall share. I found his speech curiously foggy and vague, certainly from the point of view of his party's current defence policies, which seem to chop and change with the wind and which have a rather depressing historic perspective about them.
So much for the macro issues; let me turn to something narrower. One is bound to look at where the announced cuts will fall. We have seen announced their numerical effect on the serving Army and to a looser extent on the reserves to which I shall return later. Even if restructuring and reduction is necessary, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Arran will consider this: the teeth arms, and to a lesser extent the supporting arms, always seem to be required to bear the brunt of these changes. What about the mammoth administrative and bureaucratic tail which lingers in Whitehall and elsewhere? My noble friend Lord Waddington referred to a review of support activity. I am sure that he has looked at the Civil Service Year Book 1991. Under the entries for the Ministry of Defence he will find no fewer than 109 columns of tightly-packed print which describes the elements under which the Ministry of Defence,
"controls, administers, provides equipment for and supports the Armed Forces of the Crown, and arranges for research, development, production and purchase of weapons systems and equipment".
1122
Taking an average of eight names per column, the elements produce about 870 very senior or senior staff, both military and civilian, within the Ministry of Defence. Generals and senior officials are literally two a penny. What the total central Ministry of Defence staff figure is goodness only knows. Perhaps my noble friend can tell me the answer to that and how it has grown or been reduced since the last major reform of the Ministry of Defence, which was in the time of Lord Mountbatten.
Perhaps my noble friend can also tell me whether any really thorough analysis has been undertaken in recent years into the structure, organisation and staffing of this leviathan. If not, perhaps he can say whether one is planned and, if it is, when it is likely to be complete. I hope that my noble friend will accept that it is a little hard for the loyal serving soldier—let alone sailor or airman—to stomach reductions which always seem to fall hard on him without seeing corresponding reductions in this hugely bureaucratic if well-meaning organisation which somehow always seems to escape the axe. In saying that I do not in any sense denigrate those hardworking individuals who work there.
Frankly, I hate to think of the duplication and blurred lines of responsibility and accountability which must exist there. Perhaps if they were clarified first it might prove possible to devote much more by way of resources to the Armed Forces proper rather than to the tail which is supposed to nourish them. What creature on this earth is nourished by a tail of that size and complexity? On the other hand, I am delighted that my right honourable friend has decided to maintain the regimental system. That will be widely welcomed because the true regimental system, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter described, is the foundation on which the Army conducts itself.
Officers and men do not so much join the Army, but rather they join their regiment. Having said that, I also believe that my right honourable friend is quite right to leave the regiments concerned to work out among themselves their own destiny as regards amalgamations and possible disbandments. The results of such decisions must be properly manned, properly equipped regiments so that thorough training can be undertaken and a proper sense of motivation continued for the future. That will be a difficult and often distressing task. I remember all too clearly the sadness with which I, as a young officer, and my brother officers, heard the news of my own regiment's amalgamation when it was announced in 1967 to take effect in 1969. I also remember the very real spirit with which that forced marriage was embarked on. When 21 years of the amalgamated regiment were celebrated with the presentation of a new guidon last year, the spirit of both former regiments—the 10th and 11 th Hussars which had come together to form the Royal Hussars—was still alive and as strong as ever but bonded in a way which I hope will be the case wherever it is required to be repeated in the future.
It is perhaps difficult for those who have not had the privilege of serving in a regiment to appreciate what that family spirit means. I can do no better than to say that at a church service following the

1123
presentation of my regiment's new guidon last year the right reverend Michael Mann, in his address encapsulated the meaning of a regiment when he quoted the words of a Canadian writer, Farley Mowat, describing the spirit of a Canadian regiment in Italy in the war. He wrote:
"The regiment became the one thing in a world that must grow darker with continued disillusionment. It became each man's home and sanctuary, and its spirit grew large with the need for faith and a belief".
Perhaps I may touch lastly and briefly on the reserve forces. I hope that my noble friend will resist the temptation to make proportionate cuts to the Territorial Army equivalent to those already announced for the regular Army. I said in your Lordships' House before that, having worked alongside the Territorial Army when I was a regular officer, I found them to be thoroughly versatile and competent soldiers and that they have always provided excellent value for money. Over the past 10 years I know that much effort has been expended in re-equipping them and trying to bring them more fully up to strength. I know that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, when he had responsibility in that direction, did a great deal to help.
For heaven's sake let us not fall into the same trap as we did in 1967 or thereabouts when those dramatic cuts resulted in expensive replacement and re-equipment later. I hope that my noble friend will bear in mind that the civilian skills of the members of the reserve forces are enormously wide-ranging and relevant to very many military and what I might call "aid to the civil power" types of activity, such as disaster relief and the like, which they could be well equipped to undertake if called on so to do.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I am glad to follow a number of very distinguished speakers. Few, I believe, have disagreed with the need for a restructuring of our defence in the light of the changed situation. My criticism is founded on the fact that this restructuring started very early last year, was announced in July and, rightly or wrongly, appears to be driven mainly by the Treasury. It is certainly not sufficiently related to the threat nor does it appear to have been tailored to meet the fantastic changes in the past 18 months. Since it is believed to be Treasury inspired, I start with a summary of the expenditure changes in real terms which hive occurred in the past decade. They are very startling.
We are being forced into restructuring because other government departments have become very big spenders. Changes in the past 10 years in real terms, and adjusted to 1989–90 terms, are as follows: in the health service expenditure is up by 37 per cent. That is the biggest of any increase in any part of the Government. Social services' expenditure has increased by 35 per cent. Expenditure on defence has increased by 21 per cent. These other services have overtaken defence expenditure. In actual sums, defence expenditure is £5 billion below that for health, and also £5 billion below expenditure on education. Defence expenditure is £34 billion below expenditure on social security. I have named the top four spenders.
1124
Action in restructuring our forces started in early 1990 in the wishful belief, so I believe, that these strategic facts, supported by disarmament agreements and treaties, would be honoured by the Soviets. I shall now go on to show the way in which they have not been honoured. Sadly, these hopes have not been fulfilled. For the six years that President Gorbachev will have been in power (from July of this year), Soviet military expenditure has steadily increased. It is now higher than it was both in absolute terms and as a proportion of Soviet GNP in 1985. As others have said, Soviet defence costs are between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. of their GNP; this appears at a time when we are cutting ours from 4 per cent. to 3.25 per cent. The United States is cutting back from 7 per cent. to 3.5 per cent. over a period of years. The US forces in Europe are to be run down from 300,000 to 100,000; and our own by 40,000. Do these facts of life warrant the cuts which we are now discussing?
I turn now to arms control. Britain and NATO have been working for many years for balanced and verifiable arms control measures covering nuclear, chemical and conventional forces, but not yet naval forces. I urge that we be more cautious. There has been no treaty that I can trace since World War II that has been honoured by the Soviet Union. The current phase of disarmament started with the Helsinki Agreement on which work began in 1973 and which was finalised in 1975. The Soviets largely disregarded all sorts of minor issues included in the framework of the Helsinki Agreement and just disobeyed them. They even arrested people who honoured them in their own countries. When perestroika and glasnost started, we all hoped that the Soviet military power would be somewhat reined back and treaties would be honoured. The CFE treaty looked hopeful. The Soviets started circumventing it almost immediately. The most glaring example that we all know about was the transfer of tanks to the Russian navy. The Russian navy now has more tanks than the British Army.
Other arms above the CFE limit were not destroyed as required, but were moved behind the Urals. This is why neither the USA nor the United Kingdom have yet ratified that treaty. Soviet military production throughout all these years was marginally decreased in some areas, but it always remained at levels which seemed totally unnecessary for pure home defence. Jane's Defence Weekly, dated 1st June, which is available in the Library, where I obtained it, contains a table showing rates of Soviet production during the years 1988, 1989 and 1990. Those rates far exceeded those of NATO in similar weapons. The most remarkable increase, as has been said, is in Soviet submarines. I shall not expand on that as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is not in his place—we might get into an argument on his birthday! The majority of these submarines are nuclear, and the conventional ones are far more formidable and much quieter than their predecessors.
Are we right to be planning to cut back our submarine force from 32 to 16 boats, while the Soviets currently have 285 combatant submarines? I checked on the submarines available to NATO and that number is 195—a difference of nearly 100. We are a

1125
seapower deeply dependent for our survival, for our food, and much else, on the sea and the sea lanes. The Soviets are not so inhibited. Surely this huge submarine force is a serious threat to the military and civil bridge between the USA and Europe?
My noble friend Lord Chalfont said that the production of anti-ship missiles has now gone up from 1,400 to 1,900. That is a huge increase. They are not running things down. Soviet production of fighter-bombers is now 700 a year—they are very formidable machines with a very formidable weapons system.
In the face of these facts and the instability in Central and Soviet Europe, surely we are taking some risks? We have deep obligations to monitor the movement of Soviet arms and personnel. Will the 340,000 Soviet troops in East Germany really be withdrawn over the next three years? We must monitor this and much else. When the Minister comes to reply will he give an assurance that if this pattern continues we shall go into reverse and step up our own expenditure?
I turn now to the repercussions on our arms industry and particularly on aerospace. I should like to have included a more detailed comment on the Royal Air Force, in which I served for some years, but time and the number of speakers will inhibit that. The Gulf war showed vividly what air power can achieve to prepare the way for ground forces. Unless air superiority is achieved, the Army and the Navy will be limited as they approach the battle zone. If the air force starts to cut R&D it will not survive. It has a highly sophisticated weapons system, as we saw demonstrated on our own television screens during the Gulf war. We must keep our R&D going.
The air force must play a big part in getting initial firepower and forces to out-of-area conflicts. I hope we shall get some agreements about out-of-area conflicts, as it seems that our forces may have to be deployed in three important areas: first, in Europe; secondly, substantially in Ulster, sad though that is; and, thirdly, in other out-of-area area conflicts. I endorse what other speakers have said that the urgent need for helicopters in support of our Rapid Reaction Corps and other restructured forces is of supreme importance. I hope that some action will be taken there.
Having studied Soviet production, I turn now to our own defence manufacturing industry. It is absolutely essential to the effectiveness of our forces and to the continued development of sophisticated arms that this remains a strong industry. Prime defence contractors currently employ a staff of 320,000, while their sub-contractors employ a further 260,000. This area employs 580,000 people. The British Aerospace Company alone—one of the biggest employers in this country—employs 129,000, of which 23,000 are graduate engineers. That is a huge improvement over the past 10 to 20 years.
Since Options for Change was announced last July, 40,000 people have already left the defence industry. The longer-term repercussions on our forces and our exports is truly alarming. I urge the Secretary of State to start one or two dialogues between all the
1126
departments of government which are concerned. The Ministry of Defence itself controls our arms exports; but the Department of Trade and Industry comes into this and so does the Treasury. We must start communicating with the people most affected to make sure that we preserve the maximum capability for the future of our defence industries.
I shall add a small point for consideration by my noble friend the Minister when he winds up the debate. The big boys are generally the slowest payers, and the many sub-contractors become deeply dependent on getting prompt payment, or they will not be there. They play a very essential part—nearly as big as the prime contractors. If the prime contractors are paid on time—and I hope they are—will the Government make certain that they pass those cheques on to the sub-contractors on the same day, otherwise cheques seem to get stuck on deposit. I can mention personal experiences of this which seriously affected a company of which I was chairman.
The country is entitled to know where the Opposition stand in this respect of defence. The Opposition have often shown tremendous enthusiasm for a Freedom of Information Act; nothing should be secret, it should all be out. As we seem to have been in the run-up to the next general election for at least the past three years, according to the media, I do not think that the time can long be put off when we know where they stand. Of course, in this House we are all loyal and almost a coalition in support of defence, but I do not think we are representative of the other place. We have a duty to point out that despite Mr. Kinnock's assurances there is a formidable body in the Commons, strong in conviction and greater in numbers than any political majority that they might squeak home with at the next election. This applies not only in Parliament but throughout the country.
A recent report by three academics funded by the Economic Social Research Council found that more than two-thirds of local Labour Party members in the country believe that Britain should have no nuclear weapons whatever. This viewpoint is reflected on the Opposition Benches in the House of Commons. In the run-up to the 1983 general election, CND, which is dedicated to the destruction of all nuclear weapons, published a list showing 120 Labour MPs as members; by 1987 this had risen to 133: CND now refuses to publish any figures, presumably for fear of embarrassing its friends among the Labour leadership. Mr. Kinnock and his chief defence spokesman, Mr. Martin O'Neill, are still both members of CND. Mr. Kaufman, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, has always refused to give a commitment to keep our nuclear deterrent while others have nuclear weapons. The Labour defence policy is not clear on this aspect even today.
I do not pretend that Mr. Ken Livingstone is typical of Members of Parliament on the Labour Benches but he is representative of the Left-wing. He said of one of Labour's recent defence policy publications:
"Nobody believes a word of it … it is a complete miasma of half-truths, deceptions and lies. The time for that sort of politics is gone. People can tell when politicians are lying".

1127
Those are his words, not mine. Those who believe in freedom of information should give some thought to whether their aim might not be achieved by some rather more determined and clear defence policies. The Labour Party has also promised massive conventional cuts. However, as those cuts have already been mentioned, I shall not refer to them now.
Finally, the United Kingdom together with NATO will be negotiating with Soviet Russia. We are told that President Gorbachev may try to negotiate from the West a huge loan amounting to hundreds of billions of pounds. We should also negotiate toughly and tell him that those negotiations should not even start until he slows down his country's gigantic arms production, which is far greater than can possibly be needed for self-defence. We should also tell him that we want the treaties that he has signed and the obligations he has undertaken honoured not just in the letter but in the fact. If there is no change by the Soviet in their actions and if they go on building up their armaments we should certainly consider slowing down all the cuts proposed in Options for Change and if necessary putting them into reverse.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I do not propose to join the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, in starting to fight the neat general election today. We shall have time enough for that. I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, on his contribution to our debate on defence. I should like to say how fortunate we are to have so many experts on this subject. We had a debate on NATO two months ago in which two other noble and gallant Lords made most important contributions. Unfortunately, very little notice was taken of the debate. The Times gave it precisely 57 words. We are also fortunate to have in the Chamber the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. He always gives us a well documented warning in defence debates and has done so again today. I agree with a good deal of what he had to say.
One of the difficult truths we have to accept is that defence has been largely internationalised. The first question we have to ask is whether our contribution to the international force is of the right size and quality for its agreed role. Next, we must ask: what do we then have left to deal with national contingencies of an unforeseeable kind? And a harder question still: how do we protect our national interests outside the NATO area? These questions of size and quality are outside my field of experience and knowledge. However, this Chamber is richly endowed with people who have that knowledge. What I am concerned with is the development of international arrangements for our security in Europe.
I would be hesitant about intervening in the debate today if I had not been fortified by the studies of the North Atlantic Assembly of the political, economic and military problems of our collective defence. The vast changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe led to many political flights of fancy. It was recognised that the Cold War was over and that the catastrophe which NATO was formed to deter or repel—a mass onslaught on the West—could not now take place.
1128
The question was asked: so why not scrap NATO? Why not pool our defence into the 35 nation CSCE which includes both the United States and the Soviet Union? But people soon recognised that this was a dream and that the CSCE's valuable role was not in defence. As someone said, it could not stop a fight in a four ale bar. Its job is not to stamp out trouble but to preserve peace by political persuasion, by arms control, by building confidence and by developing techniques for crisis management and the avoidance of conflict. And a new role might now be found for it if countries with nationalist disputes within their frontiers were to ask for use of its good offices.
So NATO was to stay. Or was it? People asked: should it not share its role now with the European Community? After all, 200,000 of the 300,000 American troops in Europe will soon be going home and Europe will have to make a bigger contribution to its own defence. Everybody agreed that it would have to have, in the jargon of today, a more visible and coherent approach towards defence. But the European defence identity could be either in NATO or in the Community. And so there has developed a conflict between the Atlanticists and the Europeanists. Of course, nobody thinks that the Community could take over NATO tomorrow. That could not happen very soon even with recourse to WEU. But, as people said, it surely is something that could be planned for the future. That should be the eventual goal.
I strongly disagree, as I believe do most of the members of the North Atlantic Assembly. The Community in an intergovernmental conference is now aiming at political union, and such a union cannot avoid discussing security alongside foreign affairs. But defence is another matter. It requires firm and constant political will and leadership. Europe has yet to show that it has either of those qualities. It also requires structures and mechanisms. NATO has them and over the years has become a highly developed and efficient organisation. Now, like the European Community, it is undergoing almost revolutionary change. It has not yet completed its plans for the strategy and politics of the new era, although it is well ahead with plans for its new military role. I imagine that it cannot complete its strategic studies until the Community has agreed its own political future. All that should happen within the next few months.
I am an ardent European. I am also a lifelong Francophile. Yet the very last thing I want, even though the argument is led by Monsieur Mitterrand with whose party my party is in communion, is that Europe should have defence aspirations. I do not want NATO to be supplanted by the rich and populous Community because I think there are great limits to its unity and to its will. I do not want the Americans to be driven from Europe, which could happen. Above all, I want a defence regime with which the Soviet Union, still a potential great power, can live easily and at peace.
We have to ask ourselves this question. If we had a European Community defence, which would be the leading power in it? I think that the answer must be Germany. And, no matter how democratic Germany has become and how pacifist its social democrats are,

1129
it cannot yet deny either its geography or its history. A defence community led by Germany would not create the climate of peace and détente in which arms control would be an easy option for the Soviet Union.
Even now, we feel that we must be very careful of Soviet susceptibilities. The Czechs, the Poles and the Hungarians would love to be in NATO as a proof of, and a spur to, their democracy and as an insurance that the Kremlin will never attempt to overthrow them again. But we have to say "Sorry, your presence among us would make us look too threatening". Moreover, if the European Community were to take over defence, it would make it impossible to admit them to the Community. We cannot both broaden the Community and give it a defence dimension.
The new strategic concept of NATO will be endorsed at a summit sometime in the autumn. It is said that its defence force must be preventive but not provocative. Even then, the alliance concept will have to accommodate a wide range of national interests in which contentious issues, such as the role and location of nuclear weapons, will have to be decided.
The change in posture of the defence forces is likely to include main defence forces, plus reactive forces and the rapid reaction force about which we have heard so much today. The question is asked: could this force under the leadership of the WEU be a force to deal with events outside the area? I believe that it might be, and that it probably should be. But it will still be very difficult.
Of course, we are to play a conspicuous role in the rapid reaction force. That seems to have aroused both hostility and envy among the French. Indeed, some French people see it as a consequence of their 24-year absence from the NATO integrated military command and their attachment merely to the political side of the alliance. A distinguished opponent of France's limited role in NATO said the other day that France's foreign and defence policies were lying side by side in the bed, but head to toe. He concluded by saying that Descartes must be turning in his grave at such an illogicality.
NATO can say that although the great threat has disappeared, we are left with a risk. That risk has become more manifest in recent months as we have watched the declining central power of President Gorbachev; the breakdown of the Soviet economy; the eager desire for autonomy among the states of the union; and the outbreak of nationalistic or ethnic conflicts in some of those states. Our greatest immediate risk is caused by the possibility of turmoil; that is, turmoil in a great arsenal equipped with nuclear weapons of enormous power.
I should have thought that the way to minimise that risk would be for us to do all that we can to stabilise the Soviet economy and with it the Soviet political system. Things looked at their worst a few weeks ago when, in trying to balance the conservative forces that can keep order with the liberal forces that can sponsor democracy and a market economy, Mr. Gorbachev seemed to reveal a soft spot for the old communism.
However, things have improved since that time, particularly with his winning support from nine major
1130
states. He is now to attend the G7 meeting in London and ask for help. Much doctrinaire rubbish has been talked about this, as if he were looking for money to restore Stalin's Soviet Union. People have even objected to the vagueness of his description of creating a mixed market economy. Yet he was speaking in Sweden, a country noted for its freedom, its economic efficiency and its world conscience. I should have thought that a mixed market economy was exactly what Sweden is. If that is Mr. Gorbachev's goal for the Soviet Union, I do not think that he could have a better or more peaceful one.
Of course, if Mr. Gorbachev is to be aided, it will not be done out of charity. It will not be done out of love or pity. Any aid will have to be given on conditions. And it will have to be a gradual process that can be stopped if promises are not kept—in other words, a package of Western aid firmly linked to the economic liberalisation of the Soviet Union.
Our best security seems to lie in Gorbachev's success in carrying through what is a revolution and a very difficult one, as can be seen from the problems that the efficient Germans are experiencing in their regained communist land.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, following, as I do, so many distinguished speakers, especially the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, I shall try to concentrate on what has happened inside the USSR. In the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990 for the UK—Options for Change—the following words were used:
"It is as evident and as welcome to defence planners as to everyone else that what we are witnessing is the breakthrough of freedom".
In that same paper, President Gorbachev was quoted as saying in January 1989 that future weapons procurement would be reduced by about one-fifth (apparently by 1991) and the Soviet Minister of Finance was quoted as saying that defence spending in 1990 would be 8.2 per cent. lower than in 1989, including a 14 per cent. cut in spending on military research and development.
Of course, it is only too easy to make cases through statistics. In any case, the Soviet authorities are well able to redistribute and hide their defence spending under other heads. But there is no doubt that the Soviet defence budget went up, not down, last year. Several noble Lords have given us chapter and verse on that aspect, so I shall try to omit it from my speech whenever I can because they spoke about it so well.
Similarly, there is no doubting the fact that whatever the official political statements of intent are, the Soviet Ministry of Defence's latest planning document—A Concept for Military Reforms, which was released late last year—envisages that no major reforms should take place until 1996. A review of that concept in the journal Kommunist quotes an increase of 25 billion roubles in Soviet military spending in 1991. Clearly, they are envisaging that more, and not less money should be spent. The concept envisages further major increases in 1991–95. Of course, that is the armed forces plan only. But we must recognise that in the Soviet Union the armed forces and the

1131
KGB, backed by the communist nomenklatura, still exercise the real power—the more effectively because it must seem to many that the immediate alternative may indeed be chaos and a destabilised society. That is how they are presenting it.
We all hoped, as did the peoples of the Soviet Union, that a real break with the past was being made. But has it? Speaking at the all-army party conference in March of this year, President Gorbachev answered the question, "What is the party's ultimate goal—Communism?" as follows:
"I remain a communist on the basis of a profound belief which I am not likely to change after 60 years. I am dedicated to the socialist idea and I believe it is a fruitful one".
Incidentally, in November 1990 Mr. Gorbachev said that military R&D expenditure would not be cut, thus likening it to seed corn. Despite his very real and major contribution to the initial moves to freedom, he is behaving more and more—whether under constraint or not—like an old-style communist.
Meanwhile, Soviet armed forces are also running true to form over the CFE Treaty. Moiseyev has tried to pretend that there was no cheating over the transfer of units to naval command. Moreover, according to a paper emanating from the Centre for Policy Studies, to which I am much indebted, the Russians declared only 800 rather than 1,600 objects of verification which were expected by the simple expedient of ensuring that the rest contained only 29 treaty-limited items, instead of the 30 which would have qualified them as an OV.
According to Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review of May this year, the MVD (Ministry of Internal Affairs) has been expanding in the past 18 months, adding perhaps as many as 65,000 to 100,000 men to the internal troop force, many of them being transferred directly from the Soviet Army. An airborne division and motor rifle division were also resubordinated for the KGB/MVD headquarters in 1990. In that year, according to Tass, the MVD is to be increased again and has been given priority over the army in the autumn 1990 draft.
Another twist is the difficulties which the Soviets profess to be having in liquidating military hardware. A RAND/UCLA seminar on Soviet studies at Berkeley in April of this year was told that the Soviets lacked the physical capacity and technical capability to fulfil their treaty obligations: there were too few plasma-cutting machines or cranes to break up 120 tanks a day, and legal restrictions prevented the Soviet Ministry of Defence from getting the hard currency required to pay the civilian ministries for their machinery and equipment.
Each of those matters in themselves would be small if we were able to believe that the general and firm intention of the Soviet Union was to reduce rather than increase its formidable military power. But they are also, alas, straws in the wind that we cannot ignore. When Edward Shevardnadze said in May of this year that Gorbachev had only three to four weeks to put through reforms and that he and Yeltsin must co-operate, he added:
"The democrats must organise themselves properly to salvage democracy—otherwise reactionary forces and the danger of dictatorship would seize their opportunity".
1132
Yeltsin, in a speech on 25th May, confirmed that and said it was not for nothing that Shevardnadze had said that a dictatorship was possible; the forces of the right were pulling President Gorbachev in their direction and he, Yeltsin, had had to threaten to resign to give a warning that under no circumstances would they turn back from the road upon which they had embarked for the democratisation and renewal of society—at least Russia would not. Yeltsin said the President understood that he had to lean on the left shoulder, too.
The undertone from the nomenklatura is, however, very strong. It knows how to defend itself. In May of this year, General Yazov ordered that officers and warrant officers who had left the party should be the first to be made redundant when staff cutbacks were required. The MVD Minister, Puge, can with impunity sidestep every attempt to pin down the responsibility for the activities of the OMONs (special units) in the Baltic states. In the same speech in May, Yeltsin said that Gorbachev had claimed that no commands had gone out from him or from the MVD Minister. It appeared to be some kind of local affair. Puge, confronted with video coverage of the burning of customs posts, took refuge in the need for "objective checks". He said the central leadership had nothing to do with local actions and tried to represent the incidents as provocation mounted by the three republics to aggravate tension. One of his deputies, Gromov, said that all 30 OMONs—which are very active in Georgia and Armenia—carry out their tasks in strict accordance with orders from the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs and according to regulations, while another, Trushin, said that the MVD (the very same Ministry) issued no orders to the OMONs and were not subordinated to the MVD internal troops, but the internal troops were giving them material technical supplies.
At best, we are looking at a Soviet Union where the political intent—to apply anti-crisis measures, move from a state monopoly to private enterprise and create a free society—is not yet matched by either sufficient will to change or the infrastructure capable of providing an effective alternative management of the existing structure. The nomenklatura is established, as are the army and KGB, and it is scarcely reassuring to note that the RSFSR has now created its own KGB which will work closely with that of the USSR. The RSFSR administration, according to its security committee,
"has no intention of carrying out any purges as in 1917 and subsequent years, because the majority of KGB officers are decent, honest and highly professional and will not serve the interests of any party".
To that the interviewer retorted that it was common knowledge that the USSR KGB had been energetically protecting the interests of one party, the CPSU.
We are looking at a society where fear and repression are, alas, still potent factors. Sakharov once said that an essential prerequisite for the cure of Soviet society was the abandonment of political persecution. In April of this year the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow said that it would consider asylum for former senior communist functionaries in East Germany and Eastern Europe as victims of political persecution.

1133
One wonders whether that includes Frau Honecker who promoted the kidnapping of the children of dissidents.
Meanwhile, do we really believe we can safely lower our guard and make major and irrevocable cuts in our defence capacity? Should we do so after so short an experience of possible change? Unless there emerges in the Soviet Union a determined and capable body of men able to smash—in Yeltsin's phrase—the ferroconcrete bureaucracy and the mould of suspicion of the West, with some degree of experience of management other than through the state, we are at best looking at a fragile, volatile, chaotic and potentially fissiparous situation in which the whole position, including military intentions, could be reversed overnight. A strong capability allied to an unfriendly disposition is still a dangerous threat.
I suggest that it would be wiser to make no major decisions on defence cuts until the situation becomes clearer and meanwhile preserve intact our defence/ industrial infrastructure. Meanwhile, I suggest we can put what resources we have to spare into supporting and advising those Eastern European countries where (as this House's report on the European Communities shows) there is recent memory of how to manage a free rather than command economy. Those countries can by no means have been reassured by the volatile situation in the Soviet Union—a loose cannon if ever there was one. They deserve to be able to count on someone with the power to hold the ring while they develop their economies anew. Properly developed, they could provide stability to balance the inherent instability which still threatens the USSR.
It is not the fault of the Russians that they have virtually no independent management structure, poor accounting systems and no experience of making decisions outside the framework of state policy. But it is a fact that freedom in the USSR is largely confined to freedom of speech—itself a wonder, but not enough. As Yeltsin also said, independence and truth are still in short supply. It is painfully clear that trouble lies ahead. It may be reassuring that a Member of this House—the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—was fully quoted by Tass when she recently advocated at a conference in Moscow that,
"all countries should refrain from attending the CSCE Conference in Moscow until the Soviet Union shows real progress in protecting human rights and carrying out democratic reforms",
which is something we could not have imagined happening even three years ago, but I still submit that leopards do not change their spots overnight. Let us wait a while longer. If we are thinking of giving Mr. Gorbachev the money he wants let us apply the usual donor country rules we have long applied to debtors in the third world.
6.28 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I am sorry I was unable to hear the first part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook. I hear of its excellence and I look forward to reading it in the morning. Nobody envies the Secretary of State the task he now has of making severe cuts in our defence forces. Their magnificent
1134
performance in the Gulf will make that task even harder. Popular approval of the role of our armed forces and the need for them has probably never been higher.
On the other hand, we must all recognise that inevitably there will be some reorganisation and the country, perhaps illogically, expects an immediate peace dividend as a result of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Sadly, in those circumstances the peace dividend seems to be paid first by those working in the armament industry with the loss of their jobs, which is an unfortunate but perhaps inevitable development. One hopes it will not be forever.
The dilemma we are in can perhaps be best illustrated by two headlines adjacent to one another in the Sunday Times of 2nd June. One said:
"Army to be cut by 20,000 men".
The other said:
"Calls for more troops in Ulster".
The first seems to me wildly out; I hope the second one is, too. I hope that all the necessary reductions we are debating are being carefully thought out as part of an overall review of our defence needs, not as a piecemeal attempt to find short term savings. I hope the Minister can assure us that every aspect of defence is being looked at because it is as significant a milestone in the history of the Armed Forces as the Cardwell reforms of 1881, the reforms of Haldane of 1908 or anything that happened after the last two world wars.
I am sure that everyone in the House hopes that the decision will shortly be made to buy the Challenger main battle tank which is made in Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, spoke eloquently about the need for that decision to be made. If the number of tanks is severely reduced, the job losses in Leeds or Newcastle will be unpleasant for those involved, never mind the effect it will have on the prestige of the firms.
Nearly 50 years ago as a young soldier I was involved with the British Churchill tank and the American Sherman tank. We debated hotly, as young soldiers will, the advantages and disadvantages of both tanks. I have to say with regret that we came down in favour of the American Sherman tank because there was more space inside it in which to brew up a cup of tea. As we were keen on our tea, that convinced us of the necessity of having an American tank. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, told us that the technology has advanced considerably since then. Will he tell us whether it is possible to make tea inside the Challenger II tank, because that is an important point.
I shall add a serious point to what the noble Lord said so well. If we decide to buy a foreign tank there may be a serious reaction towards anything to do with our forces. There is a real risk that people might say that we must cut down the numbers in the Army at all costs because it has let us down by deciding to buy a tank which is made abroad. That is a real danger of which I hope the Government are aware.
Any review must be total and not look just at manpower. There has to be a serious look at all MoD establishments. Is it true, as has been reported in a newspaper, that there are over 3,000 separate defence properties? I have seen some of them. Valuable land has lain unused for years. Could not some be sold?

1135
The snag seems to be that the Treasury will not allow the sale proceeds to revert to the Army and so there is no incentive for it to sell. That may be one of the factors that a review should examine. Do we need so many buildings? At the same time, there is a shortage of outdoor training areas. Some, such as Dartmoor and Otterburn, are under great pressure from the National Park lobby to be returned to civilian use and to exclude the Army. That would be an unwise step. It must never be forgotten that the Army has been a better guardian of the wildlife of this country than any department of state or quango.
I wish to turn—not for the first time, although your Lordships may hope that it will be the last—to the future of the reserve forces. Last July, the Secretary of State said that greater reliance would be placed upon them. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, also mentioned those forces. They need all the friends they can get at the moment. The Territorial Army is the larger of the reserve forces and therefore the most under threat. The Naval, Air Force or Royal Marine Reserves are so small as to be almost invisible. I hope that they can be expanded in due course to help with the commitments of their regular colleagues.
Your Lordships may not be aware that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force has not one aeroplane. The TA establishment at the moment is 86,000, but the actual figure is 72,000. Whatever figure may be decided in the future—we believe that has yet to be settled—it must be accepted that we shall probably not reach 90,000, and that 70,000 may be a more realistic figure at which to aim. That compares with the figure in 1909—one year after Haldane's reforms—when the TA reached 300,000, and 1939 when it reached 500,000.
The figure of 50,000 has been mentioned. I do not know whether it is a rumour or a leak. It would be far too low a figure to provide a viable nationwide force. It would be a blow to all those who have served for so long and have volunteered to continue. More important, it would be a reversal of several years' hard and expensive work persuading employers and industry to support the theory of the reserve forces.
It is most important to set a figure which is achievable, and then to set about ensuring that those people who volunteer are properly paid and equipped and given all that they need to do the job. This year's endless trivial cuts in things such as pay, ammunition and petrol, which the reserve forces are now suffering, save relatively little money but irritate almost everyone. That results in an even higher turnover and less efficiency, with higher costs than normal incurred in continually training recruits who walk out shortly afterwards.
We could perhaps phase out the Home Service Force. It is a sort of "Dad's Army", and does not carry the image which our forces should now have. It consists of only 3,000 men. The savings achieved might be minimal, but it does not project the right image and is not cost-effective. If the Government still have to make up their mind about the size of the reserves, I hope that they will consider carefully what they need of them before they do so. The need for home defence has not disappeared. With a smaller
1136
regular army, there is a strong argument for increasing the TA. In the light of the certainty that there will be further unexpected crises, the need to provide reservists to fill gaps in the regular army as happened in the Gulf, whether as individuals or as units, is something for which we must always be ready. With a smaller regular army that may be even more important.
In the Gulf the Government failed to provide immediate guarantees that volunteers' jobs and salaries would be protected if they were sent suddenly to war. The commitment those volunteers sign includes a liability to serve in a total war, but it is important to be certain that those who volunteer, or who are called up, in a partial or limited war, will not suffer. That must be a priority. I happen to know that the Secretary of State also believes that. Let us hope that that matter can be put right.
It should be possible in the future for officers and soldiers to move between the regular and reserve forces in either direction without difficulty. The bureaucracy at the moment is absurdly difficult and sometimes that takes much too long. I know of a regular officer who waited eight months for his commission to he transferred from the regular to the TA. We talk about one army. Let us make one army in practice, and ensure that people can move about within it.
I have spoken previously, as have others—notably the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, this afternoon—on the need to use our reserve forces more often when civil disasters call for emergency action. That becomes more important with a reduced regular army. The reserve forces are fully equipped and able to do so. It is necessary to build that into the emergency planning. There are thought to be objections to that proposal from the Home Office. If that is so, perhaps we can be told why. It is such an obvious step that it is absurd that we do not take it. The National Guard in America is extensively used and I hope that we can copy that example.
The cost of a reserve soldier is estimated to be between one-fifth and one-seventh of that of his regular counterpart. We can therefore have five TA regiments for the cost of one regular regiment. The figure may not be accurate. I ask the Minister to tell us what would be saved as a percentage of the defence budget if we reduced the TA by 5,000 men. We should know the answer to that before decisions are taken. The TA is thought to cost about 6 per cent. of the defence budget. I have made a calculation on the back of an envelope and I make the saving about 0.2 per cent.
It is much easier to reduce the TA than to expand it—and I have experienced both. The experience of 1967, when it was cut—some say too quickly—resulted later in an expensive, laborious campaign to build it up to its present strength. To remove a large percentage, thus making many parts of the country devoid of all military presence, may save money, but the TA is, by definition, a nationwide force, and we should see that it remains so even if there are some places which may no longer be able to sustain a viable unit.

1137
We also hear, sadly, that many famous regimental names may disappear with the reorganisation of the Regular Army. I hope that the opportunity might be taken to ensure that some of those names survive as Territorial units in the future. Their names should be perpetuated so they can be revived if and when they are needed, and become a focus of regional or city pride. We might take the opportunity to recreate famous names, such as the DLI, which have disappeared. It is something which would be welcomed in many parts of the country. I am again impressed by the American practice. Many regiments formed to fight in the civil war still exist under their original titles in the National Guard. Let us hope also that we can keep as many battalions as possible, although their strength may be much reduced, so that expansion will be easier if it is necessary.
It has been unkindly said that the Treasury pose a far greater threat to the future of our Army than anything that Saddam Hussein and his Republican Guard could do. There is an unkind element of truth in this. The defeat of the latter was much easier than the defeat of the former. All we should ask is that in making the inevitable and necessary reductions, it be done in a thorough and overall way, and resources are found to fit the needs. If that is seen to be done, those responsible for the detail will, I am sure, do what they possibly can to help the Secretary of State and the Government to carry out what I have already described as a painful process.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, it was marvellous that my noble and gallant friend Lord Fieldhouse was able to make his maiden speech in this important debate. I wish to add my congratulations. His knowledge of these matters is formidable and his contribution to his country before the Falklands, during that campaign as Commander-in-Chief and afterwards as CNS and CDS has been outstanding. We look forward immensely to having the benefit of his wisdom and experience in the years ahead.
This important debate, launched so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, has shown quite clearly that many in your Lordships' House are increasingly concerned at the way in which Options for Change is developing. We have not exactly been reassured by the recent limited Statement in another place on the Army.
We are not concerned because a strategic defence review was uncalled for or inappropriate. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact alone, with its impact on any imminent threat to NATO, demanded such a review. This has not been invalidated by the more recent uncertainties in the Soviet Union or surrounding the Gulf war, although these latest developments must surely influence the outcome. They occurred well after Options for Change was first conceived.
Moreover, there is, I believe, general approval for our moving from a now unnecessary and uneconomic forward defence deployment to a British-led rapid reaction force for NATO and in NATO. For reasons which do not need restating, that organisation must
1138
still remain the cornerstone of any collective security system in Europe and of a proper balance of power. All this, including stationing but one strong armoured division on the continent of Europe, seems eminently sound and sensible, particularly as our components in this force would give us some national capability to operate outside Europe, if there were the need, as in the Gulf.
My concern lies much more with the way the size and shape of our forces has been arrived at, which seems to indicate a clear case, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, aptly put it, of putting the cart before the horse. The trouble undoubtedly was that before the ink was dry on any genuine choices proffered to Ministers, the Treasury funding had been virtually removed for both the short and longer term. It was as if all the crucial and difficult decisions on government defence policy, on strategy, on equipment policy and organisation had been taken when, of course, they had not. So far as I can judge, in certain cases they have still not been taken. It was also as if the cheapest option and something perhaps even cheaper than that had been properly assessed against developments in NATO and future commitments, both inside and outside that organisation. It was as if the cheapest option had then been accepted on its merits, strategic as well as political and financial.
There is no evidence that this strategic reappraisal has happened. Nor, in the light of subsequent events and uncertainties in the world, would such what I may describe as a part-worn selection have been wise, at least without considerable modification incorporating the lessons of the Gulf. That would include the relationship between regular forces and reserves and the many other developments since Options for Change was first considered.
However, this removal of the money in advance must have greatly reduced the scope and freedom of action of Ministers and their military advisers to make sound decisions. If a yawning gap already existed between commitments and resources, and there was not even enough to meet the original cheapest option, there was not much chance of a reassessment upwards, however sensible this may have become.
If the noble Earl can reassure me I should be only too delighted and relieved. It seems to me that what started out as a highly sensible and logical exercise has degenerated yet again into one of those resource-led scrambles in which, in order to balance the books in the shorter term, we first cut anything we can easily lay our hands on: training activity, ammunition, spare parts, equipment orders (running on older equipment beyond its point of obsolescence). Those are the very things which created such unreliability in what would otherwise have been good equipment in Germany. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, pointed out, it necessitated contortions, cannibalisation and grounding of other units when we needed to send only a modest sized force to the Gulf. Also, the overall projected numbers of the forces were: 116,000 for the Army—50,000 below the authorised strength at present, and the lowest figure for the British Army ever; and even 4,000 less than was announced last July, when the world did not look as uncertain as it

1139
does today. The number of frigates and particularly submarines is far less than even in the heyday of what was considered to be Sir John Nott's assault on the Navy and when the Soviet naval threat which is not dependent upon the Warsaw Pact is still in situ. There is the reduced number of aircraft when the Gulf war demonstrated the crucial part which is played in conflict by aircraft. Finally, the number of Army combat units is not yet officially announced, but is said to involve swingeing cuts of up to 50 per cent.
These figures have all been arrived at far more from what could be squeezed into an arbitrary financial ceiling, with the Treasury well in the lead and calling the shots, and with an apparent desire to have equal misery for all, than from an analysis of what will be required by our ongoing commitments. They include the only recently established dispositions and deployments agreed by NATO; Northern Ireland, where there is an acute infantry overstretch; and all the other uncertainties, in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Far East, which bedevil the world scene. I say that as one who, in the debate last year, warned your Lordships' House about the imminent dangers in the Middle East.
Of course there must be a compromise. Savings emanating from the reduction of our forward forces in Germany and Berlin can and must be made. However, if there is not some alleviation of the present level of resources which will bring them more into line with our up-to-date commitments, and if there is no end to the present blight on decisions on new equipment, such as the obsolete Chieftain replacement—the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has dealt with this extremely well and comprehensively—we shall end up for sure not will smaller but better forces as promised but with smaller forces equally overstretched and equally underfunded. They will therefore be generally less effective than at present. As an example, I seriously question whether, with only 116,000 in the Army, we can properly sustain operationally and logistically the formations and units which are now apparently required by NATO and our other commitments in the 1990s.
I hope that in the White Paper the Government will not ignore the lessons of the past which have been pointed out in the debate. Earlier governments, seduced by the same prospect of easing of tension and the absence of any immediately definable threat, cut our operational capability so badly that when crisis and even mortal danger loomed but a short time later, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, we were nearly in no position to recover or cope. It is well to remember that the quality of men and equipment arid the professionalism which goes with them that we saw in the Falklands and again in the Gulf is not something which can be manufactured overnight. It cannot be turned off for long periods and then switched on again at the drop of a hat as if nothing had happened. It needs to be nurtured. It needs a certain amount of tradition, stability and esprit de corps. It needs the confidence and professionalism that can only come from a credible capability and the self-respect of those who know they are appreciated.
1140
I wish to make two further points. First, I hope the Government will not forget the great value that is provided at an extremely low cost by many units of the Territorial Army and other reserve forces. The noble Viscount has just reminded us of that fact. They can produce valuable reserves and reinforcements in an emergency, as we saw in the Gulf, when over 1,000 individual volunteers offered their services, mostly for the medical services. However, I believe a great opportunity was missed in not calling out a certain number of actual units or sub-units in the Gulf or in Germany. That would have achieved so much in terms of motivation and retention.
The reserve forces can also provide vital links and routes for the regular forces into the civilian community with mutual advantages in both directions. With some help from the regulars—extra outlets may be badly needed in that respect—they can make a real contribution to our defence effort. It would be a sad day if the Government failed to tap to the maximum recruitable extent this volunteer spirit for which this country is famous. Indeed historical precedent shows that as regular forces are reduced, reserve forces are needed more and not less. We await with interest any Government announcement on this point.
While I am on the question of reserves, I sincerely hope the Government will not feel obliged to go back on their solemn undertaking to maintain a role in the British Army at a viable level for the Brigade of Gurkhas after 1997 when their essential role in Hong Kong comes to an end. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not in his place at the moment. Not only does this country owe the hillmen of Nepal a quite unique debt of gratitude for all the times they have rallied to our country's side in our darkest hours and sacrificed their lives in large numbers, but they also remain some of the finest fighting men in the world. They are also a marvellous source—provided we maintain the connection—of virtually unlimited recruitment. Looking ahead to some inevitable disenchantment in our own recruiting, and in any case to a disturbing disadvantageous demographic trend, the Gurkhas may prove invaluable to us in the years ahead. If they have to remain outside the numbers ordained for the infantry, so be it. Some of the funding for the Gurkhas is already outside the Defence Vote. I believe there are few roles worldwide which they could not undertake with distinction. However, I am not sure that the story about severed heads will do the image of the Gurkhas much good with the civil servants in Whitehall. Even if that story is a little exaggerated, their reputation preceded them in the Falklands and enabled them to use minimum force when the time came. The Gurkhas constitute a formidable weapon and their reputation does no harm as it serves as a useful deterrent.
Secondly, if, after a proper assessment of commitments and of the effect that the stretching of resources will have on the services and on redundancies—and, as I have said already, I am not yet convinced that such an assessment has been properly carried out—the Government are prepared to take the responsibility for reducing our none too

1141
lavish combat units, I hope they will have the courage (such a step will take some courage as it is no good just passing the buck to the military) to stand by the services if it makes military sense. I further hope that the Government will have the courage to produce a new organisational structure for the regular Army which is in tune with the future and which will enable that Army easily to produce full-strength units in an emergency. Such a policy can also be linked to some extent to regimental centres where families can congregate, buy houses and consistently educate their children. Such a practice is much more common in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
The regimental system with which the fighting soldier can proudly identify is important, as the Secretary of State recognised. It provides a mainspring of pride, loyalty and motivation which in peacetime makes the Army an altogether more interesting and congenial place in which to serve. That is soon to be a very important factor. In war the regimental system inspires men to even greater efforts of fortitude and endurance.
A vibrant regimental system need not depend on sticking willy-nilly to one particular title or cap badge at one particular moment in history. If that had been the case, we would have destroyed that system many times over in the past three centuries. What are required now, perhaps more than ever, are regimental organisations which are still small enough to have a definable natural ethos of their own in terms of pedigree, regional loyalty or professional specialisation, and thus may still mean something rather special and unique to the front line soldier from the moment he joins his depot or training centre. At the same time regimental organisations should be large enough in terms of numbers of units within them to be able, whatever the future holds, to produce units which can provide the maximum motivation for those who serve in them and are ready for action in all respects. I believe there is scope for some positive thinking in this direction, even if the merging, let alone disbanding, of smaller units will cause great distress, particularly among the retired. The salvation of some of the older titles in the Territorial Army may well be an excellent solution to this problem.
At the end of the day what the young want more than anything else is a proper job of work to do, a credible role and the opportunity to be part of or to command full-strength squadrons, companies, troops and platoons inside well equipped, viable units which can generate real spirit and are manifestly ready for anything. If there have to be fewer combat units—I hope the cuts will be kept to a minimum—I hope that there will be larger but more viable regiments. As a non-Guardsman, I view with absolute horror the possibility that such a famous and magnificent regiment as the Grenadier Guards might lose its second battalion when I personally believe that no infantry regiment should have fewer than two battalions. I also view with horror the possibility that the outstandingly well trained and effective Parachute
1142
Regiment should be reduced in number merely to bring it into line with other regiments. Let us try to reinforce success and not to penalise it.
I hardly have to remind this House that in the past 40 years the Armed Forces of the Crown have been needed in one form or another on a remarkable number of occasions. To say that they have never let the country down is an understatement; indeed they have made an immense contribution not only to national and European security and British interests abroad but also, and increasingly, to disaster relief in many forms. Disaster relief is a topical matter. Our Armed Forces have also made a contribution to the economic life of this country and to fuller employment.
Moreover, there can be few if any national institutions which have so well preserved their reputation and integrity in the eyes of the public, many of which look upon the Armed Forces as one of the real jewels in the national crown. It would be sad indeed if the only perceived reward for many thousands of men and women after all this—perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 in the Army and many others in the other services over and above normal wastage—was to be deposited on a highly depressed labour market with a redundancy payment which would barely meet the deposit on a house, certainly in the South East. No patriotic citizen could wish to see that happen.
Although no one likes paying insurance premiums —that is what defence expenditure amounts to—and we bitterly resent doing so when everything seems quiet, when the winds suddenly blow and the floods come or there is a spate of burglaries and we experience the worst winter for five years, how glad we are that we did not default on our premiums. When we reflect on the effect there might have been on our country's social development and economy if our defence arrangements had gone wrong or had been unreliable over the past 45 years, or if we had not had 40 years of comparative peace in Europe, and if our military intervention in the Falklands and the Gulf had ended in disaster, we must conclude that these premiums are well worth keeping up.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I must first of all apologise to your Lordships' House. Due to a longstanding commitment, I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate.
I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Colnbrook on introducing this debate with a remarkable speech. Like most other noble Lords who have spoken, I share the anxiety that we may be being too optimistic, and that we are at risk of lowering our guard too far and too fast before we have definite proof that the Russians are reducing their forces and reducing significantly the production of new armaments and are not simply scrapping obsolete equipment. I am sure noble Lords will agree that previous speakers have fully covered the matter of Russia. I wish to say a few words about the possible threat to peace from what is commonly known as out of area—that is to say, those areas of the world which are outside NATO's responsibility.

1143
I believe that problems are more likely to arise out of area than within Europe. Your Lordships will agree that past events confirm that, most notably the recent conflict in the Gulf. Although NATO is the principal military organisation concerned with keeping peace in the world, it was powerless to become involved directly in the Gulf war. As the North Atlantic Treaty stands at the moment, it would be equally powerless to become involved in any out of area threat to peace which may arise in the future. When the question is raised of the possibility of amending the treaty to enable NATO to enlarge its area of responsibility the immediate reply seems to be that that is impossible.
Few people would disagree that if NATO could undertake a wider role with its well established command structure and integrated forces that would solve many of the problems of dealing with possible out-of-area confrontations. For instance, if the Gulf war could have been dealt with as a NATO responsibility it would have been unnecessary to establish a whole new command structure, and the transfer of men and equipment to the Gulf would have been achieved more quickly and smoothly. Perhaps it is impossible to amend the North Atlantic Treaty, but I wonder whether the question has really been addressed or whether it is just dismissed out of hand.
As has already been mentioned, it is proposed that British forces and a British commander should head a new rapid reaction corps able to move anywhere in Europe. That is a very great compliment to the professionalism of British forces and encouraging for the defence of Europe. However, here again, what happens if a situation arises requiring the urgent use of such a force, or part of it, outside Europe such as in the Middle East? It is my understanding that individual units could be withdrawn—that is what happened in the Gulf—and used outside NATO, possibly under the auspices of the United Nations or even the WEU. (Perhaps I should mention that I am a delegate to the WEU.) But what of its command structure; and if, as is proposed, many units are truly multinational, will that not render their deployment very difficult, if not impossible, requiring the concurrence of each individual nation whose troops are involved?
I noted that the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 25th July last year in another place the establishment of a British strategic reserve division made up of amphibious, parachute, air-mobile and armoured formations for roles in Europe and national defence. I wonder whether that will be part of the United Kingdom's contribution to the rapid reaction corps or in addition to it. If it is to be part of it, here again using the reserve division out of area will be difficult and will take time.
As I said, the main consideration at the moment is the restructuring of NATO forces to deal effectively and economically with the changing situation in Europe. However, it is encouraging to note that some thought is being given to dealing with possible out-of-area situations.
Mr. Willem Van Eekelen, Secretary General of the WEU, proposed a multinational European force which he suggested could be deployed rapidly and, if
1144
necessary, outside Europe. It might consist of an air-mobile division made up of British, Belgian, Dutch and German troops ready to be deployed to NATO's northern sector or, as I have already intimated, outside Europe. An added advantage of that suggestion is that as it would be inherently European the French should have little difficulty in associating with it. Another encouraging sign is that the Federal Republic of Germany is reported to be considering amending its constitution to permit its armed forces to operate outside Europe.
Noble Lords will agree that the problem of ensuring that an integrated rapid reaction force is combat ready for deployment not only inside Europe but also out of area has not been resolved. One solution that has been put forward is that it should operate inside Europe under NATO control and in other parts of the world under the WEU. A further suggestion is that the present arrangement whereby forces earmarked for NATO can be withdrawn in the case of national need should be extended so that those same units could be employed both for national and out-of-area purposes and that certain commanders should be "dual-hatted", or even "triple-hatted", to meet any of those eventualities.
So far I have tried to cover a few of the problems associated with having an international rapid reaction force available for both NATO and for out-of-area operations. However, there is another aspect to establishing effective rapid reaction forces; namely, their mobility. If they are to be used over longer distances outside Europe the problem is aggravated. Initially they need to be air mobile; but, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, suitable sea transport must also be available in sufficient quantities and of the right type.
If we take a quick look at the availability of suitable air transport among our European allies it is evident that in time of crisis their ability to airlift their forces is sadly lacking. France has its rapid intervention force but has insufficient long-distance air transport for its rapid deployment. Italy created a rapid intervention force four years ago but it is composed mainly of insufficiently-trained conscripts, again without proper means of transport. The Netherlands is in the process of setting up an air-mobile brigade which will be capable of deployment as part of a NATO multinational division or which could be used out of area. It is planned to begin the purchase of some 25 troop transport helicopters in 1993; but, again, that will not resolve long-distance requirements. Spain decided in 1988 to set up a rapid reaction force, but to date its final composition has not been decided upon. In the meantime, it will be made up of a parachute brigade and legion forces. Here again, adequate airlift capability is not available.
As I have already mentioned, Great Britain is giving consideration to the formation of a strategic reserve division, which I understand would be made up of the 3rd Royal Marines Commando Brigade, the 5th Airborne Brigade, the 24th Air-Mobile Brigade and some armoured formations. Here again, if that force is to be effective, it must have adequate air and sea transport capacity. At the present time specialist

1145
aircraft are inadequate in quantity and coming to the end of their useful life. The Royal Marine Commandos have two LPDs—HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid"—which were built in the early 1950s. In 1981 it was proposed that they should be scrapped, and also, I understand, in 1985. A replacement programme is in being but to date there are no plans for putting it into effect. One has to ask how long those existing ships can continue in service, how much it will cost to keep them in service, and when a decision is taken to replace them how long it will be before the replacements come into service?
On the basis of what I have said, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the whole question of mobility needs urgent attention. There is little sense in establishing rapid reaction forces if they cannot react rapidly.
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, this debate has already produced many distinguished speeches, notably that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, from whom we look forward to hearing frequently in future. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Rodney, not only for his interesting and thoughtful speech but also because of the juxtaposition of him between myself and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. By speaking when he did, he has spared me the mortifying experience of following a speech of enormous distinction, erudition and value.
Sometimes I have thought that, were I to be faced with the task of writing a PhD thesis, I might perhaps choose as a subject the British predilection for tinkering rather than planning. I take that to be a national characteristic, which is possibly not unique to us. It operates through the whole of our society from the top to the bottom. Starting at the bottom, even in the world of fiction some noble Lords may remember a character invented by P. G. Wodehouse called Stanley Featherstonehaugh-Ukridge, who, when he broke his spectacles, instead of going to an optician and ordering a new and better pair, chose to repair them with the wire from a ginger beer bottle. That is what I call tinkering. It appears at all levels, right up to the very top, which is where I consider we are; that is to say, in Whitehall or Westminster.
The arch tinkerer among departments of state is probably the Department of Transport. That is what it is called at the moment, although it has had various names in the past. It is responsible for roads, railways and aircraft. Many noble Lords will remember that in the good days of Beeching, when things were going wrong with the railways, we simply abolished large numbers of them. Not only that, we tore up the roads as well. Now, when we want to put traffic back on the roads, we find that they have gone and the bridges have been pulled down too. That is the result of tinkering in high places.
The arch example of tinkering was probably aviation. From the time of Hendon onwards, or whenever flying started in this country, an overcrowded runway or building led to new construction. That
1146
gave rise to an endless succession of new runways, new hangars and even new terminals. The process is still going on and every few years—surprise, surprise—the Government discover that the air transport capacity of the country is running out and ask, "What shall we do now?" If we had given up the idea of tinkering we should have followed the plan for Maplin airport years ago. It would have been in action by this time.
The same is happening now. There is in existence a plan for an offshore airport which will cost the Government or the taxpayer nothing. It will probably not be built because it is not tinkering: it is planning.
The great victim of such tinkering is the services. I put the Department of Transport at the top deliberately. There is nothing personal between me and any of my noble friends concerned in any particular department. I have not put the Ministry of Defence at the top of my list for tinkering because it is a special case. As has been pointed out by several noble Lords, that is the one department that should be outside Treasury control. Treasury control comes from a tradition of tinkering. The arch tinkerer is the Treasury. If one wants to tinker, sure enough the Treasury comes along and says, "No you can't do that or if you do, you can do it only at half the cost". Over and again we have heard it said and have accepted as axiomatic that such process should not engulf the Ministry of Defence because defence is the paramount priority of all governments. That is accepted by all governments, certainly all Conservative governments.
What is going on now in Options for Change? Large numbers are being quoted. We hear that the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy are to be reduced. But in no case are we told why it is being done. What examination in depth has been carried out into the pattern of warfare should war ever break out in the future? Sooner or later we shall have a White Paper which will probably show the Government's thinking on the matter. But so far we have only numbers. We hear that the Army will be reduced to a strength of 120,000—or is it 116,000? There are two versions of the figure. I have two statements issued from the Government, both bearing the same date but giving different numbers. Which is right? Why should the figure not be 110,000 or 130,000? From where do we have the figure of 116,000? I do not know.
Does the effectiveness of the Army depend on the exact number of soldiers in it? Armies are not measured by that criterion. They are measured by fire power and many other characteristics. Is the Army likely to be better because it is smaller? Why should that be so? It also has to increase its fighting power and that does not depend solely on numbers. If it did, we should be perfectly happy to go to war equipped with bows and arrows, I suppose.
I want to take up a point made by my erstwhile noble friend Lord Ridley about the combination of regiments. Again we are going in for tinkering. We have not been told why we have to tinker in the traditional way by cutting out regiments. Nor are we told how it is to be done. We just have the ordinary excuse, "The Army has to get smaller, so let us disband a few regiments". It is worth remembering that should regiments be disbanded now, I regret to

1147
say that we shall be disbanding something that is pretty near the bottom of the barrel. The Army that we now have, mutatis mutandis after the change in the situation in Central Europe, is the Army that was left after the Falklands War.
Noble Lords will remember the Falklands war. It was not very long ago. It was fought with enormous gallantry and efficiency and it was a great success. But it was about the longest war of that kind that we could afford. If it had gone on any longer or been harder, the initiative would probably have begun to pass to the Argentines because all the troops in the Army who were capable of taking part in that kind of war were in fact engaged in it. If anybody doubts the truth of that statement, I remind them that a battalion of footguards, claiming, with some justice, to be the finest infantry in the world, found that it was not able to operate satisfactorily in the Falklands because it had come from public duties in London and an 8,000 mile sea voyage was not the best training for heavy yomping. So let us be rather careful when we have the White Paper to find out why such reductions have to be made.
My noble friend Lord Ridley mentioned the possibility of keeping regiments alive even though they are amalgamated or disbanded. I remind noble Lords that years ago in the 1920s, five Irish regiments of foot were disbanded. There were three remaining regiments and two of them were put together to make one regiment without removing the name of either. They were the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers and the Royal Irish Fusiliers. They formed one composite regiment. When war came along in 1939 they were simply separated and reconstituted as two Irish regiments. They were separate then but they have now been amalgamated with the Royal Ulster Rifles and are known as the Royal Irish Rangers. But that is by the way.
Finally, I want to say a brief word about morale. One cannot have a good serving force of any kind unless morale is good. In my darker moments I confess that I have wondered whether whoever it may be—let us call it the Ministry of Defence—looks upon soldiers, sailors and airmen as people. A few years ago there was an accident in Berlin in which two soldiers, as it happens from the Royal Irish Rangers, travelling in a jeep, were seriously injured when a French tank traversed its gun and knocked the jeep off the road. The French army and Government accepted responsibility but did not pay for years. After many representations from the British Government, and indeed from some noble Lords in this House, the money was secured from the French and paid to the two soldiers. But why did they have to go without the money all that time? They were told that they would be paid as soon as the Ministry of Defence obtained the money from the French. Why did not the Ministry of Defence pay the money straightaway? It had to obtain t from the French. It did so, but it would not pay the soldiers until it received that money. That was pretty mean.
Two soldiers have been injured in Canada by a mine explosion. They are trying to win compensation, such as any soldier receives if injured while playing
1148
football. But, no. And why? It was a Canadian mine. If the Canadians will pay the compensation, it will be paid to the soldiers. That is almost worse than the French incident. At least the French accepted responsibility. Are we not responsible for the lives and safety of our own soldiers? A Canadian mine, my Lords! Whoever heard of such an excuse?
In conclusion, and on the subject of morale and whether soldiers are regarded as people, I have in mind the strange event that occurred in the Gulf war. A report was put out by a British officer, I believe at a press conference, to the effect that a small number of young soldiers had been killed by friendly fire. I had not heard the term "friendly fire" before. We all know what it means. We also know presumably that from the beginning of warfare, soldiers and sailors have been killed by accident or mistake by fire from their own side. Many of us are aware of that from our own experience. When it occurs—I have had a hand in doing this myself; there is no code number in the casualty report for "killed by friendly fire"—those men are reported as killed in action, which they must have been.
Why were these men described as having been killed by friendly fire? They were killed in action. Their courage was no greater and no less, their contribution no greater and no less, than that of their comrade soldiers. Why then was the report made that they had been killed by friendly fire? I regard that as a piece of totally gratuitous cruelty to their families —parents, wives and next of kin. I hope that my noble friend will say that steps have been taken to make sure that no such report is made again.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, Albert Einstein said that,
"the release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking".
I suggest that a good deal of the debate fits that prognostication. It results from the identification of defence solely with military affairs. Of course noble and gallant Lords in this House discuss the details of their profession during this annual opportunity. I do not presume to enter into that field of discussion.
However, I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, when introducing the debate, concentrating on the concept of security. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel stated that we have to consider our security in five or 10 years' time. I suggest that it is today anachronistic to base security solely on military power, however it may be organised. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, if he were present, that when he speaks about the CND and its members he should remember that "CND" stands for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Its members have various views as to how that disarmament should be attained; but I suggest that no Member of this House would not identify himself with the objective of nuclear disarmament.
On the issue of the anachronism of identifying security with military affairs, one can argue that military affairs today can be seen to be organised at

1149
the expense of the chances of survival. I should like to add two aspects of a different dimension from those that have been mentioned.
First, a variety of explanations have been given of the significance of the Gulf war and its consequences. I suggest that what was demonstrated by the Gulf war was the importance of the United Nations, and of building it into an organisation with alternative problem-solving mechanisms, plus the provision within the constitution of the United Nations of a military arm to support such measures as the sanctions imposed on Iraq.
I am emboldened in that suggestion by the words of Willy Brandt, the ex-Chancellor of Germany, last week in Frankfurt. He addressed this specific problem of security. He laid down four conditions for the development of security, and the establishment of the United Nations as a strong organisation participating in defending the security of all parts of the world. The first condition was the necessity to reduce the veto rights of the permanent members of the Security Council. The second was to give more powers of initiative to the Secretary-General to resolve conflicts. The third was to cease to view security solely in military terms. The fourth was therefore to oppose the modernising of NATO forces and the resumption of huge arms exports. I suggest that in discussing the United Kingdom's future defence policy and the military forces which are to be organised in this country we should give priority to the necessity of our forces coming increasingly under the control of the United Nations; and to ensure that the United Nations is organised to use military forces if and when necessary under genuine international control.
Secondly, we should consider what security means in the real world today. I suggest that one of the new issues is that the weak and poor nations in the world can now damage the security of our strong, rich states. For example, if the Chinese, the Indians, and the Indonesians use refrigerators with CFCs, if the Latin-Americans log or burn their rainforests, if the third world bases its industrial development on carbon, the ports of our rich world will be flooded with rising seas, the northern grain belts will be reduced to deserts as a result of drought and skin cancer will spread alarmingly throughout our societies.
Today the third world is responsible for about one-quarter of the world's carbon emissions into the atmosphere. However, by the year 2010 the third world may well surpass the developed world in its emissions. The third world will suffer more from global warming because it has fewer resources. However, that will inevitably lead to conflicts for natural resources as they become more scarce; for example, oil and water. It will also lead and is already leading to a straggle of refugees from the poor countries to the rich. That is a growing problem particularly in Mediterranean Europe and it is certain to extend beyond.
Therefore it is clear from the argument that this is a security issue for all of us. Our security depends on dealing with this complex issue. Again I am
1150
emboldened in putting forward my argument by the words used by Willy Brandt and the ex-president of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, speaking in Frankfurt last week. They argued strongly that the peace dividend to be gained from the relaxation of tension in Europe must be used to provide greater aid to the developing countries. Julius Nyerere used stark words when he said:
"To prevent the poverty and instability in the south leading to large-scale legal or illegal migration into your countries, it is necessary that third world countries be helped to break the circle of poverty in which they are trapped".
He continued:
"For the reality is that our poverty threatens your prosperity and insecurity in our countries … will sooner or later reduce your peace and security".
That menace to our security is real in the world in which we live. It is essential that in these circumstances we have North-South co-operation for the sake of the security of the developing and developed world. I am glad to note that throughout the debate there has been discussion about the planned reductions in military expenditure and orderly disarmament put before us by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I say to those who are anxious about unemployment resulting from such reductions that there is a great opportunity for conversion from military to peaceful production. There is also a great opportunity for the trained men and women in the Armed Forces to turn to production which is for the constructive benefit of mankind. There is also a great opportunity in new technology and manufacturing to meet the enormous menace which faces us as a result of developments in the third world, their bearing on the environment and the effect of that environment on the security of the people of this country.
I suggest that today and into the 21st century the meaning of the word "security" must be based on disarmament. Disarmament is the major issue that Members of this House and another place must discuss. The peace dividend, the consequences of that disarmament, must be invested in sustainable development in the developed and the developing world if the people of this country, the industrial world and the developing world are to have any hope of security during the next 25 years.
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I begin by quoting from paragraph 85 of the Tenth Report of the House of Commons Defence Committee printed on 11th July 1990. It states:
"As the 1990 Statement on the Defence Estimates (SDE 90), matching all too many of its predecessors, was obliged to observe—'The Services' major national commitment in 1989 was support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland'.
Recent events in Europe have of course no direct implications for this major commitment, which is for the Army the dominating fact of military life. As the conclusions of the Options for Change exercise are put into effect the extent of this military commitment will become ever more apparent. Any reductions in strength will increase the frequency with which soldiers will serve in the Province, with possible effects on recruitment and retention".

1151
As a result of that statement I do not apologise for bringing Northern Ireland into the debate. I hope to show that the Government's education in arithmetic is a little lacking.
I must declare an interest because it is vital to all law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland, of which I am one, that Her Majesty's forces continue to support the RUC. I know that that fact is not in question, although their ability to do so without severe consequences may be questioned if the perceived reductions take place. After all, Northern Ireland is the only permanently operational area in which our forces serve. It has been operational for more than 21 years.
I do not wish to go into the commitments worldwide as many noble Lords present have greater knowledge and ability than I. However, we know that several commitments outside Europe will be reduced in the coming years; for example, Hong Kong. Options for Change indicates that we shall be left with some 36 infantry battalions and whatever battalions will be permitted in the Ulster Defence Regiment. Of course the latter cannot serve outside the Province.
I speak mainly about the infantry because Northern Ireland is staffed mainly by infantry battalions. I do not forget the cavalry; I was a 17/21st Lancer and I feel strongly about the family traditions within regiments and the fact that they should remain. I wonder whether the Royal Armoured Corps will ever look the same again without the skull and crossbones; death or glory.
The creation of a NATO Rapid Reaction Corps (RRC) with two British divisions—one in mainland Europe with the other as reinforcement in England —will tie up a large number of infantry battalions. If the division in Germany is a force of three square brigades, there will be six infantry battalions. The division in England may consist of more mobile forces such as the paras, the marines and perhaps a couple of standard infantry battalions. If the RRC is to live up to its name and can be used at short notice the units involved must be dedicated solely to that task. By that I mean that they could never have been available for six-month tours in Northern Ireland.
Of those 36 battalions we are now left with 30 battalions to carry out Northern Ireland tours and all other smaller commitments throughout the world, although those commitments may be reducing slowly.
I should like to look at the Northern Ireland situation in rather more detail. At present there are five garrison battalions on two-year tours which leaves us with 25 battalions to take on the duties of roulement battalions on six-month emergency tours. I leave the Ulster Defence Regiment out of the picture for the moment. At present there are four six-month tour battalions but it is important to note that it has been reported that the chief constable and Headquarters Northern Ireland have asked for two more battalions. Kevin McNamara said it was inconceivable that if those two battalions had been requested, the Government would not grant them. It is interesting that the Government have not denied that they have received the request. I ask the Minister to clarify that.
1152
For the moment I shall comment on the situation as it is with the four roulement battalions. The situation can only get worse should that figure be increased to six. It would appear that it is policy that in between tours those battalions should have a 24-month break. They require three to four months training prior to a tour, six months on tour and about a month's leave post tour. That means that they should not otherwise be committed for 10 or 11 months. That is why they could not be part of the RRC.
Therefore, it is possible to work out that the required number of battalions to fulfil that commitment is the number on tour multiplied by five. We must have 20 battalions at present and if the figure were to increase by two, we should need 30. Alas, there are only 25 left from the original 36 after manning the RRC and the garrison units in the Province.
I have not totally forgotten about units other than infantry units but units such as regiments in the Royal Armoured Corp and the Royal Artillery are normally only used in less demanding areas in the Province in small packets. That is not due to any inability on their part, but their normal training in other theatres is so far removed from that required for foot soldiers on patrol that it would take an unreasonable amount of time for training.
I am sure that the MoD and the regimental colonels will believe that the Ulster Defence Regiment should not go unaffected by Options for Change. Therefore, it is worthwhile to evaluate its contribution to the Northern Ireland commitment at present. Rather than looking at the number of battalions in it at present, some of which may be amalgamated, we should look at the number of soldiers on the ground carrying out duties which would otherwise have to be carried out by regular Army soldiers brought in as extra battalions. The regiment totals a little over 7,000, of which roughly half is full-time and half is part-time. Therefore, 3,500 full-time soldiers equate to roughly five regular Army battalions on garrison duty. They cannot be expected to have the same work rate as those on emergency tours year in and year out.
The 3,500 part-time soldiers average roughly 10 duties each per month, largely patrolling the streets and the country. Therefore, they equate to about three battalions on emergency tour. All told in Northern Ireland we now have roughly 10 long-term garrison battalions and seven roulement battalions. It is of interest that the Ulster Defence Regiment battalion costs approximately one-third of that of the regular battalions. There is an immense unseen or unnoticed cost saving. That saving comes about in the same way as the savings as regards the TA. People are working from home and have their own back-up; namely, doctors, schools and housing.
Your Lordships will see that if there are only 36 battalions plus the Ulster Defence Regiment as it stands to fulfil the RRC and Northern Ireland commitment, the Army will be left rather short. That is before we come to the "what if the unexpected happens?" scenario. Should there be a decision to cut the number of soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment before the Northern Ireland problem is solved, then the shortfall would become worse. Since the Minister

1153
realises the seriousness of the position in Northern Ireland and that it is a life or death situation, I ask him for an assurance that, although there may be amalgamations, there will be no forced reductions in the numbers of those brave men who have been fighting terrorism for the past 21 years.
We all hope that the current problems will cease in Northern Ireland and then the situation will be different. However, I should point out that the Brooke talks are not peace talks, as is sometimes put forward. The terrorists' response has been an increase in murder recently and if the talks were to become successful, it is not likely that the terrorist activity would cease.
I should like to mention one other matter. I have been on an all-party defence study visit to the forces in Northern Ireland. Apart from the obvious points raised about welfare, manning and money, there was an overriding requirement for more helicopters. I know that that has already been mentioned with reference to other theatres. In public I do not wish to go into detail about the operational use of helicopters in Northern Ireland but it is important to refer to them.
First, the more mobile RRC will have an increased requirement for many more helicopters. We would seem to be one of the most "unhelicoptered" forces in Europe. The major tactical change in recent conflicts from Vietnam to the Gulf has involved helicopters. Why have we not followed suit? I ask the Minister why so many of our soldiers have been put at risk in Northern Ireland by using roads as a result of battalions running out of helicopter hours and, therefore, not being able to obtain them. A more mobile force is not only safer but is a greater threat and fewer soldiers would be required to provide the security given at present.
Humanitarian issues throughout the world are becoming more important every day and perhaps our best ambassadors have been our Armed Forces recently in such areas as Turkey, Iraq and Bangladesh. I am sure that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom will not forgive a government who reduce the country's forces to such an extent that its Armed Forces become only an observer of such human disasters.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. As your Lordships may expect, I shall refer to Northern Ireland. Both my noble friend and I have great affection for County Fermanagh, and indeed I am proud to wear the tie this evening.
Your Lordships' House owes a great debt to my noble friend Lord Colnbrook for giving us the opportunity to discuss defence today and above all for the marvellously tactful way in which my noble friend tabled his Motion. He mentions the words "adequate defence". That is at the root and heart of all our discussions every time we discuss defence estimates, forces and anything to do with the safety of this country.
1154
I recall that on the last occasion on which we discussed defence estimates in July 1990 I stressed that we can never know what the future holds. Within three weeks Saddam Hussein and the forces of Iraq had invaded Kuwait.
The Gulf war and the conflict there demonstrated something which, happily, is brought out every time the defence forces of this country are asked to perform a particular task, and it has been referred to by other noble Lords; namely, that our Armed Forces are sure support for NATO or, as in that case, or whoever they may be representing. Above all, they are a great source of pride to all of us.
Your Lordships will know and will have read about what took place during the Gulf conflict. During the first week of the conflict I recall reading a not very widely circulated United States magazine. The article was by a United States Air Force General speaking to a United States journalist. The article was entitled: "The Brits did more than their bit". From that rather slangy headline we were able to read of the enormous professionalism shown by British soldiers, in their handling of their low flying aircraft. Above all, it demonstrated the special part played by the Royal Air Force, its Tornados and Buccaneers. That was one specific example of the unique contribution made, which we hope will continue to be made in the future, by the defence forces of this country.
I have been lucky to make a number of visits to defence establishments over the past two years or so as part of your Lordships' all-party defence study group. The most recent was a visit I made yesterday to the Royal Naval Dockyard at Devonport. From those visits, and from what has been said today, I am not in the least surprised by the high esteem in which the servicemen and women of this country are held.
I have been lucky to see the performance and the training of Royal Air Force Tornados and Buccaneers as well as the Training Hawk, which can be used in a combat role. Even in that sphere of training I was impressed by the continuing professionalism of all the staff at those establishments. Regarding the Royal Navy we were able to see Types 22 and 42 submarines, and only last week many of us were able to go on board HMS "Invincible" to see Sea-Harriers and Sea-King helicopters at work.
Yesterday I visited the Royal Naval Dockyard in Plymouth and obtained a different view of the services, a view which was touched on today. It was very much a presentation with the emphasis on value for money. During the presentation yesterday it was continually stressed how the defence forces, particularly the Royal Navy, are conscious of carrying out their duties and seeing what they have to do. Above all, they appreciate something that has entered the vocabulary of the service area within the past two years which is concerned with Options for Change. They deal with budgets and use a term particularly familiar to me: "value for money".
Yesterday the budget was explained to me by a gentleman who had the title FCA, which I was told stood for Financial and Civil Adviser. He advised me, together with the Commander of the Royal dockyard, that questions are examined on every aspect of the

1155
services—manpower, equipment and all the other facilities. Budgets are set, monitored and reviewed not just by civilians or people such as me who might have some elementary training in finance and accountancy, but more and more at a deeper level permeating right down throughout the defence forces. Young warrant officers and indeed all ranks are being asked to look at how they in their job doing their task with their specific equipment can give value for money. They are asked to examine whether they could do their job better.
That makes me feel real humility. They are carrying out constant self-examination of what they are doing and how they can do it better. They are not merely looking for value for money, although that is becoming a factor of looking at the overall defence forces and indeed in the subject we are discussing today. It is widely accepted by all service ranks to whom I have spoken that they must remove waste and ensure that where possible efficiency can enter into the calculations of how they do their job.
Something that came as a considerable surprise to me yesterday at Devonport was the enormous number of facilities. There were magnificent old buildings about which I inquired. I said perhaps we could do something with those buildings; perhaps they could be opened as museums. It seems to me that there is the will, and many retired service personnel would love to assist in doing that and to make use of service facilities which are not necessarily in use at the moment but which should not be allowed to disappear and rot away.
It was continually stressed to me—I understand why, particularly in the light of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough—that it is a question of one dreadful word that has entered our discussions in regard to defence both inside and outside your Lordships' House; I refer to security. The question of security gave me some answers yesterday to matters I raised. All the time in all the visits I have made, apart from being fascinated by all that I have seen—both the people who operate the equipment and the equipment itself—the structure of management was stressed. The emphasis was on how the public and those who are watched over and protected by the servicemen can obtain better value, and how servicemen want to do their job even better than they are doing it at the moment. I find that there is little upon which they could improve; but that is what they feel.
We heard one or two remarks this evening regarding the "tail". My noble friend Lord Glenarthur referred to what he called the "teeth" and the "tail". I am reminded of what I call the "tail" jobs every day when I come to your Lordships' House. I confess that I travel by motor car which takes me past two barracks. In both those areas I find fully armed soldiers. That is a symptom of the times in which we live. However, we have heard and seen in Options for Change how the tasks demanded of the defence forces, and above all of the Army, are being narrowed down; how we are trying to extract more and more from a limited number—I believe the numbers are to be reduced from 140,000 to 116,000. Yet we continually
1156
ask those defence forces to carry out their first duty, which is to defend this country, or perform out-of-area duties such as they did in the Gulf, let alone in the Falklands. More and more do we pile on to the men and women of the defence forces what I would call "tail" jobs. They are vitally important and perhaps it is only they who can perform them.
Sentry duty is such a job. When we speak of sentry duty, your Lordships will remember the tragedies of the Royal Marine Barracks in Deal. We remember the bomb that exploded at Ternhill Barracks in Shropshire. Those thoughts are brought back to me every day when I come to your Lordships' House. We ask a great deal of servicemen, and all the time we are piling on new jobs which perhaps can only be done by them.
I was pleased to hear mention of reserves in the remarks made earlier. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne specifically raised the question of the Royal Navy Reserves. I hope that it continues to be the case, as was confirmed to me last year, that Royal Naval Reserve ships are able to take part in major exercises. With regard to the Territorial Army, we were all able to see and recognise the enormous role that they played in the Gulf conflict. It was most satisfactory and a matter of great pride that Territorial reservists, when suddenly summoned for duty and sent to the Gulf, performed as regular soldiers alongside regular soldiers. They perhaps served for a shorter period than a regular soldier overall but did a most professional job, just as my noble friend on the Front Bench and, I hope, I did 34 or 35 years ago, when we were mere National Servicemen. The National Service, as my noble friend will remember, lasted for two years. I am sure that none of us forget that the campaign in Malaya and above all in Korea was won to no small extent by National Servicemen who were perhaps an extension of what the Territorial Army is today. The Gulf conflict showed that territorial and reserve forces will be needed for their professionalism, and for everything else that they can contribute, just as much in the future as they were last winter.
It has been a great pleasure to speak following my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. I would call him the voice of experience from County Fermanagh because not only does he live there but he is very active in many other areas of life in that county and in Northern Ireland. For my part, I wish that he could be more concerned with his drainage, the weather and his farming problems. But as your Lordships will be aware, for the past 23 years Northern Ireland has been plagued by appalling terrorism and a campaign of violence which has continued. It is now virulent and endemic.
I have found in the files that I have kept in your Lordships' House a report presented by command of His Excellency the Governor of Northern Ireland dated September 1969. From the chronology of events that gave rise to what was known then as the "disturbances" in Northern Ireland and which to no small extent set the scene for what goes on now, there was a young lady called Emily Beattie. She obtained a house in a little village called Caledon. Because she had obtained a house and somebody else had not,

1157
neighbours came and squatted. A politician who is now a very respected TD in the Republic, obtained a considerable amount of publicity. Civil rights marches took place and matters developed until we now see what we see every day.
There is a horrifying campaign in Northern Ireland. I ask your Lordships: who will hold the line?—the British Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Danger, risk and inconvenience accompany soldiers, their families and their friends, let alone the population of Northern Ireland. Events in Northern Ireland, as well as the recent ones in the Gulf, have shown all of us that whatever the equipment, weapons and technology available that we can supply to our defence forces, those forces consist of a huge number of professional, dedicated and very tough men and women. They are extremely well trained.
I thank my noble friend Lord Colnbrook. We admire the marvellous maiden speech made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, as well as the other remarkable contribution made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. We are very grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to hear these speeches. We feel a great pride in being here today. We are grateful to and salute each and every one of the Armed Forces of our country, their families and friends.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, many other noble Lords have complimented the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, on his important maiden speech. Although he is not in his place at the moment, I particularly want to add my own congratulations because I was privileged to visit him at Northwood at the time of the Falklands war when the noble and gallant Lord was in command and made such an outstanding contribution to a famous victory. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, for enabling us to debate defence at this critical moment.
I suppose that it is inevitable that anyone who remembers the 1930s should be concerned that our defence forces should never again be allowed to drop below an acceptable level. We who went into the Second World War with our forces at a dangerously low level resolved that it should never happen again. Frankly, therefore, I am dismayed when I hear that the Government propose to reduce the British Army by 40,000. I understand, of course, that the dramatic political developments in Eastern Europe have greatly reduced the immediate threat of an attack on NATO from the East; but it would be very unwise to dismiss the possibility of such a threat.
The political situation in the Soviet Union remains one of extreme uncertainty. On its borders the republics are clamouring for independence and in Moscow a power struggle is being fought out. Right-wing elements have deeply resented Mr. Gorbachev's policies which they regard as responsible for the impending break up of the Soviet Union as we have known it. In this very tense situation no one can be sure what the outcome will be, but there must be a
1158
very real danger that we end up with an angry Soviet Union licking its wounds yet still possessing very powerful armed forces. NATO would be wise to proceed with considerable caution.
So great has been the impact of the disappearance of an immediate threat from the East that inevitably there has been a great cry for a reduction in the forces of NATO. Politically, disarmament is always attractive, enabling governments to use the money for other purposes. Finance Ministers and treasuries in NATO have seized at once on the détente with the Soviet Union to demand a slashing of NATO forces. I concede that public opinion in Europe and the United States is also demanding reductions; but I hope that NATO is not being premature and too drastic.
I am glad that the British Government are remaining firmly committed to NATO and resisting suggestions from France for an alternative military alliance in Europe. It is good, too, that Britain is to take the lead in the NATO Rapid Reaction Corps, but even with very considerable cuts in the NATO forces to be stationed in Europe it surely cannot be wise to cut the British Army by as much as 40,000.
The British Army of today is superb in its quality. Whatever we lost in abandoning National Service (and I confess to being against that at the time) it certainly made possible a first-class professional Army. Following the Falklands and Gulf wars, the Army has evoked the admiration and envy of the world. I urge the Government to think very carefully before cutting its numbers as severely as they propose. But, it will be asked, why do we require an Army of the present size with our reduced commitment to NATO? My answer is that all our experience shows that we cannot know where the next threat will arise. The Korean war, the Falklands war and the Gulf war all came out of the blue. It makes no sense to talk in terms of defence forces being required only to defend Britain from attack. The conflicts in which we shall be involved will inevitably be further afield. Experience of the Gulf war shows that we cannot be assured of support from our NATO allies.
In the past 45 years I have seen a good many defence reviews both from the inside and from the outside. This one has euphemistically been called Options for Change. But the motivation is always the same—that is to say, a demand for a reduction in defence expenditure. I have concentrated today on the Army, but the proposed reductions in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are also very disturbing. We are to have a defence White Paper next month. I hope that the Government will think long and hard before going ahead with reductions in our Armed Forces on the scale that they have proposed.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Colnbrook for the masterful manner in which he introduced the debate. I also congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, on his stimulating maiden speech.
The Berlin Wall has been dismantled and the Cold War has changed in temperature, but nevertheless the

1159
world is still fundamentally unstable. The Government are saying that this is the time for change. I only hope that the Government have made the right assessment because I do not believe that the urge for drastic cuts has come from the chiefs of the armed services. Like my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and many other noble Lords, I guess that this cut has been inspired by the Treasury on financial grounds. Unfortunately, the Treasury is renowned for winning its battles with other ministries.
If the Government have got it right and there has to be change, then the excellence of our Armed Forces—an excellence which is second to none—must not be threatened in any way. It is therefore essential that ample time is given for any readjustment to our forces so that it can be carried out in an organised and well thought out manner. It must not be rushed. Too much haste would inevitably lead to a loss of efficiency during the period of reorganisation.
Like many other noble Lords, I give my full support to the Government on one aspect of their thoughts for change; that is, the retention of the regimental system. The regimental system owes much to tradition. It is the tradition of great achievements in the past which, when handed down from generation to generation, tends to inspire similar deeds. It is the regimental spirit giving esprit de corps which really comes to the fore when bullets and shells are flying around. It is then that soldiers not only have a sense of determination to fight for their country, but also a determination not to tarnish the traditions of their regiment. Traditions of the regiment become uppermost.
The late Lord Gort, when commander of the British Expeditionary Force at the beginning of the last world war, wrote to his newly born grandson:
"Some day you may be a Grenadier, and if so, I know you will never fail to be impressed by the fine sense of comradeship and loyalty, which binds all ranks together, imbued with one thought, and one thought only—the honour of the regiment. Never must its name be tarnished".
That, in a nutshell, is the importance of the regimental system. It is a system which is the envy of many other armies in the world. It is one which must be retained.
I thoroughly endorse every word the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said about my regiment, the Grenadier Guards. I hope the regiment will not be cut as it has two roles—combat and ceremonial. The two roles require more manpower than one role. It would be extremely difficult to carry out the two roles with fewer officers and guardsmen.
I believe there is one great misconception regarding the cost to the country of the Armed Forces—that the taxpayer pays the bill for our Armed Forces so that we can defend ourselves as well as carrying out commitments to various organisations and other countries. That is only part of what the Armed Forces do for our country. In addition to their combat role they become involved in civil emergencies and they carry out ceremonial duties which attract countless tourists to this country from all over the world. Over and a love that, they play a vital role in helping to mould our young men and women into good citizens. The Army approach to life extends beyond the barrack square and beyond the battlefield as it
1160
embraces many qualities such as leadership, loyalty, pride and integrity. Furthermore, those qualities extend into civilian life. Most of those who have been in the Armed Forces are held in high esteem by the captains of industry and commerce. Surely that aspect, which cannot be quantified in financial terms, needs great consideration in our country where standards today, alas, are constantly on the wane.
Our Armed Forces have a firm insistence on the highest standards. Nothing but the best will do. Surely that is what the nation needs today. I suggest there is a need for a realisation of the part the Armed Forces play in the production of good citizens. As I said, no financial figure can be put on that, but the Treasury and the nation as a whole must be made to realise what a spin-off they are getting, and could get in the future, from the Armed Forces. Once it is realised that the cost of our Armed Forces goes far beyond the defence of the realm and other strategic commitments the Treasury will find itself losing the battle when seeking excessive cuts in the Armed Forces. There are many who will join me in hoping that the Treasury will be denied the battle honour, "Cuts to the Armed Forces 1991". I hope that my noble friend the Minister, when he replies to the debate, will give an assurance that the part the Armed Forces can play in leading young people down the path of good citizenship will be taken into consideration, not only now but in the future.
Finally, reorganisation of the Armed Services is certainly required, but there seems little justification for large cuts. The world situation does not warrant it; neither does our national situation justify such action.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I was very sorry to miss the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, but I could not help it. He is definitely a hero of mine. Although I would go to great lengths of ingenuity and imagination honourably to avoid a war, when in a war I am very definitely in favour of winning it.
Perhaps I may start with an observation about those Russian ships which have been mentioned so often in the debate. It is true that the Soviet navy is shrinking. It is true that they are decommissioning old ships and that they are still commissioning new ones at what appears to be an alarmingly high rate. I am oppressed here by a sense of unreality. It is as though no noble Lords in the House this afternoon ever read any newspapers except British ones. I know that that is not the case. I wonder, where are the noble Lords who do? If the Government are oppressed by this great Soviet naval build-up, and if the party opposite is too, why do they not accept the longstanding Soviet proposal to engage in naval disarmament? For three or four years now Gorbachev has been preaching in season and out of season the desirability, the necessity, of having naval arms control as well as army and air force arms control. This is refused by the United States Government. It is well known, and it is obvious, that the reason they refuse is opposition from the United States navy, which does not take as long a view in this matter as other allied navies.

1161
That is the way out of the Soviet ship problem and it is not difficult. I do not know why the Government keep concealing that fact. They did it again yesterday at Question Time. When I asked why the Government did not do this, the answer was that it is well known that the United States and the Soviet Union agree that there shall be no naval arms control. They agree just as any two people agree when one of them has asked the other to engage in a common course of action and the other has refused. That is the only agreement there is between them about it.
This is our first opportunity to discuss the new force structure that is emerging in response to the new world which is presumed to exist as a result of the Gulf war. It would be dangerous to believe that the lessons of the Gulf war are of more than passing significance. I believe it very unlikely that ever again will we and our friends be engaged in a war which is preceded by five months of total passivity on the part of the enemy, during which we can at our leisure move vast quantities of material and personnel across the world and build them up at a convenient speed in places which have vast reception facilities for them. I believe it is very unlikely that ever again will Japan and Germany agree to pay for a huge military operation in which they do not take part; at least with carte blanche, as they did in the case of the Gulf war. I believe that the lessons of the Gulf war will appear even more transitory when the damage inflicted by the allies on Iraq is finally published.
I expect that many noble Lords will have noted that a report has been drawn up in the United States. It is not to be published. It is kept under wraps in complete secrecy. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply can say whether any corresponding British report is being drawn up; or indeed whether this American report is an allied report. Is there any intention to reveal to the people the extent of the damage?
I turn to the new force structure and the new world. The allied force which won that victory could not have been a NATO force. Its action in the Gulf as a NATO force would have been quite illegal. There was no attack on the North Atlantic alliance. Indeed there was an attack by two NATO countries on another country which had not attacked them. I refer to the United States' air-raids from Turkish air bases. The only authority that force could have had was the one which it did have—a United Nations resolution. It seems fairly clear to me that this will be the only authority which in future will be found acceptable for operations of this kind which are mounted outside Europe by European countries. I shall return to that point in a moment.
I should like to get a clearer picture than we have had so far of the Rapid Reaction Force, now to be defined as a corps. It is to be used only on NATO territory. Given that we do not now expect a full scale Soviet onslaught on the West, this means that it is only likely to be used in the event of an overspill of some conflict going on in Eastern Europe which might come into NATO territory, including East Germany. Let us consider what that might be. It could be a fight between Czechoslovakia and Poland, where one
1162
country might think it convenient to turn aside and attack Germany. That is not very plausible. A far more likely fight would be one between Hungary and Romania. But it is even less plausible to think that they should seek relief by turning aside to attack, let us say, Germany or Italy, through all the intervening countries. Are we perhaps thinking of a fight between Serbia and Croatia or, rather, perhaps between Serbia and all the other Yugoslav republics, where one of them would think it convenient to divert attention by attacking Italy? That is not very plausible.
By far the most plausible scenario is that war among the Soviet republics should lead to a spill-over. That is imaginable. What would it be? It is most likely that in a conflict between a Russia led by Yeltsin and perhaps the Ukraine or the southern republics—perhaps even the Soviet Union itself, still led by Gorbachev—one side or the other would find it desirable to make a diversionary expedition against the West. That would obviously not be a full scale attack but something menacing and inconvenient in the far north, or something ambiguous in the far south, around Turkey, although that would be difficult to imagine. Those are the threats which do exist—they are not major ones—against which our forces in the future should guard.
The Rapid Reaction Force is to be under British command. What does "British command" mean? Does it mean that the commanding officer of the force will in all circumstances and as far as the eye can see be British? Will British forces account numerically for more than 50 per cent. of the force, or will it be very much the largest contingent? We know that there will be no American forces in the corps. What proportion of total NATO forces, including naval and air forces, will be represented by this force? Will the personnel concerned overlap with those assigned to the proposed WEU force? Will it even conceivably be the same force, but in the case of WEU, having a French contingent added to it and possibly even being under French command? There is speculation about that already. Let us not forget that there is a NATO meeting tomorrow at which further decisions are to be taken. Is the WEU force for use only outside the NATO area or equally for use inside it? Will it be a standing force, or will it be made up of units earmarked in advance and assigned as operational needs demand? Who is it supposed to fight if it goes outside? At the moment it seems to me that we are settling a force structure before the threat is defined or its aims are assigned to it. That is rash.
That is not the end of it. There is the NATO force and the WEU force. There is the possibility of giving military functions to the European Community. I am against that, if only because it would sacrifice Ireland out of the Community and would make it, as my noble friend Lord Ardwick pointed out, difficult if not impossible for East European countries, let alone Austria, Switzerland or Sweden, to join the Community.
Lastly, there is the CSCE security structure, whatever that is. Is there any intention that anybody under any circumstances whatever should assign forces to it? I suspect not at the moment. We certainly

1163
have a cumulation of structures. The words "arc of crisis" are beginning to be heard. What is an "arc of crisis''? It is supposed to be where the military action is likely to he in the future instead of down the Elbe. Geographically, there is only one arc around; that is, the vaguely arc-shaped line between Christendom and ex-Christendom on the one hand and Islam on the other. That is dangerous talk, and planning should not proceed along those lines or under that flag.
All these numerous organisations will be okay and will be able to relate to each other safely and constructively if that relating is done through the United Nations. Hardly anyone has mentioned the United Nations in the debate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I did.
Lord Kennet: I beg my noble friend's pardon. Of course, he referred to it in his opening speech. I am sorry that I missed the speech of my noble friend Lord Hatch. Indeed, lots of noble Lords have mentioned the United Nations during the debate, and I am proud to be lumbered among them.
The United Nations tends to produce international consensus more effectively than any other nonmilitary organisation in the world. What produces international consensus by its very nature tends also to produce internal consensus within our nations. Future governments will find it hard to keep public support for world dashes by a WEU force. They may find it hard to gain public support for a major military move to line the frontiers of Yugoslavia and Italy, or into north Norway. However, they will easily gain public support for any action taken under a UN resolution and they will find it even easier if the force concerned can become a UN force, as it did in Korea, in the Conga, but riot in Iraq.
If the Government are not able to achieve a web of justification and political reality through the United Nations, I fear that, with all their present plans, they may only be digging pitfalls for themselves and future governments.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, no one would suggest that there should not be a peace dividend. Looking around the world, there is no power that presents a likely threat to this country or the West. The planned reduction to our arms indicates that we accept that view and also confirms the peaceful intentions of the West. It cannot be seen by the Soviets as the action of potential aggressors.
Yet, while we see the Russians withdrawing to the East, they remain the great superpower threatening Europe. They continue to modernise all their strategic weapons. The Soviet navy received a record tonnage of new modern surface ships in 1989 and launched no less 12 new submarines in 1990. In addition, the cheating on the CFE treaty by transferring 2,500 tanks to the navy does not enhance confidence in the USSR. That same navy is still laying down and building submarines at the rate of 10 a year. Moreover, its frigate and destroyer programme continues unabated; that is, not just finishing ships, but actually laying down new bottoms.
1164
Do the Russians still see the West as a threat? If not, what is the justification for their continuing to build offensive weapons at such a pace and on such a scale? What would they think if we were to increase our offensive capability against them? If they have to divert so much of their resources to meet this enormous offensive capability, it is no wonder that they need colossal loans to solve their civil problems. I do not think that they have any current intention of attacking the West. But we all know what can happen to a wounded tiger. Who knows what agony that country will go through on its way to a free market.
We must not forget the lesson that history has taught us over and again. The perceived reduction of the threat and the lowering of our guard is always seen by some tyrant as a sign of weakness and a time of opportunity. General Galtieri and Saddam Hussein have been the most obvious examples. It is very false economy to reduce our arms to a point that suggests to others that we have lost our apparent will to fight. That will inevitably lead to our having to fight a war against some, at present, unseen tyrant.
The most likely cause of conflict is inevitably where two races or tribes share the same country. We see racial conflict wherever we look at the map of the world. Much of it is the result of history and, in particular, the actions of the politicians of old who drew straight lines across the map regardless of the positions occupied by the races on the ground. Sadly, I see no chance of world peace until the boundaries can be redrawn on a tribal basis so that each tribe or race can be self-governing, even if under a federal umbrella. Equally, I see no chance of that happening. However, any move towards it surely deserves to be encouraged. It is certainly the only solution that will get rid of the Palestinian problem. A home for the Palestinians will have to be found if we are to avoid everlasting strife in the Middle East and its knock-on effect outside the area.
Over the years we have built up an effective Territorial Army: it has been a very cheap reserve. During the Gulf war, there was a valuable contribution from the TA specialist services—signals, medical and so on. But when it came to the teeth arms —namely, the infantry and the armoured—it appears that it could not be used for constitutional reasons. It seems quite pointless to finance and train the Territorial Army if it then cannot be used in an emergency. If we are to have a smaller TA along with the rest of the Army, the constitutional restrictions should be removed so that the TA can be used in an emergency as, when and wherever required. Some of the members might leave. But the rest would expect to go abroad whenever called upon to do so in the same way as applies to the regular Army.
The point of a reserve is to meet an emergency. Clearly we cannot at present foresee any imminent threat to this country. But if we are to guard against a serious emergency—and we must do so if only as a deterrent then there would need to be the capability of massive and rapid recruiting. Therefore, the TA regiments should, so far as possible, be based in those

1165
areas that would provide the greatest potential for recruiting, even if this left large areas of the country without Territorial Army regiments.
But the Territorial Army needs an early end to its uncertainty. It is important that those units which remain should be properly funded, well trained and ready to move The case for small, efficient, and keen units instead of mere numbers needs no advocacy from me. But, in recent years, we have seen the TA badly restricted as regards training days, ammunition and petrol. That is not the way to run an efficient reserve.
However, even in the areas of successful recruiting, years of peace will bring out all those voices which denigrate the need for, and the cost of keeping, an army doing nothing. It will be increasingly difficult to get recruits. The full-hearted support and enthusiasm of the local authorities and of the employers in the case of the TA will be increasingly important.
There is still enormous respect for the names of the county regiments. Even the most Leftist anti-military peacenik councillor will be unlikely to risk the wrath of his electors by not supporting the local regiment with its name on every war memorial and with so many people who have had relations connected to it. Therefore, keeping the name of the local regiment will be increasingly important for the difficult recruiting of the future. There is great mileage in enabling a young cadet to wear the same cap badge from the cadet force, through the TA and into the regular Army. It will not occur to a cadet to join any other regiment unless he wants to be a signaller or an engineer. That reinforces the advantage of keeping the county regimental names wherever possible.
There may be need for fewer TA centres than at present. In that case, I think that it would be wrong to dispose of the centres in case of future need. I believe that they should be kept and let out to other reserves, which are badly in need of good accommodation, for realistic rentals. I refer, for example, to St. John Ambulance, with its ambulances ready to meet frequent calls and its expertise, the Scouts and cadets, with the valuable element of discipline which they can impart to youngsters, and all the other voluntary services.
The passenger pigeon died out, not because they were all shot. They died out because they were reduced to a number that would not sustain their survival in the wild. Likewise, it would be easy to reduce the Army to a number that was not self-sustaining. Once a regiment is employed too often, there would be such a spate of resignations that there would be no army at all. It is like putting a man on guard for six days a week because of lack of other men to do it. He will do it; but, on the seventh day, he will resign and there will be no one left to guard, much less to do guard duty. We cannot avoid reducing the services, but to go below the level of an effective and self-sustaining deterrent could be disastrous and expensive.
It is said that the peace dividend will create unemployed former service men. That is true. But as the resources are diverted from the military to wealth creation, I believe that we shall eventually, as a nation,
1166
be more in work and far better off. The relocation of defence workers to R&D for wealth creation on the civilian side should not be feared.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, this afternoon there has been much well-informed debate as to whether the military threat from the Soviet Union has diminished sufficiently to justify the reductions proposed for our Armed Forces, particularly the Army. The continuing expansion of the military capability of the Soviet Union has been dealt with by other noble Lords who are far more qualified to do so than me.
The picture painted, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, sounds very threatening indeed. However, the military might of the Soviet Union must also be considered against the degree of likelihood that it may actually be used in an attack on the West. I suppose that two important related questions are: to what extent can the Soviet Union in its present state of confusion be trusted, and to what extent may its military and KGB establishment still be capable of deceiving us? The picture from the Soviet Union is so confusing that I doubt whether anyone can answer those important military questions accurately.
But there is at least one area in which the Soviet Union still seems more comfortable with deception than openness or true glasnost, and that is the whole field of human rights. It is perhaps worth examining that field briefly to see whether it has any lessons for us as to the degree of trust that we can place in the avowed intention of the Soviets to use their huge and growing military machine only for defence. Three weeks ago my noble friend Lady Cox and I had the honour of attending the first international Sakharov conference in Moscow. Mrs. Sakharov had organised the conference to commemorate what would have been her husband's 70th birthday. We considered the three themes most dear to him: the USSR on the road from totalitarianism to democracy and the rule of law; human rights in the Soviet Union today; and the peaceful use of nuclear energy, together with the lessons to be learnt from Chernobyl.
As to the last of those three themes, the panel of international experts who considered the Chernobyl incident concluded that the Soviet Union was still being much less than frank about the causes and results of that terrible event. As to human rights, my noble friend Lady Cox chaired a group of international experts examining the continuing injustice on a mass scale to individuals in the USSR. I am afraid that their conclusions also made very disturbing reading. The treatment of convicts in prison and conscripted soldiers in the armed forces is still largely inhuman and in effect often amounts to slavery. The inaccurate designation of children as mentally handicapped or ill, which results in their being incarcerated in bogus orphanages or elsewhere, is still taking place on a much larger scale than any of us had realised. Although it seems there are now only some 15 adults held in psychiatric prisons on political or religious grounds, we have learnt that there are now thousands of people still bogusly classified as mentally

1167
ill on those grounds who have been released into the community with no hope of a job or independent housing. Only sometimes are they offered a "disability" pension worth about half the local poverty level. They can be re-interned at a moment's notice without appeal. Talking of imprisonment without appeal, the KGB have certainly suffered no redundancies under glasnost and perestroika. I learn on good authority that today the KGB is again expanding its numbers and no doubt its activities.
I mention those facts because I believe that they go some Nay to show the dishonesty with which Soviet leader; still depict their country to the West. I would have thought Soviet deception and dishonesty in this area—which may be an area they are more capable of controlling than the military conflagration that may arise from the causes mentioned in the debate this evening—must make us more nervous of the eventual use to which their huge military machine may be put.
In putting our defence considerations into the wider context of political change in the USSR, I believe it is essential to take account of the recent escalation of violence in Armenia and Azerbaijan. I know that my noble friend Lady Cox would have spoken on this matter today if she had not been prevented from taking part in the debate by a long-standing commitment to speak elsewhere. After the Sakharov conference only three weeks ago she led an independent, international delegation to Armenia and Azerbaijan and found very serious violations of human rights committed by the Soviet army and the Azerbaijani interior (OMON) forces against Armenian villagers in Nagorno Karabakh, elsewhere in Azerbaijan proper and across the border in Armenia itself. These events are not just a continuation of historic ethnic conflict but systematic acts of aggression carried out by troops with helicopters, tanks and machine guns on innocent villagers. They include: multiple killings, torture, beatings and other atrocities, destruction of property and the taking of prisoners, many of whom have been maltreated and are still being held illegally.
My noble friend Lady Cox and her colleagues were determined to hear the Azerbaijanian as well as the Armenian viewpoint. They therefore crossed the border to talk to Azeri forces and civilians and OMON troops. Perhaps I may say that they walked for a mile across the border carrying a white flag against the advice of their Armenian hosts who said that they could do nothing more to protect them. While on the other side of the border they were shown some evidence of two-way cross-border conflict, their unanimous conclusion was that there was a very serious asymmetry of arms and aggression and that the Armenians were being victimised by the Soviet army and the Azerbaijanian OMON with no adequate means of self-defence. Armenia has not been allowed to create its own OMON forces. It has disbanded its own paramilitary troops and is prosecuting those it believes guilty of aggression towards Azeris. Armenia's crime is that it wishes to leave the Union, and its people are constantly reminded of that error as they are brutalised by Soviet and Azerbaijanian
1168
troops. There is a fuller account of that situation in today's Wall Street Journal written by my noble friend Lady Cox which I commend to your Lordships.
On their return to Moscow my noble friend's delegation met Marshal Yazov, the Soviet Minister of Defence, and Mr. Anatoly Lukyanov, Chairman of the Supreme Soviet. Neither of those gentlemen denied the recent escalation or rumours of further impending violence. Marshal Yazov said he was not interested in hearing any more stories of atrocities against Armenians; he had heard lots of them. Of course, he asked my noble friend the usual KGB question about how she could criticise the Soviet Union for what was happening in Armenia when Britain had the same problem in Northern Ireland. I understand my noble friend refrained from pointing out, no doubt in the interests of keeping the conversation going, that British troops were not actually brutalising either side of the Irish dispute.
It so happens that Mr. Lukyanov is visiting Britain this week. I trust that the Government will examine him thoroughly on my noble friend's experiences before they get out our cheque book in response to his urbane assurances that all is proceeding towards peaceful democracy in the Soviet Union, and no doubt in response to his request for yet more credits.
These current events presided over by the present Soviet government must cast some doubt over the sincerity of glasnost and require us to treat the Soviet Union's claims to be achieving a sufficiently democratic society with some caution. The implications for defence policy are clear. We are not yet dealing with a peaceable nation. We owe it to ourselves to conduct a realistic appraisal of the continuing aggression within the Soviet Union when we consider our defence capability.
The dark side of human nature has not disintegrated with the Berlin Wall. Mr. Saddam Hussein has shown us that. The Soviet Union is a huge beast which we cannot yet identify for certain as a dying dinosaur. It is confused politically and cornered economically. This is therefore a dangerous moment. History has taught us that we can deal with such situations only from a position of sufficient strength. I suppose we can but pray that the Government does not forget that lesson.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I count myself fortunate at having been present in the Chamber to hear the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse. I congratulate him. We all look forward to hearing his further contributions to our debates. I have discussed the subject of the debate with my noble friend and former colleague Lord Bridges. I found that our views were not dissimilar. I am sorry that he cannot be present tonight to express those views himself and add to the contributions from the Cross-Benches.
The Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, calls attention,
"to the case for adequate defence forces, in view of changes in the world situation in the past twelve months".

1169
Those past 12 months were dramatic enough, but even more relevant to our subject will be the changes in the years to come. We all know from bitter experience how the future is always a tale of the unexpected. That point has been repeated again and again today. However, that must not divert us from making with our friends and allies, and constantly revising, an assessment of the shape of things to come. That involves the co-ordination of intelligence, the exchange of information and the application of the accumulated experience of many decades. Where and how such discussions can best take place are not for debate this evening. For the present, four factors are especially important.
The first is the decline in the political influence of the USSR and its economic collapse. The Gorbachev government are trying hard to arrest and reverse that decline. Most Soviet citizens, and especially those around the president, earnestly desire to retain the country's status as a superpower.
The second factor is the elimination from the European defence equation of the Warsaw Pact forces. Those forces were not insignificant, and some elements retain their allegiance to the past. The third factor is the withdrawal of the Soviet Union's support from the armed struggle outside Europe—Ethiopia, Angola, Afghanistan and Vietnam. That withdrawal, which may have cost foreign minister Shevardnadze his job, is no doubt deeply resented and regretted by sections of the Soviet apparatus, just as our withdrawal from our imperial role after the last war caused much unhappiness.
The fourth factor is hard to assess. What has been the effect of the Gulf war on several growing and powerful nations outside Europe? Will countries with populations in excess of 100 million, with large natural resources, ally themselves with the movement for global disarmament or will they seek to reinforce their capacity for self-defence with increasingly sophisticated weapons?
On the positive side, some of those factors have been accompanied by a welcome decline in tension between the existing superpowers, and has led to a widespread improvement in relations generally between East and West. That has been reflected in some useful disarmament agreements on conventional weapons and continuing discussions on strategic arms, with proposals for the monitoring of arms sales.
It is premature, and hardly possible, to say where that will lead ultimately and at what pace. There are other factors which should make us pause and reflect. The apparent end of the cold war was greeted with such relief by us all that Gorbachev was recklessly given the benefit of every doubt. It is now clear that Soviet weapons production is being maintained at a high level and may even be increasing. There has been some sly cheating in the disarmament negotiations. With what end in view? The Soviet president's speech when he received the Nobel Prize was justifiably given in the Independent the headline, "Help us or else", as the president strongly implied that the failure of
1170
perestroika would be a threat to world peace. I am not clear what scenario he envisages. The threat could hardly come from the West.
Any sensible analysis of potential threats to the democratic West must rest on a careful evaluation of the capability and intentions of others. In the case of the USSR today—we should all pay great attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said—it appears that while there has been some reduction and redeployment of forces, its capability in strategic and other weapons is largely undiminished, if at all.
The political and economic future of the Soviet Union is in doubt. Its cohesion is questionable. The capability of the central government is already reduced but remains formidable. But what are the Soviet intentions, as opposed to its capabilities? It is surely rash to attempt long-term predictions at this stage. As I said at the outset, we must assess with our allies the future needs of our defence. We are in danger of declaring a defence dividend purely for economic reasons. We are declaring that dividend before we have made up our minds about the nature of any potential threat or the best combination of our forces to protect ourselves against it. We have gone ahead with the idea of a rapid reaction force and decided what the British component should be.
I understand why, from the services' point of view, the present uncertainties should be brought to an end. But there is some uncertainty about the future role of NATO and its relationship to the WEU and to the Community. Important decisions remain to be reached and will be considered by the intergovernmental conferences. It seems that discussions at those conferences are going our way in defence matters; but we cannot be certain how far enthusiasm for European defence arrangements will be adopted by the Community as a whole. Whatever is eventually agreed, it must involve the United States in the defence of Europe and make action with our allies outside the NATO area a feasible course in certain circumstances.
Recent political changes have made it possible to make progress towards the goal that we have sought for so long—greater security at reduced cost. But is it not premature to suppose that that benefit is now already in our grasp and that we can act immediately on that presumption? We should rather proceed by way of joint analysis with our allies and partners, reshaping our collective arrangements to meet the needs we perceive, and going on to design the forces' equipment and numbers requisite to the task.
The question of the merchant marine has been mentioned once or twice in the debate this afternoon, but no mention has been made of the need to have transport aircraft capable of backing up our new forces. How could the Gulf war have been waged without the transport of enormous numbers of troops on special American planes? I do not believe that we have at our disposal civil aircraft capable of meeting those defence transport needs.
We cannot ignore the present limitation of our economic resources. We must press ahead with the international negotiations on arms reduction. However, surely it is a danger to allow any one of

1171
these elements to take control of our decisions. It seems in my judgment that there is some danger that this may be what is happening.
One final point that I wish to make is that we claimed with sincerity that action in the Gulf had the ultimate objective of strengthening the disciplinary role of the United Nations for which it was designed nearly half a century ago. Any British Government must always keep that objective in mind. It may be a distant goal, but it must not be forgotten.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, as 28th speaker, I find here is not much left of my original speech that has riot been said before better and more authoritatively, notably at the beginning by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. In my view, he correctly pointed out that the Treasury had much to answer for. Also, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, reduced this complicated problem to something which I at any rate found easy to understand.
In December last year, the Select Committee on Defence remarked:
"It must be right to 'size' the Royal Navy in relation to its foreseeable wartime tasks, and then allocate peacetime tasks with whatever force levels result. What cannot be right is to make an arbitrary reduction in the size of the Royal Navy surface fleet, and then allocate wartime tasks to that fleet. Even worse would be for the Treasury to dictate the size of the surface fleet in the course of public expenditure negotiations".
On all sides of the House, people with far more experience of public affairs than I shall ever have, say that that is what happened. It should not have done so, it is quite wrong. One of the consequences has been much alarm, particularly in naval circles, with which I now have the closest connections, although I was a sapper. That alarm has been as to what will happen to the Navy. I come from Fife; our local dockyard at Rosyth was mentioned in the debate on 13th May in an Unstarred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. That dockyard has been threatened with closure. This seems to me to be a strategic, mistake of the first order. Can it be right when we face a threat from the enormous Russian fleet? I use the word "threat" advisedly. It has been used 133 others repeatedly today. We were told on Monday that that fleet consists of 1,145 ships in total of which approximately 500 are large and potentially aggressive. Yet, although a large part of that fleet will be located in northern waters, it has evidently passed through someone's mind that our two main naval bases should be on the south coast facing France. That does not sound sensible to me.
Many years ago Sir Francis Drake said:
"Advantage of time and place is half a Victory, which being loss is irrecoverable".
I suggest in that context that to have our naval bases in the wrong place is to lose half a war before it starts. That applies to Rosyth with the greatest force because it is the northern waters that we have to protect. They are the gateway from the Russian naval bases to the trade route between America and Europe.
I now turn to another point about which I have been concerned for some time. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said earlier that HMS "Endurance" was to be phased out within a short time. For him, this is
1172
undoubtedly exceedingly sad news. She is the navy's only ice ship, albeit now 35 years old. The other day, I received a briefing note from the MoD about her. It made out that she was little more than a store ship for the British Antarctic Survey. It would not be an exaggeration to say that in the briefing note she was so much in the background that the ship could not .be seen at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. She is much more than a store ship. In the huge area of the British Antarctic territories, she displays and asserts our sovereignty and power. That is quite different from mere interest and exploration, as evidenced by the British Antarctic Survey which is not an armed force. It is merely a branch of a quango. The British Antarctic Survey has five bases in our territory, but also within that territory which extends over 60 degrees of longitude, all lying south of 60 degrees south latitude, there are bases manned by Uruguay, the USSR, the United States, Poland—which is very odd—China, Chile, Brazil and the Argentine. We must assert our sovereignty in those areas in order to maintain our claim to them.
On 7th May the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, Lord Pym, Lord Shackleton, Sir Vivian Fuchs, and others distinguished in Antarctic affairs, wrote to The Times. They explained what was going on over HMS "Endurance". They received no answer. HMS "Endurance" was intended to remain in service until 1995. I agree fully with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that it is possible to replace her at relatively modest cost. I fully support the noble Lord in saying that that must be done for the reasons I have already mentioned. If we again signal our disinterest in the far south, it would be surprising if others did not feel that we had finally lost interest in that enormous and valuable territory of which we happen to be a sovereign power. I hope that that disastrous decision will be taken no further.
9.7 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I, like every noble Lord who has spoken, am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Colnbrook for initiating this most timely and necessary debate and for his brilliant and lucid speech. I am also grateful to so many noble Lords who have made all the points I wished to make. I shall, however, continue to make my points, if in a rather shortened form.
Although I tell fortunes by tea leaves, I am not seriously into the business of prediction. But what I have found out in life—as I expect many other noble Lords have also—is that it is very difficult to predict the future, because events happen often amazingly and differently from what one expects. To quote a currently well known phrase, "it's a funny old world".
When I first entered your Lordships' House five years ago, the Berlin Wall was a solid unpassable barrier and our vocabulary was devoid of words like perestroika and glasnost. The whole of Eastern Europe was under tight communist rule and the Middle East, although simmering, had not erupted into the Gulf war. But that has all changed, slipped from future into what has become history. In an article in today's edition of The Times Conor Cruise O'Brien warns us

1173
not to be too optimistic as regards the Soviet Union. Indeed, none of us knows—even the intrepid tea-leaf readers—what is going to happen. All we can do is be like the little pig who built his house of bricks so that —unlike the straw and twig houses—when the big bad wolf came his house did not get huffed and puffed away.
Our bricks are the men and women of our Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. Their weapons are the mortar and cement which hold them together. Houses can always be tidied up, repointed and new mortar and cement added. But, the bricks of which they are made are irreplaceable. That is something we must not forget, for we have clearly the finest, best trained forces in the world. We have seen this proved in the Falklands war and more recently in the Gulf war.
Those of us who have been fortunate enough to visit some of our defence establishments in Britain and indeed further afield, have returned from wherever we have been and from whatever we have seen with a strong sense of the high morale and total excellence of all our forces. This year I have been to RAF Honington, I have flown to RAF Leuchars and to RAF Lossiemouth. I have visited the Royal Ordnance Corps at Donington and the training and repair shops at HMS "Daedalus". Last week I sailed on HMS "Invincible" during an exciting day of sea exercises. During the past three years I have also sailed on HMS "Ark Royal", HMS "Brave", HMS "Fife", HMS "Leeds Castle", HMS "Alacrity" and other ships of the Royal Navy and have flown in Sea King, Wessex, Lynx and Gazelle helicopters.
Last year I visited the Falklands. Visiting the isolated radar sites at Mount Alice under Squadron Leader Simpson, and Mount Kent under Squadron Leader Armiger in a 50 miles per hour gale, with a much higher wind chill factor, made one realise just how lonely the work sometimes is, and how dedicated our men are. In North Howard Street Mill in Belfast the only outside recreation area—if one can call it such —was a concrete space between two buildings. It was partially screened from mortar attack and was slightly smaller than a tennis court. The tours of duty in all those places are four months with one weekend off for rest and recreation.
In Belize I visited all four camps: Airport and Holdfast in the north and Rideau and Salamanca in the south, and drank tea from a communal army mug with a jungle patrol of the Welsh Guards in the steamy gloom of tall trees and creepers. The Army patrol the border between Belize and Guatemala, which is an arbitrary line drawn on a map—fine to look at in a well-lit office, but bears little relation to the dense forest with tracks growing over almost as you look at them.
In Cyprus I visited some of the United Nations border posts on the front line where, scarcely 100 yards from the Turkish post overlooking us, Captain Andrew Ritchie entertained us with some of his own Earl Grey tea and honey cakes from the Turkish commander situated on the post overlooking him. As we stood in the mess, we held up our cakes and waved
1174
our thanks to the Turkish sentry on duty. In every place I have visited I have been totally impressed with the dedication, high standards and courage shown by all three arms of our services. Having said that, I must also say that everywhere I visited, there has been a certain measure of disquiet and unease about Options for Change. No one knows for certain what is to be scrapped or what is to be removed in the interests of short-term economy. Our forces are very well aware of the need for economy. In Lossiemouth, for example, they have continued to use the old Shackletons long beyond the term of their natural life. At Donington workers are encouraged to find cheaper parts where these can be found. Many large savings to the taxpayer have been made in that way but, short-sightedly, the policy of the Ministry of Defence is not to reward the finder of some more economical nut or bolt. That may in the long term be a deterrent to initiative and consequently cost the Government more.
An even more upsetting concept has been that of closing down British regiments. I must declare an interest in the Brigade of Guards. My great-grandfather served as a Grenadier, my grandfather fought with the Grenadiers in the Suakin campaign, my son is currently serving with the Grenadiers and my father was a cadet in the Grenadiers in the First World War. My father-in-law was a founder member of the Welsh Guards. My brother—who was killed in 1945 —served with the Welsh Guards, and another ancestor commanded the Coldstream Guards in the Crimea. Perhaps I should add that my father went on to become a lieutenant in the Black Watch at the beginning of the Second World War and finished the war as sergeant major commanding the Megginch Home Guard contingent. If the regiments are further reduced the pool of reserves from which they can draw will also consequently be reduced. Fewer recruits will come forward and in an emergency we shall have nothing on which to draw.
I should also like to make a plea on behalf of the territorial, auxiliary and volunteer reserves, which are, as their name implies, voluntary. Unlike the regular services, they have no fixed term of service and if not encouraged they will not turn up. The territorials, the RNR and RAF auxiliaries provide not only a basis for expansion in times of crisis but also a very real team of extras who are trained to act efficiently in the event of civil disaster.
Our Army, and our regimental system, is the finest in the world. To muck it up and tamper with it must only be to destroy ultimately the most prestigious army in the world today, which also gives the best value for money of any army anywhere.
The chief duty of government is to defend its people and its country. If there is no defence then the enemy will come in, and who shall stop him? If the enemy comes in, then the country will go under; and if there is no country left to govern there will be no government—or at least it will be an alien one.
The less than 4 per cent. of the national cake which is spent on our defence should possibly be nearer 5 per cent. Looking back at the changes over the past few years, at the softening of the Eastern bloc, at the

1175
collapse of communism, we may well ask, who is our enemy? From whom now do we have to defend ourselves? There may not be a big bad wolf out there at the moment, but like the wise little pig we must retain our brick house so that if a wind should blow again from the East, or from any other direction, we are able to withstand it.
9.17 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, for introducing the subject so eloquently. As many noble Lords have indicated so eloquently, the Options for Change are clearly being led by fiscal considerations.
I remember clearly that as a young officer, when I was required to prepare an appreciation of a situation, I had to allocate troops to tasks. I found that difficult enough. But if I had to do it today I should have to answer the question: can I pay for it? Today, apart from having to cope with being over-stretched we now have what is known in the trade as NMS—or new management strategy—which affects the lives of everyone in the Armed Forces. Undoubtedly everyone is becoming very much more cost conscious. But they are finding it very difficult to cope with the new financial strategy. It will work; it has to work. But it is extremely difficult.
Apart from the feeling of uncertainty, and a great deal of frustration, the announcement of the reduction in the number of ships, the disbandment or amalgamation of regiments, leading to an Army of 116,000 men, and the disbandment of certain RAF squadrons, is certainly having an effect on our Armed Forces. I would almost go so far as to say that that is salami slicing, dictated by financial considerations and not by actual or perceived roles.
The retention of the regimental system is most welcome, as we have heard. NATO's agreement to a multinational Rapid Reaction Corps is also welcome. However, one has to ask who will pay for it. What will be its real role? And how will it be trained? Those are questions which one hopes will be answered in the White Paper in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, gave a tremendous boost in his speech to Challenger 2 as a replacement for Challenger 1 and the Chieftain tank. I support everything that he said. I should add only that the Challenger, in comparison with the American tank used in the Gulf, was more fuel efficient and achieved far greater serviceability, largely thanks to the efficient REME back-up and excellent support from the makers, Vickers. I, for one, hope that Vickers obtains the reward that it richly deserves.
My grandfather was in the Navy. He commanded HMS "Britannia". I must tell the noble and gallant Lord that in those days it was a shore establishment. However, I have an interest in ships and recently I was privileged to visit HMS "Fearless" as part of a defence visit. I also had the honour to serve on her and her sister ship HMS "Intrepid". I was somewhat surprised to be told by the Navy that she is affectionately known as "the rust bucket". I asked why and was told, "You only have to put your fingers on the deck and you land
1176
up on the next deck". That also somewhat surprised me, but clearly, within naval ranks, there is considerable consternation about the future of HMS "Intrepid" and HMS "Fearless". I hope that an announcement will come before too long as to the future of those ships which are extremely old but extremely efficient, as the noble and gallant Lord will know, having served in the Falklands. As a nation, we should be told fairly soon what will be the future of the two ships.
I turn to reserves and reservists. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said that he thought that 1,000 reservists served in the Gulf. I should put the figure at nearer 2,000, although I do not believe that anyone knows exactly how many there were. A large number came in through the back door and were embodied without appearing on any records. I believe that a surprisingly high number of reservists may have served in the Gulf, all responding to a national need at a time of crisis. None was actually called up. They were invited to volunteer and were then embodied. It was a cumbersome method of embodiment which gave rise to many difficult personal and employment problems. It was administratively difficult. The Reserve Forces Act is very satisfactory generally when referring to general war mobilisation. It was just that in the case of the Gulf it was not correctly used or interpreted by the Government. I believe that we need some form of legislation to make the Act more effective and easier to interpret.
The Secretary of State for Defence in another place gave a firm undertaking in July last year and again as recently as 4th June that the reserves should,
"continue to play and, in some respects, play an enhanced role in the defence of our country". [Official Report, Commons, 4/6/91; col. 144.]
That is a pretty firm commitment to our reserve forces. As we have heard, there is a need to rationalise and possibly realign our reserve forces. I believe that where the reserves are under-recruited we may well have to disband or reorganise. I was somewhat surprised to hear my noble friend Lord Ridley say that home defence companies should go. If I remember correctly, they were raised to guard VIPs, a vital task in time of war. Possibly they were a resurrection of the Home Guard.
There is a need for the Territorial Army and all reserve forces to produce a presence throughout the country as regular forces are reduced. Drill halls should be retained even on a care and maintenance basis. The use of reserve forces should be more widely based and should in particular be available in cases of national disaster such as the Lockerbie tragedy. Local district headquarters should have delegated powers on the basis of "act now and argue later".
The Territorial Army is very much an ongoing and thriving part of our defence forces. Several new initiatives have been brought in, such as executive stretch, whereby young civilian executives take part in training with the local TA units. The National Employers' Liaison Committee (known as NELC) under Mr. Macpherson, continues to strengthen the links between the Territorial Army and the civilian population and encourages employers to support employees who wish to serve in the volunteer reserve.

1177
Now young potential officers in the Territorial Army attend Sandhurst and potential staff officers attend the staff college. That is a great step forward which would have been unheard of some 20 years ago.
The cadet forces of all three services continue to play an important role in society, training youth in basic military skills. Only yesterday a mother came to see me because her son had been rejected for junior service. She was very distressed. Forcing back her tears, she said, "But, sir, he does press his uniform and polish his boots every day before going on parade". At least that shows some form of dedication.
The cadets are excellently supported by cadet training teams. They also work with youth and youth training teams. Those are being formed throughout the country largely on an unofficial basis. I believe that it is worthy of consideration by the Ministry as to whether there should be an enhancement of youth training schemes. There should be some form of linkage between cadet training teams and youth training teams.
For the future, we need an effective, fully integrated command structure which concerns itself more with the needs of our forces than fighting the paper war and battling with fiscal policies. We need both regular and reserve forces which are balanced and large enough to be able to meet perceived threats. Our forces must be able to train properly and above all to achieve proper job satisfaction. Because the cost of training has risen so high, we need to make every effort to retain properly trained personnel, both regular and reserve.
Finally, the Armed Forces are undermanned. While the Options for Change are being worked out those who have served the Armed Forces are naturally worried and look to the future with a certain amount of apprehension. I hope that the insurance policy so eloquently described by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, will not be a third party policy.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, this is a debate about force levels and equipment. I do not doubt that it will affect the eventual levels. I believe that the services owe a debt to my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, as do your Lordships, for the debate.
Whatever level is settled on, we shall finish up with a large amount of expensive equipment and a large number of people who, once trained, will simply have to await developments in attitudes on defence. That is an essential task. However, it costs a great deal of money. While such a task contributes much to the stability of Europe, the waiting contributes nothing to the efficiency of forces. Any constructive activities on which those forces can embark in a time of peace must therefore be welcomed. If it contributes to the training of the force, it must be doubly welcomed. If it is popular with the electorate, it must have certain attractions to the government of any day, and in particular to this Government. If it is popular with the troops, it will improve their morale and thus add to their efficiency.
Since the efficiency of the forces will determine whether or not the level of our defence is adequate, the
1178
issue lies squarely within the terms of the debate. Noble Lords will be aware of the regularity and scale of natural disasters on the grand scale that occur not only in Europe but around the world. They will be aware of the extent to which military forces of all three arms are adapted in both training and equipment to provide three of the necessary elements of disaster relief: reconnaissance to identify the damage suffered and the needs sustained; a system of communications to convey information thus gathered and to provide a network for command and control for the subsequent effort; and logistics to bring aid to the point of need, often in place of undeveloped or simply destroyed infrastructure.
Using those skills and equipment for real is certainly constructive and thus satisfies the first criterion. The second criterion is that it should contribute to the training of the troops. Any troops exercising their skill for real in disaster relief receive a training value far in excess of anything that they attain on Salisbury Plain, Luneberg Heath or in the training waters or skies that we use. Disaster relief has been shown by recent surveys to be popular with 80 per cent. of respondents; and that satisfies the third criterion. It is certainly popular with the troops which satisfies the fourth.
I hope that the Minister will agree that failing anything better there will at least be a unilateral British commitment to a formal and not merely an adhoc disaster relief role for United Kingdom forces in time of peace. Recent such unilateral efforts have been welcome but relatively modest in scale. It has been suggested to me that the chief limitation on scale has been the rate of charges exacted by the Ministry of Defence from the ODA for the services of the Services. Can my noble friend tell the House what the charge is, for example, for a fully serviced Hercules aircraft or a Chinook helicopter with the appropriate back-up? Can he also say why it is still not possible to do what I am told almost every other member of NATO does—even the Germans have recently passed a law making it compulsory—to deduct a training value element from that charge? Why should pilots or soldiers be trained free when no one else benefits and at great cost when someone else does benefit, perhaps to the extent of being saved from certain death? Is it not the case that it costs the ODA more to hire military transport than to hire transport from the private sector? If as I believe the ODA's reserve of £70 million is already almost exhausted, can those questions be addressed with the utmost urgency?
I realise that the deployment of troops in those roles may leave a hole in the front line. That brings me to the points made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and my noble friend Lady Strange; it is the deployment of the TAVR if the regular forces cannot be used. The Gulf deployment has shown how quickly they can be put into action. If the improvements suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, are put into effect it appears that the existence of a large reserve army and the necessary

1179
existence of large amounts of equipment shed during the thinning process of the forces that we now face will provide an instrument for great international good.
But that is still only a unilateral effort. I believe that the new NATO, with its central corps for rapid reaction, is the natural body to provide a larger, more effective response than we can provide alone. Can the Minister confirm that only France is now blocking that role? Can he also explain why, since it does not contribute to NATO's military structure, it is permitted to do so? Should that not be remitted to the defence planning committee where I believe it would receive 15 votes out of 15?
I am confident that the Government have understood and firmly grasped the principles of providing secure defence at acceptable cost. They will do so with greater effect when they have read many of the speeches made this evening. If they give our forces a clearly defined disaster-relief role in times of peace and share it at least within NATO they will give our troops the welcome task of saving lives, which surprisingly is always liked by people trained, as we believe, only to kill. The role of the soldier, the sailor and the airman is the defence of the realm and the saving of life. The Government will have done something which is cost-effective and of immense benefit to the world.
9.35 p.m.
Lore Richard: My Lords, this has been an interesting and, in some ways, a fascinating debate. I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, on initiating it. It is timely that he did so. The debate has produced a number of speeches of quite remarkable quality.
I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, on his maiden speech, if it is not presumptuous of me, as a recent addition to the House, to congratulate a noble Lord who has been a Member of the Peerage rather longer than I have. I am sure he will have recognised that the House was anxious to hear what he had to say not only because of his previous experience but also because of his great knowledge and wisdom about military affairs. I congratulate him most sincerely on his speech. I look forward to hearing from him again.
Secondly, we heard a remarkable speech from the other military man who took part in the debate—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. In his 15 minutes he encapsulated many of the anxieties and preoccupations which have been expressed from all parts of the House. Not only did he express the preoccupations, worries, and indeed suspicions but I believe that he proved them. I shall return later to what the noble and gallant Lord said to the House. However, on any view of the matter, his speech was a powerful criticism of the Government's present position.
Indeed it is fair to say that no noble Lord who spoke in the debate fully supported the Government's present position. Doubts, anxieties, preoccupations and suspicions have been expressed both about the Government's appreciation of the current threat, notably as exemplified in the speech of the noble Lord,
1180
Lord Orr-Ewing, when he was not trying to play party politics and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, but also about their response to the new situation which has arisen, as exemplified in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moore.
Before I turn to the main thrust of my speech perhaps I may raise two specific issues, both of which have been raised during the course of the day. At Question Time and at the beginning of the debate my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff raised the question of merchant shipping in relation to our defence forces. We expect a response from the Minister on that subject and I hope that we shall receive one.
Secondly, I raise again the matter of HMS "Endurance". I understand—and obviously it is only an understanding—that the Foreign Office first heard of that decision today. I ask the Minister to confirm that. However, if that is so, it is an extraordinary way in which to take such a major decision. It is not only major in relation to the present position but, given the past history of "Endurance" and the effect which the previous decision to withdraw it had in the South Atlantic, it is an almost incomprehensible way of behaving if the foreign policy implications of that decision were not fully taken into account by the Government. It is fair to say that the House will want some reassurance from the Government this evening on the position of "Endurance" and the way in which the decision was taken.
The improvement in East-West relations and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact inevitably forced NATO members to undertake a complete review and restructuring of the Western alliance. NATO will now concentrate on the rapid deployment of its forces in the event of future crises or conflicts. As I understand it, the new force will not be specifically targeted against the USSR but will act as a counterbalance to the uncertainty within the USSR and throughout Eastern Europe. It will try to curb ethnic violence and the potential Soviet threat in the North and to prevent conflict in the Middle East. Again I should be grateful for confirmation from the Minister as to the role which the Government envisage for that new force.
Ministers have agreed to establish a multinational corps structure in which members would command corps, including divisions from other countries. We have not had the full details, but I understand that the new structure will include air and sea components and a rapid reaction corps of at least four division-sized units. I understand that the United Kingdom will command that Rapid Reaction Corps comprising 70,000 to 100,000 troops. Our contribution to that will be an armoured division stationed in Germany, and a light division comprising one airborne brigade, one mechanised brigade and possibly the Royal Marines. The other two divisions will be modelled on the ACE mobile force and include elements from the UK, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. The fourth division is likely to be led by the Italians with units possibly coming from Greece and Turkey.
One major issue is what the United States' participation will be in the Rapid Reaction Force. The Defence Secretary, Mr. Cheney, offered the equivalent

1181
of a United States Army heavy division based in the USA, but no final decision has been made on that. Judging by the speeches made in the debate, and particularly that of my noble friend Lord Kennet, there is some confusion about the details of the Rapid Reaction Force. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the House on that.
One of the main questions addressed in the debate today is the nature and pattern which security arrangements in Europe will be taking in five or indeed 10 years' time. There are various alternatives. The conference on co-operation and security in Europe has an important role to play in the new Europe; that is undeniable. But in our view it cannot be a substitute for NATO itself. The NATO alliance is crucial to security in Europe. It will probably remain so for many years to come. In that connection I do not believe that the importance of NATO can be overemphasised. This unique and mighty alliance is the only transatlantic defence organisation; it is underpinned by the United States and Canadian presence in the defence of Western Europe by the presence of their troops in this continent. It is imperative that the United States and Canada maintain their commitment to NATO. Despite the widespread political and economic changes in Eastern Europe, in my view it would be grossly premature to sever the alliance with North America.
NATO contributes to, but cannot guarantee, security in Eastern Europe. A formal NATO role there would certainly alienate the Soviet Union. It would also he highly unpopular with the people of Western Europe who would hardly wish NATO to start guaranteeing the borders of states outside its own formal structure. If one puts the CSCE against that background it could have an important security role to play. However, in common with the United Nations—about which I shall say a word in a moment—it has limitations and at present cannot be considered as a substitute for NATO.
My noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby puts great faith in the possibility of the United Nations guaranteeing peace and security not only in Europe but also throughout the world. The House may be aware that I have a great deal of admiration for the United Nations. But at present, given the existing detailed structure, I do not see the Security Council of the UN fulfilling the role which perhaps my noble friend hopes it might. In some quarters also there have been demands for an independent European defence policy to be developed through the Western European Union. I do not believe that the WEU can be a substitute for NATO. Perhaps at some stage in the future a European defence policy may emerge, but at present security can best be guaranteed through NATO.
A strange sort of chicken and egg argument exists. I have considerable sympathy with those who are in favour of a greater degree of European unity, which again may be a surprise to the House. But it would be wrong to use defence and security arrangements in order to push the cause of European unity. A greater degree of European unity must come first and the
1182
defence arrangements will then perhaps fall into place. No European caucus or body of opinion should be allowed to present a fait accompli to the United States. The danger is that if that is done and a European defence policy is declared unilaterally, the Americans might sever their commitment to defend Europe. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said at the beginning of the debate, the way forward is to improve relations between the United States and other NATO members and reinforce the European pillar of NATO.
If it is premature and dangerous to talk in terms of an independent European defence policy, as I believe it is, it is against that background that we have to judge the Government's response to the new situation and ask ourselves whether it is sensible and adequate. More and more is it emerging that the Government have instituted the defence cuts without consulting the United States and apparently without consulting other NATO allies. If that is true, the danger is that such actions may lead other NATO members to revert to national defence policies and consequently ignore their own NATO commitments. It is a danger that could have been avoided.
The Government will clearly have to face up to their responsibility in reviewing the structure and size of our Armed Forces. Given recent events in Eastern Europe, cuts in Western defence expenditure are inevitable. Fears have arisen before, but they are growing fast now, that the Government's response to these changing conditions is too haphazard and insufficiently based on what I would call defence grounds. I share some of the preoccupations which have been expressed on the other side of the House. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact should not permit complacency to creep in. The Soviet Union remains a nuclear power and even after the CFE Treaty, it retains the largest army in the world. Those factors underpin the need to ensure that our Armed Forces remain well equipped, that further cuts are implemented after full discussion within NATO, and that only fully verifiable arms control agreements are negotiated.
As has been pointed out already in the debate, the main effect so far of the changing situation in Eastern Europe and the peace dividend is being felt in terms of redundancy in the defence industry. British Aerospace has announced 10,000 redundancies since the beginning of the Gulf crisis despite the acclaim received by the Tornados for their performance during the war. Under the party opposite 80,000 defence jobs have already been lost with over 14,000 redundancies announced in the defence industry since the middle of last year. I understand that the Defence Manufacturers' Association predicted in January of this year that about 123,000 out of a current total of 620,000 defence jobs, could be lost by the mid-1990s.
Given the scale of the changes being experienced within the defence industry we have proposed the setting up of a defence diversification agency which will be some kind of assistance agency to help firms to adjust to the fundamental market changes. It is a matter of disappointment to us that the Government have so far refused to take any action to provide such assistance. I ask the Minister what provision the

1183
Government are proposing to make for service personnel who are made redundant by the cuts. I do not expect details tonight, but we are entitled to have a general out line of the way in which the Government approach the problem.
I make two pleas to the Minister. The first is in relation to service redundancies. I ask him to be early in telling people what their future is to be. Secondly, the Government should be generous in the way in which they are treated. They are people who have served the country well and proudly over a long period of time. They deserve generous treatment on the part of this, country. By finalising and making public the defence review it will be nice to know when the Government finally intend to let us have all the details. We have been told that it will be before the Summer Recess. If it is the day before, then effectively the House and Parliament will not be able to consider it for a very long time thereafter. It will be pleasant if the Minister can tell us that we can have the White Paper, and presumably the details that we require, in sufficient time before the Recess so that the House will be in a position to consider it.
I return to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I appreciate the difficulties that the Government face in restructuring the Armed Forces following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. The question arises whether the proposed new troop levels of 116,000 for the Army by the mid-1990s will give the Army the flexibility and capacity to respond to the wide range of contingencies that could arise. I should also dearly like to know how on earth the Government arrive at a figure of 116,000. It has a suspicious precision. When the point was raised in the House of Commons a week ago, on Tuesday, 4th June, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
"In accordance with my 'Options for Change' statement last July, and under this new strategy agreed by NATO, we shall move to an Army of 116,000 by the mid-1990s".
That is a clear statement of intent which is apparently not up for discussion or consultation. The Government have taken a decision that the size of the Army will be 116,000 by the mid-1990s. The Secretary of State then used this phrase, which I confess I do not understand. He said:
"On that basis"—
that it has to be 116,000—
"consultation within the Army on the future structure of regiments and corps will now proceed".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/6/91; col. 143.]
If that is not presenting the Army with a statement that, "You have got to come down to 116,000. Now please go away and discuss among yourselves how you would best like to do it", I do not know what it is. If the decision is a firm decision to come down to 116,000, what on earth is the basis for that decision? On what criteria have the Government decided that that should be the size of the Army in the mid-1990s? Is it based upon an assessment of what the stress is likely to be? Is it based upon some considerations—we know not what—as to the sort of Army and the mix of force that the Government wish to see in the middle of the 1990s? We just do not know. When one sees as bald a statement as that—that we have decided that it will he 116,000 and then telling the Army to go away
1184
and consult about it within the Army itself—that does not give us very much confidence that this decision was based on defence grounds, but rather that it was based on purely financial grounds. I am reinforced on that point—and I conclude on this, as I am conscious that I have gone over my 15 minutes. The report of the Defence Committee of the House of Commons on the Royal Air Force published today, states:
"In broad terms … the principal decisions have been made and announced, with exceptional speed. Well in advance of the other two Services, and of the civilian side of the Ministry, much of the new RAF force structure will be in place within 3 years of the July 1990 announcement".
The report goes on to say:
"It is remarkable that it should be thought possible to design a force structure solely for the RAF in Germany without knowing in advance what its role is to be; let alone what ground forces, in what structure, and under what command this air force is designed to support".
Later the report states:
"It looks very much as if the United Kingdom has decided unilaterally the level and disposition of air (and ground) forces it proposes to make available, and left NATO to use them as it will".
That is a damning statement from a House of Commons Committee.
The report continues:
"All we have seen of the planning process so far leads us to believe the new force structures are being shaped to fit the contribution, rather than the other way round".
If that is so, I can only say that the suspicions which have been voiced in the debate seem to me to have been justified. In those circumstances, we cannot approach the Government's policy with a great deal of confidence. We need to see the Government's detailed appreciation and justification of the new figures on defence grounds, not merely on financial ones.
9.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, by now I know that your Lordships will agree that during this afternoon and evening we have had all the elements of a highly sophisticated debate—immense variation of interest, noble Lords with profound experience and knowledge, speakers of eloquence and passion—all brought about as a result of the vastly changed circumstances that exist in the world today and, in these not easy times, the responsible way forward for the Armed Forces of the UK. My noble friend Lord Colnbrook is to be congratulated on the timing of the debate and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is to be congratulated on his perfect choice of timing to launch his most eloquent maiden speech.
I believe it is clear from what my noble friend the Leader of the House said earlier that our defence requirements are primarily determined by the security situation in Europe. The changes that have occurred in our continent are fundamental, and it must be right that, in consultation with all our NATO allies, we respond to them in a way which is positive as well as prudent. Perhaps the most significant developments for future European security are Germany's unification as a single sovereign state enjoying full membership of NATO; and the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact military structure now under way. These

1185
changes are being accompanied by withdrawal of all Soviet forces stationed in the countries of Eastern and Central Europe, amounting to some 500,000 troops. The 340,000 Soviet forces in Eastern Germany, for example, are leaving at the rate of 100,000 a year, and will all be gone by the end of 1994. With the absorption of the former East German army into the Bundeswehr, and the ending of Warsaw Pact military ties, the threat facing the alliance in the central region is already very greatly reduced from the levels of 1989. By the mid-1990s, more than 1 million fewer troops will be ranged against NATO in Europe, as a result of which we and our allies have judged that we can maintain our security at lower force levels than hitherto.
Other NATO countries have decided to reduce the size of their forces in Europe by substantial amounts: the United States by about 50 per cent.; Canada by 20 per cent.; Germany by 30 per cent.; Belgium by 30 per cent.; the Netherlands by 15 per cent. by 1994 and 30 per cent. by the end of the decade; and France, which is withdrawing a very sizeable proportion, if not all, of its 50,000 troops from Germany.
In his statement last July on Options for Change, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence proposed overall reductions in the size of our own Armed Forces of some 20 per cent., a smaller scale than the planned reductions of most of our major NATO allies. He recognised that uncertainties and risks remained both inside Europe and, prophetically as it turned out, elsewhere in the world. I wish strongly to emphasise that the changes envisaged in our force structure are in response to new circumstances and different security needs. An opportunity to realise savings in expenditure will be taken, but only as a result of the new circumstances and without prejudice to our commitment to maintain strong and flexible forces. I make that important point to all noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. There is no foundation for any suggestion that the changes are resource-driven. Although the overall size of our forces will reduce, their capabilities will continue to improve, as newer equipments are introduced and other changes made, for example, to achieve increased mobility.
Your Lordships are, I know, keen to see early decisions on force structures. We are of course aware also of the strength of feeling, particularly among the services, that has been generated by the Options work. During the Gulf conflict, we were concerned to minimise the uncertainty and anxiety felt by service personnel and their families. We recognised that it would be inappropriate at that time to take final decisions on front line change, and thus we proceeded with rationalisation and other changes in support areas which did not affect our efforts in the Gulf.
There is no question of difficult decisions being put off. Through Options for Change we are devising ways of restructuring our Armed Forces to make them appropriate to the new security environment in Europe. It would be foolish to try to rush such an
1186
important and complex exercise. Where progress in our planning has allowed, we have announced initial decisions, and my noble friend the Leader of the House has mentioned a number of the more significant ones. However, quite apart from the interruption of the Gulf war, we wished to reach agreement on NATO's overall strategy, and our role in it, before we proceeded with our own proposals for the Army. Last month the alliance agreed on its new force structure, which will be smaller than hitherto, but more flexible, more mobile and more multinational. We have, at all times, consulted NATO and our allies over our proposals to ensure that our plans fit into a collective defence structure, contrary to what, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, may think.
Multinationality is not new to NATO. The alliance has had considerable experience of operating multinational formations. These include the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force (AMF), which is intended to deter aggression on NATO's flanks by demonstrating alliance solidarity in times of tension; the UK/Netherlands Amphibious Force; three standing or on-call naval formations in the North Atlantic area; and the NATO Airborne Early Warning Mixed Force (NAEWMF). However, multinationality will acquire a new importance throughout the new alliance force structure. The new structure of main defence forces, reaction forces and augmentation forces, will include multinational forces of all types: land, air and maritime.
A number of important aspects relating to the implementation of the new structure now require examination, including the composition of multinational air and naval components and their command arrangements. It is clear that land forces will rely increasingly on multinational corps made up of national units. The recently agreed Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, for example, will include two British and two multinational divisions. That will require much careful co-ordinated effort, but we believe that it will bring significant benefits in terms of strengthened collective security, more efficient use of scarce resources, enhanced capability and operational flexibility. Multinational units will thus be potent symbols of NATO's strength and flexibility at a time when national force levels are being reduced.
In this new structure Britain has been asked to lead a new multinational Rapid Reaction Corps, able to respond to threats anywhere in Europe. Britain will provide two divisions to the new corps, one based in Germany and one in the United Kingdom. These forces will be highly capable. The armoured division in Germany will have three brigades, each of two armoured regiments and two armoured infantry battalions. The second division in the United Kingdom will be highly mobile, including the parachute brigade, mechanised brigades with armour and infantry, and they will all be equipped with high quality modern equipment. The Royal Marines will continue to contribute to NATO's rapid reaction forces through the UK/Netherlands amphibious forces which will operate with the new Rapid Reaction

1187
Corps when necessary. I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on the detailed and technical questions that he asked.
I am sure that many noble Lords will agree that to be assigned the leadership of the Rapid Reaction Corps is a great achievement for the United Kingdom. It represents an important and challenging new role for the Army; one which I know it welcomes. The role is one for which an all-volunteer, professional force such a the British Army is particularly well-suited. It is a tribute to the Army and the standing in which it is held, always assisted by the support given by this Government. It shows that we are ready to continue to play a full part in the defence of Europe.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence indicated in his Options for Change statement in another place last July the likely scale of the reduction in the size of the British Army. NATO's decision has enabled us to confirm that we shall move to an irmy of 116,000 by the mid-1990s. A crucial determining factor was the United Kingdom's adoption of the RRC role. That represents a decrease of 40,000 (about 25 per cent.) in the size of the Army. Reflecting the diminishing threat there, the bulk of these reductions will be in forces based on the Continent. The British Army of the Rhine will contract from its present strength of over 50,000 to between 20,000 and 25,000.
Detailed planning on how to achieve the restructuring is now underway. While we shall seek to make maximum use of recruitment controls and natural wastage, some redundancies are inevitable. It is our intention that as far as possible these will be voluntary, although, because of the need to maintain the right balance of ages, ranks and skills, we cannot rule out a compulsory element. But I would not go as far as my noble friend Lord Colnbrook. We envisage a phased redundancy programme starting next year and lasting several years. Details of terms will be announced as soon as possible. Consultation with those affected in the Army has been set in hand. The Government believe it is right that the Army should be given the opportunity to propose how the restructuring should be achieved, and we have asked them to bring forward proposals. Given the scale of reductions, it is inevitable that some units will be affected by amalgamations and disbandments, but we have consistently made clear that the regimental system will be kept and with it its pride, loyalties and traditions which were rightly praised by, among others, my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Glenarthur and Lord Forbes.
We believe that the Army accepts the need for change and wishes to achieve it constructively. No part of the Army is exempt from the exercise but no final decisions have yet been taken. Until they have I do not propose to comment on particular cases, although I am in no doubt that noble and gallant Lords may have strong views on particular components of the regimental system.
Turning to the other two services, I can only emphasise that both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force will, as a result of Options for Change, continue to play a vital role in protecting our nation's
1188
security and meeting our obligations to NATO allies. With the introduction of Trident, the Royal Navy will continue to provide the strategic deterrent. I am sure your Lordships will be happy to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that this is the apparent policy of the Official Opposition. The Royal Navy will also retain the capability to play a major role in NATO operations in the North Atlantic with our antisubmarine warfare assets, such as the three carriers and the new Type 23 frigates. It will maintain a substantial flotilla of minor war vessels to protect the home base and the capacity to participate in out-of-area operations, such as Operation GRANBY.
As to the Royal Air Force, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said earlier, a restructured force will be smaller than at present but I must stress that it will retain the ability to perform the full spectrum of air operations and roles and the versatility so impressively displayed in the Gulf conflict.
I know that much concern has been expressed about the future of the Territorial Army, particularly by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I can assure noble Lords that it will continue to have a key role to play. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State met TAVRA Council representatives last month and took careful note of the matters raised. We shall be examining our requirements in that area and, in particular, the roles, size and numbers of TA units. Final decisions have yet to be taken. I should make clear—as we have frequently pointed out—that we continue to attach the greatest importance to all our reserves and volunteer forces.
Looking beyond Europe, the events in the Gulf demonstrated the need to retain a robust and flexible defence capability to react to emergencies which arise outside the NATO area. The conflict has not invalidated the work done so far on Options; indeed, it has underlined the importance of our original planning assumption which your Lordships will recall was built in from the outset initially in the form of the Strategic Reserve Division. We shall retain that capability with the forces assigned to the Rapid Reaction Corps and shall retain our capacity to fulfil our commitment not only to Northern Ireland but also to Belize, the Falklands, Cyprus, Gibraltar and, until 1997, Hong Kong.
Taking up the points made by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, I can assure him that we are taking a radical look at support area with the aim of achieving substantial savings in line with the reductions planned for the front line. This represents a major challenge as the retention in the new force structure of all our major capabilities constrains reductions in infrastructure. We are therefore examining the way we support the front line to establish how we might conduct the business in different ways, not least because of increased warning time. I shall return later to the question of the number of civilian reductions.
I hasten to make it clear to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the Government are sensitive to the anxieties of the defence industry over the changes in prospect, but it is

1189
important to see them in perspective. The defence budget is currently planned to reduce by 6 per cent. in real terms over the next three years; but it will remain substantial and provide many opportunities for efficient and competitive companies in the defence sector. Nonetheless, companies will have to decide how to respond to the changed market conditions that they face. But as I have said before in your Lordships' House, those decisions must be taken by the management of the companies concerned and not by the Government. Consultation and information are part of that continuing process.
I shall deal now with some of the points raised by your Lordships this evening. Most important of all, continuing anxiety was expressed about the power of the Soviet military might. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, and my noble friends Lord Colnbrook, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Glenarthur, Lord Gisborough, Lady Park, Lord Pearson and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, spoke of their anxiety about that situation. Reduction in the overall size of Soviet armed forces under CFE and the dissolution of the military structure of the Warsaw Pact has significantly reduced the threat to NATO and effectively removed the threat of a surprise attack, as I have already said.
Nevertheless, the Soviet Union retains a substantial military capability. While it is true that the Soviets are modernising certain categories of warships and submarines overall, the size of the Soviet Navy is declining and activity levels are diminishing. We do not consider that those forces are likely to be used aggressively against the West while the present Soviet Government are in power. However, we are under no illusion that the capability exists, and that is why our defence policy is based on the North Atlantic alliance and needs to maintain an adequate and effective mix of conventional and nuclear weapons, kept up-to-date as necessary. The Government have always made their adherence to that policy clear to all.
Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Cochrane and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke about the closure threat to Rosyth. We have been reviewing the full range of support for the Fleet. The aim is to ensure effective support for the post-Options Navy. Radical measures must be considered to achieve that aim, but as I have always said, no decisions have yet been taken. We shall consider all relevant factors when reaching decisions. They include, in addition to cost-effectiveness, strategic and operational factors and the economic and employment implications of closure upon local communities.
Many noble Lords including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, who spoke profound and sincere words of caution and wisdom derived from his long experience during a distinguished career, spoke about the Merchant Navy. While I agree with noble Lords that there has been a significant decline in the British-flagged Merchant Navy, I can assure the House that the Government see a vital role for the Merchant Navy in support of our Armed Forces. The
1190
Government have introduced a number of measures to help the industry; for example, financial assistance for the training of recruits, the relaxation of foreign-earnings deduction rules, the establishment of a Merchant Navy Reserve and war risks insurance. Our requirements for merchant vessels are currently being defined in the context of Options; but I can assure your Lordships that we shall ensure that we have enough vessels to meet our needs.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne, the noble Viscount Lord Ridley and many other noble Lords talk about prospects for the new tank. As my honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said recently in another place, we recognise the point that the decision on the equipment of the future main battle tank fleet should not be delayed unnecessarily. However, noble Lords will appreciate that a wide range of factors must be taken into account in reaching a decision as important as that on the future equipment of our battle tank fleet. Nevertheless, it is our intention to make a further announcement before the end of the month.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, brought up the important subject of the Gurkhas. As I said before, all parts of the Army are considered in Options for Change. I am not prepared to comment on the implications to individual regiments, including the Gurkhas, until final decisions have been taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and other noble Lords brought up the subject of HMS "Endurance". Now in her 35th year of service, HMS "Endurance" has recently been to Antarctica and the South Atlantic, returning to the United Kingdom on 31st May. Her future programme is currently under consideration, but no decisions have yet been taken.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain how it is that instructions were given that the crews were told on Monday that HMS "Endurance" was to be scrapped and there would be no replacement? Is that story true? The noble Earl has access to the naval authorities in Portsmouth from where the story comes.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not aware at all of whether or not what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said is true. To the best of my knowledge, it is not the case.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the noble Earl saying that it is not true? The Government have been playing fast and loose over this. We have asked time and again about it. I appeal to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. Can a Statement be made on the subject?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have to repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that to the best of my knowledge that is not the case.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in, I think, January 1982 I stood at the Dispatch Box and fended off questions from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in exactly the same way as my

1191
noble friend is doing tonight? In the end, I had to come clean. I hope that my noble friend is not put in that position.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, obviously I am grateful to my noble friend for those remarks. As I said before, to the best of my knowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, tried to make out this evening is not the case.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. My noble friend Lord Shackleton raised this matter very early this afternoon, at about four o'clock . It is now a quarter past ten in the evening. The noble Earl has had plenty of time to obtain the answer. We should like to know whether what my noble friend says is true or false.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have to repeat what I have just said. To the best of my knowledge, the case that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, tried to make out is not true. Perhaps I may please continue.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Earl is not giving a clear answer. I know that the Leader of the House has been studying the Companion. I am before the House and I am entitled to press the question. Has the noble Earl answered the question which my noble friend asked—that the Foreign Office was not formally consulted until today, despite promises? Will he give an answer? If he says he will not give one, that is all right, but he had better come clean.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Foreign Office has been fully consulted, together with other government departments. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, now asks a new question. The crew of HMS "Endurance" have gone on leave, as planned. A normal posting action to and from HMS "Endurance" is in hand. I do not believe that I can answer any more questions on that. I hope that I have made the case of the Government perfectly clear.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am sorry but I am before the House at the moment. The noble Lord the Leader of the House can always rule that a noble Lord be no longer heard, although that is a debatable Motion. It is absurd that the question is being dodged. If the noble Earl said that he simply does not know but will find out and inform the House, that would be reasonable. However, we have been told certain things on good authority. Not only have I been told, but also the noble Lord who raised the question, and the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, who mentioned it. The House is entitled to an answer. If the Government will state that they refuse to give the information, at least we shall know where we stand.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, my name has been mentioned in connection with this matter. I shall be deeply embarrassed, having made a categorical statement in that respect in my speech, if I discover that what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said is true.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I must inform my noble friend Lord Cochrane that he is getting very much out of order.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Lord is not out of order. He can move that a noble Lord be no longer heard. It is no good the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, pointing at the Clerk. We need to hear the noble Lord the Leader of the House speak on this matter.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I hope I may assist the House. My understanding of the matter was that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, had put a question to my noble friend Lord Arran. Before my noble friend replied to that question another question was put by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane. I should have thought that the right course to adopt to stay in order is to listen to my noble friend while he replies to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we may have moved on from this point, but I must repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that I am not aware of any case he is trying to make out with reference to HMS "Endurance".
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but does the noble Earl not realise that he is saying he is ignorant of the position? He may not he aware of the position but he should have found out what it is by now. That is what my noble friend wants to know. He is not concerned whether the noble Earl is knowledgeable or ignorant about the position. However, for the noble Earl to say that he is not aware of anything frankly does not get us anywhere at all.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have had time to ascertain more information. I have found the position to be as I have just stated it at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, what the noble Earl thinks is the truth is not the truth in practice. The noble Earl has heard the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, refer to this matter. Will the noble Earl undertake to find out the truth of the matter and inform the House of it tomorrow? Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House can help in this matter.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall try to help the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. If I discover that there is something of which I am not aware, I shall gladly inform the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, what it is.
Noble Lords: And the House.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall also inform the House of anything I find out. I hope I may continue with my brief and perhaps return to this matter at a later stage. I apologise to the House that after that somewhat lengthy intervention it may take a few more minutes to finish the points to which I wish to refer. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur asked about civil servants. In announcing Options for Change my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that we envisaged a reduction in regular service manpower of around 18 per cent. He also said that we would expect the civilian support staff to be similarly reduced. The means of achieving this reduction in civilian staff is being studied as part of the work which is under way to secure substantial savings

1193
in the support area. We aim to ensure that our civilian service offers a cost-effective support of post-Options for Change force levels.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing asked about arms controls. We have made it clear that the work which has been done since last July to develop the proposals in Options for Change has taken account of progress made in arms control, among other factors. However, we shall of course continue to watch developments in arms control as we continue our planning for prudent and measured change. Your Lordships will be aware that agreements have been reached in principle between the United States and the Soviet Union over outstanding issues holding up ratification of the CFE treaty. The final detail is still being considered but we are hopeful that it will lead to treaty ratification in due Course.
The noble Lords, Lord Gladwyn and Lord Ardwick, spoke about the European defence structure. We welcome remarks that a European defence structure distinct from NATO is not acceptable. We support an enhanced role for the WEU as a strengthened European pillar within the NATO Alliance. We also recognise the important role which the European Community and the European political view, which is now being developed, have in the development of the new Europe. However, it should have no defence role. That should remain the responsibility of NATO with its structure and capacity which have been well proven over the past 40 years.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, mentioned the role of the TA in the Gulf. For a deployment on the scale of Operation Granby, there was no need for a general mobilisation of TA units. Some TA soldiers served on attachment with teeth arms; but the main need was for reserve forces to provide certain key skills such as medical support and assistance of aero-medical evacuation, air movements, public relations, intelligence, Royal Military Police and a range of other duties. A total of 572 TA soldiers served in various ways in the Gulf.
My noble friend Lord Ridley asked whether too much land is under the care of the Ministry of Defence. We are reviewing our requirements for land under Options for Change, including training land. Decisions have yet to he taken, but I emphasise that we are determined to ensure that we retain no more land than we require.
My noble friend Lord Elton spoke of disaster relief. I can tell him that the hourly operating cost of a Hercules is £2,020 and of a Chinook £2,445. Those costs are calculated on a no-loss basis and cover mainly fuel and servicing. Training value is already taken into account and no further deductions are possible.
My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery mentioned his distaste for the phrase "friendly fire". I agree that that is an unfortunate term to use in relation to what was a very tragic accident in which nine British soldiers were killed on 26th February by fire from a United States A10 aircraft. A formal board of inquiry was convened on 15th May to produce findings and
1194
conclusions. I can assure your Lordships that as full an account of the inquiry as possible will be given to the next of kin and to Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough spoke of Northern Ireland. I am happy to reaffirm to my noble friend the assurance given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State last July that we shall sustain our contribution in support of the police in Northern Ireland. Of course we recognise the importance of helicopters in Northern Ireland, and elsewhere. We are currently considering the requirement for support helicopters in light of the changes in Europe. No decision has yet been taken.
My noble friend Lord Lyell referred to what he called "tail jobs". As I mentioned earlier, we are examining the way in which we support the front line to establish how we might conduct that business in different ways. Much more detailed work needs to be done but there may well be scope for transferring some tasks from uniformed to civilian personnel.
In conclusion, I believe that we have had a truly useful and thorough debate. I am grateful for the contributions of all those who have taken part, particularly those noble Lords who have long experience of defence matters and who, I know, have thought long and hard about the subject's complexities. I hope that in the time available I have managed to deal with some of the anxieties raised by your Lordships, but I admit not all.
How to sum up, my Lords?—
Lord Elton: My Lords, as my noble friend has just passed the point at which he would normally say that he will write to noble Lords who asked questions to which he has not given the answer, will he give that undertaking, particularly in relation to the question of which I was able to give him notice earlier today?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall willingly undertake to do that. I hesitated to do so in view of the shortage of time, but I shall certainly do that. My Lords, as I said before: how to sum up? It is not quite as simple as the cartoon that I saw some time ago which showed the then Prime Minister addressing the British Army in front of a huge Russian bear which was capering and blowing kisses to all and sundry. The cartoon bore the caption:
"Gentlemen, events have taken a very dangerous turn for the worse".
No, changes in the world situation in the past 12 months have tended, on balance, to confirm the general direction and validity of the thinking in Options for Change. Last July we saw a world where there were new opportunities as well as risks, a realistic prospect of being able to guarantee our security through NATO with lower levels of forces but a continuing need for forces mobile and flexible enough to support British interests outside the NATO area if necessary.
As a result of the easing of tension between East and West, but nevertheless with a wary eye on future global uncertainty—a point made time and again by noble Lord after noble Lord—we can be certain that this Government will at all times retain sufficient defence resources both for the protection of our

1195
country and to assist others if necessary. These commitments will be carried out in a proper and responsible manner, as befits a nation which is rightly proud of its military past and determined to fulfil its defence responsibilities in the future.
10.31 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, At this time of night I do not believe that your Lordships will want to hear much more from me. However, I should just like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and who made it such a worthwhile one. In particular, I add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fieldhouse, on his maiden speech, which we all thoroughly enjoyed. I hope that we shall hear from him again.
I should like to ask the Government one question. I hope that they will study this debate very carefully tomorrow, the day after and the day after that. As my noble friend said in winding up, the debate has been
1196
marked by contributions of great weight from people with enormous experience: political, military, diplomatic and other. Their views deserve the most careful consideration. I hope that they will receive it.
As I said at the beginning of the debate, I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will inform his Cabinet colleagues of the views of this House. We hope that those views will have a bearing on what is published in the White Paper. That will come presently—we do not know exactly when—and I have no doubt that when it comes we shall return in one form or another to this subject, if we wish to do so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Dangerous Dogs Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before 11 o'clock.

  SOVIET CITIZENS' RIGHT TO EMIGRATE: POLICY
  SOVIET CITIZENS' RIGHT TO EMIGRATE: POLICY
  JUNIOR HOSPITAL DOCTORS' HOURS OF DUTY
  JUNIOR HOSPITAL DOCTORS' HOURS OF DUTY
  DIOCESE OF LEICESTER: SUNDAY SCHOOL PROVISION
  DIOCESE OF LEICESTER: SUNDAY SCHOOL PROVISION
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  TECs: EVALUATION OF ACHIEVEMENTS
  TECs: EVALUATION OF ACHIEVEMENTS